Cycling compulsory?

[Mike Causer]

What does this sign mean?
http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg

"No cycling" looks like this:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm

and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
cycling is compulsory.


Location: the river waterfront in Ely, Cambs.


Mike

[Keith Willoughby]

Mike Causer > writes:

> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
> cycling is compulsory.
>
> Location: the river waterfront in Ely, Cambs.

Doesn't surprise me, mind. There's a stretch of the Taff Trail in
Cardiff that splits up into two for a hundred yards or so. One of the
branches is no cycling, and has a sign saying that. Pretty much every
cyclist I've seen has taken that branch, because they think the sign
means 'bikes this way'. I guess in the Ely case, someone decided that
desired results were more important than the correct methods.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
They are laughing at me, not with me

[MartinM]

Mike Causer wrote:
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
> cycling is compulsory.

actually accordong to the HC the red circle with a diagonal bar isn't
universal; for example red circle with bike in = no cycling, whereas
red circle with diagonal line and left turn = no left turn. And the
Ghostbusters logo?

[Peter]

"Mike Causer" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>

Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it?
peter

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:40:24 +0000, Peter wrote:

> "Mike Causer" > wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
>> What does this sign mean?
>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg

> Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it? peter

Yes, there are lots like it along the waterfront. The red of the circle
and of the stripe are very clearly different.


Mike

[Tunk]

Mike Causer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:40:24 +0000, Peter wrote:
>
>> "Mike Causer" > wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
>>> What does this sign mean?
>>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
>> Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it? peter
>
> Yes, there are lots like it along the waterfront. The red of the circle
> and of the stripe are very clearly different.
>
>
> Mike
>
According to link there are no variants of this sign permitted.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311398.gif


Does the tape therefore render this sign unlawful?

[Tunk]

Tunk wrote:
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:40:24 +0000, Peter wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Causer" > wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
>>>> What does this sign mean?
>>>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>>
>>> Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it? peter
>>
>> Yes, there are lots like it along the waterfront. The red of the circle
>> and of the stripe are very clearly different.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
> According to link there are no variants of this sign permitted.
>
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311398.gif
>
>
> Does the tape therefore render this sign unlawful?

Oops, sorry, I've only just received the first few posts.

[Dave L]

> Doesn't surprise me, mind. There's a stretch of the Taff Trail in
> Cardiff that splits up into two for a hundred yards or so. One of the
> branches is no cycling, and has a sign saying that. Pretty much every
> cyclist I've seen has taken that branch, because they think the sign
> means 'bikes this way'. I guess in the Ely case, someone decided that
> desired results were more important than the correct methods.
>
Is that the bit opp the old bakery?

Dave

[Keith Willoughby]

Dave L > writes:

>> Doesn't surprise me, mind. There's a stretch of the Taff Trail in
>> Cardiff that splits up into two for a hundred yards or so. One of the
>> branches is no cycling, and has a sign saying that. Pretty much every
>> cyclist I've seen has taken that branch, because they think the sign
>> means 'bikes this way'. I guess in the Ely case, someone decided that
>> desired results were more important than the correct methods.
>>
> Is that the bit opp the old bakery?

Not sure about the bakery - it's by the Taff Meade Embankment.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cardiff,+wales&ie=UTF8&ll=51.474266,-3.182715&spn=0.001024,0.003358&t=h&om=1


--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Far be it from thee to do such a thing,
to slay the righteous with the wicked"

[Dave L]

Keith Willoughby > wrote in
:

> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=cardiff,+wales&ie=UTF8&ll=51.47
> 4266,-3.182715&spn=0.001024,0.003358&t=h&om=1

Yip that's the spot.
I think there's a stretch on the otherside of Penarth Rd towards the Bay.
The old bakery is where they are currently building the flats.

Dave

[cyclist2]

Mike Causer Wrote:
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means
> that
> cycling is compulsory.
>
>
> Location: the river waterfront in Ely, Cambs.
>
>
> Mikethe first sign shown looks like red tape has been put accross the bike
because the rest of the sign looks painted, is that right?


--
cyclist2

[[email protected]]

Mike Causer wrote:
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
> cycling is compulsory.
>
>
Surely it would mean end of no-cycling restriction.

Tim.

[Peter]

"Mike Causer" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.15.22.05.11.313454@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:40:24 +0000, Peter wrote:
>
>> "Mike Causer" > wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
>>> What does this sign mean?
>>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
>> Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it? peter
>
> Yes, there are lots like it along the waterfront. The red of the circle
> and of the stripe are very clearly different.
>
>
>

Do you have a local govt cycling officer you can ask?

It's looks so amateur that it's either (1) the council or (2) mischief
makers*...

(* occasionally one and the same).

peter

[Tom]

MartinM > wrote:
>
>accordong to the HC the red circle with a diagonal bar isn't
> universal; for example red circle with bike in = no cycling, whereas
> red circle with diagonal line and left turn = no left turn. And the
> Ghostbusters logo?

It means "I ain't afraid of no ghost" © Ray Parker Jr

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://toomanybikes.com/address.jpg

[Phil Cook]

wrote:

>Mike Causer wrote:
>> What does this sign mean?
>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>>
>> "No cycling" looks like this:
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>>
>> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
>> cycling is compulsory.
>>
>>
>Surely it would mean end of no-cycling restriction.

It's a bodged job trying to mean no cycling. Of course the official
sign is a cycle in a red circle like other prohibition signs.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm

An end of no cycling sign would be a rectangular sign with the no
cycling sign in grey crossed by diagonal black lines similar to the
end of no parking zone sign here.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign175.htm
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

[Mr R@t \(2.30zi\)]

Tunk wrote:
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:40:24 +0000, Peter wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Causer" > wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
>>>> What does this sign mean?
>>>> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>>
>>> Is it not just a sign with a bit of red tape stuck on it? peter
>>
>> Yes, there are lots like it along the waterfront. The red of the
>> circle and of the stripe are very clearly different.
>>
>> Mike


> According to link there are no variants of this sign permitted.
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311398.gif
>
> Does the tape therefore render this sign unlawful?

No, but *putting* the tape on there without authority probably is..

it could be the council thinking (albeit outside proper policies and that
Vienna convention on traffic signs) to make the sign look more like a safety
sign as found in labs etc - OTOH it could be a "concerned local" taking
matters into their own hands.


Alex
--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

[Paul Boyd]

And talking of signs, what does this one mean?
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm

Next question, what does the very similar one but with a bicycle above
the parent/child pedestrian mean? (Similar to
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign077.htm but without the "Only" and
peds instead of the bus, and not the segregated path one.) This one
isn't shown on the Highway Code website, but I pass a couple on my commute.

Now what's the difference between the two?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Alex]

Paul Boyd wrote:

> And talking of signs, what does this one mean?
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm

Pedal cycles only. No pedestrians.

> Next question, what does the very similar one but with a bicycle above
> the parent/child pedestrian mean? (Similar to
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign077.htm but without the "Only" and
> peds instead of the bus, and not the segregated path one.) This one
> isn't shown on the Highway Code website, but I pass a couple on my commute.

Mixed use path (Pedestrians and Cycles).

And, more importantly...

Pedestrians have priority.

> Now what's the difference between the two?

Should be obvious now...

Ta,

-Alex

[wafflycat]

"Paul Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> And talking of signs, what does this one mean?
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
>

route to be used by pedal cycles only



> Next question, what does the very similar one but with a bicycle above the
> parent/child pedestrian mean? (Similar to
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign077.htm but without the "Only" and peds
> instead of the bus, and not the segregated path one.) This one isn't
> shown on the Highway Code website, but I pass a couple on my commute.
>

From your description, sounds like route to be used by pedal cycles &
pedestrians only.
Do you mean like the one shown here?
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/July2001.htm


Cheers, helen s




> Now what's the difference between the two?
>
> --
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Paul Boyd]

On 16/08/2006 17:28, Alex said,

> Pedal cycles only. No pedestrians.

Hmmm....

> Should be obvious now...

I should have mentioned that this is a loaded question :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Paul Boyd]

On 16/08/2006 17:34, wafflycat said,

>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
> route to be used by pedal cycles only

Yes, that's what I understood. Just trying to get a general consensus
here....

....before I moan at the council for allowing pedestrians to use a narrow
overgrown cycle-only path which for once is actually very useful.
Trouble is I'm scuppered already because of the number of cyclists who
use the pavement on the opposite side of the road :-(

> Do you mean like the one shown here?
> http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/July2001.htm

That's the one, and I've got a shared use bus stop by me as well!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[David Martin]

Alex wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> > And talking of signs, what does this one mean?
> > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
>
> Pedal cycles only. No pedestrians.

Wrong. No vehicles except bicycles. It does not exclude pedestrians.
>
> > Next question, what does the very similar one but with a bicycle above
> > the parent/child pedestrian mean? (Similar to
> > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign077.htm but without the "Only" and
> > peds instead of the bus, and not the segregated path one.) This one
> > isn't shown on the Highway Code website, but I pass a couple on my commute.
>
Shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists.

The two are effectively synonymous but the first is typically used for
a road where there is alternative pedestrian accommodation, the second
where the accommodation is shared.


> Mixed use path (Pedestrians and Cycles).
>
> And, more importantly...
>
> Pedestrians have priority.
>
> > Now what's the difference between the two?
>
> Should be obvious now...
>
...d

[David Martin]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 16/08/2006 17:34, wafflycat said,
>
> >> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
> > route to be used by pedal cycles only
>
> Yes, that's what I understood. Just trying to get a general consensus
> here....
>
> ...before I moan at the council for allowing pedestrians to use a narrow
> overgrown cycle-only path which for once is actually very useful.
> Trouble is I'm scuppered already because of the number of cyclists who
> use the pavement on the opposite side of the road :-(
>
AIUI pedestrians have a right to use every highway in UK. There are
patches of road which are not highway (motorways, some tunnels and
bridges) which pedestrians do not have a right to use.
Basically anything on land that is a public right of way (rather than
permissive use[1]) is accessible to pedestrians. In the same way that
pedestrians can legally walk in a bus lane.

...d

[1] such as the Docks cycle path in Dundee which is permissive use,
upon obtaining a permit to traverse said path. You may not walk on the
path. What a tandem passenger who gets left behind is supposd to do, I
do not know.

..

[david lloyd]

"Mike Causer" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.15.20.53.22.497382@firstnamelastn ame.com.invalid...
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
> cycling is compulsory.
>
It means some joker has been out with a roll of red insulation tape.

--
Dave Lloyd
So open minded, my brains dribbled out.

[Paul Boyd]

On 16/08/2006 20:08, David Martin said,

> Wrong. No vehicles except bicycles. It does not exclude pedestrians.

Here we go!

> The two are effectively synonymous but the first is typically used for
> a road where there is alternative pedestrian accommodation, the second
> where the accommodation is shared.

The particular application I have in mind has a pavement on side of the
road, and a lane marked by the sign indicating "Cycles only" on the
other side. At one end, it has an additional sign saying "and mopeds."

On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
etc....". The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
heading that says "positive instruction". There is nothing stated to
exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
well. The very first rule, no 1, says to pedestrians "Pavements or
footpaths should be used if provided." The cycle lane is neither, and
there is a pavement available.

This path isn't a pavement that has been turned into a cyclepath, it was
originally part of the road surface which had a pavement on one side
only, and the cyclepath was created on the other side at road level when
the road was made one-way. It has been separated from the road by
double sloping kerbstones placed back-to-back, and the cyclepath surface
was at one time painted red, although this has mostly been worn off.

So, why should a pedestrian be allowed to use a purpose-built cyclepath
that is clearly marked "Route to be used by pedal cycles only",
particularly as the path can also be used by mopeds in one direction?
Mopeds and pedestrians on a path maybe a metre wide, and less as it goes
over a railway bridge, are hardly a good combination, never mind bikes
and pedestrians in this restricted space.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Paul Boyd > wrote:
>
> On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
> etc....". The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
> heading that says "positive instruction". There is nothing stated to
> exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
> well.

Not necessarily. The highway code is horribly shoddy about such
things. It even says as much in a footnote on the signs pages. What
do the traffic signs regulations say?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Paul
Boyd ') wrote:

> On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
> etc....". Â*The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
> heading that says "positive instruction". Â*There is nothing stated to
> exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
> well. Â*The very first rule, no 1, says to pedestrians "Pavements or
> footpaths should be used if provided." Â*The cycle lane is neither, and
> there is a pavement available.

Nevertheless, the highways in Britain (as a whole, all jurisdictions) are
all (except, as someone else pointed out, Motorways) legally
speaking /primarily/ for pedestrians, and all other modes of transport
are secondary and must give way to them. So this is just another of
those points at which the Highway Code contradicts the law.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.