Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
martinn
Posts: 421
Joined: 1 Dec 2012, 8:20pm

Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by martinn »

Hi all,

Part of my commute is along a shared path, (the road is one way), the path is not a bad width, not ideal but not bad, and the path is clearly marked as a shared path.
Currently they are doing some what I assume is drainage work and half of the path is obstructed, red square "cyclist dismont" signs have been placed at both end of this work.
The signs say Cyclists dismount and use the footway. As the route is a shared path, does this actually make any form of legal sense?
I also thought that this type of sign should only be used if there are no other options?
Also as there are no cyclist remount signs, how do you know when to remount your Cycle? could you want for say one or two paces, then remount as you had assessed the situation and come to the conclusion that it was safe to do so?
(I am taking about the route by the dovecote (Pub) Nr Long Ashton in Bristol)

Many thanks
Martin
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Vorpal »

It's hard to know what you are legally obligated to do. You could find out by contacting the highways authority responsible. They may have put a temporary traffic order in place.

Many local authorities make temporary traffic orders for the road / motor traffic, and froget about cyclists. I don't know your local authority, but chances are moderate that the signs are there without any legal authority behind thme. However, even if you find that there is no temporary traffic order that makes the shared use facility pedestrian-only, I would ride cautiously, and dismount in the presence of any pedestrians.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by thirdcrank »

You refer to a "shared path" but I'm not clear what you mean. If there's a white line up the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists the other and if they then dig up the cyclists' half, then you cannot legally ride on the remaining bit which is a footway. OTOH, if the entire width of the path is for joint use by both cyclists and pedestrians, then digging up one half doesn't affect the status of the other half. The red sign you mention might be properly used in the first case, and in the second case it would just be another example of signs being lobbed about at roadworks by people with no idea about what they mean. It's pointing out the obvious to say that if it's the second case scenario, then a rider's duty to be considerate towards pedestrians is even greater when a path's width is restricted. A cyclist wheeling a bike is generally wider than one mounted; depending on the length of the restricted bit, a rider might be best waiting at the start of the works to let pedestrians pass. That's all down to being considerate in the specific circumstances.
========================================================================

PS: Forgot to say:- if there were to be a temporary TRO to cover the roadworks, then there would be notices displayed (eg on lamp posts) explaining the arrangements.

Also, and as you are probably aware, passers-by will be guided by what it says on the signs and may react accordingly and PCSO's / police may be no better informed.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 24 Jan 2015, 11:07am, edited 1 time in total.
martinn
Posts: 421
Joined: 1 Dec 2012, 8:20pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by martinn »

Sorry should have clarified, the whole of the path is for joint use, there are no white lines,
The original "testing" chicanes made from plastic barriers were a bit tight to walk through let alone push a bike through, although they have been removed after 1 day.

Martin
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by gaz »

martinn wrote:... Part of my commute is along a shared path, (the road is one way), the path is not a bad width, not ideal but not bad, ...

Therein lies at least part of the problem.

There are guidelines and recommendations on the minimum width for shared use paths, which have changed over the years. Highway authorities aren't bound by the guidelines so we end up with paths that are "not a bad width, not ideal but not bad".

As soon as any kind of works further narrow such a shared path then the reaction is "cyclists must dismount for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians" :roll: .

The Highways Agency are repairing a shared use path near me at the moment resulting in its closure to cyclists and pedestrians. The diversion is through an unlit, muddy, potholed Country Park because that's safer than using the lit smoothly paved road.

Cyclists who use cycletracks (in this case as an alternative to an 8-lane pseudo-motorway) can't be diverted onto an adjacent unclassified minor road as they might not be used to riding on roads.

The bulk of the diversion (all but 15 yards out of 1/4 mile) is on a route through the Country Park approved for shared use. The Highways Agency want cyclists to dismount on the diversion for the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians as the diversion route isn't considered suitable for road bikes (which apparently can't be ridden on roads either :roll: ).

I haven't taken a look at how it has all been signed yet, I'm assured that the "dismount" is only advisory.

The mind boggles, can't wait for it to all be over.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by pwa »

I think a bit of common sense and tolerance is needed from all parties when work has to be done. If the works are essential and result in all traffic (pedestrian and cyclist) being funnelled into a narrow gap, I would probably comply with a "cyclists dismount" sign whether it was advisory or compulsory. If I could see the way through was clear for its whole length I might ride through.
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by danhopgood »

Hear hear.

Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual gives the definitive guidance on traffic management and this does give a clear requirement that cyclists should be properly catered for. The problem is that the roadworks always restricts roadspace, which is already at a premium. Accommodating vehicles and pedestrians along the existing route are normally essential. If something's got to give - it's usually the dedicated space for cycling - if there is any. I do get very frustrated as a cyclist when I'm asked to get off and push - but as someone involved in roadworks, sometimes there just isn't an easy alternative.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by 661-Pete »

This is a very different case from the more usual (blue) CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs which appear to be there for the sole purpose of scaring cyclists off from joining the carriageway. I agree that there is an obvious safety issue if the path has become so constricted that it is difficult for a cyclist and a pedestrian to pass one another.

But is this really the best advice? One of my most frequent routes takes me along a short stretch of bridle path, so narrow that it is impossible to pass a pedestrian (especially if with dog) in any comfort. If the pedestrian is walking the opposite way to me, I usually stop but do not dismount: that way I allow the most room for the pedestrian to pass - as well as the least risk of daubing them (or the dog) with a chainring tattoo.

But if the pedestrian is walking the same way as me, often the only recourse is to dismount and walk behind them until we reach a wider place. Sometimes the pedestrian notices my approach (usually if they've not got headphones jammed in their ears :? ) and steps aside. Nice of them!

None of this is enforced by any signage of course. I like to think, my action is defined by considerations of common courtesy. But you'll have to ask the pedestrians...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by gaz »

danhopgood wrote:Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual gives the definitive guidance on traffic management and this does give a clear requirement that cyclists should be properly catered for...


I thought the "red book" was the definitive guide (which includes the option of requiring cyclists to dismount and use the footway as catering for cycling :? ).
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by sirmy »

The "red book" is rather like the highway code in that it is an explanation of the implementation of the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act. However if works aren't laid out in accordance with this the contractor could find themselves with an FPN The Traffic Signs Manual is, basically, a list of approved signs and where they should be used.

Frustrating as it may be the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and cyclists are still, sadly, the few :(
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Vorpal »

I don't mind in the circumstances where there clearly isn't space to cater for everyone. I have always found it frustrating, however, when cyclists have clearly not even been considered, or haven't been considered until the last moment.

I came across this all the time on rural lanes in Essex, when diversion signs were put up. Often, but not always, it was safe for cyclists to continue, and only motorists needed to divert. Most of the time the only way cyclists could tell was to try it and see. It would have been nice, just once, to see 'cyclists may proceed with caution' , 'cyclists may be required to dismount', or a diversion just for cyclists. I mostly just carried on past diversion signs, and if I can to place where people were working, I'd wait until they noticed me & gave an indication of whether it was safe to proceed. Of the hundreds of times I did this, I can only recall being told once that I was not permitted to go through. And then, there was bridleway that was a better alternative than the signed diversion. But I knew that because I had used it before. Someone who didn't know the area wouldn't have known. Even with a map, it's hard to know if such things are useable by cyclists.

:(
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by danhopgood »

My understanding is the red book is a cut down and simplified version of Chapter 8. The code of practice status means "follow this guidance and you'll be compliant with the law".

Regarding signing of cycling diversions, it's difficult to arrange for diversion of only part of the traffic - espicially as there are very few cycling specific "prescribed" signs. Signs without specific wording have no legal validity - important for local authorities defending themselves from armies of no win no fee lawyers.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Vorpal »

Twice, I have seen signs to help cyclists, so I know it can be done. One time, a rail crossing was closed for repair. And it was completely closed. It was located several miles along a single lane road that would mean coming back along the same route. I don't know who was responsible for the sign, but along with the standard road works signs, there was one that said 'cyclists use diversion'. It was standard-looking and slightly weathered sign, so I presume it could have been used on other occasions. The other time was on the London / Essex border, so I'm not sure the authority responsible. There were various road works & diversion signs. And there was also a sign that said 'route for cyclists'. When I followed it, I came to a park, where there was a sign that said 'cyclists dismount and use footway'. There, the route led down a pavement next to a park (it wasn't really a footway, but I presume they were using a standard sign), and on the other side was a residential street. It was a nice diversion, and rather shorter than the on-road one. It was a little unfortunate that there were no more signs after that to tell cyclists how to rejoin the main road, but at least someone had thought about it, and I managed to figure it out.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by gaz »

Image
Yes, diversion signs for cyclists can be done.

AFAICT these were used when the Highways Agency upgraded the A2 six lane pseudo-motorway to eight lanes. Volumes of cyclists over that section at the time were practically nil but clearly they wanted to put an official diversion in place during the works, just in case (or just to satisfy their insurers).

What troubles me is that at the end of last summer they closed the cycletrack adjacent to the same stretch of the A2 but did not sign any alternative. Workmen on site stated that there was "no obvious alternative route" for them to sign. All the more need for a signed diversion. More disappointing was the fact that the diversion they had used a few years before for the carriageway works was perfectly suited to the task, they'd even left most of the signs in place :roll: .

What has left me gobsmacked in the latest closure is the fact that they don't consider the alternative on road route to be suitable, far safer to get off and walk through the woods in the dark :evil: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by [XAP]Bob »

And there are a number of HGVs specific diversions in place all over the country
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.
Post Reply