Cyclists Dismount sign, not sure why?

[Frood42]

Hi All,

I have some roadworks in my local area, and due to the nature of these the cycle lane is not available for use, which is no skin off my nose as it was of little use anyway.

What does have me confused is why they have put up "Cyclists Dismount" signs on both sides of the road, so the side where the road works are and the side where there are no road works (which means the cycle lane is free and available on one side).

As I mentioned earlier, I ain't bothered about the cycle lane disappearing as it just makes the road the same as any other road I ride on, and the fact that the road narrows I cannot really see being an issue, so I am really scratching my head as to why they have used these particular signs...

Wouldn't "Cycle Lane Closed" or "Road Narrows Avoid Overtaking Cyclists" signs have been better?

Any ideas?
My guess is just another silly dinosaur road planner who cannot see beyond moving cars along as speedily as possible (and cannot imagine someone on a bike doing more than 10mph and holding up "legitimate" traffic)... <sarcasm> You know, we must take the strain of driving carefully around others off those poor stressed out motorists... </sarcasm>

Or do they think all cyclists are going to bunny hop onto the pavement..?

On this road I can easily do 18-22mph, and due to the narrow cycle lanes I hardly use those facilities, especially if I am going a decent speed, as they would take me too close to the kerb and other debris (like leaves and puncture inducing stuff)...

I would understand if this was on a completely closed road or a shared space area with pedestrians around, but it isn't, it's on the road (which as an operator of a vehicle I am allowed to use)...

To be honest I find it slightly insulting that the road signs they have used are seemingly singling out cyclists, or perhaps I am being too sensitive about it.. or just too literal..?

I have asked the council to help clear up any confusion by explaining their decision processes on these particular roadworks to find out why this has been done, I hope I actually get a response...

It's roughly here:
http://goo.gl/maps/7Qcrc

My hands were rather chilly this morning, so the picture is not all that stable
.

I found this leaflet
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tal-15-99/tal-15-99.pdf

Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open. In such cases a white-on-red temporary sign "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT AND USE FOOTWAY" may be used. Under Regulation 41 of the "Transport Signs Regulations And General Directions 1994" this can be done without special authorisation if the sign is not used for longer than 6 months.

Also saw this blog where they put up Cyclists Dismount signs at road works:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/car-sick-highway-engineers.html

Anyway, I have had my rant now
.

 

[Archie_tect]

Frood, If you're shaking that much it's probably a good idea to get off and walk.... that's a timely sign.

 

[helston90]

I always saw it as the land owner shirking some responsibility if you did decide to ride and had an accident- i.e. raised ironworks etc. I have one near my commute over a bridge.
IIRC they're non enforcable however don't expect much by way of apology if things go wrong.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

As someone else said,it's to cover their ar535.The council or whoever.AFAIK.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

Yeah but whose arse? If a person choses, perfectly reasonably, to ride down that road and is hit by a motorist of any description, is that driver's insurance company going to be able to point to the sign and argue that the cyclist's damages should be reduced?

Well I suppose someone would sue the council or whoever if the worse did happen.So get off and milk it.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

Where does the council come into that scenario?

Ok if we want to be picky.lets say the contractors/roadworkers or whoever.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

Between cyclist and driver's insurance company.

Yeah,that's if the motorists stops.Im still sort of quoting what someone told me once.Obviously I don't know the full story over these signs but I don't think im far wrong.Or perhaps I am.Who knows?

 

[Frood42]

Frood, If you're shaking that much it's probably a good idea to get off and walk.... that's a timely sign.

?

Are you suggesting I am getting a little overwrought about nought?

I'm going to have a before I forget to explode in outrage
.

 

[gaz]

I can't remember where it was. Either in Clapham or in Putney. It said something like " Cyclists take full lane. Motorists don't overtake cyclists"

 

[Frood42]

Ok if we want to be picky.lets say the contractors/roadworkers or whoever.

The council will be responsible for the third party they brought in to do the work (AFAIK).
The council should have approved them to do these works.
I consider the council to have not performed their job correctly in this scenario.

If a motorist hit me I would not be surprised if their insurance attempted to use that sign to lessen the damages I could claim.
Which in my mind (wrongly or rightly) makes the actions of the council negligent towards me as a road user.
.

 

[Frood42]

I can't remember where it was. Either in Clapham or in Putney. It said something like " Cyclists take full lane. Motorists don't overtake cyclists"

In Stratford during the CS2 extension work they had "Narrow Lanes Avoid Overtaking Cyclists" signs (yellow background, black writing, and black border).
.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

In Stratford during the CS2 extension work they had "Narrow Lanes Avoid Overtaking Cyclists" signs (yellow background, black writing, and black border).
.

Yes I remember that one.

 

[sidevalve]

Having worked on the roads believe me there are some REALLY STUPID people out there. There really are cyclists who would simply try to ride through the roadworks, especially if there was a traffic hold up just to save a few seconds. Most of us have enough brain cells to simply ride round the problem but not all. Stupidity is, sad to say, not confined to car drivers.

 

[mcshroom]

But the drivers are not being instructed to get out and push, so why are the scyclists being told to do so? Does a person's IQ raise as they get behind the wheel?

 

[Shut Up Legs]

But the drivers are not being instructed to get out and push, so why are the scyclists being told to do so? Does a person's IQ raise as they get behind the wheel?

It's simple, really: the drivers far outnumber the cyclists, and the drivers all vote, therefore nobody wants to offend the drivers.