Cycling UK Forum

A track had No Entry signs erected at at both ends. Is the letter of the law being broken if a cyclist dismounts to pass the sign then cycles through ?
It is common enough for Point No Entry with by-pass to be used to allow contra-flow cycling so No Entry seems to have no effect apart from the line it occupies.
If all vehicles were to be excluded a No Vehicles sign or even clearer a No Motor Vehicles + No Cycling could have been used by a competent authority. Back to back No Entry looks DIY/incompetent.

We've had a thread in which a back to back no entry made an appearance. Not sure if this specific point was covered.

If it was I doubt that a definitive answer was reached, if it wasn't I doubt that a definitive answer can be reached* .

*Edit: I may have been wrong about that .

Well spotted. This does still refer to Muddy Lane. We have an ongoing public enquiry and it has been stated that these signs were put up in 1990. If they definitively ban cycling the 20 year period for unchallenged use has to date 1970-90 which is getting to rely on very old memories.

Referring to my 1978 (revised 1983) edition of the Highway Code:-

You must, even if you are wheeling your cycle,
- observe ... traffic signs which give orders ...

AFAIK a "No Entry" sign falls into that category. References to various bits of legislation are quoted.

You'd need to find the TRO to see if it was lawfully erected.

Is this an officially erected sign?

The broad issue of cyclists dismounting and ignoring traffic signs is raised on here from time to time. A pedal cycle is both a carriage and a vehicle. If a sign applies to vehicles rather than only mechanically-propelled vehicles then it applies to pedal cycles.

The waters were muddied by the pedestrian crossing case (Stronglight versus Selle Italia ) where my very good friend the milkman ruled that a cyclist was a passenger on foot - ie a pedestrian - which they obviously are, but he was not asked to rule on whether that pedestrian was driving a vehicle so in legal terms the case is irrelevant. A pedestrian can drive a vehicle.

Somebody did post a link somewhere suggesting that the authors of the HC had interpreted the case to mean that bikes could be wheeled on pavements etc.

It's inconceivable that even the most anti-cycling police officer or PCSO would report this or if they did, that that the CPS would regard it as being in the public interest to prosecute. However, if there were to be a big compo claim involved, eg cyclist wheels a bike past a sign eg a red traffic light straight under a bus, I would expect the learned friends to be involved.

In civilized countries (e.g. France) no entry signs nearly always have a 'sauf velos' note attached to them.

Forgot to mention re the twenty year thing, you cannot acquire a right to break the criminal law by either repeatedly breaking it or by showing it's not been enforced. The acquisition of rights of way is a civil matter ie part of the law of trespass. When pavements began to be provided for pedestrians at the edge of roads, other users could have acquired a RoW by usage and it would have been impossible to prove what was what throughout the country. Making riding and driving on those footpaths (more recently referred to as footways in an attempt to reduce confusion ) a criminal offence meant that they were protected. Until the shortage of parking space became acute, that is.

I routed my jogle through a no entry sign. I did not realise until I checked the route on street view. I knew that if I left it, I would either question the validity of my route/directions when I got there, or would risk argument if I proceeded so I just re routed.

There are two aspects to this; 1) passing the no entry sign and 2) the remounting your bike and riding.

re 1) wheeling bikes on roads (against the flow of traffic), pavements (footways) etc. In the strictest interpretation of the law this might be construed to be 'conducting a vehicle' and you might be subject to all the rules that pertain to such, including a the theoretical (?) possibility that you might lose your driving licence if you are pushing your bike along the road whilst inebriated.

However if this were indeed a law that, once broken, could/would be prosecuted, I think that there would be a good deal of difficulty in distinguishing the threat to society from that offered by pushing a wheelchair, a pram, a wheelbarrow, a shopping trolley, a lawnmower, or any number of other objects that may or may not be 'vehicles' in the strictest interpretation of the law.

re 2) I would guess that you could instead hop over a wall (with your bike) somewhere and gain access to the roadway, in which case you would have gone past no sign even hinting that you should not cycle there. If the intention to prohibit cycling along the full length of the roadway were present, it would be simple enough to erect 'no cycling' signs, and/or give the whole thing the legal status of a footpath or something. Otherwise there is presumably nothing to distinguish the entry way from any number of one-way streets that are not one-way for their full length.

cheers

I was in Tavistock yesterday just parking the car on Market Road.
One way street.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.54914 ... 312!8i6656
As I got out of the car, a lady got on her bike and went the wrong way up the road. I saw where she went and I spoke to her. I pointed out the fact that it was a one way street - in a very nice and friendly way of course - and she was horrified about her mistake.

The point is, if you go past a No Entry sign, you're breaking the rules. What she had done, was to come onto the road from Bedford Square on foot pushing her bike across the carpark, then got on a rode on the road. There is no info at that point that you ae going the wrong way.

She had walked across the car park and gone behind the 'phone box.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.54914 ... 312!8i6656

A big part of the problem is that when a subject like this comes up, there's the confusion between civil and criminal law. gaz's link early in this thread to Bicycler's rights of way stuff is excellent in its explanation of that aspect.

Setting aside the point that a lot of the criminal law in respect of traffic offences goes unenforced, a successful prosecution must prove all the elements of the offence. In the "one-way street" example, there are generally two possible offences.

The first is being the driver of a vehicle failing to comply with a lawfully-erected traffic sign. Here, there would have to be evidence that the defendant
drove a vehicle
failed to comply with the traffic sign (in this case entering where it was NO ENTRY)
that the sign was lawfully erected and was listed under the RTA as one of the signs to which the offence applied
(This is an NIP offence BTW.)

The other is driving the "wrong" way on a one way street. Here, there would have to be evidence that the defendant broke the specific wording of the traffic regulation order making that street one way. They would not necessarily pass a NO ENTRY sign: they might turn in the road. Around here at least, pushing a pedal cycle is always included as an exception, which implies to me that in other circumstances, some highway authority lawyer thinks it's otherwise an offence. There can be plenty of other exceptions eg there are sometimes exceptions for street cleaning vehicles so the right-hand gutter can be swept.

FWIW, I'd have thought that carrying a bike wouldn't be driving it.

The strictness with which criminal offences must be proved and the complications of most traffic-related offences and the many exceptions are the reason that some loophole merchants thrive. And there's a strong opinion in some quarters that this is why the CPS lawyers aren't too interested.
========================================================
PS For there to be exceptions to a NO ENTRY sign, they have to be displayed on a supplementary plate. For many years the menfromtheministry were loath to authorise exceptions to NO ENTRY signs. That's been relaxed a bit.

Brucey wrote:it would be simple enough to ... give the whole thing the legal status of a footpath or something.

Exceedingly simple since the whole thing already has the status of a public footpath. Cyclist are presenting a case that higher rights exist. The "no entry" signs appear to be part of the case against.

I went down a one way Street the wrong way in Barnstaple a few years ago, a policeman shouted 'it's one way down here mate'! I shouted back 'I'm only going one way'!!

Mick F wrote:
The point is, if you go past a No Entry sign, you're breaking the rules. What she had done, was to come onto the road from Bedford Square on foot pushing her bike across the carpark, then got on a rode on the road. There is no info at that point that you ae going the wrong way.

If a road is one way there need to be signs to that effect. Having a No Entry sign at one end will not do.

PRL wrote:If a road is one way there need to be signs to that effect. Having a No Entry sign at one end will not do.

Having taken a virtual tour around Mick F's streetview linked road it does have "One Way" markings in addition to the "No Entry". Signs appear visible everywhere a motor vehicle could be expected to enter the road.