'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: 'Cyclists Dismount', should we?

Post by thirdcrank »

John-D

Thanks. :D

From Schedule one I think I can see where that extra diagonal may originate:-

3. Signboards to be used

3.1. Prohibitory signs
Intrinsic features:
◾round shape
◾black pictogram on white background, red edging and diagonal line (the red part to take up at least 35% of the area of the sign).
(My emphasis.)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996 ... ule/1/made

But, that seems to be trumped by the bit in Reg 4 (6) about the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:-

(6) Where it is appropriate to provide safety signs in accordance with paragraph (1) because at a place of work there is a risk to the health or safety of any employee in connection with the presence or movement of traffic (including pedestrians in relation to such traffic) and there is an appropriate sign in that connection prescribed under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(3), that sign shall be used whether or not that Act applies to that place of work.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996 ... ion/4/made
===================================================================================================
PS

Mark1978 wrote:http://goo.gl/maps/QUT6i this is a good example. A proper "No Cycling" sign, on a pole as it should be. Except that it denotes the start of a shared use path!


I've looked at that a couple of times to see if I can think of any obvious reason for the mistake. It's as though whoever installed the farcilities at the roundabout wasn't aware that the footway approaching that location next to the bus lane is signed for shared use further down the road. Even if that were to be the case and the sign went up in ignorance, the NO CYCLING sign would be inappropriate there since cycling on a footway is generally prohibited except where it's specifically allowed so no sign is specified. The "correct" sign to be used by somebody making that mistake would be some version of an END OF ROUTE sign. IMO.
=====================================================================================================

PPS I'm sorry it's taken me a couple of days to reply to this next one because I've been looking through some of the 273 pages in the link, the majority of which seem to be about rubbish route signs with a few about private locations (eg Center Parcs) with non-conforming signs. I've not looked at all 273 pages by any means but I've not seen any which seem to contradict the point I was trying to make here, which is probably a bit clearer in the full text of what I originally posted.

Mark1978 wrote:
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.
Post Reply