Cycle lane no cycling sign.

[Simon Mason]

Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed - it's a
pavement.

http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[JMS]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed - it's a
>pavement.
>
>http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here



Yes - but cyclists don't realise that pavements are for pedestrians -
hence the signs.


"These signs are intended to stop cycling on the footpath, not in the
cycle lane but we accept this could be made clearer."


Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.


--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

JMS wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> > wrote:
>
> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> > it's a pavement.
> >
> > http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>
>
>
> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
> pedestrians - hence the signs.

Corrected .. ;)

> Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.

You're absolutely right ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[mileburner]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> JMS wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
>> > it's a pavement.
>> >
>> > http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
>> pedestrians - hence the signs.
>
> Corrected .. ;)
>
>> Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>
> You're absolutely right ...

I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is "shared use"
or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which footpaths it is
prohibited on.

It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I think my
view is that of the minority on that one :-(

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:

>
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JMS wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> > wrote:
> > >
> >>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> >>> it's a pavement.
> > > >
> >>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
> > > pedestrians - hence the signs.
> >
> > Corrected .. ;)
> >
> > > Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
> >
> > You're absolutely right ...
>
> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
> "shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which
> footpaths it is prohibited on.

They do mostly make it very clear. Pavement cycling is prohibited
unless otherwise signed.

> It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I
> think my view is that of the minority on that one :-(

See above .. ;)


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[mileburner]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> mileburner wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > JMS wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> >>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
>> >>> it's a pavement.
>> > > >
>> >>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
>> > > pedestrians - hence the signs.
>> >
>> > Corrected .. ;)
>> >
>> > > Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>> >
>> > You're absolutely right ...
>>
>> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
>> "shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which
>> footpaths it is prohibited on.
>
> They do mostly make it very clear. Pavement cycling is prohibited
> unless otherwise signed.

Prohibited? Perhaps in law but no one seems to be bothered about it.

Not even the police.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mileburner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JMS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
>>>>>> it's a pavement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
>>>>> pedestrians - hence the signs.
>>>>
>>>> Corrected .. ;)
>>>>
>>>>> Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>>>>
>>>> You're absolutely right ...
>>>
>>> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
>>> "shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which
>>> footpaths it is prohibited on.
>>
>> They do mostly make it very clear. Pavement cycling is prohibited
>> unless otherwise signed.
>
> Prohibited? Perhaps in law but no one seems to be bothered about it.
>
> Not even the police.

Might be about to change - and quite rightly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8319630.stm

"The government should do more to target "irresponsible behaviour" by
cyclists - particularly when they break traffic laws, a committee of MPs has
said".


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

The Medway Handyman wrote:
> mileburner wrote:

>> Prohibited? Perhaps in law but no one seems to be bothered about it.
>>
>> Not even the police.
>
> Might be about to change - and quite rightly.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8319630.stm

Wake up! That was another year, another Government. In any case as it says:

"In its response to the committee, the department said enforcing cycling
offences "was typically not high on the agenda of most police forces due
to competing demands on their time".

It also pointed out anti-social cyclists represent only a small number
of total cyclists."

>
> "The government should do more to target "irresponsible behaviour" by
> cyclists - particularly when they break traffic laws, a committee of MPs has
> said".
>

"But he said it was wrong to assume that all cyclists were dangerous.

"There are, without doubt, some elements of the cycling community who
are in that position and there are equally, I imagine, rather more
people who are far more dangerous drivers as well," he said."


Tony

[Nuxx Bar[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed - it's a
> pavement.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here

So would you, Simon Mason, Guardian of the Law (that's The Law no matter
what, and sod common sense), cycle there or not? Would cycling there be
as bad as shoplifting? If not, why not?

Personally, I think that road (not to mention 99% of other urban roads
these days) would better serve *everyone* if the politically correct
clutter that infests it weren't there in the first place. But that
wouldn't appease those whose number one aim is to **** off car drivers,
and never mind how it impacts on anyone else, including "legitimate"
road users like cyclists.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:

>
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mileburner wrote:
> >
> > >
> >>"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> JMS wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>>>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> >>>>> it's a pavement.
> >>> > >
> >>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
> >>> > pedestrians - hence the signs.
> > > >
> >>> Corrected .. ;)
> > > >
> >>> > Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
> > > >
> >>> You're absolutely right ...
> > >
> > > I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
> > > "shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear
> > > which footpaths it is prohibited on.
> >
> > They do mostly make it very clear. Pavement cycling is prohibited
> > unless otherwise signed.
>
> Prohibited? Perhaps in law but no one seems to be bothered about it.
>
> Not even the police.

And? It's prohibited, but if the police aren't bothered whose fault is
that? Certainly not the cyclists ...


--

[Doug[_3_]]

On 27 Oct, 19:48, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > JMS wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> >> > it's a pavement.
>
> >> >http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>
> >> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
> >> pedestrians - hence the signs.
>
> > Corrected .. ;)
>
> >> Of *course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>
> > You're absolutely right ...
>
> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is "shared use"
> or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which footpaths it is
> prohibited on.
>
> It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I think my
> view is that of the minority on that one :-(
>
No I agree as long as the same is applied to motorists and their use
of pavements.

I would also like to see the removal of pavement clutter, particularly
that which benefits drivers, like road signs, traffic lights, etc.
They should instead be placed on abutments to the pavement, which
inevitably leads to some road narrowing but would make life easier for
pedestrians.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
Feed people not cars.

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On 28 Oct, 00:36, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed - it's a
> > pavement.
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>
> So would you, Simon Mason, Guardian of the Law (that's The Law no matter
> what, and sod common sense), cycle there or not? *Would cycling there be
> as bad as shoplifting? *If not, why not?
>
> Personally, I think that road (not to mention 99% of other urban roads
> these days) would better serve *everyone* if the politically correct
> clutter that infests it weren't there in the first place. *But that
> wouldn't appease those whose number one aim is to **** off car drivers,
> and never mind how it impacts on anyone else, including "legitimate"
> road users like cyclists.

Yes I would and do cycle on roads like that. This is a road I use
every day.

http://www.yourlocalweb.co.uk/images/pictures/23/84/a-boothferry-road-235479.jpg

Many of these roads were previously dual carriageways, but drivers
*never* used the inside lane at all. They kept in the overtaking lane
all of the time on the off chance that there was a parked car a mile
up the road. Because these lanes were unused, many were converted to
cycle lanes and bus lanes as it was nonsense to waste all of that road
space on drivers who were not using it. Give it to a group of vehicles
who *will* use it.
--
Simon Mason

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 27 Oct, 19:48, "mileburner" > wrote:
> > "Paul - xxx" > wrote in
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > JMS wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> > >> > wrote:
> >
> > >> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> > >> > it's a pavement.
> >
> > >> >http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
> >
> > >> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
> > >> pedestrians - hence the signs.
> >
> > > Corrected .. ;)
> >
> > >> Of *course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
> >
> > > You're absolutely right ...
> >
> > I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
> > "shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear
> > which footpaths it is prohibited on.
> >
> > It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I
> > think my view is that of the minority on that one :-(
> >
> No I agree as long as the same is applied to motorists and their use
> of pavements.

Driving and cycling already are banned on pavements, unless otherwise
indicated.

> I would also like to see the removal of pavement clutter, particularly
> that which benefits drivers, like road signs, traffic lights, etc.
> They should instead be placed on abutments to the pavement, which
> inevitably leads to some road narrowing but would make life easier for
> pedestrians.

Jeez, I agree with this .... !!!!!!!


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Nuxx Bar wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
> > it's a pavement.
> >
> > http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>
> So would you, Simon Mason, Guardian of the Law (that's The Law no
> matter what, and sod common sense), cycle there or not? Would
> cycling there be as bad as shoplifting? If not, why not?

Dunno about Simon though I'd expect a similar answer from him .. but
I'd cycle on the designated cycle section of the road in that instance
and certainly wouldn't cycle on the pavement anyway.

> Personally, I think that road (not to mention 99% of other urban
> roads these days) would better serve everyone if the politically
> correct clutter that infests it weren't there in the first place.
> But that wouldn't appease those whose number one aim is to **** off
> car drivers, and never mind how it impacts on anyone else, including
> "legitimate" road users like cyclists.

I'd guess there are many cyclists, drivers and pedestrians who'd love
to see the thousands of signs removed. There are so many it can
sometimes be quite daunting deciding what's 'correct' fast enough not
to slow down. Removal of the clutter would ease a lot of congestion
and actually speed up many journey times, I reckon.

I also think that necessary signs for the road should be placed on or
above the road space, not on the pavements, and signs for the pavement
should be kept on or above the pavement that they apply to.


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/10/2010 07:59, Doug wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 19:48, > wrote:
>> "Paul - > wrote in ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> JMS wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
>>>>> it's a pavement.
>>
>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>>
>>>> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
>>>> pedestrians - hence the signs.
>>
>>> Corrected .. ;)
>>
>>>> Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>>
>>> You're absolutely right ...
>>
>> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is "shared use"
>> or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which footpaths it is
>> prohibited on.
>>
>> It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I think my
>> view is that of the minority on that one :-(
>>
> No I agree as long as the same is applied to motorists and their use
> of pavements.
>
> I would also like to see the removal of pavement clutter, particularly
> that which benefits drivers, like road signs, traffic lights, etc.
> They should instead be placed on abutments to the pavement, which
> inevitably leads to some road narrowing but would make life easier for
> pedestrians.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> Feed people not cars.


Do you remember this answer to a vary similar post you made a while ago?
It still applies.

"While waiting for the bus tonight I looked at the various bits of
street furniture
Lamposts, we don't need them let every body walk/cycle/drive in the dark.
BT Cabinet don't need that lets get rid of phones etc
Bus stop, well we can do without that, get rid of buses, everybody can
cycle instead
Bus shelter, if there are no buses we don't need a bus shelter.
Post box, let everybody walk to the post office then we can get rid of
those nasty red boxes.
Litter bins, just throw it on the floor.
Seats/benches, let the old/infirm walk.
Cycle racks, well if there are no buses etc the shops will close, so
there will be no use for bikes, so no cycle racks. "


--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 19:48, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> JMS wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
>>>>> it's a pavement.
>>
>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here
>>
>>>> Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
>>>> pedestrians - hence the signs.
>>
>>> Corrected .. ;)
>>
>>>> Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.
>>
>>> You're absolutely right ...
>>
>> I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
>> "shared use"
>> or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which footpaths it
>> is
>> prohibited on.
>>
>> It would be better to ban cycling on pavements altogether, but I
>> think my
>> view is that of the minority on that one :-(
>>
> No I agree as long as the same is applied to motorists and their use
> of pavements.

Motorists rarely drive on pavements SFB's.

> I would also like to see the removal of pavement clutter, particularly
> that which benefits drivers, like road signs, traffic lights, etc.

Thus leading to more accidents & more cyclists killed. Good idea.

> They should instead be placed on abutments to the pavement, which
> inevitably leads to some road narrowing but would make life easier for
> pedestrians.

Do you ever hear pedestrians complaining about pavement clutter? No. Just
whinging ****s like you.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.