"NO CYCLING" passageways

[Mark1978]

UK signage isn't consistent in that regard as the no left/right/U
turn signs have lines through them.

[Bicycler]

Even if they have used the wrong sign, it's obvious they meant 'no cycling'. It all depends who put the sign up but I'd need a good reason to wilfully ignore the wishes of the landowner

[The Mechanic]

I would suggest that these short sections, even though on a Sustrans route, are in order to eliminate conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. For a short , up to 50m, section, I don't see and issue. It does not mean the route is unusable IMV. To say that one has never seen pedestrians use a particular alley means nothing unless a proper survey has been carried out. Consider a short walk good for the other muscle groups.

[RickH]

One problem is that if it is done because the passage is narrow, getting off and pushing makes you about 50% wider, possibly more if the bike has panniers on. If you ride slowly and just stop astride the bike if need be when someone comes the other way then they can usually get past more easily.

Rick.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I would suggest that these short sections, even though on a Sustrans route, are in order to eliminate conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. For a short , up to 50m, section, I don't see and issue. It does not mean the route is unusable IMV. To say that one has never seen pedestrians use a particular alley means nothing unless a proper survey has been carried out. Consider a short walk good for the other muscle groups.

Well, up to a point.

The only sane route from our local railway station to the centre of town is half a mile long, but includes one such pedestrian-only path and then a short one-way street where there's no contraflow. In both cases I think it's fair to say that the restriction is because the landowner/highway authority are very risk-averse, rather than it actually being likely to cause a genuine problem.

But it's a significant disincentive to cycling to/from the station, especially on a dismal wet day when your nice car with its nice stereo and nice heating and nice ability to get up the hill is sitting in the driveway saying "you know you want to". I cycle it (or walk) in all weathers, but hundreds don't.

(And no, I haven't given up on getting the two bans overturned...)

[stork]

Even if they have used the wrong sign, it's obvious they meant 'no cycling'. It all depends who put the sign up but I'd need a good reason to wilfully ignore the wishes of the landowner

For example, if the person who put the sign up was a certain Jeremy Clarkson, and the passageway belonged to him?

'No cycling' signage on 'passageways' (whatever they might be) is generally pointless. It might be a knee-jerk reaction to 'problem' cycling, but the problem is that those who are prepared to ride dangerously and selfishly will do so whether or not there is a sign in place.

Get the engineering right (sight-lines, surfaces, street furniture and various other cues), and prohibition/signage is unnecessary.

[Bicycler]

Even if they have used the wrong sign, it's obvious they meant 'no cycling'. It all depends who put the sign up but I'd need a good reason to wilfully ignore the wishes of the landowner

For example, if the person who put the sign up was a certain Jeremy Clarkson, and the passageway belonged to him?

His land, his rules. The exception would be if it was a right of way for cycles.

Truth be told I can't believe that this is a huge inconvenience for many cyclists. There's much more to be gained by trying to get councils to remove prohibitions and "cyclists dismount" signs and to introduce cycle contraflows and agree new permissive access routes than from encouraging intentional trespass on a few narrow passageways.

BTW, I agree that restrictions are unnecessary in most cases but I'll add the caveat that a lot of narrow urban passages are very old and there is likely to be little scope for engineering improvements to increase their suitability for cycling

[thirdcrank]

It's possible that a "no cycling" sign might be put up by anybody without any authority. OTOH, it's probably wrong to assume that the great majority are not kosher. As I posted above, the usual legal authority is a byelaw. Many of these go back decades, and will originally have had local authority signs of the "NO CYCLING, By Order. A Oddbod, Town Clerk" or whatever.

Afaik, the extension of the fixed penalty (AKA ticket) system only applies to the Highways Act offence, ie cycling on a footway (pavement alongside a road.) That doesn't prevent enforcement by summons. I could imagine circumstances where somebody created enough fuss about cycling in one of these ginnels to generate a police response. I fancy that's what happened here:

viewtopic.php?p=493543#p493543

In that case, tickets were issued for the wrong offence and eventually withdrawn, to great glee. Lessons may have been learnt.

[dasy2k1]

wouldnt that be 5 grey lines through it and the red ring changed to grey to indicate the end of a no cycling zone

but given that there is a signed cycle route there it cant be too hard to get those signs changed to the blue shared use path ones that would be appropriate in this case

[prando]

The 'passageway" that prompted me to open this thread is in Main St Shenstone. I was there today. There is a no cycling sign...the correct one...no diagonal line...I must have dreamt that bit

Well, as I dismounted to walk through, a family ( looked like Mum, Dad and junior) following did similarly. Sadly a lone cyclist cycled past all of us as we walked along.

I was tempted to say something as he overtook me, but hey.

[binka]

There's a shared use Sustrans path near me with a blue sign that says "cyclists dismount" for a bridge.

I must admit I don't dismount. I ride slowly and considerately. If I see a pedestrian on the bridge I wait till they cross before I do. Today I was already on the bridge when some pedestrians got on at the opposite end. I just went really slowly as I passed them. To be honest the bridge isn't wide enough for me to be at the side of my bike pushing it and be able to pass someone.

I did get a telling g off from a 6yo kid once.

[mjr]

White on blue rectangular signs are for information only.

Norfolk is full of them. I don't dismount for them else I'd never get anywhere in sensible time. I'd be dismounting for every pinch point, road crossing and bridge!

[thirdcrank]

White on blue signs are for information only. ...!

I think it would be more accurate to say that CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs are advisory. (Many white on blue signs are mandatory in themselves, or give mandatory information.)

[mjr]

I think it would be more accurate to say that CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs are advisory. (Many white on blue signs are mandatory in themselves, or give mandatory information.)

I've edited my post because it's white-on-blue rectangles that are information (this is what it says in http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg ... 070644.pdf ) White-on-blue circles are indeed mostly mandatory instructions.

I don't see CYCLISTS DISMOUNT as useful advice. It has been over-used in too many places like narrows where dismounting would be more disruptive than proceeding slowly and giving way if necessary (because someone walking beside a bike is wider than someone riding a bike). In the words of DfT Local Transport Note 2/08 "the sign should only be used in relatively rare situations where it would be unsafe or impracticable for a cyclist to continue riding."

[thirdcrank]

... I don't see CYCLISTS DISMOUNT as useful advice. ...

Neither do I, and if I've ever inadvertently given the impression that I do, I'll go and sit on the naughty step forever and ever.

On the matter of rectangular blue and white signs, I chose my words carefully. I don't know if they have bus lanes in your neck of the woods, but if they do, check the shape and colour of the signs. They are certainly mandatory round here, and the council has put up CCTV to automate the enforcement process. Another rectangular blue and white sign is often to be seen on one-way streets. The mandatory signs are the "No entry" and compulsory direction signs for traffic joining at junctions and the rectangular "One way street"ones are only informative, usually to traffic going in the "right" direction but manouevre to go contraflow without disobeying a mandatory sign and in the admittedly unlikely event of enforcement, you will soon find out what I mean by "giving mandatory information."