CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 6 sec ago

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 11:10am
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 - 10:25am
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 - 10:20am
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 - 10:09am
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 - 10:03am
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.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 10:00am
[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

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:41am
Don't know about the other side of the Pennines but long ago I used to wait for a school bus at that important part of our architectural heritage known as Preston Bus Station . I waited daily underneath a sign giving details of the byelaw prohibiting certain behaviour on the bus station. It included cycling alongside a host of other similarly heinous crimes. No regulatory signs needed for the byelaw, merely a board listing the rules with the name of some minor public official underneath. I have seen similar at the entrances to parks. I noticed when I was last back in my home town that a new byelaw has been made (or the old one revised). The new rules are substantially the same but with a couple of changed provisions. As we are lacking a public transport executive in these parts the byelaw was issued by Preston City (formerly Borough) Council who operate the bus station.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:13am
[XAP]Bob wrote:Are bus stations for busses or for people?

The depot is for busses, stations should be for people.


The road in the bus station is for buses, which is not the same as the station, I would guess?

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"

I guess it means you cannot hit 30mph, but you could do 29.99999mph which by nearest approximation is 30mph!

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 9:05am
Are bus stations for busses or for people?

The depot is for busses, stations should be for people.

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"

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 8:57am
thirdcrank wrote:I
The only exception I've found is Wakefield, where the NO CYCLING signs don't have the diagonal. When last I heard, Wakefield manufactured its own traffic signs; perhaps they are a bit hotter on this type of thing.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=wakefi ... 01,,3,3.78

(I just picked bus stations across the five districts: there are plenty of others.)

Even in that example, that sign can only ever be advisory, simply because the signs are far too small to be compliant, and too low down.

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.

Then there is the issue of should cycling in bus stations be allowed? I would guess no as bus stations are for buses!

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 8:50am
thirdcrank wrote:I think it would be unusual - as in extremely unlikely - that a highway authority would put up a sign of the wrong design. This is because the road plan specifies the diagram number as in TRSGD. .

HAHA! For only if that were true! It's no at all unusual for a highway authority to put up a sign which is completely wrong. http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/vie ... =1&t=20733 - 273 pages of Botched Roadsigns.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 7:37am
thirdcrank wrote:The only exception I've found is Wakefield, where the NO CYCLING signs don't have the diagonal. When last I heard, Wakefield manufactured its own traffic signs; perhaps they are a bit hotter on this type of thing.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=wakefi ... 01,,3,3.78


Well, there's a great big wide pavement... possibly the UK isn't as tolerant as France.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

14 August 2014 - 7:16am
I've been on a quick tour of some West Yorkshire Bus Stations. (I used streetview - cycling seems to be banned )

There are five highway authorities in West Yorkshire, but only one passenger transport executive (WY Metro) which is responsible for the bus stations. 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.) At the larger bus stations they have security staff and perhaps they would eject cyclists. The meaning seems pretty clear and if it came to some sort of legal proceedings, perhaps for compo, it's hard to imagine they'd be disregarded. Perhaps they've been used because somebody thinks the standard NO CYCLING sign is unclear.

It's illegal to display dodgy traffic signs on or near a highway and a highway authority has a duty + powers to require them to be to removed or to remove them. Perhaps there's a campaign for somebody.

Leeds

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=leeds+ ... 18,,0,3.73

Bradford

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=bradfo ... 66.19,,0,0

Halifax

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=halifa ... 45,,1,0.85

Dewsbury

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=dewsbu ... 44,,1,0.51

The only exception I've found is Wakefield, where the NO CYCLING signs don't have the diagonal. When last I heard, Wakefield manufactured its own traffic signs; perhaps they are a bit hotter on this type of thing.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=wakefi ... 01,,3,3.78

(I just picked bus stations across the five districts: there are plenty of others.)

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

13 August 2014 - 11:02pm
Bicycler wrote:Sorry (was trying to clarify things)
Mine wasn't a comment on your clarification (for which much thanks) just on how insane the rules have become.

Re: Bike Security Locked At Supermarket Bike Rack

13 August 2014 - 10:58pm
One supermarket here has those ridiculous ones you can only lock the front wheel to. In a sane world, they'd be banned and anyone installing one would have their fingernails pulled off.
My doctors' surgery has them as well. 'Ride your bike to the surgery for your health' and then get high blood pressure because you're bike has just been stolen/pushed over bending the wheel'.

Re: Bike Security Locked At Supermarket Bike Rack

13 August 2014 - 10:04pm
I generally only use my nearly 20yo MTB when I'm going to lock it up somewhere risky, eg railway station for the day etc. When I toured in Spain this summer and I needed to lock my fully loaded touring bike outside a supermarket, I locked it somewhere in full view.

I think an easy place to steal a bike would be at one of these large sportives at the start. Loads of expensive bikes, people leaving them unattended while they register, use the loo etc. If you were dressed in appropriate gear you could easily make off with one and disappear in to the crowd. I hope I'm not giving any ideas to anyone!

Re: Cyclist dies on Surrey 100

13 August 2014 - 10:02pm
TonyR wrote:Well in that case a number of expert doctors are wasting their time and the Italian results have been falsified. But I'm sure a bunch of cyclists know better.
Actually - have you looked at those figures?

1.9 deaths per 100,000.

By the end of the study they were disqualifying over 2% of the people from their sports!

That's 2,000 people not allowed to participate to save 1 life...
I wonder how many of those will die later from obesity - given they've probably got the mindset of "best not exert myself, I've got a weak heart"...

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

13 August 2014 - 9:56pm
FatBat wrote:TC, there is a "No No Cycling" sign (red roundel with crossed out bike symbol) on the entry to Brighouse Bus Station - which is a bit closer to home. From my untrained eye, it looks to be on the public highway, rather than on private land. Of course, Streetview does not show it, unfortunately.

Here's another at a bus station - Batley - which does appear on streetview.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=batley ... 73.54,,0,0

A bit further into the bus station there's also a NO PEDESTRIANS sign with the red diagonal and FWIW, a pedestrian crossing without zig-zags or beacons.

Re: Cyclist dies on Surrey 100

13 August 2014 - 9:56pm
Audax67 wrote:Trouble is that a lot of defects will only show up under stress. You can take a quick ECG with an iPhone and adapter but a true stress test needs heavy equipment and takes around 20 minutes. Still, you could pick up a good few on a resting ECG.

Well in that case a number of expert doctors are wasting their time and the Italian results have been falsified. But I'm sure a bunch of cyclists know better.

Re: Cyclist dies on Surrey 100

13 August 2014 - 9:50pm
Audax67 wrote:Trouble is that a lot of defects will only show up under stress. You can take a quick ECG with an iPhone and adapter but a true stress test needs heavy equipment and takes around 20 minutes. Still, you could pick up a good few on a resting ECG.
I wonder just how good an ECG is at spotting stuff.

Someone mentioned arrhythmia further up. IME the problem is that to figure out what's wrong you need an episode to occur whilst plugged into the ECG.
I get occasional bouts of arrhythmia but I've never had one whilst wearing an ECG and so the problem (if it is one) continues undiagnosed.

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