Why do they do it?

[squeaker]

How to micturate people off

There's a narrow downhill blind bend at the end of the closed section...

[Paulatic]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

[mjr]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

Yes, those signs, as well as "ROAD CLOSED" used when the "EXCEPT CYCLES" variant should, have gotten so far into disrepute as to be useless. If there is a hazard, sign the hazard. If it's so bad that there is a real need to ban cycling temporarily beyond roadmender inconsiderateness and highways department thoughtlessness, use the appropriate red-circle sign.

[squeaker]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

As a parish councillor, I can tell you that those signs were put there at request after an elderly pedestrian had a near miss followed by verbal abuse from someone riding a bike along there.

[mattheus]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

As a parish councillor, I can tell you that those signs were put there at request after an elderly pedestrian had a near miss followed by verbal abuse from someone riding a bike along there.

I had a near-miss and verbal abuse from a motorist recently - can we ban driving on that road?

[Jdsk]

Please could people say what's wrong with the signage.

How can we tell from the photo if it's "necessary"?

Is it lawful to ride on that "footway"?

Thanks

Jonathan

[mattheus]

1) Please could people say what's wrong with the signage.

2) How can we tell from the photo if it's "necessary"?

1) It's not the signage - it's the planning of the barriers etc, the whole package.

2) I for one, cannot - but we've all seen situations in the flesh where the "engineers" have made a similar pig's ear of things.

[Paulatic]

Please could people say what's wrong with the signage.

How can we tell from the photo if it's "necessary"?

Is it lawful to ride on that "footway"?

Thanks

Jonathan

a) the signage is used far too often in places where no reason us apparent. It become worthless a little like a road sign I used to often pass warning of strong cross winds. It was only relevant in a few occasions.
b) we can’t see from that picture it is necessary. First impression is it’s not busy and I’ve just passed someone taking a picture. We are told by the OP there is a blind bend along the route. I can walk around that blind bend with bike at 3.4mph ( I know that because my phone tells me that’s my avg walking speed) or I can cycle around it at 3.4mph. Which mode poses the most risk to any oncoming person?
c) I’ve no idea if it’s lawful or not and I’m not going to stop and consult the local authority web site to find out. I’m just going to ride carefully along it.

[Jdsk]

Thanks, both.

Jonathan

[mjr]

No diversion map is visible on the barrier and I would bet that no cycling-safe diversion is signed from far enough back to be useful either. Usually, once you see that sign, the alternatives are a detour via a busy fast quasimotorway, an even longer detour on smaller roads, or ignoring a sign that usually is invalid because it has been erected without following the legally -required code of practice on safety at streetworks. Only one option is unlikely to make you late to your destination. Which do you think most rational people choose?

The biggest surprise is that anyone is surprised by their decision.

Provide decent highways maintenance and most people would comply.

[mjr]

Is it lawful to ride on that "footway"?

Because the footway is now the whole highway and not alongside a carriageway, the usual law making footway riding a criminal offence (Highways Act 1835) does not apply. It may be like a footpath: no right to ride but no specific offence is committed without some other law applying.

[mjr]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

As a parish councillor, I can tell you that those signs were put there at request after an elderly pedestrian had a near miss followed by verbal abuse from someone riding a bike along there.

As a former parish councillor, I'm wondering what did the pedestrian say first?

Nonetheless, verbal abuse and close passes are already punishable if there were any police. Those signs mainly punish considerate cyclists and discriminate against riders who cannot walk.

[cycle tramp]

Is it lawful to ride on that "footway"?

Because the footway is now the whole highway and not alongside a carriageway, the usual law making footway riding a criminal offence (Highways Act 1835) does not apply. It may be like a footpath: no right to ride but no specific offence is committed without some other law applying.

That's not right. In local government the term 'highway' has always included any footpaths as these are adopted by the local authority along with the road.
However using this term, in this way does not affect the legal status of the pavement which is to the side of the road and is defined by the raised kerb. The law will see this as a pavement and unless the road traffic order has been changed to allow it, the law will always view it as a pavement and therefore it is a breach of this law to ride your bicycle along it.

[cycle tramp]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

Yes, those signs, as well as "ROAD CLOSED" used when the "EXCEPT CYCLES" variant should, have gotten so far into disrepute as to be useless. If there is a hazard, sign the hazard. If it's so bad that there is a real need to ban cycling temporarily beyond roadmender inconsiderateness and highways department thoughtlessness, use the appropriate red-circle sign.

There's an assumption that these road works are carried out by the highways team, however it could be carried out by a number of contractors with licences to work on the road. The sign is perfectly clear. If certain people ignore it that would be their choice to do so.

[cycle tramp]

Yes I agree those signs certainly do micturate folk. If they were used when totally necessary then cyclist might take more heed of them.

As a parish councillor, I can tell you that those signs were put there at request after an elderly pedestrian had a near miss followed by verbal abuse from someone riding a bike along there.

As a former parish councillor, I'm wondering what did the pedestrian say first?

Do you really want to know what most of the road repair teams and highway engineers think of parish councillors?