Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
There was (maybe still is) a bus lane shortcut in south London at the Catford Gyratory - using it avoided a long detour mixing with speeding cars and fumes. I never bothered about using it and would be amazed if there were ever any consequences. I never obstructed or impeded any cars when using it.
In short, chill.
In short, chill.
Sweep
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Chill would be good advice except for my previous experience a few years ago of being given a fixed penalty notice in London by a rather incompetent policeman for cycling on the pavement...despite the "cycling permitted" sign. This really did happen (I posted about it on here at the time).Sweep wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 4:52pm There was (maybe still is) a bus lane shortcut in south London at the Catford Gyratory - using it avoided a long detour mixing with speeding cars and fumes. I never bothered about using it and would be amazed if there were ever any consequences. I never obstructed or impeded any cars when using it.
In short, chill.
The FPN was withdrawn eventually but it was a huge amount of effort on my part to get it done and I definitely don't want a repeat!
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Here's your original thread, to which I contributed several posts.jimster99 wrote: ↑1 Feb 2023, 12:00amChill would be good advice except for my previous experience a few years ago of being given a fixed penalty notice in London by a rather incompetent policeman for cycling on the pavement...despite the "cycling permitted" sign. This really did happen (I posted about it on here at the time).Sweep wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 4:52pm There was (maybe still is) a bus lane shortcut in south London at the Catford Gyratory - using it avoided a long detour mixing with speeding cars and fumes. I never bothered about using it and would be amazed if there were ever any consequences. I never obstructed or impeded any cars when using it.
In short, chill.
The FPN was withdrawn eventually but it was a huge amount of effort on my part to get it done and I definitely don't want a repeat!
viewtopic.php?p=555840#p555840
Trying to keep up-to-date with legislation and policy eventually began to involve too much effort on my part.
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Presumably, if it's on private land, it wouldn't be worth asking the council because they wouldn't be responsible for the signs?
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
There used to be an unusual bus lane in Glasgow. It was clearly marked “Buses only”. It was only about 25 metres long and I used to use it on my way home from a late shift as at 2 or 3 in the morning there were no buses.
I never had any problems and a few years ago it was changed to the more usual “buses, taxis and cycles”.
I never had any problems and a few years ago it was changed to the more usual “buses, taxis and cycles”.
Don't let them win but keep up the struggle and wear them all down by our persistence.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
As jimster99 took the trouble to persist with getting a fixed penalty dropped, I'll offer this based mainly on looking at TSRGD 2016 ie my interpretation of the relevant law, not on philosophy or anecdote.
It can all be found in this link.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ule/3/made
The NO ENTRY sign is diagram 616 and its basic meaning is
This sign can only be used to indicate the existance of eg a traffic regulation order, byelaw whatever. (If it misrepresents the TRO etc., it may not be "lawfully erected.")
Failing to conform with the sign is covered by s 36 of the Road Traffic At 1988 as well as the relevant TRO etc. The former is covered by the need for a timely notice of intended prosecution (subject to exceptions) while the TRO etc probably isn't.
===================================================================================
A couple of personal observations.
If official interest were caused by a crash, then careless driving includes "road or other public place" eg supermarket car park
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
Careless cycling appies only on a road.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29
I don't know how a civil claim (compo) might pan out after a crash when eg signs a supermarket car par were ignored.
(Anecdotally) I have heard somewhere - possibly on here - that for many years a highwayman in some senior position in government felt that the strength of the NO ENTRY sign should be protected and he was in a position to resist exceptions. Hence the use of arguably the most confusing sign of all, the so-called "flying motorbike" diagram 619, which doesn't apply to pedal cycles.
Recently, local authorities have been taking on powers to enforce some traffic offence, often by camera. I can't remember all the tales - previously linked - but IIRC, the relevant omsbuddy/watchdog ruled that the prescribed signs to keep other traffic from using "bus gates" was confusing. Lendal Bridge in York comes to mind.
It can all be found in this link.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ule/3/made
The NO ENTRY sign is diagram 616 and its basic meaning is
Exceptions may be displayed on a plate but must be explicit ie there can be an exception for "cycles" but if there is, it must say so - ie no implied cycle exception.No entry for vehicular traffic
This sign can only be used to indicate the existance of eg a traffic regulation order, byelaw whatever. (If it misrepresents the TRO etc., it may not be "lawfully erected.")
Failing to conform with the sign is covered by s 36 of the Road Traffic At 1988 as well as the relevant TRO etc. The former is covered by the need for a timely notice of intended prosecution (subject to exceptions) while the TRO etc probably isn't.
===================================================================================
A couple of personal observations.
If official interest were caused by a crash, then careless driving includes "road or other public place" eg supermarket car park
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
Careless cycling appies only on a road.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29
I don't know how a civil claim (compo) might pan out after a crash when eg signs a supermarket car par were ignored.
(Anecdotally) I have heard somewhere - possibly on here - that for many years a highwayman in some senior position in government felt that the strength of the NO ENTRY sign should be protected and he was in a position to resist exceptions. Hence the use of arguably the most confusing sign of all, the so-called "flying motorbike" diagram 619, which doesn't apply to pedal cycles.
Recently, local authorities have been taking on powers to enforce some traffic offence, often by camera. I can't remember all the tales - previously linked - but IIRC, the relevant omsbuddy/watchdog ruled that the prescribed signs to keep other traffic from using "bus gates" was confusing. Lendal Bridge in York comes to mind.
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
I don't have your background in the law, but I've always felt that the signs were, at least in principle, for quite different cases. By definition, a No Entry sign applies to the entrance (not the road/area behind), whereas No (Motor) Vehicles applies to the road/area behind (which might include the entrance, but the entrance isn't the point).thirdcrank wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 10:53am(Anecdotally) I have heard somewhere - possibly on here - that for many years a highwayman in some senior position in government felt that the strength of the NO ENTRY sign should be protected and he was in a position to resist exceptions. Hence the use of arguably the most confusing sign of all, the so-called "flying motorbike" diagram 619, which doesn't apply to pedal cycles.
So, at a car park exit, No Entry makes sense specifically because cars are (obviously) allowed in there - just not to enter at that point. It also makes sense on the "wrong" end of a one-way street, for a similar reason. But No Vehicles or No Motor Vehicles would apply where all vehicles, or just those with motors, had been banned from using the road at all.
So a flying motorbike conveys different information about whether it's worth looking for another entrance, or whether I should just go and find another route. Except that, on a bike, the flying motorbike isn't a problem at all.
Of course, the real world is always more complicated than theory, and there are places where it's less than clear which sign would be better.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
As I keep saying, I've been retired since 1997 when the world was a different place. By far the greater part of stuff I've discovered about traffic law relating to pedal cycles dates from my nearly as long-gone time as a CRN RtoR rep. Among the aids to knowledge have been updated versions of most traffic legislation on the internet. Things like shared-use paths in their various forms are largely new and so it's a matter of keeping up-to-date with the changes in things like TSRGD.drossall wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 1:32pmI don't have your background in the law, but I've always felt that the signs were, at least in principle, for quite different cases. By definition, a No Entry sign applies to the entrance (not the road/area behind), whereas No (Motor) Vehicles applies to the road/area behind (which might include the entrance, but the entrance isn't the point).thirdcrank wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 10:53am(Anecdotally) I have heard somewhere - possibly on here - that for many years a highwayman in some senior position in government felt that the strength of the NO ENTRY sign should be protected and he was in a position to resist exceptions. Hence the use of arguably the most confusing sign of all, the so-called "flying motorbike" diagram 619, which doesn't apply to pedal cycles.
So, at a car park exit, No Entry makes sense specifically because cars are (obviously) allowed in there - just not to enter at that point. It also makes sense on the "wrong" end of a one-way street, for a similar reason. But No Vehicles or No Motor Vehicles would apply where all vehicles, or just those with motors, had been banned from using the road at all.
So a flying motorbike conveys different information about whether it's worth looking for another entrance, or whether I should just go and find another route. Except that, on a bike, the flying motorbike isn't a problem at all.
Of course, the real world is always more complicated than theory, and there are places where it's less than clear which sign would be better.
As I tried to explain, the motivation for my post above was to answer the queries posed in the thread subject in in what I believed to be factual detail. ie In this case, the extent to which a rider can pass a NO ENTRY sign lawfully, and ergo to explain some of the defences they might use if facing a prosecution they wanted to contest. AIUI, this was pretty much the position of OP jimster99 when he received the fixed penalty on a poorly-signed farcility
If anybody thinks an individual sign or the traffic scheme containing it is wrong or inappropriate then it needs taking up with the responsible authority. Others have recommended stumping up and moving on. Others again seems convinced that cyclists are entitled to do as they like, or should be.
-
- Posts: 8399
- Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
- Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Back in the early 80s, our usual route through Hinckley was altered with our usual route at some traffic lights being 'buses only' I understand it was striclty no cyclists meaning we had to use the same route as cars and a busy complicated route... eventually someone saw sense and it became bus/cycle lane
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Don't get me onto public footpaths!thirdcrank wrote: ↑2 Feb 2023, 2:39pm ..............Others again seems convinced that cyclists are entitled to do as they like, or should be.
On Tuesday, I was riding on the main road, and a car-driver hooted her horn and vigorously pointed at me to get off the road and onto the (non shared) footway. I didn't reply in any way, and just carried on along the road.
It's not just many cyclists doing as they like, it's just motorists and the general public that expect cyclists to be immune and to ignore the road rules as a matter of course.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Worth remembering, I think, that most cyclists are motorists*. Am I alone in seeing a perverse consistency, in that some of the same people are probably failing to treat cyclists as proper road users, then getting on their bikes and failing to behave as proper road users, and finally getting on their high horses and complaining that cyclists don't behave like proper road users?
* The ones who aren't are probably mostly teenagers, who have learnt their approach to cycling and cyclists by watching how motorists behave around bikes.
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Wow - still here after all those years! Thanks so much Thirdcrank and I owe you a beer (or if you prefer some alcohol free spritz type thing).thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Feb 2023, 8:06am Here's your original thread, to which I contributed several posts.
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
Just thinking of an incident some years ago ............. raised it on here somewhere.
No Entry sign means what it says.
No entry.
What about walking your bike as a pedestrian? Can you enter?
What about entering the road from somewhere else and not knowing about the No Entry sign and going the "wrong way"?
Unless the road is adequately marked every few yards as a one-way road, you could go the wrong way and not know.
No Entry sign means what it says.
No entry.
What about walking your bike as a pedestrian? Can you enter?
What about entering the road from somewhere else and not knowing about the No Entry sign and going the "wrong way"?
Unless the road is adequately marked every few yards as a one-way road, you could go the wrong way and not know.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Can a cyclist go past a No Entry sign where it says "except emergency vehicles" or "except buses"?
PS:
Say you obey the road signs and call in at a cafe. Have a meal over an hour or more, then get back on your bike and head the wrong way out.
There isn't a No Exit sign at the end of the one-way road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.55089 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.55096 ... 384!8i8192
Say you obey the road signs and call in at a cafe. Have a meal over an hour or more, then get back on your bike and head the wrong way out.
There isn't a No Exit sign at the end of the one-way road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.55089 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.55096 ... 384!8i8192
Mick F. Cornwall