AlaninWales wrote: ... Three plus lanes in each direction, fenced off from the estates. I suspect the pedestrian ban applies to the A-road itself, which is not unusual.
The only sign prohibiting pedestrians on that length of road is the one in my streetview.
The only reason I expressed doubts about the existence of a TRO with either of the signed cycle routes in my post was that I have a vague memory of a cycling officer mentioning it during discussions at consultation meetings.
Claypit Lane in my second example, is a major route into Leeds. On the basis of my argument that if you want a change of mode from car to cycling for utility journeys (Notional Cycling Strategy) you have to assume that people will still want to make the same journeys, there was some pressure for cyclists on that side of Leeds for good routes. Outbound (opposite carriageway) there's more of an off-road route which in my CRN/ RtoR days had various "barriers to cycling" including a barrier.
As there were several local riders maintaining the pressure over that route, it was on the consultation meeting agenda quite often and I tended to leave it to those with the local knowledge, which is why my memory of the TRO is only vague.
The Kirkstall Lane example was quite different, being a stupid attempt to marginalise cycling. I'm pretty sure that the bit of farcility in the foreground of my first streetview was already an informal pedestrian route, ie path through the grass formed by people taking the shortest route from the corner by the post box to the pedestrian crossing. The only way to have stopped pedestrians continuing to use it would have involved physical means like barbed wire which would have stopped cyclists as well, but there were "NO PEDESTRIANS" signs originally. It has occurred to me during typing this that some cyclists at consultation meetings mentioned confusion among pedestrians they had encountered who thought that the NO PEDESTRIANS sign, which shows a pedestrian in a red circles meant is was a special pedestrian route. Easy to be incredulous, but pedestrians don't have to pass a walking test including knowledge of the HC etc.
If there were to be one of those telly programmes which pad out the sxchedules at Crimbo eg "20th century's 100 top...." listing crap cycle farcilities, I'd be confiodent of its being in the running for the top spot.
(I'm not sufficiently bothered to check the TRO's to prove a point of no significance.)
PS. A propos
not very much. This has reminded me that elsewhere in Leeds (part of Armley Gyratory) there's been a sign banning pedestrians since the roundabout was built (1974ish) and to avoid confusion, it's a blue rectangle with the words NO PEDESTRIANS. I've worked in that area for two periods of several years, the first when it was all newly opened and I don't remember it ever being an issue so it must have worked, although you don't seen lions and tigers down there either, without the need for a prohibition sign.
I've had a look on streetview and I can't spot it but the standard I think it's on is hidden by shrubbery. If I remember I'll try to check and even possibly take a pic, always avoiding walking of course.
PPS at the risk of turning the thread into an esoteric form of I-Spy, here, one banning the... er ... pony and trap. https://email@example.com ... 312!8i6656