Southampton riders - Itchen Bridge sign is not legal

[subaqua]

That sign is exactly the same style as the "When Red Light Shows Wait Here" signs you see at temporary traffic lights. I wonder if they're also advisory?

depends if it was a proscribed sign under TSRGD 2002 . i can't be bovvered looking. it is however the red light that is the sign that will be enforced.

the sign above may simply be for guidance on the best place to stop. without reading chapter 8 fully , and i am not going to do that again in a hurry , i couldn't answer correctly

 

[ohnovino]

Found yet MORE roadworks in Southampton today and they had those signs. I got off, walked over the corner as I was turning left and remounted. I left a queue of about 20 cars behind me. My god riding a bike is beautiful at times.

A similar thing happened to me this morning (that's why I thought of the sign). Only in my case it took me a full phase of the lights before I remembered I could just get off and walk

 

[PBancroft]

A red sign like that means to many: "MUST" or "YOU ARE OBLIGED". This is the impression it creates. The capitals on a red background are a strict message. I think Southampton Highways have taken the piss a bit with the reply.

In short, I think they were.

They've been given a very short stretch of road to look after and to make sure it is "safe" - since they've taken away the cycle lanes (which we all know ensures that cars give adequate room to cyclists) the only safe option is to remove cyclists from the equation altogether.

My reply was less than impressed with theirs. I'm not expecting a response.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and I am pleased that the decision has been taken to remove the sign.

However I'm afraid that I really can't see how the sign was used in an informatory manner. It is very clearly instructing cyclists to dismount and use the footway, and in no way suggesting that the alternative is to use the road. If that was indeed the intention of putting a notification up I don't think that it should be at all surprising to anyone that a sign reading "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT AND USE FOOTWAY" is being misunderstood.

Similarly, I fail to see why the road narrowing makes any difference whatsoever. I have not seen the road works narrow the bridge to single lane traffic, and even if it does during the works the cyclist should not simply be removed from the equation. Motorists are under no obligation to overtake cyclists at all costs. Rule 163 of the Highway Code advises that the overtaking maneouvre should only be undertaken when safe to do so. If the road is too narrow, motorists generally don't overtake - this is true on the road network in general.

Please forgive my fairly obvious emotion, but these signs seemed to be for no other purpose than to instruct cyclists to get off the road because more important traffic is coming through. This is the experience of many cyclists who are often treated only with passing thought or sometimes with outright hostility on the roads.

By instructing cyclists away from the road with no alternative route to reasonably use (indeed, the bridge still has posted notifications reminding cyclists of the fines applicable for cycling on footways) you ARE reinforcing the perspective that cyclists should not be on the road at all.

Thank you once again for taking action on this, however I do hope that in future thought will be given to all road users, and not simply create the illusion of safety by removing some of the most vulnerable.

 

[downfader]

In short, I think they were.

They've been given a very short stretch of road to look after and to make sure it is "safe" - since they've taken away the cycle lanes (which we all know ensures that cars give adequate room to cyclists) the only safe option is to remove cyclists from the equation altogether.

My reply was less than impressed with theirs. I'm not expecting a response.

That was a good reply. Its a fact that several roads in Southampton are too narrow for a safe overtake, or if you're passing through a traffic island. Whats the difference? I mean as I said earlier, if it was a problem they could have redirected motortraffic, or put up the blue advisory "no overtaking" signs I have seen elsewhere.

 

[Mad at urage]

That sign is exactly the same style as the "When Red Light Shows Wait Here" signs you see at temporary traffic lights. I wonder if they're also advisory?

This sign, and the 'CYCLISTS DISMOUNT' sign are informational*, as are all rectangular signs. The trouble is (despite what is claimed by IAM and other motoring organisations) most motorists do not know the HC and are ignorant of the difference in meaning implied by the shape of the sign.

Nice result and a reasoned (if admittedly emotional) reply; hopefully it will be understood that pushing us off the road will cause an emotional response, rather than the attitude "Well even if you do what they ask, they still moan" (actually I thought their reply sounded like someone who understood our position but was trying to justify the decision to put the signs there).

*In this case the information is that this is the position to wait: The instruction of "Do not cross the wait line" is the (round) red light.