Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Locals up in arms about Halfords Christmas TV advert which shows girl riding bike on 'no cycling' path

Council reveals there is no bylaw prohibiting cycling and says signs are merely ‘mitigation’ installed following historic complaints

Halfords’ Christmas ad shows a young girl riding a bike and clearly enjoying it. It seems innocuous enough, but a number of Worthing residents are – to quote the Argus – “fuming” because they believe cycling is not permitted on the path on which she is riding.

The sequence was filmed at Patterson’s Walk in Ferring.

Ed Miller, secretary of the Ferring Conservation Group, said he was frustrated that Arun District Council gave Halfords permission to film on the path.

“Halfords and the council should know better than to arrange filming the cycling sequence on Patterson’s Walk,” he said.

“It’s not something people should be doing at all – it’s a footpath. There are bylaws and there are notices to say cycling is not permitted. There’s no excuse for it.

“In some sense this might appear trivial. But children, elderly people and dog walkers use the path, there isn’t room for cyclists.

“We don’t expect council officers to be down there every day. But when they get an opportunity like this they should not be encouraging people to come and ride their bikes here.

“Cyclists on the path cause a lot of nuisance. A member of ours alerted me to the problem, and people are upset.”

However, a spokesperson from the council pointed out that despite the signage, there was actually no bylaw prohibiting cycling on Patterson’s Walk.

“The council is aware that there have been complaints from local residents regarding the recent filming of an advert for Halfords. Whilst there is signage at Patterson’s Walk stating no cycling, there is no actual bylaw in place to prohibit it at this site, neither is there an official public footpath or public bridleway designation in place.

“The ‘no cycling’ signs are historical mitigation in response to complaints and conflict between parties on both sides of the cycling argument. We are aware that the situation and signage requires review.

“An application to film was received from Halfords in early October and approved for ‘Ferring beach’.

“We appreciate this has caused some concern and will be taking steps to review the current situation. Ideally this public open space could be enjoyed and shared safely by all.”

A Halfords spokesperson said: “We are passionate about encouraging more people to cycle and our Christmas TV ad aims to do just that.

“Ahead of and during filming of our six-year-old star, we sought all relevant permissions from local councils and created the ad in good faith, working closely with local organisations.

“We take the safety of all road users and pedestrians very seriously and apologise for any upset caused.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

41 comments

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
2 likes

Sriracha][quote=Oldfatgit wrote:

if it were a footpath then cyclist would be prohibited from using it.

It isn't.

 "Whilst there is signage at Patterson’s Walk stating no cycling, there is no actual bylaw in place to prohibit it at this site, neither is there an official public footpath or public bridleway designation in place"

 

Avatar
antigee replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
0 likes

Sriracha wrote:
Oldfatgit wrote:

No cycling ... There's no official footpath or bridleway there either according to the statement. So pedestrians shouldn't be walking along there either. Maybe Council should have officers down there stopping pedestrians?

It's a public space as far as I understand. So people are not restricted to walking only on designated public footpaths, they can roam freely - thank goodness. However, if it were a footpath then cyclist would be prohibited from using it.

the intent of the legislation wayback in the 1950's was to give a minimum legal right of passage...nothing to stop a cyclist using a designated public footpath or any other path if the landowner permits it...large landowners including local councils, the likes of the NT and some water co's seem quite happy to live with giving the minimum the law requires as the maximum allowable use...the legislation has been subverted

 

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
9 likes

Children of that age pretty much get a free pass to use the pavement under ACPO guidance.

Avatar
Sriracha | 4 years ago
15 likes

So the 'no cycling' signs were installed in full knowledge that cycling is permitted? Way to stoke confusion, confrontation and mutual animosity!

Surely a better response would be to improve the infrastructure so that pedestrians and cyclists are not in conflict.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
8 likes

It is a six year old!

 

Avatar
billymansell | 4 years ago
15 likes

Well done to the council.

So some time in the past a group decided to claim this non-designated path as theirs to the exclusion of other users, and the council kow-towed with putting up signs to reinforce the discrimination.

Thankfuly the council can now make clear that not only is their sense of entitlement to the path misplaced but that any notion of laws protecting such entitlement aren't in place either.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 4 years ago
29 likes

Well, at least by complaining about the advert the moaners have made it public knowledge among local cyclists that the  'no cycling' signs are meaningless and unenforceable!  Job well done.

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
3 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well, at least by complaining about the advert the moaners have made it public knowledge among local cyclists that the  'no cycling' signs are meaningless and unenforceable!  Job well done.

Which is why I usually treat No Cyling signs as a sort of "be a bit more careful around here but basically, crack on".

Off-road, any sign that says No Cycling usually translates as "good singletrack down here".

 3

Avatar
growingvegtables | 4 years ago
11 likes

Only thing you got wrong, Halfords, is apologising to a pig-ignorant NIMBY and his mates.

Avatar
David9694 replied to growingvegtables | 4 years ago
0 likes

growingvegtables wrote:

Only thing you got wrong, Halfords, is apologising to a pig-ignorant NIMBY and his mates.

It does seem a shame that of all the beaches in all the towns we had to pick this one.

his mates? "people are upset" is about as vague as it gets - one person is "fuming" as newspapers uniquely like to put it.  maybe they should stick with the John Lewis Christmas advert. 

I wonder if Grinchey Miller himself missed a trick back in October and if he's worried whether he'll survive the next FCG AGM?  this is a serious matter for Ferring residents - one person had a frightening encounter with a bike in 2015 and the same thing happened again last year it more or less the same spot. 

Quite a difference in tone between Arun DC and Windsor & Maidenhead RBC. 

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
12 likes

"In some sense this might appear trivial."

In some sense, yes, it might.

Pages

Latest Comments