Where do shared cycle paths end?

[Profpointy]

Leaving aside for a minute that "Cyclists dismount" seemingly has no legal force, even as advice how are you supposed to know when it is OK to hop back on again. Immediately, or pause for maybe 10 seconds, or push for 10 metres ?

 

[mjr]

Leaving aside for a minute that "Cyclists dismount" seemingly has no legal force, even as advice how are you supposed to know when it is OK to hop back on again. Immediately, or pause for maybe 10 seconds, or push for 10 metres ?

Around here, the reverse of the "cyclists dismount" sign facing the other direction has a white-on-blue bike symbol again. It's still nonsensical to dismount for most of them, though.

 

[Profpointy]

Around here, the reverse of the "cyclists dismount" sign facing the other direction has a white-on-blue bike symbol again. It's still nonsensical to dismount for most of them, though.

it would be fair enough if the "dismount" sign was where the cycle route reached a pedestrianised area, where getting off and pushing would be perfectly reasonable, but "cyclists dismount" when the lane reaches the road? Presumably you are supposed to immediately hop back on again and cycle on the road - or is it somehow expected that you now push your bike along the road till the next cycle lane.

I am firmly of the "cycle lanes are a bad thing camp" so these daft signs aee the least of it.

 

[mjr]

To be fair, I've never seen dismount used on a cycle lane, only on cycle tracks where they narrow beyond minimum width and there's no access to the carriageway from that point.

 

[Thursday guy]

Absolutely no idea. I like the idea of shared use with pedestrians, better than being shoved out onto the roads with >1 tonne objects moving over 30mph, but they need to be clearly displayed. Perhaps instead of just putting up signs as they usually try to do with these shared paths, they should actually have it marked on the ground.

 

[Thursday guy]

'Cyclists Dismount' signs have no legal force. It is for information - not an order. A no cycling sign (a black bike in a red circle) is what has legal force.

Many shared paths will have narrowed sections (e.g. where there are bus stops or at traffic lights) but the order that created them doesn't differentiate. If there are further shared path signs further up, it's probably a fairly safe bet that the path continues through the narrowed space.

That said, the onus is on the cyclist to take due care in such areas (which I'm sure you did).

Hmmm.....interesting. But you're still not allowed to cycle on pavements even if theres no no cycling sign. I've seen people get fined on the spot.

 

[MattDB]

Thank you all - this has been interesting - I've had a really good look around the area in question - at first I thought I'd made a mistake as I found a no cycling (bike in red circle) HOWEVER this is only from one approach, arriving at the pavement from a side street I pass a clearly displayed shared path (person + cycle on blue sign). It seems from the majority of posts on this thread that people usually find it difficult to work out what is and isn't allowed due to non-standardised/unclear/contradicting signs! I'll submit this thread as 'evidence' if I'm ever pulled over

 

[jonny jeez]

The DNA path to Addenrbookes is similar. It only has shared use signs at the joining points - no repeaters.

The problem is that the use of signage by the relevant authorities is so inconsistent - and some even make up their own signage (how many time have you seen a sign with a black bike in a red roundel with a red diagonal for example).

To me, the diagonal red line is a lot clearer than just the circle. If I hadn't taken a bike test in the last 5 years, I would still think that the red circle sign means that I am allowed to cycle.

 

[mjr]

To me, the diagonal red line is a lot clearer than just the circle. If I hadn't taken a bike test in the last 5 years, I would still think that the red circle sign means that I am allowed to cycle.

Or if you hadn't watched 1970s TV...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKbUUQBkdY

 

[jonny jeez]

Or if you hadn't watched 1970s TV...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKbUUQBkdY

You had a telly in the 70's. How posh are you!!!

 

[mjr]

You had a telly in the 70's. How posh are you!!!

Son of a car mechanic. It was a relatively well-paid boom profession back then, before all the money started being extracted by computer diagnostic suppliers and overseas companies bought the UK industry with the help of some uncaring governments. Now it's about as bad a job as a local bike shop mechanic...

 

[Sara_H]

I usually cycle on the road but there has been a diversion so I moved over to a shared pavement as indicated by a blue sign with person and cyclist image.

The sign is located on a wide quiet part of pavement which continues over a pedestrian crossing displaying the green person and also green cyclist light = shared crossing.

However after the crossing the pavement is narrower and busier - there is no 'Cyclist dismount' sign and further up this pavement there are some blue cycle route signs.

This morning I was told by a pedestrian that I shouldn't be cycling on the pavement - common sense also tells me that this part of the pavement isn't really wide enough to be a shared path (also there are bus stops at several points) although I'd waited until it was clear and cycled around him slowly.

However legally, does this sound like a shared path still? i.e. does a shared path continue until I see a notice saying 'Cyclists Dismount'?

Often the case that there's ambiguity as to where a facility ends. Just ride sensibly and plead ignorance.