No Cycling

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Finn

Active Member
A park near me has a path cutting through the middle of it which is a convenient cut through for peds and cyclists alike.
Recently at either end of it " NO CYCLING" has been painted on the path.
Another path that crosses it doesnt seem to have a similar sign at the junction to this path. It does have another well laid out cycle route around the side of the park.

No other signs are up ie. proper signage denoting no cycling so does anyone know the legality of the painted ones?

ps - im thinking of adding " NO PAINTED SIGNS ON THE PATH!" before the cycling one
 

ComedyPilot

Secret Lemonade Drinker
Where is this?

Local laws will dictate just how and when people can erect signage - there has to be a consultation period, to give people affected (cyclists) advance warning.

Just daubing paint on the floor means nothing.
 

gavintc

Guru
Location
Southsea
I do not see the issue myself. Parks are not always ideal places for cyclists. They are areas to walk and allow children to play. Sometimes, there is a need to restrict cycling to make it a more pleasant place for pedestrians etc. There are usually nice roads around parks.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
I do not see the issue myself. Parks are not always ideal places for cyclists. They are areas to walk and allow children to play. Sometimes, there is a need to restrict cycling to make it a more pleasant place for pedestrians etc. There are usually nice roads around parks.

It's not anything to do with restrictions. Most parks do not allow cycling. We had an issue here where a local park that doesn't allow cycling suddenly erected official looking flyers that threateningly demanded cyclists stick to 5mph in the park. Fair enough but it didn't make any reference to hells grannies breaking the speed limit, joggers or even motor vehicles that I've often seen driving through the park substantially above that speed. It was bang out of order and quickly removed. I don't cycle through the park, I go round the outside. It's just an exercise targetting one group and was easily seen through.

What evidence do you have that there are usually nice roads around parks? It doesn't seem to be a fact supported by any evidence whatsoever.
 

gavintc

Guru
Location
Southsea
My assertion is that in some cases, there is a need to keep parks as safe areas for pedestrians and in particular children. In these cases, I contend that cycling is not ideal and should be restricted to maintain them as areas free of traffic. If we as cyclists demand to cycle everywhere we simply become as ridiculous as some of the pro-car lobby groups. We have to have some balance and common sense in our society. My comment on roads, is to ask the OP to look for alternatives, the country is covered in roads, most perfectly suitable for cycling on. We do not need to demand to cycle on every piece of tarmac or piece of grass in the land.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
My assertion is that in some cases, there is a need to keep parks as safe areas for pedestrians and in particular children. In these cases, I contend that cycling is not ideal and should be restricted to maintain them as areas free of traffic. If we as cyclists demand to cycle everywhere we simply become as ridiculous as some of the pro-car lobby groups. We have to have some balance and common sense in our society. My comment on roads, is to ask the OP to look for alternatives, the country is covered in roads, most perfectly suitable for cycling on. We do not need to demand to cycle on every piece of tarmac or piece of grass in the land.

Trivially. It is irrelevant as most parks ban cycling both in terms of national legislation indirectly banning it and local by-laws banning it. Take your straw man and shove it.

The statement 'the country is covered in roads' doesn't really analyse things from a graph point of view. Your comment doesn't seem to show any insight or thought into why people would want to cycle in parks. If you do an analysis of my city's roads most parks don't have 'nice roads' around them at all (infact you could make a compelling case for the converse), there's usually a big major road that is perceived as 'nasty' bordering one side or close by and a series of small roads that may be nice around some of the other side and yet lead nowhere. If you cycle all around a park instead it often adds significantly to journey length. It's not really surprising that some of the more leisurely cyclists would want to cycle through them as it i) cuts their journey length ii) is more pleasant than using a main road, perhaps even an A road. I don't really need to cycle through parks, it is neither your or my business to judge other people's needs and arrogantly assume everyone should be like us.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
And parks aren't free of vehicles that are bad for pedestrians and you know it. One often sees motor vehicles in parks for various reasons. If one wants to go along with your argument, again repeating myself here, one should also be erecting signs and measures to deal with those. They don't and so we know they are just picking on cyclists for the hell of it.
 
OP
OP
Finn

Finn

Active Member
I dont tear through this path and wait if walkers are in the way - often its virtually empty. I'll try to check if it has any legal basis but was interested if it could be in any way legal... it seems that the fact its on the floor and you can enter that path from an unsigned route makes it a little more of a hopeful suggestion . I'm sure it would have been obscured during snowfall for instance.
 
I don't know the legalities of them but most parks are like that; they're not the environment to erect a whole load of sign clutter. If there is a reasonable alternative you're better off there than fuelling the stereotypical attitude of a vocal few 'they cyclists always ignore the rules, etc'. No matter how slow and considerate you are they're always there.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
I don't know the legalities of them but most parks are like that; they're not the environment to erect a whole load of sign clutter. If there is a reasonable alternative you're better off there than fuelling the stereotypical attitude of a vocal few 'they cyclists always ignore the rules, etc'. No matter how slow and considerate you are they're always there.

I've never heard anyone berate a motorist for speeding through a park, or tell a jogger they should stick to 5mph because it's antisocial. If someone wants to cycle through the park I don't see why they shouldn't continue, be slow but you'll always annoy someone, the ridiculous 5mph signs demonstrate this very well. Round here there's an unofficial line of not handing out tickets for cycling in parks. A particular park generates loads of complaints, councillors complain, complaint gets sent off to transport and planning, reply comes back that it is better to tolerate this than have cyclist fatalities and serious injuries which are associated with adjoining road (why I think gavintc needs to think a little more carefully in his replies), councillor shuts up. Complaints start all over again. It's a deadlock as all the NIMBYs won't allow cycling through the park even if an entirely new path is built 100 yards away from busy ped activity and no cyclists are dealt with because because you'd end up with KSIs directly attributable to themselves.

I don't see the end of civilisation complaint myself. A particular park here that had people cycling through it anyway was converted to a cycle path. Adjoining the path are two playgrounds, a school and a car park and it's downhill. A recipe for disaster you might think. Far from being the end of civilisation as we know it it saw an explosion in cycling as kids and parents thought I'll take my kid to learn to ride there on the way to school, the park or the playground.
 
I've never heard anyone berate a motorist for speeding through a park, or tell a jogger they should stick to 5mph because it's antisocial. If someone wants to cycle through the park I don't see why they shouldn't continue, be slow but you'll always annoy someone, the ridiculous 5mph signs demonstrate this very well. Round here there's an unofficial line of not handing out tickets for cycling in parks. A particular park generates loads of complaints, councillors complain, complaint gets sent off to transport and planning, reply comes back that it is better to tolerate this than have cyclist fatalities and serious injuries which are associated with adjoining road (why I think gavintc needs to think a little more carefully in his replies), councillor shuts up. Complaints start all over again. It's a deadlock as all the NIMBYs won't allow cycling through the park even if an entirely new path is built 100 yards away from busy ped activity and no cyclists are dealt with because because you'd end up with KSIs directly attributable to themselves.

I don't see the end of civilisation complaint myself. A particular park here that had people cycling through it anyway was converted to a cycle path. Adjoining the path are two playgrounds, a school and a car park and it's downhill. A recipe for disaster you might think. Far from being the end of civilisation as we know it it saw an explosion in cycling as kids and parents thought I'll take my kid to learn to ride there on the way to school, the park or the playground.

I'm not disagreeing but if there's a reasonable alternative its not worth the hassle.
 

As Easy As Riding A Bike

Well-Known Member
I'm sure Greg Collins knows more about this than me, possibly being involved in the decision, but my local park in Horsham now has cycling permitted in it, with signs that state "pedestrian priority". This is an eminently sensible move, that will encourage people to use their bikes. Not everyone likes cycling on busy roads, and allowing the more "nervous" cyclists to traverse the park instead of having to deal with traffic is fine by me.

Let's help people onto bikes.
 
Top Bottom