'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Mark1978 wrote:But where is the sign? Usually these are on shared pavements and the like. But cyclists are only allowed on footways by special permission, if that permission is revoked - by means of a "cyclists dismount" sign, would the rider not then be guilty of cycling on the pavement?

They don't revoke permission.

Many of them seek to have cyclists dismount to join the road - which is an absurd suggestion.

On the slip road you you should step out of your car before joining the motorway...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Oglet Lane Banjo Player
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Nov 2007, 7:36am
Location: Stirlingshire

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Oglet Lane Banjo Player »

In West Lothian there are a number of these ridiculous signs tell cyclists and Riders to dismount on road bridges that cross the Union Canal. Logically there should also be signs telling motorists to get out and push.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Vorpal »

Mark1978 wrote:But where is the sign? Usually these are on shared pavements and the like. But cyclists are only allowed on footways by special permission, if that permission is revoked - by means of a "cyclists dismount" sign, would the rider not then be guilty of cycling on the pavement?

It isnæt a matter of revoking permission. But if the shared route becomes a pedestrian only route, 'cyclists dismount' is not the correct sign, unless it otherwise meets the condition described above in gaz's post.

It should inded be signed, but they should use 'end of route' or 'cyclists rejoin carriageway' instead.

PRL wrote:The draft London Cycling Design Standards lists "Cyclists Dismount" as a "sign to minimise or avoid" (together with "End of Route" and similar. )
Dawn seems to be breaking. :)

The excellent design guide that has been in use in Essex for some years also lists 'cyclists dismount' as a sign to avoid. And there arenæt hug numbers of them Essex. But it doesnæt seem to have any real impact on design choices. Just sign selection :evil:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by simonineaston »

I remember being particularly annoyed when the new curvey bridge over the Avon opened. The council up until then seemed to have favoured the split approach, for example the Bristol to Bath Cycle Path is clearly marked in two halves - one for cyclists, one for pedestrians which on the whole works well.
When the bridge was opened, they missed the opportunity to be consistant and up popped the Cyclists Dismount signs. The bridge was good and wide - plenty wide enough to allow a 50/50 split, but no they had to spoil it all with lazy signing - and of the course the irony is that dismounted cylists take up twice as much room width-wise and are on the bridge 'in the way' many times longer than they would be if they had stayed in the saddle... try explaining that to an angry commuter, though.
I did write to the council trying to make this point but received no answer.
Trouble is once the sign is up, everybodys' expectations are set - remain in the saddle and you are seen as a wrong 'un by everybody else, some cyclists included!
bridge over Avon behind Temple Mead station
bridge over Avon behind Temple Mead station
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by thirdcrank »

This is perhaps the difference between "must we?" and "should we?"

The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign isn't mandatory so ignoring one doesn't involve the commission of a specific criminal offence in the way that ignoring a STOP sign does. OTOH, so many of these things are only really fully considered when something goes seriously wrong when everybody is looking to point the finger, especially when the compo looks like running into megabucks.

The general meaning of different shapes and colours of traffic signs is at the head of each group in the HC etc., but this is only broad guidance. While blue rectangular signs are advisory, they often advise about a separately signed prohibition or mandatory instruction. The start of a mandatory cycle lane will be signed with a blue rectangular sign and it's only the solid white line which mandatory. The various manifestations of bus lanes are also signed with rectangular blue signs. Back to CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs, if there were to be some sort of traffic ban with an exception for "pedal cycles pushed by hand" then that sign might be appropriate but IME they never seem to be used in such situations. (Before anybody asks, AFAIK they are more numerous than you might think. eg one-way street orders tend to habe an exception for pedal cycles being wheeled contraflow by a pedestrian.)

In short, a CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign is not mandatory in itself but something else may makedismounting a requirement.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Vorpal »

Oglet Lane Banjo Player wrote:In West Lothian there are a number of these ridiculous signs tell cyclists and Riders to dismount on road bridges that cross the Union Canal. Logically there should also be signs telling motorists to get out and push.

I have to admit that I don't know the bridges in question, but I expect that it is because the railings/parapets don't meet the standards for cycle facilities & bridleways.

It's a bit silly really, because if it were a road with an old humpback bridge, they wouldn't put up cyclists and riders dismount signs. But they can just as well use that as the next bridge where motor traffic isn't allowed. :roll:

It would probably be better to warn users of the actual hazard than to just put up dismount signs.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Psamathe »

What actually constitutes "dismounting" ?

Not done it recently but when I was younger we used to hop off the saddle (i.e. dismounted) and sort of scoot along standing on one pedal (one foot on one pedal, both legs/body same side of bike ...) bike leaning a bit over and balancing. You could still go pretty fast and we used to do it on pavements where there might be "angry pedestrians" (basically we thought "we are not riding on the pavement").

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by thirdcrank »

Psamathe wrote:What actually constitutes "dismounting" ? ...


All I can offer is that in the exceptions to TRO's I've already mentioned, the wording is IIRC "a pedal cycle pushed by hand."

The reality is touched on in vorpal's post about bridges: these signs are generally an admission of indifference (in both senses of the word) among the people who make provision for cyclists. Apart from the an occasional PCSO who's unlikely to have any training about things like this and who will issue stern "advice," official interest is likely to be nil till something goes wrong (Like somebody toppling over a bridge parapet.)

Cue for a discussion of Crank vs Brooks (or is that Brooks vs Crank? :roll: )
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by TonyR »

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
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by TonyR »

Psamathe wrote:What actually constitutes "dismounting" ?

Not done it recently but when I was younger we used to hop off the saddle (i.e. dismounted) and sort of scoot along standing on one pedal (one foot on one pedal, both legs/body same side of bike ...) bike leaning a bit over and balancing. You could still go pretty fast and we used to do it on pavements where there might be "angry pedestrians" (basically we thought "we are not riding on the pavement").

Ian


The judgement in Crank v Brooks (1980) has it that you are still a cyclist while scooting with one foot on a pedal and only become a pedestrian when pushing the bike with both feet on the ground.
User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2658
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by honesty »

The version of this sign that really annoys me is not the blue sign, but the red cyclist dismount sign used through road works. All guidance seems to still indicate these are advisory, but you get even more irate drivers if you carry on cycling. I've had some luck getting them removed from road works around here by pointing out the the company involved that the DfT guidance is that they should not be used if the carriageway is open to cars though.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Bicycler »

Cunobelin wrote:
Redvee wrote:If we, as cyclists, obey the sign and dismount we then become pedestrians pushing a bicycle so the sign doesn't apply to us so we can remount, then we obey the sign............... ad infinitum :lol:


Surely if you are going to treat these as mandatory, then you cannot remount without "Cyclists Remount"

And if you start your journey on a roadside cycle path you cannot obey "cyclists rejoin carriageway"
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6001
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Audax67 »

Over here it's "Cyclistes mettez pied à terre" (cyclists, put foot to ground) so all you need to do to comply is touch the road with your toe and away again.
Have we got time for another cuppa?
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Flinders »

beardy wrote:Just once in a while they are there for your protection, like a sudden drop (steps) ahead or a low bridge which will knock you out or some treacherous surface.

Which is what they were supposed to be used for, to warn of unavoidable hazards that if you didnt go through them would give an excessive detour. These are much, much rarer than the normal use of rendering you into a pedestrian for the planners' convenience.


There's one on a cycle track in the park here where there is a low bridge.
It would be much more sensible to have a sign saying 'low bridge'. A shorty like me doesn't need to dismount to go under the bridge. A tall person could hit the wretched bridge whilst trying to work out what the hazard was, and even if dismounted could crack their head walking under the bridge if they went too close to the side.
I ignore it if there's no one else on the path, and semi-dismount and push slowly through with one foot if there's anyone on the path, as there's a river to the side of the path and the bridge slightly narrows the path for tall people and pedestrians can get nervous there.

I have yet to see a sign telling drivers to get out of their car and push it. :evil:
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by Flinders »

Audax67 wrote:Over here it's "Cyclistes mettez pied à terre" (cyclists, put foot to ground) so all you need to do to comply is touch the road with your toe and away again.

That's much more sensible.
Post Reply