Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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

http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cy...-not-here-here

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

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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-cy...-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)

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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-cy...-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

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

"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-cy...-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 :-(

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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-cy...-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

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

"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-cy...-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.

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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-cy...-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.

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

In article ,
says...

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

http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cy...-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.

Cycle lane no cycling sign.
 

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-cy...-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 ...


--