CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 24 min 27 sec ago

Re: Help with choosing bike type and/or commute through Lond

14 August 2014 - 5:34pm
LondonBikeCommuter wrote:
I regularly use the the Lea Valley tow path for running between Tottenham Hale and Enfield Island Village. I don't see you having any problems on a bike providing you cycle at a sensible speed and be respectful to other users. on the path With a decent set of lights and an appropriate speed you could use the tow path year round no problem. If I were to use the road I'd come down the A1010 (Hertford Road) as far as Seven Sisters Road then up to Manor House along to Camden town and bloomsbury. Although the A10 is a quicker route I've always found that drivers tend to drive too quickly and don't pay too much attention which for a cyclist can be deadly.

A lot of this also depend on the times of day your likely to need to travel.

Oh, so there is no issue with night riding on the towpath? That would simplify things for me considerably. Could you also tell me if it is possible to use a road bike on it as well, perhaps with slightly larger tyres?
Thanks.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 5:15pm
mjr wrote:Bicycler wrote:My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs.
I think the road is a highway (the former Cattle Market square) but it is not listed on the TRO which describes all the town centre prohibitions and no byelaws are listed by the council.

The TROs listed at http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and_tr ... #P663_3755 don't seem to specify any signs - what's the situation then?
If it is a vehicular highway and the right to cycle has not been removed by any legal mechanism then the public still has a right to cycle down it. Any unofficial signs would not affect that right at all.

I would not necessarily assume that the bus station road is a public highway because one existed there before the bus station was built. It is not uncommon for old roads to be legally stopped up when new development takes place

You'll have to forgive me because I'm not local. From your maps it looks like the signs apply to the road through the bus station but the cycle route goes along Market Street which appears to be unquestionably a public road. How does the inability to cycle round the bus station affect the use of the cycle route?

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 4:54pm
Ayesha wrote:Bicycler wrote:The HC is a summary. The actual law regarding inconsiderate cycling says:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
To me that requires more than just ignoring a sign. It means needlessly inconveniencing another road user or riding in a manner which intimidates someone or forces them to take avoiding action. A considerate cyclist could ignore the sign and not be breaking the law. Likewise, an inconsiderate cyclist could ride down a road or cycle path and break the law. As I said upthread, it might be mentioned in evidence that the cyclist had ignored signs advising that he dismount but that itself wouldn't be the act of inconsiderate cycling.

I did say "AND there is a pedestrian".
Also
"The pedestrian could complain."

When the pedestrian marches into the local police station and states a bloke in red on a blue bicycle made them feel 'intimidated' by riding when a blue rectangular sign said 'Cyclists dismount', is that an offence commited by the cyclist?
In your example is the hypothetical pedestrian intimidated by the cyclist's ignoring of the sign or his unsafe riding? The important word in the law is "reasonable". It is not reasonable to assume that other road users will be adversely affected solely by you ignoring an advisory traffic sign despite your actions being considerate and safe. Read that way, ignoring any traffic sign or any piece of Highway Code advice would become a criminal matter the moment somebody chose to take offence to it. We'd be inconsiderate cyclists every time we rode on the roads rather than cycle paths or didn't wear helmets. There are undoubtedly many times on shared paths where it would be correct to dismount and, yes, the presence of other road users would be an important consideration but merely passing the sign is not inconsiderate just because other people may not approve.

Re: Bike Security Locked At Supermarket Bike Rack

14 August 2014 - 4:40pm
There's a story floating around the web about a company in Toronto who have been cutting bike locks and taking the bikes that where chained to the pole outside there office building. While not directly comparable to this thread (on drunkcyclist on facebook) it makes you think about where we lock our bikes up when either the racks are unavailable or poorly placed.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 3:12pm
The primary legislation on the placing of traffic signs is in Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

s 64 covers general provisions, including the power of the govt to make regulations about signs (mainly in this context the TSRGD)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64

s 68 specifically covers the placing of traffic signs in connection with traffic regulation orders.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/68

The power to include requirements for traffic signs in TRO's, rather than a duty to do so (ie "may" rather than "must") is in s 4 of the same legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/4

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 2:08pm
Bicycler wrote:My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs.
I think the road is a highway (the former Cattle Market square) but it is not listed on the TRO which describes all the town centre prohibitions and no byelaws are listed by the council.

The TROs listed at http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and_tr ... #P663_3755 don't seem to specify any signs - what's the situation then?

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 1:51pm
Bicycler wrote:Ayesha wrote:Not dismounting when there is a blue rectangular ‘Cyclists dismount’ sign AND there is a pedestrian, it can be construed as ‘riding in an inconsiderate manner’ contrary to Rule 68 in the Highway Code.

The pedestrian could complain. If the pedestrian is a policeman, you in for it.
The HC is a summary. The actual law regarding inconsiderate cycling says:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
To me that requires more than just ignoring a sign. It means needlessly inconveniencing another road user or riding in a manner which intimidates someone or forces them to take avoiding action. A considerate cyclist could ignore the sign and not be breaking the law. Likewise, an inconsiderate cyclist could ride down a road or cycle path and break the law. As I said upthread, it might be mentioned in evidence that the cyclist had ignored signs advising that he dismount but that itself wouldn't be the act of inconsiderate cycling.

I did say "AND there is a pedestrian".
Also
"The pedestrian could complain."

When the pedestrian marches into the local police station and states a bloke in red on a blue bicycle made them feel 'intimidated' by riding when a blue rectangular sign said 'Cyclists dismount', is that an offence commited by the cyclist?

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 1:34pm
There's nothing that might not be argued at court, but that doesn't mean it's likely to make much headway.

The reason that proper traffic signs have to comply is that part of the "failing to conform to a traffic sign" charge includes the "lawfully erected" rtequirement so, if it can be shown that the sign doesn't comply, then the charge will probably fail, always depending on whether a court thinks it's a significant deviation. It is assumed that traffic signs are lawfully erected, so if the defence doesn't raise the issue, it's unlikely that anybody else will.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 1:28pm
No I don't think I believe that anybody really interprets a cycle in a red circle sign with a strike through as meaning "you must ride a bike through here". I see your argument in theory, but in this case the actual chance of somebody being misled into thinking that they were obliged to cycle is nil. We have survived the widespread placement of strike through no smoking signs in all kinds of places without people thinking it denotes an obligatory smoking area

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 1:22pm
Bicycler wrote:Streetview is May 2009 so maybe the silly cycling signs are more recent?

My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs. In these cases unofficial signs have no legal effect but they do warn users of a prohibition. As that would be over and above the legal requirement then they could be viewed as a courtesy ie. better than nothing. I'd like to know just how frequently such byelaws are ever enforced.

It is conceivable with the way things are that the powers that be expect cyclists to walk their bicycles into cycle parks :roll: If the signs would prohibit use of a through cycle route then maybe the signs have been put in the wrong place. The other option that springs to mind is an old prohibition that no-one has bothered to repeal when building cycle parks and a through cycle route.

But, if signs used are in the same style as those used on highways would it not be reasonable to expect people to interpret them in the same manner as the conventions used just a few feet away on the highway ? So, using those conventions the sign could reasonably be interpreted as "No No cycling". So a sign put in place by the controlling authority (e.g. the bus station owner/operator) warning users of a byelaw except actually giving the impression of the opposite of the byelaw could be argued to be "deliberately misleading" and actually being worse than nothing.

Ian

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 12:49pm
Streetview is May 2009 so maybe the silly cycling signs are more recent?

My understanding is that if the road is a highway and there is a TRO which specifies signs (presumably the correct ones) then the provision cannot be enforced if the requisite signs are not in place. If the area of the bus station is covered by a byelaw like my bus station and parks examples above then these don't require road signs. In these cases unofficial signs have no legal effect but they do warn users of a prohibition. As that would be over and above the legal requirement then they could be viewed as a courtesy ie. better than nothing. I'd like to know just how frequently such byelaws are ever enforced.

It is conceivable with the way things are that the powers that be expect cyclists to walk their bicycles into cycle parks If the signs would prohibit use of a through cycle route then maybe the signs have been put in the wrong place. The other option that springs to mind is an old prohibition that no-one has bothered to repeal when building cycle parks and a through cycle route.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 12:25pm
Bicycler wrote:I think you are right that they are generally private access rather than public highways. Even if they were I don't think an access path to a bus station would be a footpath ("footway") in the sense covered by the Highways Act 1835. They are paths designed to allow pedestrians to access a building not to aid pedestrian passage along a highway.
Yeah, but what about the bus "road" entrances where a non-standard "no cycling" sign is often found? There's one of those at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.75375 ... e0!6m1!1e1 near http://osm.org/go/0EUglYuys--?layers=C&m= which would seriously obstruct access to three cycle parks and a through cycle route if it were valid. (Actually, I wonder if it's changed since I last paid it any attention because that says only "BUSES ONLY" and "NO CARS" - doesn't mention cycling at all.)

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 12:17pm
Ayesha wrote:Not dismounting when there is a blue rectangular ‘Cyclists dismount’ sign AND there is a pedestrian, it can be construed as ‘riding in an inconsiderate manner’ contrary to Rule 68 in the Highway Code.

The pedestrian could complain. If the pedestrian is a policeman, you in for it.
The HC is a summary. The actual law regarding inconsiderate cycling says:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
To me that requires more than just ignoring a sign. It means needlessly inconveniencing another road user or riding in a manner which intimidates someone or forces them to take avoiding action. A considerate cyclist could ignore the sign and not be breaking the law. Likewise, an inconsiderate cyclist could ride down a road or cycle path and break the law. As I said upthread, it might be mentioned in evidence that the cyclist had ignored signs advising that he dismount but that itself wouldn't be the act of inconsiderate cycling.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 11:57am
Not dismounting when there is a blue rectangular ‘Cyclists dismount’ sign AND there is a pedestrian, it can be construed as ‘riding in an inconsiderate manner’ contrary to Rule 68 in the Highway Code.

The pedestrian could complain. If the pedestrian is a policeman, you in for it.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 11:44am
Mark1978 wrote:If you want to ban cycling in a specific area where it should normally be permitted you put up one of these:

......

I think the Dft was thinking of using text to reinforce the meaning by optionally placing "No Cyclists" as text underneath this current proper sign (cheaper than replacing all the signs with red barred ones).

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4346/signing-the-way.pdf (Point 5.9)
Has anyone seen such additional text on the road?

EDIT they seem to have left it out of the 2015 proposals:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307152/draft-tsrgd-schedules.pdf (the proposals with the parallel cycle/ zebra crossings).

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 10:10am
mjr wrote:thirdcrank wrote:There seems to be a general use of traffic signs at the entrances to these bus stations of standard designs but not conforming with TSRGD. That suggests to me that these are the "private" signs of Metro, rather than the various highway authorities. As to their legal force, I don't know. I've no idea under what authority the PTE excludes traffic other than buses and authorised vehicles from its bus stations. (It might have bye laws.)
I suspect (but don't know) that the bus stations are private land of Metro and not highways. If I've understood this subject, that means the notorious Highways Act offence of driving on the footway would not apply and it'd be the same situation as if you ride a bike on any other footpath: not criminal but a civil offence where you're liable for the damage you do to the footpath (minimal for rubber tyre on hard surface). Security guards and crash liability are the biggest drawbacks.
I think you are right that they are generally private access rather than public highways. Even if they were I don't think an access path to a bus station would be a footpath ("footway") in the sense covered by the Highways Act 1835. They are paths designed to allow pedestrians to access a building not to aid pedestrian passage along a highway.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:25am
thirdcrank wrote:There seems to be a general use of traffic signs at the entrances to these bus stations of standard designs but not conforming with TSRGD. That suggests to me that these are the "private" signs of Metro, rather than the various highway authorities. As to their legal force, I don't know. I've no idea under what authority the PTE excludes traffic other than buses and authorised vehicles from its bus stations. (It might have bye laws.)
I suspect (but don't know) that the bus stations are private land of Metro and not highways. If I've understood this subject, that means the notorious Highways Act offence of driving on the footway would not apply and it'd be the same situation as if you ride a bike on any other footpath: not criminal but a civil offence where you're liable for the damage you do to the footpath (minimal for rubber tyre on hard surface). Security guards and crash liability are the biggest drawbacks.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:20am
Psamathe wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:wrt prohibition signs...

A "normal" numbered speed limit sign presumably actually means that you can't drive at that speed - so 29mph is the max permissible speed in a "30 zone"

Which logically means that is you got to 31 mph before the "30 zone" sign (e.g. in a "40 zone") and maintained that speed (or faster) through the entire "30 zone" then you would not have broken any laws. But come to a hazard or anything that you need to slow for and allow your speed to drop below 30 mph and "your nicked" as to go from above 30 to below 30 one could suppose you must at some point have done 30.

Ian
Nah - you're doing 30 miles in an hour - and a few more

Re: Cyclist dies on Surrey 100

14 August 2014 - 9:09am
So the false positive rate was high - that was the question I asked up thread.

With a very low incidence you end up damaging more people by testing than by not testing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166019

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:03am
Mark1978 wrote:If you want to ban cycling in a specific area where it should normally be permitted you put up one of these:



It's hardly a difficult concept.

I have some support for the idea that the default sign should be the crossed out cycle, as in general the prohibition signs are confusing and inconsistent (no turn roundels do have a crossed out for example) but as it is that's not the right sign and you might as well put up a picture of Peppa Pig for all the meaning it has....

I suspect that if you showed the official sign to a random selection of the public, quite a few wouldn't know what it meant. I also suspect that among non-drivers the rate of non-recognition would be even higher, with some assuming it meant that it was some sort of bike route. The other point is that on private land, you can use whatever signs you like, not least because there's no possibility of a prosecution for failing to comply. The only aspect (that I can think of) where the criminal road traffic law overlaps is that the bad driving offences were extended to include public places in the Road Traffic Act 1988. I think it would need a serious injury to attract any police interest but I suspect that non-compliance with private traffic signs (eg supermarket car parks often just show pedestrian crossings with zebra stripes and not of the other trimmings such as beacons) would be admitted as evidence.

There is, of course, a further argument about what amounts to a public place, especially if it's somewhere from which the general public is banned, such as the BUSES ONLY part of a bus station.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions