Cycling UK Forum

Shouldn't we all dismount and WALK through these short alleyways ?

Shouldn't all those passageways be made rideable?

More seriously, there are some where I'd walk anyway, but there are at least three in King's Lynn which seem to be no cycling for no good reason and block useful cycle routes. I do still walk on them but I won't blame anyone for riding. Banning cycling on safe routes like those also cheapens the no cycling sign, making it less likely to be obeyed or enforced when it should be.

Finally, isn't cycling on a passageway merely civil trespass or something, not a traffic offence?

Define 'passageways'. I initially took this to mean underpasses. There's only one in Lynn and I wouldn't ride down it anyway. It's got little metal railings at the bottom to 'remind' anyone crazy enough to do so that it isn't a good idea (without the rails though it would be OK )

If you're referring to alleyways between houses it depends on how narrow they are and what the visibility's like. I use one (Checker Street to Friars Street) most days which is about 1.5 metres wide and give way to any pedestrians. It's probably not technically legal to ride down it but there's nothing to say so. OTOH, there's one from Gayton Road onto the Reffley Estate that is only just over a metre wide, has very tight blind bends and is very iffy on a bike. I certainly wouldn't ride down it. It's marked as a shared cycle/pedestrian route though!

I'll try to get some pictures tomorrow!

We've been over this more than once with thread-to-needle links.

Cycling on a footpath alongside a road is generally an offence ie subject to prosecution. (In the lingo, footpath in this context = footway and road = carriageway.)
Cycling on a footpath across land may be a trespass (A civil matter between the trespasser and the occupier of the land.)
Cycling on alleyways, passages, ginnels, whatever you like to call them may be made the subject of a byelaw by the relevant local authority and "no cycling" signs are required so people know cycling has been banned there.

.

And then there are those cases where one sign prohibits cycling ... and another sign indicates a cycle route:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... er2013.htm

apologies for the ambiguity ! I was referring to the various passageways marked with the 'no cycling' sign, as per the one shown in a post above, but with the prohibitive red diagonal line running across.

There is one in Main St Shenstone. It is about 30 - 40 yards, and often having dismounted and walking through, I am overtaken (albeit slowly) by other cyclists. To be fair, there have never been any pedestrians using it.

I guess I'm just disappointed that such action doesn't enhance our reputation

prando, if there are no pedestrians, I wonder why that one is "no cycling" then. Anyway, if no-one is around, it's not hurting our reputation much either, then, although I reject this idea that I share my reputation with other people. In a similar way, I don't hold my mother responsible for the way tit Clarkson drives.

Pete, there's far too many contadictory route and ban signs and they're part of why I'd prefer CTC to use its signposting powers to mark rider-approved routes, instead of Sustrans negotiating with local councils. King's Lynn is currently home to what I'm told is the longest "No Cycling" zone on the North Sea Cycle Route around http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.7 ... 6&layers=C but those streets are a bit busy to ride along during the day, so it's bad routing (the route should use South Quay/King Street/Market Lane/Norfolk Street) rather than a petty ban.

gaz, we've tons of those signs and many others, often disagreeing with the TROs.

Rob, what about the southern bypass underpass?

prando wrote:apologies for the ambiguity ! I was referring to the various passageways marked with the 'no cycling' sign, as per the one shown in a post above, but with the prohibitive red diagonal line running across.

There is one in Main St Shenstone. It is about 30 - 40 yards, and often having dismounted and walking through, I am overtaken (albeit slowly) by other cyclists. To be fair, there have never been any pedestrians using it.

I guess I'm just disappointed that such action doesn't enhance our reputation

If it has a " prohibitive red diagonal line running across" then it is not the prescribed sign and cycling there is not proscribed , because they are failing to display the sign required
A sign "as per the one shown in a post above, but with the prohibitive red diagonal line running across" would mean 'No No cycling' = Cycling is Compulsory.

I would imagine a non-conformant sign such as a bicycle crossed out would just mean the sign effectively does not exist, so the legal situation would revert to whatever it would be if the sign was not present.

I think I need to recheck the sign next time I'm there, as to whether there is in fact a red diagonal line ? maybe I dreamt that bit of it Something to do with my age as "she who must be obeyed" reminds me

.

prando wrote:apologies for the ambiguity ! I was referring to the various passageways marked with the 'no cycling' sign, as per the one shown in a post above, but with the prohibitive red diagonal line running across.

There is one in Main St Shenstone. It is about 30 - 40 yards, and often having dismounted and walking through, I am overtaken (albeit slowly) by other cyclists. To be fair, there have never been any pedestrians using it.

I guess I'm just disappointed that such action doesn't enhance our reputation

If it's the one that I'm thinking of, I've met peds and prams on it. I do get off and walk it....much to the annoyance of some club-mates.

Any such restriction can be revoked at the say-so of the highway authority, of course. If you can make a case for "cycling should be permitted along here because it'll help kids get from <residential area> to <school> without being killed", then do contact your local highway authority with it - usually the County Council. If you can get local cycling organisations (CTC/Sustrans/whoever) behind it, even better. And if you can get the local town/parish council to be supportive, better still.

Pete Owens wrote:And then there are those cases where one sign prohibits cycling ... and another sign indicates a cycle route:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... er2013.htm

That sign doesn't actually mean no cycling - it isn't an official sign & if it did have any valid meaning in the UK it means "end of no cycling" as it is a prohibition sign with a cancelling red line through it.

Rick.