Cyclists Dismount...

ChrisLS

...why, why, why do they put up that sign on cycle paths? :? :x do you get off and walk or swing out back onto the road? How about..."Motorists get out and push"

...makes me mad... :x :? :roll: :evil:


...and relax..

graeme_s-2

Another one I've seen is "Cycle route ends here". Well what if "here" isn't where I wanted to go?

Parkey

Repost alert, but just in case you didn't see it before... :P

ChrisLS

...that picture hasn't done my blood pressure any good at all... :evil: :evil: :evil: :?

dirk_van_gently

The "end of route" signs just drive me nuts.

Perhaps something like, "Cycle path merges with road" with a similar "cyclist merging from left / right" for road traffic.

Parkey

You couldn't make it up could you!

For 200m or so on my ride to work there's a section of cycle track. It's a good 2 metres wide, as it's alongside a new build road (why on earth they didn't use lanes on the road itself instead is completely beyond me), and it's on the far side of the pavement to the road, which as far as I can tell is so that 90% of pedestrians will walk in it. Obviously the track ends whenever there's a junction or pedestrian crossing and resumes afterward.

The thing that has me most confused is this. How is a cyclist supposed to legally transition from the cycle track to the road or even from track to track? I presume we should technically dismount

Try riding down the road itself, which is too narrow and busy for overtaking to be easy, and those enormous cycle tracks send the motorists berserk!

The best cycle facility in my neighbourhood is a bus plug.

saveswalking

Greenwich Park (again :roll: ) - enter park ... 'Cyclists Dismount'
walk 22 yards ... mount bicycle
50 yards later ... 'Cyclists Dismount'
walk another 20 odd yards ... mount bicycle
100 yards later (you're in a car park now) ... 'Cyclists Dismount'
walk through car park , mount bicycle and you're on your way!

No one follows these instructions which is just another example of cyclists thinking the ''law does not apply to them''

sw

always_tyred

Graeme_S wrote:

Another one I've seen is "Cycle route ends here". Well what if "here" isn't where I wanted to go?

Cycle Route Ends Here means "Big Junction Coming Up - Good Luck", or, alternatively "Sustainable Transport Budget Ends Here".

I'm sure everyone knows this, but for a hysterical read over lunch, go to the "Cycle Facility of the Month" at http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

fury21

ChrisLS wrote:

...why, why, why do they put up that sign on cycle paths? :? :x do you get off and walk or swing out back onto the road? How about..."Motorists get out and push"

...makes me mad... :x :? :roll: :evil:


...and relax..

A route I used to use to walk home included a section of off-road, cycle and pedestrian path. In most places the path was about 3m wide, but at one point it narrowed considerably to duck under a railway bridge. At both ends of this section were 'Cyclists Dismount' signs, but in about 4 years of using that path, I never saw a single cyclist dismount. Instead the preferred option seemed to be keep cycling until just behind pedestrians and then shout at them to get out of the way. :roll:

prj45

Question, if I don't dismount am I breaking the law?

The law says I must obey all road signs that apply to me, but blue signs are "Information" or "positive instruction"

???

Belv

I guess it depends what you have to dismount for - if a road, then no (although then, why would you have to dismount?), if a footpath, then yes.

One of the first things i would do about my local cycle paths (after resurfacing them) would be to give them right of way over the junctions and industrial estate entrances they cross. Give bicycles priority on cycle paths and more cyclists might use them (whether that's a good idea or not is beyond this thread!).

I found the picture really funny.

Big Red S

prj45 wrote:

Question, if I don't dismount am I breaking the law?

The law says I must obey all road signs that apply to me, but blue signs are "Information" or "positive instruction"

???

Given that it's a 'positive instruction' sign bearing a positive instruction, I'd suggest you would be.

nwallace

Big Red S wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Question, if I don't dismount am I breaking the law?

The law says I must obey all road signs that apply to me, but blue signs are "Information" or "positive instruction"

???

Given that it's a 'positive instruction' sign bearing a positive instruction, I'd suggest you would be.

A "Positive Instruction" is not a Prohibition. (Red bordered white circle in the UK though watch out abroad where the Venice convention hasn't been followed exactly, liek Ireland where on most roundabouts the signs appear to prohibit going left! and Parking signs are dones as P I red circle, thus prohibiting parking! (A red diagonal is used to show prohibitions in that system))

Prohibitions are backed up by law, and cover motorways, pavements and "special roads" though I think special roads still have to show prohibition signs as there is no other way of knowing cycling, walking and horse riding are banned. (What about driving cattle?)

I guess it is like the arguments about speed limits, just because it doesn't have to be complied with (they only legally cover motorised vehicles) doesn't mean it isn't going to be used as the basis of an inconsiderate, careless or dangerous cycling charge.

Advisory speed limits while driving would be another example, no red circle means no SP30, BUT advised 30, Limit 70, could be considered careless driving if doing 70 (You would much rather have the SP30 on your criminal record).

saveswalking

The police in Greenwich Park were threatening to charge/ticket folks not dismounting ...

sw

prj45

Ooooo, so despite me being all upppity about being a law abiding cyclist I do actually break the law when I ride over the bit that joins Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, that has cyclist dismount signs.

Of course, I also sometimes enter ASL boxes by riding over the first white line (and not via the cycle feer lane), which is also illegal, technically.

whome

As I understand it the Cyclist Dismount sign has no legal meaning. i.e. there is no law attached to it that you have to comply with. However, councils sometimes seem to use then in situations where there is a change in whether cycling is legal (e..g end of a shared use path) . But because they do not mean anything in themselves, and are also often used in situations where they just want you to beware or give priority to others, they are completely discredited and you have to be alert the what the true situation might be.

nwallace

I lost sight on shared use signs on the route through the Discovery/Olympia car park in Dundee, (Couldn't be bothered with the cobbles on the road which is so little used the shared use is pointless) I was a bit worried as just as I lost the signs, I was doing 32k towards a hoard of on duty polis.

niblue

I saw a "cyclists dismount" sign in a really stupid location recently. It's on a traffic light controlled bridge over a railway line, with the bridge having very tight turns on and off it. If a cyclist where to dismount and push over the bridge then all that would happen is that they'd get squeezed by traffic coming from behind, then possibly not complete the crossing in time to avoid the traffic coming the other way when they get a green light.

Cycling across is 100x safer and the having the sign up is abject stupidity.

whome

As I said, AIUI the sign has no legal meaning as so is used randomly depending on the councile. Sometimes this will be in places where you should dismount, sometimes when some non-rider thinks it might be a good idea.

About the strongest I can find in the highway code (online) is - 82. "You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘cyclist dismount’ sign is displayed.", but again no law is referenced so presumably this is just advice, not enforceable.