That sounds likely, but is that legally correct or non legally trained anxious council H&S officers hearing that they should do that off some other H&S officer who heard it off another one etc etc?
This really gets my goat - "Cyclists Dismount"
- Thread starter Sheffield_Tiger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That sounds likely, but is that legally correct or non legally trained anxious council H&S officers hearing that they should do that off some other H&S officer who heard it off another one etc etc?
I'm really tempted to get some "MOTORISTS GET OUT AND PUSH" signs made and stick them up wherever I find a "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign
For example
http://www.uksafetys..._id=bts4&q=find
Unfortunately it works out at about £90 a go.
For example
http://www.uksafetys..._id=bts4&q=find
Unfortunately it works out at about £90 a go.
If I'm taking the long route home, there's a couple of sections where the road gets quite narrow and the traffic quite fast so often I retreat to the shared use pavement alongside. There's a few crossings on this route, and at one point you come across this:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=mPR77VfYRZv59NCnYMhJ4Q&cbp=12,34.82,,1,7.76
Zooming in a bit:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=mPR77VfYRZv59NCnYMhJ4Q&cbp=12,32.87,,2,4.84
Notice the Cyclists Dismount sign at the crossing?
Why the ****?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=mPR77VfYRZv59NCnYMhJ4Q&cbp=12,34.82,,1,7.76
Zooming in a bit:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=mPR77VfYRZv59NCnYMhJ4Q&cbp=12,32.87,,2,4.84
Notice the Cyclists Dismount sign at the crossing?
Why the ****?
DrSquirrel
Guest
As others say, its just a suggestion.
Though, locally they got around this by actually stopping the cycle path before a crossing (of the road parallel), so legally you have to dismount to cross the road to rejoin the other side.
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
Thinking about this one some more....
If that was the case wouldn't the motorist parked in the cycle lane be responsible in the same way, if the cyclist then had an accident?
If that was the case wouldn't the motorist parked in the cycle lane be responsible in the same way, if the cyclist then had an accident?
Glow worm
Legendary Member
- Location
- Near Newmarket
I'm really tempted to get some "MOTORISTS GET OUT AND PUSH" signs made and stick them up wherever I find a "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign
For example
http://www.uksafetys..._id=bts4&q=find
Unfortunately it works out at about £90 a go.
I got fed up with these stupid dismount signs near me and made a laminated one saying 'motorists get out and push' and stuck it over the top. It was up there for over a year!
Attachments
DrSquirrel
Guest
Don't spend £90 on one, print one - if you want to laminated it, laminators can be had for £5-10 and a pack of pouches for £3, comes in handy else where 
Any pics glow worm?
Any pics glow worm?
I hate blue signs. They are ambiguous in whether they are mandatory or not. For example joining a dual carriageway from a side road there is a blue arrow meaning you must turn left. Also Bus lane signs are blue and I'm sure bus lanes are mandatory as in general traffic must not enter them.
Yet blue road-side cycle route signs are for information only? Not surprising that the general public thinks cyclists should stick to these routes..
Mad at urage
New Member
- Location
- Just N of Cardiff
Blue and white signs are not all "Information only".
There used to be a general rule: Circular gives orders (red border prohibits things - except 'STOP' which is entirely red, lack of allows - e.g. 'GO' or 'NSL' signs), triangular gives warnings, rectangular gives information ('you might like to know that your destination is this way').
That has now changed and orders are now sometimes given by rectangular signs (e.g. 'P Permit holders only' really should be '
Many blue and white signs come under the major heading "Signs giving orders", even though this is qualified by a subheading "Signs with blue circles but no red border mostly give positive instruction." - most are circular still, but that is confusing as the HC shows some rectangular signs there too (e.g. Bus Lane signs).
Warning signs are still mostly triangular (apart frrom the old ungated level crossing, 'traffic lights not in use' which I always regard as informational as it means I can proceed with caution, sharp bend chevrons and (again what I regard as information) signs telling you to obey light signals).
Information and Direction signs are still (fortunately) rectangular and Roadwork signs can be any relevant shape. I don't see that sign on there though.
I interpret it as: Not circular, so probably not an order - since blue orders are (meant to) "mostly give positive instruction" the negative instruction to dismount cannot be an order.
Yeah, it's instructional to car drivers, that cyclists dismount at their destination (which might be at the sign).
source: http://www.direct.go...t/dg_070644.pdf
Glow worm
Legendary Member
- Location
- Near Newmarket
No this was a few years ago- my, ahem, addition to the sign's long gone now. I may just dig out that laminator at work again now though!
It's basically there because the whole lane hasn't got cones to close it/taper it off with warning signs (as you would do elsewhere). It's not an order.
It's still ridiculous and amusing despite all of that though.
Actually, this discussion opens up a new proposition.......If a road is blocked for works or for repairs, then a diversion is sign posted and planned as part of the jobWhy should he cycle facility be different... Planning and signed diversions for each closure as opposed to sticking one of these signs up?
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
The sign is referring to your left foot. This should be dismounted from the pedal, stuck out sideways, and used t okick the sign over.
I regularly ignore several cyclists dismount signs, one of which would if obeyed put a cyclist in danger! I wrote to the council suggesting they remove it, and got a reply saying that it was there because if it wasn't there and a cyclist was in an accident they'd be liable. I wrote back and sugested that by putting it there if a cyclist dismounted and was involved in an accident they'd probably be liable. They didn't respond and it's still there for me to ignore.
I regularly ignore several cyclists dismount signs, one of which would if obeyed put a cyclist in danger! I wrote to the council suggesting they remove it, and got a reply saying that it was there because if it wasn't there and a cyclist was in an accident they'd be liable. I wrote back and sugested that by putting it there if a cyclist dismounted and was involved in an accident they'd probably be liable. They didn't respond and it's still there for me to ignore.
