Does any one know more about this sign?

[ufkacbln]

Local council will have a definitive map that will show up to date and correct use of this path

Check and act upon this

 

[classic33]

As @winjim said before me, the SINC is incorrect. It comes close to the wording of a real site. Which is why I believe it to be fake. Also why the contact details of those who check the sites were given.
At present there aree only four such sites in the Cardiff area. Contact the people who oversee the scheme, and report it to them. Also the PROW officer at the local council.

 

[Cycleops]

The sign has no validity and no authority. I don't think you need to do anything, no checking, no emailing, no nothing. Just keep riding!

 

[CopperCyclist]

Either way, personally I'd presume that sign was advisory, as it's more blue than red, and not 'by order' of a local council.

I'd also likely point out to walkers that actually walking can cause more damage than cycling, as footprints hold rainwater creating muddy slush, whereas a cycle track is continuous and as such can provide it's own natural drainage!

 

[Drago]

If were being picky, the sign is only banning riderless flying Dutch bicycles.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

I'd also likely point out to walkers that actually walking can cause more damage than cycling, as footprints hold rainwater creating muddy slush, whereas a cycle track is continuous and as such can provide it's own natural drainage!

And on the other side of the coin, wheel ruts can increase the speed of water run off on slopes, causing greater erosion than foot traffic. Everything we do has an effect

 

[Cycleops]

And on the other side of the coin, wheel ruts can increase the speed of water run off on slopes, causing greater erosion than foot traffic. Everything we do has an effect

Maybe we should all just stay in front of the tele.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I could be miles off here, but I thought the thing by the side of a road is a footway, and these are the ones it can be an offence to ride on, whereas the track in the OP is a footpath which you can generally ride on, but risk a claim being made against you for any damage you can be proven to have caused?

 

[BigonaBianchi]

ignore it...it's probably just put there by some pompous arse who hates cyclists as a matter of course....or is there an obvious safty hazard there??

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

There's no Public Right of Way shown on the OS map. Assuming that's correct, which it usually is, the owner of the land (Cardiff Council, by the look of it) can impose whatever access conditions they like. It looks like they've chosen not to permit cycling.

That said, if you've been cycling on it without obstruction for 20 years, you might be able to make an application to have it registered as a right of way that permits cycling (e.g. bridleway, restricted byway). But that's pretty complex and potentially expensive.

 

[Gravity Aided]

Harkens me back to this weekend, when someone had taken a crayon and written on the side of a cardboard box "No Parking, This side of Street". Then he was out yelling at yard sale goers at his neighbors' house-"Can't you see the sign?". I got there, he was saying this to a lady and her kids, and she told him-"Can't you read the local ordinances? You can't enforce such traffic rules without authority!" Good on her.

 

[Deleted member 23692]

That said, if you've been cycling on it without obstruction for 20 years, you might be able to make an application to have it registered as a right of way that permits cycling (e.g. bridleway, restricted byway). But that's pretty complex and potentially expensive.

You can't claim a bridleway in the absence of historic equine usage. Historic sage by cycle only result in the claiming of a restricted byway, which would automatically give any non-mechanically propelled vehicle a right to use it. It's a dumb oversight in recent legislation that can create far more problems that it ever attempts to solve. Added to that, if the landowner has made a Section 31(6) declaration with the local highway authority, then you ain't gonna be able to make a claim.

SINC sites aren't much more than a colour on a planning map - essentially it'd be be the last place you'd planning permission for. They offer no direct legal protection in the same way as an SSSI, SAC, LNR, NNR etc. But they do give somewhere for charitable organisations to attempt to manage. I used to manage a SINC for the local council a few years, and eventually got it declared as a local nature reserve, and multiple green flag winner - it's protected now .

And without knowing the type(s) of cycling activity that's taking place on the land, it's difficult to say if the sign might be justified or a 'pompous action'. If the level of cycling is just passing and re-passing on well defined established lines, then it'd be difficult to justify the sign/ban as there will be far less damage and disturbance than that caused by someone walking their dog off lead twice a day. However if 'cycling' means cutting down trees and digging holes, jump, berms etc and destroying/disturbing sensitive ground flora/fauna then trying to stop that sort of deleterious activity might be well justified. I suspect the true picture might lie somewhere in the middle, and it's far easier to tar everyone with the same brush

 

[Deleted member 23692]

Coincidentally this topic popped up at work today, and here's something for your amusement/bemusement.

The standard sign for use on highways (inc PROWs) to indicate that cycling is prohibited is this...

note the absense of a diagonal bar

So by adding a diagonal bar the sign can be taken to mean 'end of cycling prohibition'. The diagonal bar only appears on standard highway signage where a change of direction is prohibited - no U-turn, no left turn etc. Now this sign might not be on a PRoW, but if it was installed by a council then they should now better than use non-standard signs.

I'll leave the OP to argue that one out

 

[subaqua]

Coincidentally this topic popped up at work today, and here's something for your amusement/bemusement.

The standard sign for use on highways (inc PROWs) to indicate that cycling is prohibited is this...

note the absense of a diagonal bar

So by adding a diagonal bar the sign can be taken to mean 'end of cycling prohibition'. The diagonal bar only appears on standard highway signage where a change of direction is prohibited - no U-turn, no left turn etc. Now this sign might not be on a PRoW, but if it was installed by a council then they should now better than use non-standard signs.

I'll leave the OP to argue that one out

Not quite true . the adding of a diagonal bar to this sign ( sign 951) would not be a recognised sign based on guidance in chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual. the use of the rectangular plate under with the words end may be suitable but there is no direct refernce to this in chapter 3.

reading chapter 3 does not show any guidance for marking the end of the no cycling restriction and it seems that there is no provision as the guidance for the rectangular plate End ( diagram 645) seems to apply only to the end of direction turns. it could be argued and I would imagine succesfully , that plate 645 could/should be used at the end of all restrictions/prohibitions, but this would also mean a plate at the start denoting how long ( in Miles) the restriction was for.

confused. you will be.

 

[Ticktockmy]

Looking at the picture, it looks like it is on the wall of what looks like a block of flats, which I guess is not on the Highway, and as the sign indicates it is put in place by the council, thus the council can use any use any sign it wants, Signs as regulated by the Highways act do not have any authority on private land, unless a right of way runs over the private or council owned land then signs as regulated by the Highways act should be used.