Teatime Teaser - are you allowed to cycle down this road?

[FatBat]

There has been some debate in the local press about cyclists showing a blatant disregard for the Law. I always try to stay within the Law, but with signage like this, it is easy to get confused!

[honesty]

depends, there are actually 2 types of pedestrian zones, one allows cycling the other does not. It depends on the details given under the sign. Generally, one version will be no vehicles (which includes cycles) and the other will be no motor vehicle which does not.

Have a look here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191926.pdf

[FatBat]

Yeah, but, the sign on the left hand side of the road is "No Vehicles" and the one of the right is "No Motor Vehicles".

[SA_SA_SA]

If the signage is confused won't that mean they will have difficulty prosecuting anyone until its fixed:

i.e they need to display 2 correct(matching) signs.

EDIT shortened

[thirdcrank]

Yeah, but, the sign on the left hand side of the road is "No Vehicles" and the one of the right is "No Motor Vehicles".

One of the signs is obviously wrong. The traffic regulation order (TRO) which would be required for an enforceable ban is the only dependable source of info. You can inspect that at the relevant highway authority's offices.

[FatBat]

This is Huddersfield town centre where getting around by bike is much more trouble than it needs to be. Most of the signs at the entries to the Pedestrian Zones are the "Flying Motorbike" no motor vehicles ones, supplemented by a "No Vehicles" legend - which is not a prescribed variation and is contradictory. As thirdcrank says, the only way to be sure is to consult the TRO.

[AlaninWales]

https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/p ... px#anchor6

Where you can see a TRO

You can view them online:

Traffic Penalty Tribunal http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/site/index.php

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is an independent body whose impartial, independent adjudicators consider appeals by motorists and vehicle owners.

TROs can also be inspected at the council's Legal Service and Highways Service by appointment. A copy can be requested but may be subject to a charge.
Contact Kirklees Council - Highways Ross

Kirklees Council - Highways Ross
Ross Street Care, Flint Street, Fartown, Huddersfield, HD1 6LG
01484 414700
highways.ross@kirklees.gov.uk

leads (after one of those 'prove you are human' logins) to:
http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/default.aspx
Someone want to sort through the TROs for Kirklees ?

[Mark1978]

There is a "No Vehicles" sign and a "No Motor Vehicles". Given that the signs are contradictory you would have a valid defence if you were nabbed for cycling down the road, that you saw one sign which said cycling is permitted. You cannot reasonably be expecting to inspect all signs to make sure they are consistent.

[mrjemm]

As ever, I am confused. Since are 'No Vehicles' and 'No Motor Vehicles' contradictory?

Surely one is simply more exclusive than the other, but one is still within the other. That one does not refer to non motor vehicles does not negate the fact that the other does.

As for 2 types of pedestrianised streets; Lancaster is confusing for this. Penny Street (the main shopping street) from Spring Garden/George Street, to Common Garden/Brock Street can be cycled down, but from CG/B St onwards cannot. I at 1st had not noticed the no cycling sign on the 2nd part, and have ridden down it at quiet times.

Confusing signage to me too. It's gone from what can be seen here-
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=george ... 11,,0,2.89

To-

Which to me does seem contradictory. Seems to be a ped zone, but the top sign says otherwise, unless I read it wrong. And it goes against the sign below, no? Just by the police station though, so I'd hope it's right...

[thirdcrank]

The point is that traffic signs have to reflect any TRO they are displayed to advertise and the TRO in the King St case must be either "no vehicles" or "no motor vehicles," it cannot be both. Rotating the streetview shows all the other signs at the junction are flying motorbikes so the "no vehicles" is almost certainly wrong. In fact, it may well have been tampered with eg by somebody scraping away the black bits.

The apparently contradictory signs in the other example might be because one has been turned on the pole.

[[XAP]Bob]

Surely you just stay to the right;)

[beardy]

As ever, I am confused. Since are 'No Vehicles' and 'No Motor Vehicles' contradictory?

Surely one is simply more exclusive than the other, but one is still within the other. That one does not refer to non motor vehicles does not negate the fact that the other does.

As for 2 types of pedestrianised streets; Lancaster is confusing for this. Penny Street (the main shopping street) from Spring Garden/George Street, to Common Garden/Brock Street can be cycled down, but from CG/B St onwards cannot. I at 1st had not noticed the no cycling sign on the 2nd part, and have ridden down it at quiet times.

Confusing signage to me too. It's gone from what can be seen here-
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=george ... 11,,0,2.89

To-

PSSignsm.jpg

Which to me does seem contradictory. Seems to be a ped zone, but the top sign says otherwise, unless I read it wrong. And it goes against the sign below, no? Just by the police station though, so I'd hope it's right...

Ideal that you asked this on a cycling forum.

The difference is that you are leaving a pedestrian zone into a no motorvehicle zone, so as you pass that sign you can get back on your bike. The old signage was for leaving a pedestrian zone into a road with no entry for any vehicle, so you could not get back on your bike.
They have even added the blue cycle to make it clear that you can cycle (as compared to if it was no entry because it was one-way against you where you could not get back on your bike).

[mrjemm]

Ideal that you asked this on a cycling forum.

The difference is that you are leaving a pedestrian zone into a no motorvehicle zone, so as you pass that sign you can get back on your bike. The old signage was for leaving a pedestrian zone into a road with no entry for any vehicle, so you could not get back on your bike.
They have even added the blue cycle to make it clear that you can cycle (as compared to if it was no entry because it was one-way against you where you could not get back on your bike).

But you aren't leaving a ped zone- look around in the streetview. It's all road prior to here, albeit the opposing street is a one-way, away from there, with a cycle contra lane towards there. Surely that won't count as a ped zone?

[Mark1978]

As ever, I am confused. Since are 'No Vehicles' and 'No Motor Vehicles' contradictory?

Surely one is simply more exclusive than the other, but one is still within the other. That one does not refer to non motor vehicles does not negate the fact that the other does.

Lets boil it down, when you are approaching it on your bike one sign basically says "Cycles Permitted" the other says "Cycles Not Permitted" - in this way they are entirely contradictory. As I've said it would be a valid defence to say you saw the sign saying Cycles Permitted so acted accordingly. It's not incumbent on a cyclist proceeding down a street to second guess if the council has made a mistake or not.

[beardy]

There is a "No Vehicles" sign and a "No Motor Vehicles". Given that the signs are contradictory you would have a valid defence if you were nabbed for cycling down the road, that you saw one sign which said cycling is permitted. You cannot reasonably be expecting to inspect all signs to make sure they are consistent.

I dont think that you can get away with that excuse.

Imagine if car drivers could get away with doing 40mph in a 30 zone because the sign was too closely before a 30mph sign. I have a road near here which has a 50mph just before you pass under a bridge and a 30mph sign just as you come out, no doubt that as I leave the shadow of the bridge I should be doing 30 not 50, even though the 50 sign is only 30 metres behind me.
The stupidity of sticking a 50mph sign 30 metres before a 30mph restriction is probably not even that rare.

It would be extreme beyond reason to expect motorists to have to visit some building and check out the TRO's*.

*In the basement room bearing the sign "beware of the leopard".

Mark, I totally agree with what you say in the last post. If the sign says it you should be (and assume are) free from fear of prosecution.