[Closed] 'Cyclists dismount' sign on a shared use cycle path...

Does the work being done narrow the available space for peds/cyclists or put any additional obstructions (apart from the sign!) in the way like scaffolding poles etc?

In terms of it being a building site, the wooden roof, bolards etc are there to stop you and others getting hurt.

I'd Just get off and push, wait infill the building work is done then get back on with riding through it.

If it wasn't a building site and didn't have a genuine reason why you should dismount i would ignore it.

Sign has probably been put there because of cyclists with no common sense, or consideration riding like twonks on the path and upsetting pedestrians.
I know there are people like you and me who could use the restricted path sensibly, but there are always those idiots around who ruin it for us.

Does the work being done narrow the available space for peds/cyclists or put any additional obstructions (apart from the sign!) in the way like scaffolding poles etc?

Before the sign and associated cones, there were no obstructions.

Again, before the sign, the overall width was slightly narrowed by the structure supports itself (so perhaps 15cm on a wide path). There was no issue before the sign appeared. Incidentally, I have no issue with the tunnel being there, it's clearly important.

Oh and by slowly, I mean walking pace.

by in large cyclist dismount signs are advisory. the one you cant ignore is a bike with a red O round it. thats has a Traffic Regulation Order to back it up.

best thing is just to be considerate!

"Cyclists Dismount" signs are not the same as "No Cycling" signs and are purely to offer advice to riders, not all of whom will be as competent or thoughtful as you. Given all the hazards you mention it may be sensible to get off and push, but you might make your own judgement.

"Cyclists Dismount" signs are not the same as "No Cycling" signs and are purely to offer advice to riders, not all of whom will be as competent or thoughtful as you. Given all the hazards you mention it may be sensible to get off and push, but you might make your own judgement.

Thanks for the info - I only continued to show defiance given his aggressive manner. If he had been nice I would have stopped...

Yes, I know, very juvenile...

"Cyclists Dismount" signs are not the same as "No Cycling" signs and are purely to offer advice to riders, not all of whom will be as competent or thoughtful as you. Given all the hazards you mention it may be sensible to get off and push, but you might make your own judgement

Depends on the "no cycling" sign

This ones from the highway code and you have to obey it.*
[img] [/img]

"cyclists dismount" (on a blue background) is for information, so not an order (like the "no cycling" sign). But not obeying that information can be an offence if you ignore it or do the opposite (like driving past a 'buses only' sign into a bus lane).

*assuming it's been put there by someone with the authority to enforce an actual law/rule/TRO.

Thanks for the info -

The good old 'wait for someone to agree and then pick that answer'

The worded supplementary plate "No cycling" has no place in current Traffic Signs Regs, though...

Dooooooo, the hokey-cokey[img] [/img]

The worded supplementary plate "No cycling" has no place in current Traffic Signs Regs, though...

The worded supplementary plate "No cycling" has no place in current Traffic Signs Regs, though...

A temporary restriction because of some building works? It doesn't sound like too big a deal to me.

nor does the highway signage when it's not a highway

Indeed. But we don't know the status of the path in question. Byelaws must be displayed, but it's extremely unlikely that one would have been made for this temporary situation.

But we don't know the status of the path in question

The good old 'wait for someone to agree and then pick that answer'

Not really,nobody (including yourself) have provided any other answers except that one (with slight variations). So how have I picked between the same answer over and over?

Furthermore I also said "thanks for the information". I didn't say it was the final or definitive answer did I?

nor does the highway signage when it's not a highway

Do cyclepaths not count as part of the highway? The ones round here (that make up cycle routes, not just paths in the parks you can ride on) all have blue signs at the entrances.

I guess it comes down to, someone has done a risk assessment that includes words to the effect of "Bob the builder is carrying a ladder across the cyclepath and can't see it's clear due to the length of the ladder and the temporary tunnel." And mitigated that risk by "cyclist to dismount and walk through tunnel so Bob and the cyclist can both see it's clear atthe speed they're going". So if you hit Bob, or his ladder you're bringing a whole load of grief upon yourself. Otherwise someone would have to prove you were committing some offence by cycling dangerously and ignoring the signs, even if the sign has no legal basis it could still be argued you weren't cycling appropriately for the conditions? The main factor there is it's not likely to happen (being prosecuted that is, Bob walking out with a ladder and startling cyclist probably happens often enough to warrant a sign, IANAL, but do work in H&S).

Not really,nobody (including yourself) have provided any other answers except that one (with slight variations). So how have I picked between the same answer over and over?

Indeed. But we don't know the status of the path in question. Byelaws must be displayed, but it's extremely unlikely that one would have been made for this temporary situation.

I don't know what the status of the path is. It's just an ordinary pavement beside a road with a cycle signs on it and painted on the ground.

Thanks for the inputs.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking people to condone or otherwise my behaviour, just the status of such signs.

Cyclists Dismount

Yes and then take up twice the width on an already narrow pavement. (rider standing alongside bike).

I had that years ago on a pavement, some fat bloke pushing a buggy (think of the children!!) demanded that I get off and walk. So I got off and then he found he couldn't get his fat body past the now double width rider plus bike.

I ignore all those advisory signs. As an aside, you never see a Cyclists Remount sign do you...?

I only continued to show defiance given his aggressive manner. If he had been nice I would have stopped.

Not having a pop, because I'd probably have done the same, but he might have thought you'd already been asked nicely by the signs and decided to ignore them, so escalation was warranted.

Yeah these are only advisory, and can be pretty strange - for instance a bridge that's pretty wide with nice high railings at each side with "Cyclists Dismount" signs. My 5 year old cycled across it without issue on her 2nd time solo with pedals, so I'm not really sure what the perceived reason to dismount is for this section.

I can see for some places these are there are hazards that many experienced cyclists or people on MTBs will be able to ride over no bother, but a novice on skinny tyres might fall on, which is fair enough as it's only advisory, but some are just plain odd.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

nor does the highway signage when it's not a highway

Do cyclepaths not count as part of the highway? The ones round here (that make up cycle routes, not just paths in the parks you can ride on) all have blue signs at the entrances

I guess it comes down to, someone has done a risk assessment that includes words to the effect of "Bob the builder is carrying a ladder across the cyclepath and can't see it's clear due to the length of the ladder and the temporary tunnel." And [b]mitigated that risk[/b] by "cyclist to dismount and walk through tunnel so Bob and the cyclist can both see it's clear [b]atthe speed they're going[/b]". So if you hit Bob, or his ladder you're bringing a whole load of grief upon yourself. Otherwise someone would have to prove you were committing some offence by cycling dangerously and ignoring the signs, even if the sign has no legal basis it could still be argued you weren't cycling appropriately for the conditions? (IANAL, but do work in H&S).

- Putting a sign up with the expectation that the general public will follow it is not a realistic mitigation. Even if 95% of the cyclists comply that only leads Bob to have an increased and misplaced feeling of safety when he encounters the 1:20 who don't or won't comply. IF he has authority to obstruct the highway, he'd have been better putting up a "chicane" that forced the cyclist to dismount. Better, given Bob is presumably not crossing the path constantly 24/7 would be to have the equivalent of a banksman for his "long carry". Alternatively perhaps when he is actually engaged in such a manoeuvre there should be barriers to stop not just cyclists, but toddlers, dogs and other hazards running into him.

- If the objective was to slow the cyclist then the sign is wrong. A dismounted cyclist can still run quite quickly (as can joggers, toddlers and dogs!) but a mounted cyclist can ride at walking pace if that was the risk that was being mitigated.

- Finally, if the tunnel had introduced this hazard, I'd suggest that the tunnel is the problem - whilst it might exist to mitigate other risks it should perhaps have windows, or other features to avoid it introducing new hazards.

Personally I'd be looking for the cycling friendly person in the council to ask why the obstruction has been "permitted".

There are Cyclists Dismount signs in strange places around here.

One I can think of is on a shared use path on the roundabout over a motorway. The signs are as you cross the slip roads and it's certainly safer to cycle across than push across as the traffic free flows off the motorway and they go at some speed.

Sorry,thought Simon was the OP as he was answering like he was.

No problem 🙂

[quote=larrydavid ]I tend to ignore these as a lazy - you would never have a 'drivers get out and push sign'.

Personally that's always my attitude (IMHO the correct translation of such a sign is "I can't do my job properly"), unless there was a really good reason for it. I've yet to come across an example of a really good reason. It's just another example of the shit attitude in this country towards cycling infrastructure and cycling in general.

My disdain for such signs is closely matched by my disdain for developers thinking they can tell the public what to do on public land outside their site, and that they're then absolved of taking responsibility for their activities introducing hazards.

The supplementary sign was on the photo of a path(?) in a park

For an added frisson of hypothetical exitement, here's one where you can't even see if it's on a road, the pavement or a muddy field!
[img] [/img]

I'd agree with most of that except the bits I highlighted in bold... Since you are in H&S I assume you will be looking for ways to improve rather than box tick so you might find these thoughts useful?

I agree it's not great (if that is the case, I'm just hypothesizing), but it explains the thought process behind the sign.

And even if the sign is 'wrong', it was more the inevitable legal battle that'd be a PITA than who was actually at fault (it'd be a civil case so your home insurance Vs the site to see who paid Bob's sick pay). The HSE may take a dim view of it as well but that would be the sites problem not yours (but you're still going to be dragged to the hearing).

I'd ride past the sign, heeding the implied message to take care and if challenged "don't be a dick" (and walk the next day).

A temporary restriction because of some building works? It doesn't sound like too big a deal to me.

your 100% right of course. But this is STW Lol.

Not having a pop, because I'd probably have done the same, but he might have thought you'd already been asked nicely by the signs and decided to ignore them, so escalation was warranted.

I know I probably descended to the rank of 'dickhead' and it probably wasn't my finest 30 seconds, but honestly I couldn't help myself. I have no idea why people seem to think being rude and aggressive is likely to make people listen to them (maybe it does for some people).

I know I probably descended to the rank of 'dickhead' and it probably wasn't my finest 30 seconds, but honestly I couldn't help myself. I have no idea why people seem to think being rude and aggressive is likely to make people listen to them (maybe it does for some people).

Presumably it was 'rush hour', maybe he'd been given the thankless task of enforcing the sign (or being 'banksman'), and you were 'slightly dickish cyclist number 101' that pushed him over the edge.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]And even if the sign is 'wrong', it was more the inevitable legal battle that'd be a PITA than who was actually at fault (it'd be a civil case so your home insurance Vs the site to see who paid Bob's sick pay). The HSE may take a dim view of it as well but that would be the sites problem not yours (but you're still going to be dragged to the hearing).

Bollocks to that. If the OP was riding on the site then fair enough, but he wasn't because members of the public rightly aren't allowed onto building sites. Therefore he was riding in a public space which the developers/contractors have no power or authority over. I'd put money on them not having legal authority for the sign and it being the typical attempt to stop the public doing what they're legally entitled to so that they don't have to bother doing things properly when they enter the public domain. Sure if he caused an accident by behaving irresponsibly that's a problem, but that would be a problem whether or not there is a building site there.

Since you are in H&S I assume you will be looking for ways to improve rather than box tick so you might find these thoughts useful?

You would also know not to direct the traffic on the highway without a TRO as it's none of your business what happens on the highway. That way civil suits and large fines lay. You modify the workforce behaviour to fit in with the public not the other way round.

You would also know not to direct the traffic on the highway without a TRO as it's none of your business what happens on the highway. That way civil suits and large fines lay. You modify the workforce behaviour to fit in with the public not the other way round.

Maybe there is a TRO

Maybe it's shonky H&S

Maybe......
[img] [/img]

And if it's aliens, do you really want to risk a probeing for ignoring the sign?

thisisnotaspoon - Member
it's a [s](poorly selected for the related highway code comment)[/s] stock photo from google images

Presumably it was 'rush hour', maybe he'd been given the thankless task of enforcing the sign (or being 'banksman'), and you were 'slightly dickish cyclist number 101' that pushed him over the edge.

Maybe. But my sympathy and empathy tank runs low for people who take out their frustrations (however legitimate, but not directly about me) on me.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]Maybe there is a TRO

If they have a TRO why would they use a sign which isn't legally enforceable?

Hold on a minute - the OP wasn't asking about "No cycling" signs or TROs, simply something like this:
[img] [/img] (OK, please try to ignore what appears to be a public park beyond the sign and consider a sign like that in the scenario described by the OP)

There won't be any orders behind those, and I'm 100% sure that these are advisory only.

I find it useful that the No Cycling sign has a textual description beneath.

I often mistake the red circle to mean do this
[img] [/img]

old on a minute - the OP wasn't asking about "No cycling" signs or TROs, simply something like this:

Yes, same one

There are a couple of Cyclists Dismount signs on my local loop bookending a short stretch of windy path beside a river. I ignore them if it's clear (and manoeuvre through the weird gate thing) or slow up for walkers and ride through when it's clear again. THere's also an 'Unsuitable for cyclists' sign that i also ignore as the path is approx 4ft wide with rivers either side. It's more than suitable 😀 When it's busy most folk i meet along this path are courteous and friendly but last week one older chappie (with dog off a lead) muttered as i slowed to pass "and that's why cycling is banned on this path'. I almost bit but replied ...if you can't be happy on a glorious day like this, then there's no hope for you... and cycled off. Of course i made the sounds you make when calling a dog over and his pooch followed me up the path a few hundred yards (with him chasing/calling after it). Grumpy cock!

My general rule is, if it's at a road crossing I'll ride, if there is no-one walking on a shared path behind one of these signs, I'll ride (slowly)and if it's busy, I'll generally walk (except on Sunday when I rode and paid the price).

I like this sign:
[img] [/img]

The same sign but without the red stripe means "no cycling", adding the red stripe means it's banning something, so it means "no no cycling", or "cycling mandatory".

[quote=tenfoot ]My general rule is, if it's at a road crossing I'll ride, if there is no-one walking on a shared path behind one of these signs, I'll ride (slowly)and if it's busy, I'll generally walk (except on Sunday when I rode and paid the price).

Walking is illogical though, when the alternative is to ride at walking pace (which is an acceptable alternative for me when it is busy). Nobody gains from you being twice the width by walking your bike.

Walking is illogical though, when the alternative is to ride at walking pace (which is an acceptable alternative for me when it is busy). Nobody gains from you being twice the width by walking your bike.

Same reason I drive at 60 past schools. If I'm only there half the time there's 50% less chance of a kid running out infront of me. 50% less traffic on the road too.

[img] [/img]

Thanks for that completely irrelevant analogy

Maybe you could explain what the advantage is of pushing a bike at walking pace compared to riding a bike at walking pace?

I'm surprised the OP saw one at all. I thought our local council (Stafford BC) had bought them all.

And we have a bridge with a cyclepath identical to the one philjunior is describing here too.

Maybe you could explain what the advantage is of pushing a bike at walking pace compared to riding a bike at walking pace?

Control, remember your talking about the general public on £100 bikes, not the average uberskilled forum whore.

My general rule is, if it's at a road crossing I'll ride, if there is no-one walking on a shared path behind one of these signs, I'll ride (slowly)and if it's busy, I'll generally walk (except on Sunday when I rode and paid the price).

+1

I do believe the signs should say "please" and "during peak times/busy periods"

[quote=Singlespeed_Shep ]Control, remember your talking about the general public on £100 bikes, not the average uberskilled forum whore.

We were talking about tenfoot, and then about me (and by extension everybody else on here) - I don't suppose the people you're referring to will ever read my comments. It's not even particularly difficult to ride a bike at walking pace.

Agree, I would just ride at walking pace.

We were talking about tenfoot, and then about me (and by extension everybody else on here) - I don't suppose the people you're referring to will ever read my comments. It's not even particularly difficult to ride a bike at walking pace.

Are we not into people with skillz and good cars not having to comply with speed limits territory here? Digital 'rules' are easier to explain and enforce. Society must walk at the pace of the slowest member of the community and all that.

There is a definite angst in this counrty about people cycling 'where they shouldn't'. I was walking along a path which has a non-legally enforceable no cycling sign (long story). Bloke was cyling ahead of me at walking pace behind other pedestrians. BSO but under perfect control. Sure enough some old codger mouths off about no cycling to him. You think think to yourself why? As aracer says he is going at the same speed as everyone else, he's under perfect control & he is taking up less space than if he pushes. What exactly is the problem? FWIW I don't cycle where I shouldn't so the issue doesn't affect me personally, it just seems that people get upset at the very thought that the rules aren't beimg followed.

[quote=convert ]Are we not into people with skillz and good cars not having to comply with speed limits territory here? Digital 'rules' are easier to explain and enforce. Society must walk at the pace of the slowest member of the community and all that.

tinas already tried (and failed with) that analogy.

We're discussing whether or not to obey a sign which isn't obligatory when not obeying it causes nobody any harm. As suggested by the OP, when we have signs telling drivers to get out of their cars I'll take these signs more seriously.

larrydavid - Member
Anyway, these signs... what is there status? Should they be ignored?

Create a Strava segment for it, shout "coming through" and ignore to your heart's content ...

We're discussing whether or not to obey a sign which isn't obligatory when not obeying it causes nobody any harm. As suggested by the OP, when we have signs telling drivers to get out of their cars I'll take these signs more seriously.

Sigh.

OK. I'll go with should those of us with skillz and who generally go about looking like cyclists not set an example and not ride through, even a walking pace, because to the knuckle draggers, the unskilled and kids it sets an example of it's ok to do so when they are not armed with the sophistication to understand why it was ok for us to do it and what we did to make it ok?

I'm a complete hypocrite btw as I frequently ignore such signs and ride respectfully slowly where I should not ride at all. In fact I'm off into town in a minute on a route with 200m of footpath. Bite me.

The underpasses near Bitterne precinct have those blue "cyclist dismount" signs at both ends, all that is required is riding at a speed and a manner depending upon who else is using the underpass at the time i.e. if there are pedestrians, pootle along and either ring your bell or turn the volume knob on your freewheel to 11 so they are aware you are there.

Northam Bridge had a fairly major bit of maintenance done to it in the last few years, where the contractors managed to lay fresh tarmac over a vast majority of the blue shared pavement signs embedded on the surface. It's been a shared use pavement for years, at least 10+.
Yet since this balls up by the contractors, I've had one twonk almost walk into me while busy on his mobile and another twonk tell me he is sick of cyclists riding on pavements where they should not be (both while I was riding with due care and attention for the situation in hand). I had to put them both straight and tell them it is an official shared path and that is the reason the path on both sides is in excess of 2m.

If only the blue shared path signs could be made visible again, I could then tell other twonks that the signs are not warning them of bikes falling from the sky, or beware of bikes above while walking along the river bed... 😉

In the OP's situation, I'd certainly go-slow while riding upon seeing that advisory sign the first time, in case there is a hazard on the shared path. Unless things appeared to change, I'd then only go-slow on future rides if there were other users on the shared path, while being ready to brake.

[quote=convert ]OK. I'll go with should those of us with skillz and who generally go about looking like cyclists not set an example and not ride through, even a walking pace, because to the knuckle draggers, the unskilled and kids it sets an example of it's ok to do so when they are not armed with the sophistication to understand why it was ok for us to do it and what we did to make it ok?

No - because the signs are still stupid, and the only possible analogy with driving cars is that drivers aren't expected to do anything optional which would inconvenience them, however much it would improve the life of other road users. I already set an example by not riding like a twonk.

OK. I'll go with should those of us with skillz and who generally go about looking like cyclists not set an example and not ride through, even a walking pace, because to the knuckle draggers, the unskilled and kids it sets an example of it's ok to do so when they are not armed with the sophistication to understand why it was ok for us to do it and what we did to make it ok?

I'd go with no, cos as above, my 5yo on her second ride could negotiate one of such "hazards" without bother. And she'd be scared enough by anything she couldn't ride to get off and push.

[i]Hold on a minute[/i]

Yeah, cos there weren't enough pictures on page 1! 😆

Presumably not of the specific sign the OP saw. Not that it really makes much difference as neither are legally enforceable, but I find it interesting if that is exactly what the OP saw that it's different to the normal blue fixed sign - I'm tempted to argue even less important to obey as it's got no official status at all, presumably just put out by the developers and possibly not even legal to put out.

[i]it's got no official status at all, presumably just put out by the developers and possibly not even legal to put out. [/i]

But who, at the Council, does one complain to? If it's one of those gert big, road works kind-of signs?

You don't, you just ignore it. Simples.

I saw a great sign when I was out earlier, a red circled [i][b]'20'[/b][/i] limit sign and an additional rectangular [i]"SUGGESTED SPEED LIMIT"[/i] below, it took me a moment or two to process what the sign was actually saying.

Of course for the average tin boxer they'll just see the number and maybe slow to ~25ish. The intent and the detail of the message are often subtly different...

Self negating signage is the absolute best...

Basically unless there's a European directive, act of parliament, statutory instrument, code of practice and enforcing authority stood there with their warrant card having prenotified in the local rag 6 weeks in advance. **** it and **** anyone that gets in your way. Cos, singletrack.

Aracer, generally I agree with your logic, which is why I came a cropper on Sunday, as I was too far over to one side, fixated on people walking the other way and didn't notice a tree stump, which I hit with my bars.

There is a bridge section I walk across if it's busy, that is so narrow, I have to wheel the bike across on it's back wheel and push from behind, to get the bars up over the height of the bridge parapet. In this case it would be very difficult to pass people coming the other way if I wheeled the bike in the traditional manner, and if I chose to ride it.

To clarify, it was a red temporary works type sign, as at the top of page 2 in this thread, which read 'cyclists dismount'.

Exciting update: It was all gone when I rode there this evening. Rode through with impunity.