Cycling UK Forum

There's a half-hearted attempt to get you with the pole carrying that sign but to make sure note that there is a strategically placed lamp post directly in your path should you decide to carry on cycling.

Not quite as effective as the forest of poles across the footway cycle route just outside Hinckley (alongside the Leicester-Nuneaton Road which by-passes the town). I wanted to photograph this as a fine example for the Warrington album as a measure to ensure that cyclists did not cycle out without slowing across the side road turning nearby.

Given that there is now a Pendolino every 20 minutes between Manchester and London, and a 20 minute frequency on the Birmingham/Wolverhampton route the concept of compulsory reservations is no longer a logical way to go - this is especially relevant to the Stoke-Manchester corridor where Virgin has now officially been named as a "Bike & Ride" train operator and in theory we should have 12 bike spaces per hour through the day to London - essentially offering a door-to door journey time of 15-20 minutes longer than the actual rail journey for business trips between the towns and cities along the route.

I can see some serious lobbying for the business convenience especially of office to office journey times of 1 hour 40/45 minutes (Birmingham-London) and 2 hours 25/30 minutes (Manchester-London) with the VT 64 train also providing substantial capacity for bikes running a Birmingham-London diagram and a Friday evening service to Preston (occasionally extended to Glasgow). There are at least 2 major event organisers in Manchester who regularly need to send staff and materials to London and Passenger Focus has offices in both places...

Because of the locked door issue we may need to fine tune a protocol for boarding and alighting but with the train staff all having a PDA/Blackberry (or the Bramble equivalent) and able to give immediate customer service it should not be beyond the wit of man to run a pilot walk-up service on the Stoke-Manchester route and have all aware in advance of the cycles being carried. Locals might sound out their business associations and MP's perhaps?

Cyclists rejoin the carriageway is a recognised sign but the extra words are not an officially authorised sign unless there has been a special authorisation and they are in theory unnecessary - if the cycle route rejoins the carriageway then cycling on the footway beyond that point is illegal - you could of course put up 951's to confirm this point.

There is a certain irony that the 4 train operators getting the funds are to be known as Bike & Ride schemes but in many cases you don't at present get much of a welcome if you want to ride with your bike on the trains.

I reckoo that we do need a Pricing regime rather than a confrontational Policing one for busy trains, and the quid pro quo is that we remove all peak hour restrictions on cycle carriage - but if you do want to travel at peak times with a bike or any item of luggage which exceeds the limits already set out in the National Conditions of Carriage, there is a well publicised tariff of charges. in this way instead of being scolded for sneaking on to a train during the banned period, but with no penalty other than being harassed and shouted at (and perhaps delayed) you would simply be required to pay the appropriate fee.

Off peak, when trains are so empty that each passenger has 10 tons or more of train being moved around for their benefit than cyclists would be enticed to fill the trains by free carriage. The pricing structure would then make bike hire and secure parking or buying/leasing a folding bike part of the range of choices available (including free open access parking) so that each user can select the solution appropriate to their needs and budget - very much as happens in the Netherlands, where OV-Fiets (commuter bike hire) costs €2.80 per day compared to the €6 per day to take the bike on the train and an even lower price for overnight secured parking, and no charge for joining the stack of bikes parked outside the station.

Nice trick - take off the wheels and no one realises its a tandem. for solos take off the wheels and disguise them and I suspect that few train staff would question a frame in the luggage rack.

The hook sounds odd - was this a National Express of Cross Country train?

I had a mildly challenging session with Virgin person on the phone re their recent win of £1m over 2 years as a bike & ride operator (to develop facilities and hire on the Stoke-Manchester corridor). I realise that with the frequency of Manchester-London services now up to 3 trains per hour, a walk-up bike carrying service is the way forward but we need to work on the protocols for this with Virgin and do this for Wolverhampton/Birmingham services as well - reservations are ridiculous when trains are this frequent.

The rush to put flesh on the bones of the big spend on cycling has given some unfortunate twists - not least the choice of Bike & Ride for operators providing bike parking but not always welcoming bikes on board, lets see how that one develops.

This is the section of the West Approach Road which uses the trackbed of the old double track railway that connected the Caledonian Terminus at Princes Street with the Edinburgh-Glasgow routes at Murrayfield/Saughton and crossed these lines to join the orbital rail route via Roseburn, Granton and Leith (most of this is now the cycle route network). Curves, sightlines and widths are seriously compromised when using an old rail line as the width of a railway formation between bridge walls or parapets is generally 28-30 feet (or a 'tight' 7 metres or less) which means a road width less than normally acceptable for large vehicles with minimal side support on the embenkments and no dynamic tolerance through bridges for passing and side clearances of non-guided vehicles. You can however cycle on the final approaches to Princes Street Station from Gorgie in to Lothian Road, if you can tolerate the traffic, but generally the routes taken by cyclists work better along the old roads.

However the signage advising of the alternatives for cycling is poor and these options are something that a visiting cyclist would not be aware of without local knowledge. Such signage would surely be 'essential' for drivers.

All SWT diesel trains are Class 158 generic (AKA 159) the wheelbender is actually a good ceap & cheerful way to locate the wheel as long as the bike can rest against the pole by the door a fraction of the cost of some of the fancy designs which are even less adaptable to different bikes. Howeber the German design of hook and support which can be set slightly higher than the both-wheels on the floor position would work for a range of longer bikes - if one of these is mounted up near the ceiling a tandem at an angle almost fits in the same space as a solo on both its wheels. See www.orion-bausysteme.de and their product Gamma - extensively used on trams and trains across Northern Europe from at least 1990.

Mick F wrote: jochta wrote:Without the cyclists dismount signs, how else could this be signed?

"Cyclists - get back on the road where you belong!"

Actually. as I pointed out at the start of the thread the 966 can be replaced by either a warning (triangle) or an order (951/617) not to cycle beyond the point where the sign applies to your route in almost every situation where it is (ab)used. As Mick F notes the best solution would be to direct the cyclists on to the carriageway, reduce the speed limit to 20mph (if it is not already 20mph past the school - and there's the question to ask) and if appropriate provide a refuge zone for cyclists turning right to cross the road in each direction.

Even the Cambridge example would be served by a triangle (950)* and a few 1057's planted along the carriageway after the cycle lane ends. * I believe that a supplementary with wording Cyclists On The Carriageway or words to that effect may be an approved addition to 950.

So far no example where 966 cannot be replaced by signs with clear a defined messages of warning or instruction?

The use of Cyclists Dismount signs is not permitted on the carriageway - if you think it through its a nonsequiteur - the carriageway has to be fit for the purpose of all traffic - including riding a cycle, so you cannot put up a Cyclists Dismount sign.

So that leaves the footway where cycling has been permitted and a footpath which is adopted as a cycle path (or in technical terms a road with motor vehicles excluded).

Should we campaign to get 966 completely eliminated from the road signs manual?

Dare I suggest a No 10 petition?

The sign 966 Cyclists Dismount is often used where a hazard exists and in this case the message is better delivered by using a warning sign and appropriate supplementary plate. Alternatively it is used in addition to or in place of signs which ban cycling in particular places, generally duplicating the signs with statutory power or used illegally to enforce a cycling ban with no legally recognised traffic order. In almost every case the sign is superfluous and easily replaced with signs giving a clearer message - we wish to see this sign deleted from the National Road Signs Manual.

I was pondering the other day about the mis-use of Diagram 966 (Cyclists Dismount) with some officers attempting and maybe succeeding in fining or prosecuting on the strength of an advisory sign placed without a traffic regulation order, and so I posted a call to see the extent to which cycling is being driven from all purpose roads.

On this thread I've started to list some of the places where 966 is wrongly used, and where it duplicates the message which is provided, or can be delivered by a warning sign or a regulatory sign both of which provide a clearer and precise message

Wareham Level Crossing - the crossing is provided by a permissive licence for foot traffic and I believe that the railway by-law banning cycling applies - but no notices appear to this effect at present - only diagram 966 with signs positively inviting you to ride across along the posted cycle route, and directly adjacent to the 966

Shoreham Yacht Club - on NCN2 - 966 signs and paper notices stuck beneth threatening a £30 fine enforced by PCSOs who have been seen there. It would be bizarre to have a traffic order or by-law banning cycling on a main cycle route

Aiskew LC - 966 signs (masked by vegetation and main lights for warning of trains) Some have implied that the 966 applies to the carriageway others suggest it applies to the footway (hardly a decent footway for walking on.

Harlow - the famous forest of 966 signs could be replaced by a warning shriek triangle and a supplementary plate "vehicles emerging from driveways for x00 metres"

"Blind corner" "Blind Summit" and "Steep Hill" can all be given as warnings with advice that could include "Dismount Adviseable" or "Reduce Speed"

Perhaps the can can be made for complete abolition of the use of 966 and use of 'normal signs instead

Lets see what rolls up (and does not dismount)

I was pondering the other day about the mis-use of Diagram 966 (Cyclists Dismount) with some officers attempting and maybe succeeding in fining or prosecuting on the strength of an advisory sign placed without a traffic regulation order, and I thought about the various all purpose roads which should be fit for use by all traffic - including cyclists - but have a ban on cycling - (Diagram 951 - Cycling Prohibited). In these cases it is the duty of the roads authority to provide a road surface which the groups excluded from using the original APR can use without inconvenience or penalty.

Immediately springing to mind are

the Edinburgh By-Pass - no real parallel alternative and severe hills if you follow the closest parallel routes. Fortunately most cyclists are using radial routes.

the A90 from Cramond to the Forth - a long running battle with the alternative nowhere near fit for purpose

Garve Level Crossing - still investigating, but the Diagram 951 signs appear to have non-approved wording.

Dartford Crossing/Blackwall Tunnel

Over to you

I'd agree with Pete - I was very worried to see the intimation that a solution would be simply to make the road wider, when measures such as making the traffic slower and delivering a route which accommodated the swept envelope of a large vehicle without compromising traffic in other road areas . Typical example - bendybuses coming out of London Bridge Station, the curve and junction at the East end of the Aldwych etc.

Beware of road engineers bearing the gift of an alternative route when they ban cycling on an all purpose road - you would certainly not manage to ride the alternative route pressed on the cycling community when the A90 got a cycling ban between Queensferry and Cramond

I'm going to post a thread for collating information on places where an all purpose road - which should be fit for all users including cyclists, has an order banning cycling, with appropriate signage (generally diagram 951 roundels, with some very carefully specified wording permitted by DfT)

It may include APR's where diagram 966 or other incorrect signing has been used

Back to the topic of road 'improvement' do try to get a clear and robust benchmark of the current crash and speed statistics. It was well recognised on roads like the A84 heading up from Stirling to Killin, that the winding nature and other features of the old road restricted speeds and limited some of the lunatic driving. When a section of road was 'improved' there was a local observation which might be corroborated by a good research project, that the crashes migrated to the first bends and summits on the unimproved section potentially in greater number and with greater severity, as drivers lulled themselves into a false sense of security and then realised that the conditions had changed.

We can never offer a fully 'improved' road network in the sense of the thinking that the stealth motorway promotors, and as noted the crashes cluster wherever this speed-fuelled traffic then has to connect to the rest of the network. Far better to keep all the network operating at the same tempo, and if it can be shown from the crach cluster and migration effect of road improvement we might be able to block some of the worst excesses in this respect.

The route through Strathnaver is a fine and 'flat' one which is why the railway to Wick and Thurso (built cheaply to follow the contours) goes that way as far as Forsinard and then turns across via Altnabreac (no car park because there is no public road!) and Scotscalder to Georgemas. Just look along the track from Georgemas to sse how it follows the ground!. Options for variety are to cut over to the Altnaharra Road - a beautiful route passing an abandoned (clearances) village on the way or cut the corner to Brora via Glen Loth (turn right via Kildonan Station). The Struie route is shorter for getting South but you do need to climb (with a fine view at the top over the Dornoch Firth and Kyles of Sutherland)

Some interesting notes coming back - please look at Mark's brief but information filled posts about Pollards Hill Sunday (and weekday) rides. Weekend rail services blow away all that precious posturing on rail = low carbon footprint. If you can get a quick total count on the passenger numbers on your part of the train - or the whole train it can be both revealing and make a strong case to promote widespead use of trains for weekend group trips - Merseyrail/Merseytravel actually sponsors organised group rides in conjunction with local cycling groups and Colin Langdon (Cycling Solutions) from rail stations and up to 30 bikes are reported to travel on a 3-coach 192-seat 104.5 Tonne train (Class 507/508) for such events, greatly boosting passenger numbers

However the really damning figures came from a PHC ride last month when 63% (its usually between 10% and 20%) of the passengers were cyclists and there were just 19 passngers on the 246-seat, 4-coach, 173.6 Tonne train - that is just under10 tons of train being dragged around per passenger, and makes a strong case against the current DfT thinking to have 12 coach fixed formation 400 Tonne trains running on every service throughout the week - or it makes a good case to get more bikes travelling on off-peak services just to fill the space up.

So please do try and get some assessment of the total load of passengers as well as the number of bikes - observations on services going to Guildford (CTC staff and office visitors suggest that typically 10% is an expected figure)

Noting also the Westbury comments there is provision for the trains stopping at Westbury to draw forward and let people get off from coach A on the London-bound services, but I suspect that if the staff know you are getting off there they operate a practical solution that avoids this messy move and get you to move a few coaches up the train at Castle Cary. I've taken up the possibility of First GW putting up a poster in Coach A indicating the stations where this van space will not be on the platform, and cyclists will need to arrange with the train guard to get off with a bike for a Portsmouth or Bristol connection. Not at present widely publicised.