Feed aggregator

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 5:11pm
Mark1978 wrote:At the bottom of Northumberland Street (Newcastles main shopping street and pedestrianised) there is a red roundel with a cycle diagram but it's crossed out. I commented to my friend that meant cycling up there would be ok as that sign has no meaning.
It is the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or byelaw which you must obey, not the sign. And the offence won't be for ignoring the sign, but for doing something that is against the law or TRO.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 5:03pm
Ah the popular sport of loopholing. I think that is one of the riskier signs to flout. I prefer to find rideable accessways with no signs.

Scotland Tour !

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 4:42pm
I really do need to get my act together and finally get out on that first tour so I really do need some advice.

What my current idea is is to travel up to Fort William where one of our forum friends has agreed that I can park my vehicle and hopefully join me and my friend on the ride.
To summarise my plans I want to do it in September/ October and cycle over to Skye and if possible Island hop back to the top of Scotland and then return to FW.
My first question then is that possible !
The second question is would it be easier to do it the other way ie prevailing winds etc.
And the final one for now am I being realistic in trying to do this.
Oh yes and I want to camp wherever possible.
Once I have your views on this I will then research times dates and costs of ferries but I don't want to do that until I see what you have to say.

Thanks Ted

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 4:37pm
At the bottom of Northumberland Street (Newcastles main shopping street and pedestrianised) there is a red roundel with a cycle diagram but it's crossed out. I commented to my friend that meant cycling up there would be ok as that sign has no meaning.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 4:19pm
Sorry (was trying to clarify things)

Re: Info on route from Las Alpujarras to Malaga

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 4:13pm
Thank you for the responses. I'm heading off at the end of the month for a round trip from Malaga incorporating the Pica de Valeta and Alpujarras so this would be part of the return journey.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 3:47pm
Bicycler wrote:pedaller wrote:A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.
Same with the prohibited right and left turn signs. You are right that they are anomalies.

pedaller wrote:Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.
[/u][/b]
Generally yes, but as you've noticed there are exceptions. Signs are either mandatory or advisory because of what the law says rather than their shape (though the shape is a very good clue).

A stop sign is a mandatory sign which gives an order but it is an octagon

A start of motorway regulations sign is a mandatory sign but it is a rectangle

A shared use cycle path sign is a round sign but does not require pedestrians or cyclists to use the path rather than the adjacent carriageway

I think I;m losing the will to live......

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 2:51pm
pedaller wrote:A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.
Same with the prohibited right and left turn signs. You are right that they are anomalies.

pedaller wrote:Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.
[/u][/b]
Generally yes, but as you've noticed there are exceptions. Signs are either mandatory or advisory because of what the law says rather than their shape (though the shape is a very good clue).

A stop sign is a mandatory sign which gives an order but it is an octagon

A start of motorway regulations sign is a mandatory sign but it is a rectangle

A shared use cycle path sign is a round sign but does not require pedestrians or cyclists to use the path rather than the adjacent carriageway

Re: Dealing with mosquitos

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 2:47pm
So... Today the mosquitos landed me a trip to the emergency room Of all the places to get a bite, eyelid is definitely the worst x.x

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 2:42pm
Just read the last message from Ed, thanks.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 2:39pm
Thanks. Sounds like they're advisory because of their colour and shape, regardless of what's written on them. 'Rectangles give information' [b][u]and only 'circles give orders'.
[/u][/b]

Now here's an unrelated anomaly.

A round sign with a cyclist in the middle means no cycling. If it then has a red, diagonal bar through it, it must mean no, no cycling (cycling is compulsory). See the equivalent U turn sign. It has an upturned U with a bar through it. Following the no cycling (pedestrian, horse riding etc) sign logic, it should not have a bar. In grammatical terms, it's a double negative.

This came to light to me having seen all 3 signs appear on a multi-use path. But they should be(for cycling at least) a blue rectangle with a cycle on it.

Watch out, traffic engineers aren't all familiar with the correct signs to use e.g. down and up hill signs.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 2:37pm
pedaller wrote:The consensus seems to favour the belief that these signs are advisory - fine but some others indicate a degree of caution, regarding conformity.

Two additional questions for complete clarity.

1 Is it an offence not to dismount and

2 Where is the definitive answer to be found (and hopefully not buried in a load of legal-ese)?

I can assure you that we are 100% right about the legal status of "cyclists dismount" signs. It isn't just a belief here on a cycling forum. The offence of ignoring a cyclists dismount sign simply does not exist.

You need to understand the way in which the law works. Generally, in the absence of a law specifically creating an offence no offence is committed. The law as it stands only creates an offence of disobeying certain specified traffic signs and "cyclists dismount" is not one of them. As others have said, the signs can be placed at places where it would be illegal to proceed. In these cases it will be illegal because you have ignored some other mandatory instruction not the cyclists dismount sign.

Here are some examples:

Where a cyclists dismount sign occurs at the end of a pavement cycle path you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign. You do not have to dismount before rejoining the carriageway. However you are committing an offence if you ride along the section of pavement which is not a cycle path.

Where a cyclists dismount sign is placed on the entry to a pedestrian area you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign but there may be actual regulatory signs (red circle ones meaning no vehicles or no cycling), no entry signs or local byelaws which make cycling an offence.

Where a cyclists dismount sign is near a narrowing on a shared use path you are not commiting an offence by ignoring the sign. In the highly unlikely case that you were to be prosecuted for an offence related to reckless cycling (say you hit someone and injured them) the fact that you had ignored advice to dismount at that point could be used as evidence.

Hope that helps

EDIT: Sorry for the duplication Vorpal. I started writing before you posted and got distracted

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 1:57pm
pedaller wrote:The consensus seems to favour the belief that these signs are advisory - fine but some others indicate a degree of caution, regarding conformity.

Two additional questions for complete clarity.

1 Is it an offence not to dismount and

2 Where is the definitive answer to be found (and hopefully not buried in a load of legal-ese)?

posting.php?mode=reply&f=7&t=89429&sid=dc043f9bf53da463e8439a3744c46e68#
These signs *are* advisory. And it is not an offence not to dismount, but they may be in place because of a condition that would make it an offence to continue riding. For example, they may be used where a cycle track or shared use facility enters a pedestrian area.

This is one reason that some indicate a degree of caution. The other is that the signs may be in place because of a hazard.

One could argue that a dismount sign is seldom the best way to inform cyclists of the changing conditions, and this is exacerbated by the fact that some local authorities have deemed it appropriate to place dismount signs at every minor hazard and driveway crossing.

Unfortunately, there is no clear and definitive answer. The signs are advisory, and a cyclist who ignores one is not committing any offence by doing so. But the sign *may* be there for a good reason, and there could be traffic orders or local byelaws that do make it an offence to continue. If they are there for a good reason, and someone ignoring them causes or is involved in an accident, they may be held liable, or partly liable for the consequences.

Re: Getting to Germany with bikes

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 1:47pm
I travel on an ad hoc basis: the weather and the terrain can beat me...and I don't like to hammer thru the countryside to meet some dealine(and what if you have a mechanical breakdown,apuncture) So I buy the ticket on the day. That costs: usually more!
When my wife and I came thru Germany earlier this year it WAS NOT simple. Any rural station has no staff,just a machine. To get the right ticket from the machine you have to understand the machine,then put in the prescribed money in the prescribed notes. It aint easy. We had a German Rail employee and his wife help us: it took an hour. And when we proceeded with the machine given ticket the German guard was asking for more £: some regions of Germany charge for bikes,others don't.
Don't let me put you off: I'm now ready to take on any SAS assault course,cos...you often had to lug your bike(s)and panniers up steep flights of stairs to get to the platforms(first,lug your bike down a steep set of stairs,walk underground,then lug 'em up again) Oh! and I forgot: you gotta get onto the train: that's up,and often thru a very narrow opening...and with another cyclist with his and her bikes there already. Oh! and the trains waiting to go...and when you try to get off,ready to leave...with your wife and her luggage still on it. I really don't know how we did it. On reflection I think I'm almost falling in love with the British Railway network...a real first! Back to the above: Germans were coming to us with bikes to ask our advice on what they should pay for bikes from the machine(s). I wondered aloud what should happen if you were blind or illiterate or couldn't follow the techno wizadry instructions form the machines...or were just foreign. How do you get the ticket? No one knew. Of course,this helps the major rail companies: you just pay for the highest ticket.

I'd say,if you can,fly. It's cheaper. And tho you may have kittens thinking your bike may be in pieces the other end,usually it isn't. The whole travelling thing I find very stressful. To go into all what can happen...is the stuff of nightmares. Thank G I do it rarely. I need therapy or anxiolytics after most raiwayl journeys.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 1:42pm
The consensus seems to favour the belief that these signs are advisory - fine but some others indicate a degree of caution, regarding conformity.

Two additional questions for complete clarity.

1 Is it an offence not to dismount and

2 Where is the definitive answer to be found (and hopefully not buried in a load of legal-ese)?

posting.php?mode=reply&f=7&t=89429&sid=dc043f9bf53da463e8439a3744c46e68#

Re: Devon C2C

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 1:27pm
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Blimey if you are taking two days then do ALL the route and the purple south of tavy for maximum enjoyment.Ilfracombe to Plymouth is only 73miles. 6hrs maybe.
Ilfracombe, Barnstaple, Torrington, Hatherleigh, Okehampton, Tavistock, Yelverton, Plymouth.
The only bit that isn't so good is between Yelverton and Plymouth, though I have done it many many times without issue. It's just busy with traffic, though easy enough.

This method of doing it isn't the point though, is it?
The idea is to enjoy the ride and pick a route that suits you. That, and to stay over somewhere and take in the sights and sounds. Good on 'yer. Enjoy it!

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 12:53pm
Audax67 wrote:You can always argue that "Cyclists dismount" is an observation rather than an imperative. We do dismount, now & then.

I suspect that that's one difference between the British way and the French example you mentioned. Your quip is probably only a shade too OTT for some loophole merchant to go to court and present it as a defence. I'm not convinced they'd spend much time laughing on your side of the Channel.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 12:40pm
You can always argue that "Cyclists dismount" is an observation rather than an imperative. We do dismount, now & then.

Re: Devon C2C

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 12 August 2014 - 12:20pm
Hi,
honesty wrote:To elaborate a bit on the Tavistock routes, heres a shot of the sustrans map:
Untitled.jpg

The official route is shown in yellow. The route Mick has suggested is continued in red. The one I took is the middle route in purple, now known as NCN 327. I liked it because i still got to ride over the viaducts in Tavistock, and got to cycle up a quiet back lane past Brentor Tor.
Mick F's route is a pure road route except the granite trail, there is still a little path not more than 100 metres(privately owned ) which breaks the wide and fast granite way (Granite Way Cycle Trail) wont slow you much and is ridable on road 23's.
Official route will contain short section / s of untarmaced road I am sure that is correct. But ridable for sure, but in my mind when you have crossed the main road below Lydford and wind your way through to Peter tavy from Mary tavy I thought there was a offroad field type of path, if there is then the road is close by if unridable.
"honesty's purple route south of peter tavy links two farms Godsworthy Lower and Higher which is a wide farm gravel track and of course the old sheep dog will tell you where to go quick quick

Blimey if you are taking two days then do ALL the route and the purple south of tavy for maximum enjoyment.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

CTC Forum - On the road - 12 August 2014 - 12:14pm
Flinders wrote:TonyR wrote:thirdcrank wrote:In short, a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign is not mandatory in itself but something else may makedismounting a requirement.

Like when you are in severe danger of falling off your bike laughing?

harlow-dismounts.jpg

Where on earth is that? It's appalling.

According to this http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/11500/ Edinburgh Way, Harlow, but now removed.
Syndicate content

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