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/

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)

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

"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 :-(

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

"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.

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-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 :-(

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.

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-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 :-(

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

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-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 :-(

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

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-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 :-(

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.