More Farcilities

[Paul George]

Note the clear view of left-turning traffic at the end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KTCy8FSZQ


Happily cycling along the A41 with a nice tailwind.
Is that a cycle facility I see on the opposite side of
a dual carriageway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9hZYKJudXA

I would really like to ask the designer exactly what
they expected cyclists to do when they got to the
end. The blue sigh says 'cycleway ends'.
Cross 5 lanes of traffic and go straight ahead from
a left-turn only lane perhaps?


And just round the corner to the right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak67qfRWZg

[TerryJ]

and here is a cracker, Haldon forest near exeter.
I couldn't understand it at first , but apparently it's a real cycle
facility, which can make your journey safer along the A38.
When he discovered this state of the art cycle lane he had his 4year
old daughter on the back.I hope she was wearing a h...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2t1qae6TnI

TerryJ

[Simon Proven]

On Jun 3, 1:52 pm, TerryJ > wrote:
> and here is a cracker, Haldon forest near exeter.
> I couldn't understand it at first , but apparently it's a real cycle
> facility, which can make your journey safer along the A38.
> When he discovered this state of the art cycle lane he had his 4year
> old daughter on the back.I hope she was wearing a h...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2t1qae6TnI
>
> TerryJ

Any idea why he chose to ride the wrong way up the side of a dual
carriageway?

[fred2]

"Simon Proven" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 3, 1:52 pm, TerryJ > wrote:
>> and here is a cracker, Haldon forest near exeter.
>> I couldn't understand it at first , but apparently it's a real cycle
>> facility, which can make your journey safer along the A38.
>> When he discovered this state of the art cycle lane he had his 4year
>> old daughter on the back.I hope she was wearing a h...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2t1qae6TnI
>>
>> TerryJ
>
> Any idea why he chose to ride the wrong way up the side of a dual
> carriageway?
>
We've got one of those, you got no option but to face the traffic. A cliff
on one side and fast traffic on the other. The route is between Conway and
Penmaenmawr - it is terrifying!
Even our Chief Constable (dare I mention his name? Clue: starts with a B.
and is listed on no.10 petitions! ) cycled it with his son once and promised
to get something done about it , according to his Blog site - but that was
some time ago - and nothing has happened.
Fred

[Paul George]

On 3 Jun, 16:53, Simon Proven > wrote:
>
> Any idea why he chose to ride the wrong way up the side of a dual
> carriageway?

I got the impression that if you take the cycleway signs out of
Haldon forest literally you are instructed to do exactly that.
Having said that it is fairly obvious it was never intended
to be a contra-flow lane.
Anyone know if there is a parallel path on the opposite
carriageway?

[Simon Brooke]

in message om>, TerryJ
') wrote:

> and here is a cracker, Haldon forest near exeter.
> I couldn't understand it at first , but apparently it's a real cycle
> facility, which can make your journey safer along the A38.
> When he discovered this state of the art cycle lane he had his 4year
> old daughter on the back.I hope she was wearing a h...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2t1qae6TnI

That is /terrifying/!

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

;; my other religion is Emacs

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

"fred2" > wrote in message
...
> We've got one of those, you got no option but to face the traffic. A cliff
> on one side and fast traffic on the other. The route is between Conway and
> Penmaenmawr - it is terrifying!
> Even our Chief Constable (dare I mention his name? Clue: starts with a B.
> and is listed on no.10 petitions! ) cycled it with his son once and
> promised to get something done about it , according to his Blog site - but
> that was some time ago - and nothing has happened.

Do you mean the bit between Conwy and the tunnels where there's no crash
barrier between you and the road? I've never had a problem with that bit
and there is a wide shoulder between the cycle path and the inside lane.
Due to the narrowness, the problem comes when you meet a cyclist coming the
other way or worse, a couple of pedestrians.
I find the bits with the barrier much better and reassuring but you have to
get out of your mind how much those things are designed to deflect when a
car hits them. Interestingly, this part always used to have signs saying
"Pedestrians and dismounted cyclists" which implied you were supposed to
walk your bike for half a mile along a national cycle route!
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

I found a good one today:
There was a signed cycle route which avoided a semi busy expressway junction
by going under the dual carriageway a bit further up. The underpass is
actually several box culverts bridging old, water filled gravel pits and the
one that the cycle lane goes through seems to be the emergency overflow as
it was under water and the pedestrian side was covered in a layer of silt
from the water.

--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[TerryJ]

> it was under water and the pedestrian side was covered in a layer of silt
> from the water.
>

Can you say where so we can lok at a map?
Terry

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

"TerryJ" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> it was under water and the pedestrian side was covered in a layer of silt
>> from the water.
>>
>
> Can you say where so we can lok at a map?

SK450294 ish. I don't know of any mapping sites using OS maps that let you
direct link to that grid reference but www.getamap.co.uk will let you type
it in.

The OS Explorer maps show it as cycle route 15 although it didn't say this
on the signs. It's a bit of a cut through from Shardlow to Castle
Donnington - not much shorter but cuts out a bit of an uphill!
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, naked_draughtsman
') wrote:

> SK450294 ish. Â*I don't know of any mapping sites using OS maps that let
> you direct link to that grid reference but www.getamap.co.uk will let you
> type it in.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newsearch.srf?type=OSGrid&name=SK450294

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

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

[TerryJ]

>
> >> it was under water and the pedestrian side was covered in a layer of silt
> >> from the water.
> on the signs. It's a bit of a cut through from Shardlow to Castle
> Donnington - not much shorter but cuts out a bit of an uphill!


I usually take the first right after the river, but this sounds like a
bit of fun for next time.

TerryJ

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

"TerryJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> >> it was under water and the pedestrian side was covered in a layer of
>> >> silt
>> >> from the water.
>> on the signs. It's a bit of a cut through from Shardlow to Castle
>> Donnington - not much shorter but cuts out a bit of an uphill!
>
>
> I usually take the first right after the river, but this sounds like a
> bit of fun for next time.

I was going to go that way but thought the cycle route might be a bit more
interesting. I wasn't disappointed!

--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[Josey]

"Simon Proven" > wrote in message
>
> Any idea why he chose to ride the wrong way up the side of a dual
> carriageway?
>
>

Exactly my thoughts. At time interval 1:06 you can see he is going onto a
path against the giveway sign. Also the path is not wide enough to be a two
way cycle lane. Maybe the issue here is the signs were wrong, but no council
could have possibly intended a cyclist to take that route, could they?

Jc.

[TerryJ]

> way cycle lane. Maybe the issue here is the signs were wrong, but no council
> could have possibly intended a cyclist to take that route, could they?
>
> Jc.

But cycling with the traffic flow would be more dangerous, not less,
since against the flow you at least have some warning of what's coming
at you.
TJ

[Simon Brooke]

in message om>, TerryJ
') wrote:

>
>> way cycle lane. Maybe the issue here is the signs were wrong, but no
>> council could have possibly intended a cyclist to take that route, could
>> they?
>
> But cycling with the traffic flow would be more dangerous, not less,
> since against the flow you at least have some warning of what's coming
> at you.

No, that's a fallacy. Cycling on a cycle lane in the direction contrary to
motorised traffic in an adjacent lane is about 300% more dangerous than
cycling in same direction. Rear-ending or a bike by a motor vehicle is,
despite Brendan's horrible experience early this week, thankfully rare.

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

[TerryJ]

> > But cycling with the traffic flow would be more dangerous, not less,

>
> No, that's a fallacy. Cycling on a cycle lane in the direction contrary to
> motorised traffic in an adjacent lane is about 300% more dangerous than
> cycling in same direction. Rear-ending or a bike by a motor vehicle is,
> despite Brendan's horrible experience early this week, thankfully rare.

I do not know what is being compared there, but in this case the rider
has to dodge out into the road on a few occasions, and much of the
time the path is far too narrow.
I would not fancy going either way, but any statistics there might be
are probably affected by the question of who , in what mental
condition, would cycle along that road as it is at all .
I am not so sure that getting rear ended on that sort of dual
carriageway is actually rare among the few cyclists who might use it.I
remember one good cyclist Needham got it on the A50 in recent years
then there was the racer in Yorkshire who the magistrate said was 'not
there to be seen'( well, they didn't see him) and Zak Carr.
Anyway, I have seen enough of that cyclepath whichever direction.

TerryJ
TerryJ

[Alistair Gunn]

I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
achieve?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[nickd]

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
...
>I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> achieve?

They were trying to spend some money, and succeeded. Presumably they need to
spend their budget to justify it etc.

--
Nickyd

[Dave Larrington]

In . uk,
nickd > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> "Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a
>> photo of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've
>> just spent quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money)
>> remodelling that junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what
>> they where trying to achieve?
>
> They were trying to spend some money, and succeeded. Presumably they
> need to spend their budget to justify it etc.

I think they've done the same thing here in Harlow. They've just resurfaced
a mile and a half or so of the shared-use path alongside the A414. Not only
is there a "Cyclists Dismount" sign at every road junction and building
entrance road, but there's one at every point where there's a dropped kerb
'twixt path and road. And one by every bus stop. Actually there's two at
all these points as the path is bi-directional.

I have not the words.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Three blind mice, see how they run. Is this /really/ the best
way to test shampoo?

[Paul Boyd]

Alistair Gunn said the following on 28/06/2007 13:25:
> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> achieve?

What they've achieved is a tick in a box that says "Cycle facilities
provided". What it needs is an independent body such as the CTC to
decide if a cycling facility has been provided!

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

[Marc Brett]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:25:31 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
> wrote:

>I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
>of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
>quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
>junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
>achieve?

What's to the right of the picture? It looks to me like a way to enter
a bike path on the right. More white paint and a bike-in-a-triangle
might have made this more clear to motorists.

Or mebbe I'm talking bollox. Again.

[Mark[_2_]]

> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> achieve?

Is there a cycle path off the right hand side of the photo? The path in
the picture could be for cyclists who want to use that, and gives them
somewhere off the road where they can wait until it's safe to cross.

[Peter Clinch]

Mark wrote:

> Is there a cycle path off the right hand side of the photo? The path in
> the picture could be for cyclists who want to use that, and gives them
> somewhere off the road where they can wait until it's safe to cross.

Looks that way to me, crossing through the gap in the red area in the
middle of the road.

You wouldn't catch me doing that, mind: much easier to just turn right
and leave a bit more prematurely than the end of the road, especially
since you must be capable of dealing with /roads/ if you're on the
farcility-free stretch prior to the junction.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[David Hansen]

On 28 Jun 2007 14:50:24 GMT someone who may be Mark
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_r eply*.com.invalid>
wrote this:-

>> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
>> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
>> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
>> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
>> achieve?
>
>Is there a cycle path off the right hand side of the photo? The path in
>the picture could be for cyclists who want to use that, and gives them
>somewhere off the road where they can wait until it's safe to cross.

Is the road builders term for this sort of thing something like "jug
handle"?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Arthur Clune]

Alistair Gunn wrote:
> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent


Where is this? Is it in the area of York City Council itself or in
North Yorks? The city council is generally better than this.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

[Alistair Gunn]

Paul Boyd twisted the electrons to say:
> Alistair Gunn said the following on 28/06/2007 13:25:
> > I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> > of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> > quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> > junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> > achieve?
> What they've achieved is a tick in a box that says "Cycle facilities
> provided". What it needs is an independent body such as the CTC to
> decide if a cycling facility has been provided!

Having discussed this with a few people in other fora, our current best
guess is that it's too enable people to turn right onto the cyclelane
that's out of shot to the right. Said cyclelane continues for a short
distance (say 20 metres) and then requires you to cross the road that's
in front of you in the shot ...

Perhaps I should've mentioned this is on a Sustrans route?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Alistair Gunn]

Arthur Clune twisted the electrons to say:
> Alistair Gunn wrote:
> > I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> > of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> Where is this? Is it in the area of York City Council itself or in
> North Yorks? The city council is generally better than this.

It's at the junction of Murton Lane and the York-Bridlington Road (A166).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Alistair Gunn
') wrote:

> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> achieve?

There is, presumably. a suicide lane along the near side of the road that
crosses the junction. The loop is to allow cyclists to turn right, before
the main junction, into the suicide lane, so that they can more
conveniently be killed.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

[Daniel Barlow]

David Hansen wrote:
> Is the road builders term for this sort of thing something like "jug
> handle"?

That's certainly one possible name for whoever came up with it, yes


-dan

[Dave Larrington]

I wrote:


> Not only is there a "Cyclists Dismount" sign at every road
> junction and building entrance road, but there's one at every point
> where there's a dropped kerb 'twixt path and road. And one by every
> bus stop. Actually there's two at all these points as the path is
> bi-directional.

I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in accordance
with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have to get off and
walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.

And motons wonder why cyclists prefer to use the roads.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.

[dkahn400]

On Jun 29, 8:13 am, "Dave Larrington" >
wrote:

> I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
> forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in accordance
> with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have to get off and
> walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.
>
> And motons wonder why cyclists prefer to use the roads.

Be interesting to time yourself through the section, once on the road
and once on the farcility, obeying all the signs. You might need to
set out half an hour earlier of course.

There's a cyclists dismount sign on a bridge beteen Hounslow and
Whitton. I timed myself at 25 seconds using the road and something
like five minutes following the footpath and remounting at the
designated point, following a service road and recrossing at a zebra.

--
Dave...

[Danny Colyer]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Be interesting to time yourself through the section, once on the road
> and once on the farcility, obeying all the signs. You might need to
> set out half an hour earlier of course.
>
> There's a cyclists dismount sign on a bridge beteen Hounslow and
> Whitton. I timed myself at 25 seconds using the road and something
> like five minutes following the footpath and remounting at the
> designated point, following a service road and recrossing at a zebra.

Riding home at the end of Bristol's Biggest Bike Ride on Sunday, there
was a section of a few hundred yards where DW and my mum chose to use
the shared-use pavement and accompanying toucan crossings while I chose
to stay on the road. We agreed to meet at Valentines Bridge.

Having reached the bridge and negotiated the barriers[1] with bike and
trailer, I then sat and waited for 3 minutes before my riding companions
came into sight.

[1] <http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farce/021118val03.jpg>

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[Adrian Godwin]

Dave Larrington > wrote:
>
> I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
> forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in accordance
> with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have to get off and
> walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.
>

I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue rectangles,
which makes them information rather than instruction or warning, right ?

So they can't be instructing cyclists to dismount, or warning other
road users that cyclists stopping to dismount might cause a hazard.
By the logic of the highway code and the limited text on the signs
themselves, they appear to be informing the world at large that
cyclists do in fact, sometimes dismount their cycles in this area
(but they don't have to and aren't a hazard).

Why this unsurprising fact needs to be mentioned twenty four times in a
mile and a half isn't immediately obvious.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Adrian Godwin wrote on 30/06/2007 09:31 +0100:
> Dave Larrington > wrote:
>> I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
>> forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in accordance
>> with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have to get off and
>> walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.
>>
>
> I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue rectangles,
> which makes them information rather than instruction or warning, right ?
>
> So they can't be instructing cyclists to dismount, or warning other
> road users that cyclists stopping to dismount might cause a hazard.
> By the logic of the highway code and the limited text on the signs
> themselves, they appear to be informing the world at large that
> cyclists do in fact, sometimes dismount their cycles in this area
> (but they don't have to and aren't a hazard).
>

Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of any
cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must dismount at
some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time by a wide
range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope is a
Catholic" and "Ducks swim"

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Marcus Red]

Danny Colyer wrote:

[re Bristol-Bath cycle path]

> to stay on the road. We agreed to meet at Valentines Bridge.
>
> Having reached the bridge and negotiated the barriers[1] with bike and
> trailer, I then sat and waited for 3 minutes before my riding companions
> came into sight.
>
> [1] <http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farce/021118val03.jpg>
>

I thought they were illegally installed and were supposed to be removed
a few years back?

A friend and I did Bath (Royal Oak, left at 7:15) to BTM (arrived 8:20)
in 1hr 05min yesterday, as our train was due to leave at 8:24. It was
half an hour late!

[Danny Colyer]

On 30/06/2007 10:17, Marcus Red wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>>[1] <http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farce/021118val03.jpg>
>
> I thought they were illegally installed and were supposed to be removed
> a few years back?

You thought right. My understanding is that planning permission for
construction of the bridge (which is privately owned) was given on the
basis that it had to form part of a cycle route. The owners then
decided they didn't want cyclists using it, so they installed the
barriers and erected signs advising cyclists to dismount. The barriers
were installed without planning permission, despite the owners having
been told by the council that planning permission would be required.
The council served an enforcement notice a couple of years ago, but have
failed to enforce it.

If it was South Gloucestershire Council I'd be fighting hard to have
them removed. As it's Bristol City Council, and as I only go that way
once or twice a year, I haven't bothered.

It's not actually on the Bath-Bristol cyclepath, but as it's on one of
the main routes from the path to the centre of Bristol I think I might
raise the issue at the next railway path users meeting, particularly
given that the meetings are chaired by Bristol's cycling officer.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

[naked_draughtsman]

> >> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> >> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> >> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> >> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> >> achieve?
>
> >Is there a cycle path off the right hand side of the photo? The path in
> >the picture could be for cyclists who want to use that, and gives them
> >somewhere off the road where they can wait until it's safe to cross.
>
> Is the road builders term for this sort of thing something like "jug
> handle"?

I don't know about a name but apparently government guidelines require
them where a cycle lane goes right off the road and cyclists would
have to turn across traffic. That was the reason Conwy county gave
after locals made a bit fuss about one and asked (via local newspaper)
how much money it cost.

pete

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
>
> I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> warning, right ?

Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
However, as it happens, there is no traffic order that can mandate
cyclists dismount, so they are informational - someone thinks that it
would be a good idea for cyclists to dismount somewhere in the
vicinity of the sign.

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

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Adrian Godwin wrote on 30/06/2007 09:31 +0100:
>> Dave Larrington > wrote:
>>> I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
>>> forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in
>>> accordance with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have
>>> to get off and walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.
>>>
>>
>> I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue rectangles,
>> which makes them information rather than instruction or warning, right ?
>>
>> So they can't be instructing cyclists to dismount, or warning other
>> road users that cyclists stopping to dismount might cause a hazard. By
>> the logic of the highway code and the limited text on the signs
>> themselves, they appear to be informing the world at large that
>> cyclists do in fact, sometimes dismount their cycles in this area (but
>> they don't have to and aren't a hazard).
>>
>
> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of any
> cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must dismount at
> some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time by a wide
> range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope is a
> Catholic" and "Ducks swim"

I was on a bus a couple of months ago, and there was a
sign up on one of the windows that said
"Break glass with hammer". [1][2]
I have to say I was very tempted to obey this safety
instruction, but decided not to.

[1] There was no other text, e.g. "In an emergency"
[2] of very similar wording.

Martin.

[David Martin]

On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
>
> > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > warning, right ?
>
> Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.

No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
round.

> However, as it happens, there is no traffic order that can mandate
> cyclists dismount, so they are informational - someone thinks that it
> would be a good idea for cyclists to dismount somewhere in the
> vicinity of the sign.

It is a mistranslation of the phrase 'warning: path designed by
idiots'

...d

[Martin Dann]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> Riding home at the end of Bristol's Biggest Bike Ride on Sunday, there
> was a section of a few hundred yards where DW and my mum chose to use
> the shared-use pavement and accompanying toucan crossings while I chose
> to stay on the road. We agreed to meet at Valentines Bridge.
>
> Having reached the bridge and negotiated the barriers[1] with bike and
> trailer, I then sat and waited for 3 minutes before my riding companions
> came into sight.
>
> [1] <http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farce/021118val03.jpg>
>

I must have cycled within a couple of hundred yards of
that bridge many hundreds of times, gone right around it
on road quite a few times, but I had to look up on google
where it was. I did not know it even existed (I may have
been told before and have forgotten).

I am going to have a look in the near future.

Martin.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > > warning, right ?
> >
> > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
>
> No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> round.

No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
and start driving in the opposite direction.

The sign indicates something that is mandatory.

If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.

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

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin > wrote:
>>
>> No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
>> round.
>
> No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> and start driving in the opposite direction.
>

The HC defines them as 'mostly positive instruction' (by which I
understand it to describe things which are permitted, but not
required, like parking). Bizarrely, the rectangular one-way sign is
the first element in a list of 'signs with blue circles'.

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

I note from that page that there's apparently a document that describe
what each sign means in detail ..

But it's just been revised and isn't available yet.

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1207776&DI=513349

I wonder if there was any consultation on the revisions ?



I suspect that one-way streets are defined not by the permission
to travel in one direction but by the prohibition to travel
in the other.

> The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>
> If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
> instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.
>

But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.


> regards, Ian SMith

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 2 Jul, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
> >
> > If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
> > instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.
> >
>
> But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.

Really?
The give way sign has a red circle?
Are you sure about that?

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

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith > wrote:

>>
>> But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.
>
> Really?
> The give way sign has a red circle?
> Are you sure about that?
>

OK, I should have said 'red borders'. I'm clearly just as geometrically
challenged as the HC people :-).

-adrian

[David Martin]

On Jul 1, 9:21 am, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin > wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > > > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > > > warning, right ?
>
> > > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
>
> > No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> > round.
>
> No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> and start driving in the opposite direction.
>
> The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>

Being a pedant, it is not an instruction. The instructions are in
round signs (see the 'ahead only' and 'turn left'.)
The square one informs you that the street contains (OK, shoud
contain) one way traffic only.

...d

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 02 Jul, David Martin > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:21 am, Ian Smith > wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin > wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> >
> > > > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > > > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
> >
> > > No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> > > round.
> >
> > No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> > a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> > see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> > and start driving in the opposite direction.
> >
> > The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>
> Being a pedant, it is not an instruction. The instructions are in
> round signs (see the 'ahead only' and 'turn left'.)
> The square one informs you that the street contains (OK, shoud
> contain) one way traffic only.

No, what I said is 100% true.

What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
- instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.

It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
what the sign indicates.

If you want to be stupidly pedantic, no sign is, of itself, mandatory.
If you put up a '30' speed limit sign, a speed limit does not suddenly
spring into being (and if you take it down, an existing one does not
cease). ALL signs are merely informing you of something, in some
cases the existence of traffic orders that mandate particular
behaviours. While these are mostly circular, they are not exclusively
so. While circular signs are mostly mandatory, they are not
exclusively so.

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

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith > wrote:
>
> No, what I said is 100% true.
>
> What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
> Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
> - instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.
>
> It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
> what the sign indicates.
>

So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?

I appreciate that local authorities sometimes put a sign up too
early or incorrectly, and an apparently valid sign has no legal force.
But ignoring that possibility, is there a definition somewhere of
which signs are truly mandatory and which are for information only ?

-adrian






> If you want to be stupidly pedantic, no sign is, of itself, mandatory.
> If you put up a '30' speed limit sign, a speed limit does not suddenly
> spring into being (and if you take it down, an existing one does not
> cease). ALL signs are merely informing you of something, in some
> cases the existence of traffic orders that mandate particular
> behaviours. While these are mostly circular, they are not exclusively
> so. While circular signs are mostly mandatory, they are not
> exclusively so.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

[Matt B]

Adrian Godwin wrote:
> Ian Smith > wrote:
>> No, what I said is 100% true.
>>
>> What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
>> Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
>> - instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.
>>
>> It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
>> what the sign indicates.
>
> So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?

According to the current Highway Code, rule 50: "You MUST obey all
traffic signs and traffic light signals."

And as it says in its introduction: "Many of the rules in the Code are
legal requirements... Such rules are identified by the use of the words
MUST/MUST NOT."

--
Matt B

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
>
> So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?
>
> I appreciate that local authorities sometimes put a sign up too
> early or incorrectly, and an apparently valid sign has no legal force.
> But ignoring that possibility, is there a definition somewhere of
> which signs are truly mandatory and which are for information only ?


You find out if the sign is up properly by reading the traffic orders.
I don't know where you find the traffic orders, but expect their
location features locked filing cabinets and "beware of the leopard"
signs.

You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf. It has lots
of pictures, the pdf is easier, if you can face the 300MB download.
Or, you can buy it - it's easier to flick through on paper.

Schedule 2 has pictures of all the legal signs, gives you a
description of what they mean, how they can be used, how they can be
varied and the regulations or directions that apply.

For example, the octagonal (non-circular) stop sign is sign 601.1.
The caption under the picture refers you to regulation 16 ("Vehicular
traffic must comply with the requirements prescribed in regulation
16"). Regulation 16 tells you that "Every vehicle shall stop before
crossing the transverse line shown in diagram blaah" etc.

The other resource is the DfT, which has a chunk of website at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/ including links to the TSRGD and
parts of the traffic signs manual (which is what tells you what the
regulations etc mean).

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

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Ian Smith
') wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
>>
> You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
> by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
> Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
> Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
> http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
> http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf.

Or, indeed,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
and
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf

respectively.

And, incidentally, it contains exactly this many instances of the
word 'dismount': zero.

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

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:40:59 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, Ian Smith
> ') wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
> >>
> > You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
> > by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
> > Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
> > Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
> > http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
> > http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf.
>
> Or, indeed,
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
> and
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf
>
> respectively.
>
> And, incidentally, it contains exactly this many instances of the
> word 'dismount': zero.

Oops. Yes, I transliterated some . into /. I blame the existing
redundancy in the URL - who came up with si/si2002/2002 as a filing
location?

Cyclists dismount is sign 966. It has no relevant regulations or
directions, so no legal basis. This has pros and cons - it means
councils can put it wherever they like, but it also means you're not
obliged to do anything by the presence of the sign.

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

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith > wrote:
>
> Cyclists dismount is sign 966. It has no relevant regulations or
> directions, so no legal basis. This has pros and cons - it means
> councils can put it wherever they like, but it also means you're not
> obliged to do anything by the presence of the sign.
>

Well, thanks for that.

I guess the only possible reaction is 'never ascribe to malice that
which can adequately be explained by incompetence'. But if I get the
chance, I'll make sure I object to the siting of such a sign on the
grounds that it's a waste of public money if not outright fraud.

-adrian

[Martin Dann]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf

I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
"Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"

It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
the wild ;-)

Martin.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 03 Jul, Martin Dann > wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf
>
> I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
> "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"
>
> It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
> the wild ;-)

But you've never seen a 667.2 "End of area where vehicles may be
parked partially on the verge or footway" either, have you? Perhaps
there's one just off Lands End, and another at Saxa Vord.

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

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Tony Raven > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of
> any cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must
> dismount at some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time
> by a wide range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope
> is a Catholic" and "Ducks swim"

Not to mention these:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005540558,00.html

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing
Supply Of History!

[Marcus Red]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> Tony Raven > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
> us:
>
>> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of
>> any cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must
>> dismount at some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time
>> by a wide range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope
>> is a Catholic" and "Ducks swim"
>
> Not to mention these:
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005540558,00.html
>

So you don't have to contamintate yourself by going rto a Sun webpage
here's the BBC's gallery (different ones though):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4470516.stm

[Adrian Godwin]

Martin Dann > wrote:

> I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
> "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"
>
> It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
> the wild ;-)
>

There's an area in Cambridge where drivers are explicitly told to park
with 2 wheels on the footway and 2 on the road. It certainly has road
markings and signage to indicate this, but I don't remember if that
particular sign is used.

-adrian

[Alistair Gunn]

Alistair Gunn twisted the electrons to say:
> I saw this wonderful creation this morning and just had to take a photo
> of it. http://www.spod.org/~allyg/farcility-0001.jpg They've just spent
> quite a bit of time (and presumably therefore, money) remodelling that
> junction and I'm at a loss to explain quite what they where trying to
> achieve?

Apparently it "is actually a novel safety feature, designed to help
cyclists". http://preview.tinyurl.com/3c5ldk
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Paul Boyd]

Alistair Gunn said the following on 05/07/2007 15:08:

> Apparently it "is actually a novel safety feature, designed to help
> cyclists". http://preview.tinyurl.com/3c5ldk

Oh yeah? I wonder if Tracey Double-Barrelled is actually a cyclist?

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