Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by TonyR »

Vorpal wrote:I would ride cautiously, and dismount in the presence of any pedestrians.


That doesn't make sense. If the remaining path is narrow a bike being pushed along takes up far more width than a bike being ridden.
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 wouldn't push it; I'd just wait for the pedestrian to pass if it was too narrow to share. Maybe I'd stay on my bike and wait. It depends on the circumstances, and whether by dismounting, I could set my bike a bit out of the way (against the cones or something?)

Furthermore, because the signs say dismount, if there was an incident, I think it likely that a mounted cyclists would be considered at fault.

That's not to say that it is entirely logical. Yes, a mounted cyclists is narrower than one pushing a bicycle. But a mounted cyclist necessarily must go a bit faster, as well. And that may make for a more uncomfortable situation than passing next to a stationary, dismounted cyclist.

Additionally, it's quite easy for someone to make contact with a pedal in passing, and IMO, in many circumstances, it't better to protect others by standing between a stionary bike and pedestrian traffic, and wait for others to pass before proceding.

Again, it depends upon the situation, whehter the path is fenced or coned, how many people, etc., etc.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
redfacedbaldfatman
Posts: 97
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 2:15pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by redfacedbaldfatman »

gaz wrote: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: ).



The path can still be used, unless they've dug it up since last tuesday. I ignored the signs as the dirt? path through the park didn't look very appealing. I'm normally going through there after dark though, not much chance of meeting an angry road worker at 7pm.
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 »

The path through Shorne Country Park would involve some mud :mrgreen: .

The repairs are to remedy substantial faults with the path's foundations.
Image
Be extremely careful if you are using the closed path after dark.

I'm informed that the diversion signage is marked "pedestrians" with no mention of cyclists, not even of them dismounting to follow the same route. I'm also informed that the kissing gate at the entrance to the Country Park has been left in place when it's removal was promised :evil: . A further exchange of e-mails has begun.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by mjr »

martinn wrote: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?

No. Or more fully: there may be a temporary TRO prohibiting sharing, but then the shared path signs should be covered too.
I also thought that this type of sign should only be used if there are no other options?

Yes. Even more so since last October when the new Code of Practice on Safety at Street Works came into force. Download a copy from https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... road-works
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?

Who cares? It's pretty obvious without dismounting that a stopped/mounted cycle is less of an obstruction to other people, so as long as you give way to walkers, I don't think dismounting is worthwhile.
(I am taking about the route by the dovecote (Pub) Nr Long Ashton in Bristol)

I know where you mean and the paths straddle the Bristol border, with the pub in North Somerset (contact Kevin in their Sustainable Travel Team) and the school in Bristol (no idea who to contact - Bristol Cycle Campaign would). http://osm.org/go/eukMQG19g- shows the boundary. Actually, http://www.fixmystreet.com should contact someone appropriate if you put the pin in the correct place, plus it's published so everyone can follow it.

Good luck and thanks for taking this forwards.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
redfacedbaldfatman
Posts: 97
Joined: 25 Aug 2012, 2:15pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by redfacedbaldfatman »

gaz wrote:The path through Shorne Country Park would involve some mud :mrgreen: .

The repairs are to remedy substantial faults with the path's foundations.
Image
Be extremely careful if you are using the closed path after dark.

I'm informed that the diversion signage is marked "pedestrians" with no mention of cyclists, not even of them dismounting to follow the same route. I'm also informed that the kissing gate at the entrance to the Country Park has been left in place when it's removal was promised :evil: . A further exchange of e-mails has begun.



Thanks for the tip! I hadn't spotted that in the dark. :o
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Mark1978 »

I've seen signs such as this when there is only an on road cycle lane, i.e. not a footpath, just the usual 10mm of space for cycling at the side of the road. There's roadworks closing one lane and signs saying "Cyclists dismount and use footpath". Well of course I didn't I rode through on the road - what else would I do? But it did worry me that signs such as that are an invitation for motorists to hassle me because the sign over there said I should use the footpath :roll:.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by TonyR »

What we need instead is more of these signs in roadworks:

Image
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Mark1978 »

TonyR wrote:What we need instead is more of these signs in roadworks:

Image


I've had a few problems at roadworks like that, especially going up hill when there's quite a length, you get through the works, in primary with cars behind you probably plotting to kill you - then you've got to stay in primary while you get past the queue of cars waiting to go in the opposite direction. Only then can you move across - still managed one time to nearly get wiped out by someone who couldn't wait for me to move two more inches and absolutely had to get past at that moment.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by TonyR »

Mark1978 wrote:I've had a few problems at roadworks like that, especially going up hill when there's quite a length, you get through the works, in primary with cars behind you probably plotting to kill you - then you've got to stay in primary while you get past the queue of cars waiting to go in the opposite direction. Only then can you move across - still managed one time to nearly get wiped out by someone who couldn't wait for me to move two more inches and absolutely had to get past at that moment.


But if you are going to ride through roadworks like that, that is what you are going to have to do or get off and walk. And at least the signs express the correct sentiment that that is what cyclists should do and motorists should respect it. Far better than the "cyclists don't matter and shouldn't be here" message that the other signs send.
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
I never really worked out what I was supposed to do after dismounting at this one :? , so I took the adjacent lane instead :) .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by Mark1978 »

It's saying "Yes we know it's in a cycle lane but we aren't going to do anything about it"
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Shared paths road works and red cyclist dismount signs

Post by iviehoff »

There's a shared path I use frequently in London which has been impeded by Crossrail works for about 5 years now, and will probably go on for some more years. What remains is sufficiently narrow that even a pedestrian would wait for any pedestrians coming the other way to clear the section. I just ride it as best I can. No one's ever complained.

You'd think if they were going to impede a cycle route for over 5 years they could find a permanent alternative route, wouldn't you. There are several good options which could have been used.
Post Reply