Elimination of Diagram 966 signs - and their abuse

[dave holladay]

Third Crank you are a star!

and probably a sadder surfer than I am. That was a great resume of the proposals and there are other details as great as the Toad Crossing in the full documents.

[PRL]

Buried in the current road signs consultation is a hint that an alternative wording of Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway, may be used and I gather from Sustrans contacts that they are also keen to see this sign (966) deleted or with greater restriction on its use.

The problem seems to be that HAs can use "Cyclist Dismount " ad lib (ad nauseam ?) but require special permission (twenty forms in pentuplicate) to use "cyclists rejoin carriageway" so the default option is predictable. ISTRC that the consultation was merely about the appearance of the signs and not the rules behind them.

[dave holladay]

The proposal is to allow the alternative wording of Rejoin Carriageway without the requirement of special permission. A door half open?

[thirdcrank]

In between baby sitting I've looked through as much of this as I can assimilate and as I see it there are three things which have some direct effect on cyclists.

1/ Allowing bus lane signs to include motor cycles as well, where they are allowed to use a particular bus lane (I presume that at present special authorisation is needed.) I suppose it will tend to make this change that bit easier, but the principle has been established in London and I suppose it's here to stay in those areas where the traffic authority decides to allow it.

2/ Allowing "Cyclists rejoin the carriageway" signs to be used without special authorisation. I'm not sure how far this helps with getting rid of "Cyclists dismount" signs because I cannot say I've seen any where they are used in that location. They seem to me to be most often used (a) by the Highways Agency when they install a shabby shared-use at a roundabout where they just want cyclists off the road and (b) by highwaymen generally when they have installed some sort of half-baked "facility" to get cyclists off the road at all costs, but then end up with a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. As I posted above, I'd like to see something whereby "Cyclists dismount" signs were removed altogether, or at least subject to stringent approval requirements. As the declared aim of the consultation is to reduce the authorisation rigmarole, I cannot see much likelihood of that happening. I think it's also worth pointing out that although the sign will be numbered 966.1 which we might read as making it an alternative to 966, I do not think that the numpties who erect these signs will see it like that at all.

3/ Allowing what they describe as a "gate" as the entry to the cyclists' area of an Advanced Stop Line (ASL) arrangement, where there is no room for an approach lane. (The "gate" is a broken line, at the gutter end of the first STOP line drawn at an angle.) Although I can see what they have in mind, this is a nonsense; they are saying there is inadequate room for an approach lane but cyclists may still only filter into the box in the gutter. I appreciate the history to this. Both STOP lines mean just that so they feel they have to provide a visible gap for cyclists. It cannot be beyond the wit of mankind to divise a form of words which says that cyclists may ignore the first line. That would legitimate overtaking rather than filtering, which is what a lot of riders (including motorcyclists) do anyway. (My grandson is sleeping in the room where I have my computer - I'll see if I can copy the picture of the proposed ASL gate.)

I think we need to be realistic. When this sort of thing is published in this sort of detail, they've done what they see as the work, and they just want to move on to implementation. e.g They are not going to ban CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs without seeing what they highwaymen have to say and that would just set the whole thing back.

=========================================================

I'll see if I can copy the picture of the proposed ASL gate

Can't work out how to do it. The properties show it as a metafile and the button for changing format is greyed out.

[thirdcrank]

diagram 966

966.jpg (2.54 KiB) Viewed 1351 times

I suggested above that this stupid sign should be one of those where anybody wanting to stick one up, at least at the side of a cycle route, should be required to justify this to the ministry. I appreciate that this consultation is generally intended to achieve the opposite, but this is an exception. Here's the Ministry of Transport's own recently published guidelines on the subject:

3.6
The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign
3.6.1
The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign to diagram 966 is another overused sign. On a well designed cycle facility, it is very rarely appropriate. The sign is possibly the least favoured among cyclists – each time it is used, it represents a discontinuity in the journey, which is highly disruptive.
3.6.2 In general, the sign should only be used in relatively rare situations where it would be unsafe or impracticable for a cyclist to continue riding.
3.6.3 If it looks as if the sign might be needed, practitioners should first check to see whether scheme design could not first be modified to make its use unnecessary. In general, the sign should not be used where a cycle track joins a carriageway directly.
3.6.4 Where the sign’s use appears unavoidable, practitioners should be able to defend their decision and explain why it cannot be avoided by design.

(My emphasis.)

(Local Transport note 2/08 - Cycle Infrastructure design.)

Hopefully, that advice may prevent these signs being used in future. I'll not hold my breath. Any examples of their use since that was published in 2008 with pics would be very interesting.

[Pete Owens]

The point everybody seems to be missing is that it is not the sign itself that is the problem, but the dangerous farcility design that makes the sign nescessery in the first place. I am sure that the highwaymen would be only too pleased not to have to errect signs announcing their stupidity to the world.

[dave holladay]

Sometimes there are hazards which require a hazard warning - the CTC used to erect these around 50 years before the Ministry got around to thinking that a National Standard design might be a good idea. Warnings such as blind summit/corner, steep hill ahead - test your brakes, road (or path) narrows etc. There are also places where a ban on cycling may be in force and there are signs, with statutory powers associated with their use which state the position clearly. Once you use the appropriate sign to warn or instruct the cyclist then 966 is a waste of tin and paint.

[aesmith]

The problem seems to be that HAs can use "Cyclist Dismount " ad lib (ad nauseam ?) but require special permission (twenty forms in pentuplicate) to use "cyclists rejoin carriageway" so the default option is predictable. ISTRC that the consultation was merely about the appearance of the signs and not the rules behind them.

Why do they have to use either? "Cyclists rejoin .." sounds pretty stupid to me as well, as if they think that we need to be given our instructions all the time or we won't know what to do. Surely what is meant is that the off-road cycle track has come to an end - so why not put up an "End of Cycle Track" sign? I think we can all work out what options are then open to us.

If cycling is no longer permitted, then use a "No Cycling" sign.

In the previous picture, where the cycle track joins the carriageway with "give way" type line markings, surely it self-evident with no need for any sign at all. In any case, most "Cyclist Dismount" signs do not mean the end of the cycle track.

[Phil_Lee]

A point made earlier in the thread was the problem for riders with mobility impairments.
AIUI, the situation in these instances is that the cycle fulfils the legal definition of an invalid carriage, so the law explicitly states that there is NO restriction on their use on the footway.

Chronically Sick & Disabled Persons Act 1970:

20.
Use of invalid carriages on highways.
— (1) In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance with the prescribed conditions—
(a)
no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a footway;


“invalid carriage” means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability;

Can't work for tandemists though, since apparently you can't have a two seat invalid carriage

[paulah]

Can't work for tandemists though, since apparently you can't have a two seat invalid carriage

Anyone read that article in cycle recently by a couple who have an upright/semi-recumbant tandem combination? The wife couldn't walk far, stand for long periods or use an upright bike but they were touring all over Europe on this thing. The lawmakers in this country though are robbing people like them of their independence.

[birkhead]

I'm nae happy about this word 'carriageway', as in 'Cyclists rejoin the c.'. IMHO the only carriages around are on the railway these days, and the 2cv went out of production some time ago. Highwaymen use this term as jargon, but it does not appear in the contemporary vernacular. Mere cyclists might be forgiven for feeling confused by the terminology. Do road signs have to pass the 'Plain English' test?

[rbrian]

Well, if it's a place for horse drawn carriages, what are are the motor cars doing on it?

[glueman]

I'm anti-signage in almost all circumstances apart from directions. Motorists are never going to drive to the conditions while there are predictive signs saying bend/ road narrows/ school/ ice or whatever ahead. They merely reinforce the assumption that one will drive as fast as possible until specifically warned not to.
It's all part of the pernicious myth that 'maintaining progress' is the ultimate condition of the motor car and to slow until the road revels itself is bad driving.