'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Vorpal » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:11 pm

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.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal
Moderator
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:34 pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby thirdcrank » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:28 pm

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.


Is there a streetview? The google car seems to have respected the pedestrianisation but I can't pick up the signs you refer to. :?
Gang warily.
thirdcrank
 
Posts: 20478
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Mark1978 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:59 pm

Vorpal wrote:
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.


The TRO is only enforceable if the required signage is there to back it up. Both sides need to be in compliance otherwise you could be prosecuted for a completely unsigned restriction.
Mark1978
 
Posts: 3719
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Mark1978 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:02 pm

thirdcrank wrote:
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.


Is there a streetview? The google car seems to have respected the pedestrianisation but I can't pick up the signs you refer to. :?


On Streetview there seems to be some sort of work going on and the sign isn't there. It was definitely there Sunday before last when I cycled past. (I didn't cycle up the street, no need to)
Mark1978
 
Posts: 3719
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Bicycler » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:06 pm

Vorpal wrote:
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.

But if the TRO requires traffic signs to be in place they must be the correct signs:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/4
(1)A traffic regulation order may make provision for identifying any part of any road to which, or any time at which or period during which, any provision contained in the order is for the time being to apply by means of a traffic sign of a type or character specified in the order (being a type prescribed or character authorised under section 64 of this Act) and for the time being lawfully in place; and for the purposes of any such order so made any such traffic sign placed on and near a road shall be deemed to be lawfully in place unless the contrary is proved


In this case it may be academic because the intent of the sign is obvious but can a TRO ever be enforceable if its provisions for signage are not complied with? When I see that kind of unapproved sign, I tend to assume they have not been erected by the relevant authority and are not legally binding.
Bicycler
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:33 pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Mark1978 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:24 pm

I've always read that a non compliant sign is at bet just random colours on a pole at worst an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Mark1978
 
Posts: 3719
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Ayesha » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:44 pm

IIRC, a rectangular sign is an ‘Information’ sign.

The sign in question informs the cyclist it would be a good idea to dismount, so avoiding collision with a pedestrian, perambulator or tartan shopping trolley.
When there are no pedestrians, perambulators or tartan shopping trollies, there is no reason to follow the sign’s suggestion.

They are a product of the golden ‘Job’sworth’ capped council street planning officer.

Any semi to high intelligent cyclist will know not to ride into a pedestrian, perambulator or tartan shopping trolley.
Ayesha
 
Posts: 4156
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:54 am

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby thirdcrank » Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:20 pm

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. They don't specify say, a "no cycling" sign and then leave that to somebody else's artistic licence. NB I'm not saying that the wrong diagram is not specified, or that signs are not left in place long after a road layout has been altered.) IIME non-compliant signs are much more likely to be found on private property eg supermarket car parks.
Gang warily.
thirdcrank
 
Posts: 20478
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby TonyR » Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:48 pm

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.


You'd be surprised. Its more common than you might think. You'd think there might be a central warehouse from which they could order standard signs but apparently not. IIRC we had a load of wrong way cycling penalties cancelled locally a few years ago because the diameter of the No Entry sign was wrong.
TonyR
 
Posts: 2722
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby thirdcrank » Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:13 pm

TonyR wrote: ... You'd be surprised. Its more common than you might think. You'd think there might be a central warehouse from which they could order standard signs but apparently not. IIRC we had a load of wrong way cycling penalties cancelled locally a few years ago because the diameter of the No Entry sign was wrong.


Without knowing the details of a particular case, it's hard to comment, but a sign of the wrong size in one location might be OK in another. eg Speed limit repeaters on motorways are the same size as the ordinary signs at the start of an ordinary speed limit and, in any event, the diagram number of a sign only specifies its design (shape, colours and logo) rather than its size. I wasn't talking about errors like that but DIY variations to the TSRGD diagrams.

There is, of course, plenty of well- reported loopholery around traffic signs.
Gang warily.
thirdcrank
 
Posts: 20478
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby TonyR » Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:31 pm

thirdcrank wrote:
TonyR wrote: ... You'd be surprised. Its more common than you might think. You'd think there might be a central warehouse from which they could order standard signs but apparently not. IIRC we had a load of wrong way cycling penalties cancelled locally a few years ago because the diameter of the No Entry sign was wrong.


Without knowing the details of a particular case, it's hard to comment, but a sign of the wrong size in one location might be OK in another.


Nope. For a No Entry sign TSRGD specifies that it can only be 270, 450, 600, 750, 900 or 1200mm diameter with no variants permitted.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... 113_en_034

eg Speed limit repeaters on motorways are the same size as the ordinary signs at the start of an ordinary speed limit and, in any event, the diagram number of a sign only specifies its design (shape, colours and logo) rather than its size.


Nope again. The speed limit sign can only be 300, 450, 600, 750, 900, 1200 or 1500mm diameter with no permitted size variants. The national speed limit sign can be any of those except 300mm with no variants.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... 113_en_064
TonyR
 
Posts: 2722
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby thirdcrank » Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:39 pm

TonyR

If you are saying that the sign was of a size not specified anywhere, it's obviously wrong, and I don't think I've suggested anything different, although I'm surprised this would happen, if only because it needs a conscious decision to make something that's not a standard size. Take this back to the original point I was trying to make about a NO CYCLING sign. There was some discussion about an unauthorised version with a red diagonal. We had another thread about something similar a while ago where there was one on the approach to a Tesco car park. I'm only saying that I'd be surprised if something like that were to be erected by a highway authority because among all the cock-ups etc., I'd not expect improvisation. There are, of course, all sorts of variations which have been authorised by the Secretary of State to meet local circumstances.

=======================================================================
PS My query about a streetview higher up wasn't because I doubted the existence of the sign but, as it was in some sort of pedestrian precinct, I wondered if it might have been some private developer's sign.
Gang warily.
thirdcrank
 
Posts: 20478
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby FatBat » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:41 pm

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.
FatBat
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:06 pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby thirdcrank » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:56 pm

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.
Gang warily.
thirdcrank
 
Posts: 20478
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Postby Flinders » Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:02 pm

Bicycler wrote:Sorry :oops: (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. :wink:
Flinders
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to On the road

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WMarkLancs and 3 guests