Cyclists Dismount,but why?

[Twanger]

Surely the assumption here is that since the cycle lane is closed, cyclists will have to use the pavement. Therefore, they should dismount. The sign is totally appropriate, just slightly badly positioned...it should actually stand ON the pavement for clarity.

edit

I just had a weird vision of cyclists dismounting and walking their bikes through the pinch point, holding up hordes of ravening motorists.....

 

[shippers]

I just had a weird vision of cyclists dismounting and walking their bikes through the pinch point, holding up hordes of ravening motorists.....

Ooooohhh, can we organise a couple of dozen cyclists doing that at rush hour?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Worth a quick email to the contractor and/or the utility doing the work.

The second (daylight) shot seems to show, ironically enough, infrastructure for Boris Bikes.

 

[jimboalee]

The cycle lane has a DOTTED line. This means motor vehicles can encroach into it if there are no cyclists using it.

On the other side of the coin, because it IS a DOTTED line, a cyclist can encroach onto the main carriageway when he/she sees that it is safe to do so.

Trouble is, there are cyclists out there who are inexperienced and afraid to encroach into the main carriageway around a road-working like the one in the photo.

Then it is the responsiblity of the road-working contractors to give recommendation to novice and nervous cyclists.

I see no problem with the sign.
The contractors have a H&S obligation to give advise for cyclists due to the cycle lane being closed.
The SAFEST course of action for a cyclist in this situation would be to dismount and walk their bike along the pavement and remount on the far side of the road-workings.

Any cyclist who feels confident enough to ride with the motorised traffic should ignore the sign and get on with their journey and not take the piss out of a road repair contractor for trying to safeguard the health of inexperienced and/or unconfident cyclists.

 

[thomas]

The cycle lane has a DOTTED line. This means motor vehicles can encroach into it if there are no cyclists using it.

On the other side of the coin, because it IS a DOTTED line, a cyclist can encroach onto the main carriageway when he/she sees that it is safe to do so.

Trouble is, there are cyclists out there who are inexperienced and afraid to encroach into the main carriageway around a road-working like the one in the photo.

Then it is the responsiblity of the road-working contractors to give recommendation to novice and nervous cyclists.

I see no problem with the sign.
The contractors have a H&S obligation to give advise for cyclists due to the cycle lane being closed.
The SAFEST course of action for a cyclist in this situation would be to dismount and walk their bike along the pavement and remount on the far side of the road-workings.

Any cyclist who feels confident enough to ride with the motorised traffic should ignore the sign and get on with their journey and not take the piss out of a road repair contractor for trying to safeguard the health of inexperienced and/or unconfident cyclists.

Your cycle lane thing isn't really like that. Yes cars, can encroach into it, but if it was solid it wouldn't stop cyclists from going in the main carriageway.

I'd also disagree that walking around the road works is any safer than just cycling past. If one of the contractors hit me (and it was their fault) when I was cycling past, rather than having dismounted and walked, I would not walk this sign to try and hold me partially liable.

Even though it is easier for cyclists to get off and push, we shouldn't have to unless everyone else on the road has to get out and walk too.

I can see uses for this sign, but not in the photos that hack posted. The ones I mentioned earlier in Norwich are on a crossing which, though there are cycle lanes on both sides, the crossing doesn't (legally) join them. I think they're redeveloping this little bit....and hopefully will do it well. I'm gunna assume they'll fit ped/cycle lights.

 

[jimboalee]

Your cycle lane thing isn't really like that. Yes cars, can encroach into it, but if it was solid it wouldn't stop cyclists from going in the main carriageway.

I'd also disagree that walking around the road works is any safer than just cycling past. If one of the contractors hit me (and it was their fault) when I was cycling past, rather than having dismounted and walked, I would not walk this sign to try and hold me partially liable.

Even though it is easier for cyclists to get off and push, we shouldn't have to unless everyone else on the road has to get out and walk too.

I can see uses for this sign, but not in the photos that hack posted. The ones I mentioned earlier in Norwich are on a crossing which, though there are cycle lanes on both sides, the crossing doesn't (legally) join them. I think they're redeveloping this little bit....and hopefully will do it well. I'm gunna assume they'll fit ped/cycle lights.

Granted, a solid line which denotes a cyclelane is an 'Edge marker' for motorised vehicles, similar to a bus lane.

What we are talking about here is a dotted cycle lane edge marker. Read my paragraph again and note I say "when safe to do so". I said this to imply it would be foolhardy for a cyclist to swerve out across the dotted line 'just because they can'....

Getting off and walking, IMHO, would be the safest alternative. No-one is commanding the cyclist to dismount. If you feel confident enough to ride round the roadworkings, then do so.
I am explaining the H&S reason for the sign, not INSTRUCTING you to get off and walk.

By placing the sign where they did, it dissolves the contractors from any legal action by the next of kin of a cyclist who gets crushed by an oncoming or following vehicle.

If you decide to ride past the road-workings and are hit by a motor vehicle, you could not sue the contractors for negligence.
They advised cyclists to dismount, and you didn't.

 

[ACW]

they probably didn't have a sign saying "cycle lane closed" so used the only one they had!

 

[g00se]

I can see uses for this sign, but not in the photos that hack posted. The ones I mentioned earlier in Norwich are on a crossing which, though there are cycle lanes on both sides, the crossing doesn't (legally) join them. I think they're redeveloping this little bit....and hopefully will do it well. I'm gunna assume they'll fit ped/cycle lights.

Out of interest, which crossing is that?

Also, If you cycle through the new development that was the old hospital, there is a split use path - you know, bikes on one side and peds on the other with the blue circluar sign to show which side. Well, The council messed up the signs and both signs at each end put the cyclists on the left and peds on the right...

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Ooooohhh, can we organise a couple of dozen cyclists doing that at rush hour?

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

GI said this to imply it would be foolhardy for a cyclist to swerve out across the dotted line 'just because they can'....

No-one should be "swerving" anyway.

Why do people insist (it's usually motorists arguing about cycles moving away from the kerb) on using such exaggerated language for the simple act of moving out from the kerb?

The problem with the sign IMO, as I suggested earlier, is that it reinforces the incorrect thinking along many motorists that where a bike lane exists a cyclist MUST be in it whatever the conditions, or else be subjected to a barrage of horn blowing and gesticulating at the part-segregated bit of gutter

 

[jimboalee]

No-one should be "swerving" anyway.

Why do people insist (it's usually motorists arguing about cycles moving away from the kerb) on using such exaggerated language for the simple act of moving out from the kerb?

The problem with the sign IMO, as I suggested earlier, is that it reinforces the incorrect thinking along many motorists that where a bike lane exists a cyclist MUST be in it whatever the conditions, or else be subjected to a barrage of horn blowing and gesticulating at the part-segregated bit of gutter

You'll be surprised. Some idiot cyclist will be looking elsewhere, see the blockage at the last moment and take a sidewards 'wingey'.

Let me ask you. How many cyclists ride into the rear of stationary cars? They should be watching for them.

 

[thomas]

Granted, a solid line which denotes a cyclelane is an 'Edge marker' for motorised vehicles, similar to a bus lane.

What we are talking about here is a dotted cycle lane edge marker. Read my paragraph again and note I say "when safe to do so". I said this to imply it would be foolhardy for a cyclist to swerve out across the dotted line 'just because they can'....

Getting off and walking, IMHO, would be the safest alternative. No-one is commanding the cyclist to dismount. If you feel confident enough to ride round the roadworkings, then do so.
I am explaining the H&S reason for the sign, not INSTRUCTING you to get off and walk.

By placing the sign where they did, it dissolves the contractors from any legal action by the next of kin of a cyclist who gets crushed by an oncoming or following vehicle.

I'd hate to think though that it would be considered my fault, just for cycling. Telling cyclists to get off and dismount is a sloppy thing to do. Much better to have a little diversion for cyclists, or like someone else mentioned a simple "cycle lane closed" sign.

As for swerving, I wasn't suggesting swerving around the cycle lane into the road....though the highway code does make allowances that there may be times that we are required to swerve (which is why people overtaking at a car's width is important).

There shouldn't be any reason for a car to hit a cyclist at the road works anyway (or not one the contracts would be liable for...unless they were reversing out blind or something). Even if the cyclist moved around them, without looking, their is an onus (within the highway code) on the driver to be paying attention and to anticipate that the cyclist will be doing that (not exactly a taxing request at road works).

Out of interest, which crossing is that?

At the UNI end of the avenues/bluebell road.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=...anoid=citMWrR9WSYCZ4bUS5o4kw&cbp=12,6.73,,0,9

They've taken those bloody middle railing down and looks like they won't be putting them back up.

I don't know how they're changing it exactly, but as it look in street view it was a bit of a pain. Especially first thing in the morning when there are a lot of cyclists and peds. If you look at the end of the bit, where there is the small lane up off into the UNI it looks like it is cycle path only (though there is no where for the ped path to go). I once had some stupid women yelling 'excuse me, excuse me..." at me there. Not quite sure where she expected me to jump to, but never mind

No-one should be "swerving" anyway.

Why do people insist (it's usually motorists arguing about cycles moving away from the kerb) on using such exaggerated language for the simple act of moving out from the kerb?

A mild wobble is allowed anyway. When speaking to a Police officer when reporting a bus driver a couple of years ago I said that I was in slightly too high a gear, which was why I was slow off the mark (when the bus driver squeezed past)...he mentioned some legal case where the judge said "a cyclist is allowed his wobble"....obviously, different to swerving all over the lane (which doesn't really happen).

 

[jimboalee]

Touche got it correct in post #11.

"Signs giving orders are mostly circular"
&
"Signs giving information are mostly rectangular".

The sign is rectangular, so it's an information sign.
It is not TELLING cyclists do do anything, although the wording has been taken as a sign 'giving orders' which it is not.

I think it is rather cute.

"Cycists PLEASE dismount". At least the designer has the courtesy to advise politely.
I bet he/she wasn't expecting his/her sign to get so much pisstake.

 

[thomas]

"Cycists PLEASE dismount". At least the designer has the courtesy to advise politely.
I bet he/she wasn't expecting his/her sign to get so much pisstake.

It doesn't sound like advice though, it sounds like an order.

"Cyclists May Dismount" sounds like advice, "cyclists dismount" doesn't (only one of the signs posted said please btw).

I'm not sure that these signs make the roads any safer for cyclists (or really, any more dangerous as I think most people are oblivious to signs anyway)...just a pointless waste of money.

Much better to have something like "Don't overtake cyclists through road works"

 

[marinyork]

Technically speaking it is an order in the sense that whatever it is is closed off. The same signs are there for pedestrians on long diversions. It doesn't say pedestrians go back or pedestrians stand still, the signs say pedestrians follow the diversion we've incompetently signed wrongly or just shove off and find another route. So you can still argue cyclists are treated badly.