- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclists Dismount (via Flickr user Elliott Brown)Council removes hundreds of unlawful 'cyclists dismount' signs
Signs telling cyclists to dismount have been removed across Northumberland following a complaint from a rights-of-way expert that one sign was unlawful.
Alan Kind spotted a "cyclists dismount” sign, near Simonburn, and wrote to the county council warning them that putting such a notice above one for a cattle grid was not permitted.
As a result, Northumberland County Council has now promised to remove 269 similar signs.
According to BikeBiz, Mr Kind received a response: "Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design also indicates that the cyclist dismount sign should be used in relatively rare situations where it would be unsafe or impracticable for a cyclist to continue riding.
The reply added: “As a result of incidents reported to the County Council by cyclists at this particular location, officers considered it was necessary to advise cyclists to dismount and walk over the cattle grid rather than risk potential injury whilst riding across it especially during inclement weather conditions, hence the introduction of these advisory signs.”
There were 133 other similar signs over cattle grids in the county, and Mr Kind informed the council that these signs could only be used at "the end of, or at a break in, a cycle track or route."
Mr Kind added "if the cattle grid is dangerous, then it needs to be repaired."
Back in 2014 we reported on Peter Salter who got in touch with the contractors of some road works in Westminster to tell them why their cyclists dismount sign was wrong.
Peter took action after spotting this sign on long-term roadworks outside the Royal Courts of Justice on London’s Strand:
He told us: “I emailed the contractor, Murphy, and Westminster to say I thought these signs were all wrong. They implied cyclists had no right to be on the road.
“If a cyclist ignored the sign, a driver who hit them would point and use the sign to deny responsibility. Further, pedestrians do not like cyclists walking with their bikes on the pavement.”
As it happens these signs are not recommended by the Department for Transport either.
Peter continued: “Within 48 hours, I got a positive response and the following signs now appear on sites within Westminster:
“A good result I feel.”
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 7 sec ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 39 min 27 sec ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- eburtthebike 1 hour 4 min ago
I listened to the BBC R4 prog "Should cyclists stay in their lane" and it was pretty much what you'd expect from the BBC, a well-informed cyclist...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 21 min ago
Of course you don't actually want to spend money intended for infrastructure on infrastructure, you want to spend it on plans for infrastructure,...
- Veganpotter 1 hour 36 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- Hirsute 1 hour 58 min ago
You have to add images via a reply to yourself after the topic is created. One at a time too.
- Hirsute 2 hours 55 sec ago
“Plus, riders who pair CarBack to their smartphone using the Trek Accessory app can enjoy even more features, including the ability to see the...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 52 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 3 hours 23 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 33 min ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
Add new comment
25 comments
As a Sustrans volunteer ranger..in Northumberland I am
a) familiar with the offending Simonburn sign..on the rievers route..it's advisory not compulsary!
and
b) I have (cyclists dismount) signs on the bit of NCN1 which I regularly patrol..(the rail crossing at Falloden). This particular sign is to warn cyclists as the road crosses the rails at an oblique angle, rather than 90 degrees, and it is possible for a cylist to be un-horsed, in the wet when crossing the actual rails...
I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion !
Having read the full thread, I can see that it would be possible to arrange a cyclists crossing which would cross the rails at 90 degrees, but at a significant cost, and there are a shed load of things I'd rather see the money spent on..
However I'm incensed as an MTB rider that anyone/council should be suggesting that cyclists cannot use bridleways, and feel that in these circumstances one ought to contact the Local Authority's PublicRightsofWay team..
There's one at the bottom of a steep Incline in Simonside. Or used to be. Not been over there for a while. Anyhoo. As your doing over 30 when you reach it it's easier to bunny hop the cattle grid rather than get off .
But was the priority changed, surely given that vehicles are exiting/entering, give way lines (better yet stop lines) would have being of benefit to people riding along there as it would on pretty much all of the pathetic infra we have.
That is interesting about the Northumberland Cattle Grid signs. I contacted the Council and the Councillor for South Tynedale in November 2015. This is what I wrote to my Councillor:
I contacted the Council two weeks ago to ask why "Cyclists Dismount" signs have been put on cattlegrids on the Rookhope to Allenheads road and the Allenheads to Coalcleugh road. I have yet to receive a reply, apart from an initial acknowledgement which said I will be contacted if necessary.
My reason for asking is because the sign is very confusing at these locations. It is an advisory sign. The DFT Traffic Signs manual states that a "Cyclists Dismount" sign should only be used "where cyclists are required to use a pedestrian crossing facility that they cannot legally cycle on, at the entrance to a pedestrian area, at a location with a low headroom or width restriction (eg a subway or bridge), or at places where visibility is restricted to such an extent that cycling would be unsafe." I cannot see how this applies for cattle grids. Furthermore the sign should largely have been superseded by the "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign, according to the Traffic Signs Amendment (2) of 2011.
In times of budget pressures it seems to me a complete waste of resources to purchase and put up signs in contradiction to DFT guidelines. I would also guess that most road users consider this sign to be an instruction and will indeed expect cyclists to dismount. Further confusion will be apparent for overseas visitors cycling the Coast to Coast route.
I would like to know what the purpose of these signs is intended to be.
I never received a reply from the Council or my Councillor. I will now make an official complaint that my correspondence was ignored, and further resources have been wasted.
What a load of fuss about nothing. Really? There are better things to do. Had those signs been in a red circle : O for Order, then I could half understand the challenge going in. But these signs are advisory, just like 20mph red triangle signs are when roads have been tar and chipped. Exceeding 20 mph is not an offence, but driving like a twit on newly chipped roads above the advisory 20mph could be evidence of inconsiderate driving offence re stone chips and careless driving re skid risk .
These dismount signs act as an arse protector for council. You got hurt riding through? Well we had a dismount sign up, sorry. They are advisory signs and were put up to warn of hazards which some cyclists might have been thankful for. I don't see the issue.
Cattle grids are dangerous all the time, particularly when wet. I can half understand why the council did what they did. But the signs are only advisory. Ignore at your own risk. Get hurt ignoring one? No compensation, no recourse. Seems fair enough to me.
Doesn't really conjure up an image of those responsible regarding cycling as a serious and viable form of transport does it? More like a bunch of fat gits who've not been near a bike since it was on 3 wheel tucking their massive flab behind desks and making assinine pronouncements before waddling across the tax-payer funded car park and wedging themselves back into milage paid Mondeos at the end of yet another productive day.
[laugh]
But (a) many inexperienced cyclists won't realise those signs are only advisory, and pedestrians and motorists almost certainly won't, and (b) if the council needs such 'arse protectors' that probably means they have crap, unsafe cycle routes that they need to improve rather than putting up signs warning about their own crapness.
(Maybe they need special ones for the boundaries of the borough, warning 'this council doesn't know its arse from its elbow')
This ^ - like the cattle grid referred to up-thread, I don't think that putting a sign up saying "cyclists dismount" is a very good way of dealing with infrastructure or features which you are admitting you know is dangerous but also do not intend to change. If the council knows that the cattle grid is dangerous, their legal obligation is surely to make it not dangerous, rather than just telling people to keep their wits about them...
Like putting a sign up in a field saying "Dangerous bull - enter at your own risk" if there was a public right of way going through the field, rather than - you know - putting the bull in a different field.
Example: There's a pedestrian/cyclist refuge on my commute, an island in the middle of a busy commuter A-road. The council put in a new shared-use path on one side of the road, declared the footpath on the other to be shared-use, but flat-out refused to put a light-controlled crossing in because "it would cause unacceptable delays to the commuter traffic" (actual quote from a council worker, when I raised it at a consultation meeting). So rather than do it properly and treat cyclists as "real commuters" they put up those blue 'cyclists dismount' signs, and let you wait and wait and wait and then dash across to the middle, then wait and wait and wait and dash across to the other side. On a 50mph speed limit road, at the bottom of a large dip.
The fact that some shiny-arsed fickwitt with a common sense bypass thinks that's an acceptable suqandering of tax-payer's money tells us that it's not just Kensington and Chelsea that have serious problems of competence. As if we didn't know.
Excellent comment !
Hawkspinster, as I undersatand it you are correct, but extra care should be taken as if a collision results there would be insurance implications.
Aren't those signs only advisory and can be legally ignored?
Actually do something rather than just put up a sign? What is this guy, some kind of throwback to the dark days of diligent efficiency, before management consultants taught us about the profits and careers to made from specious effectiveness.
Our council's latest is to slap up "No cycling" signs on bridleways.
Interesting. If these bridleways are marked as such on the definitive map (OS Maps are a good indication of this, but not 100% correct) I believe you might have a reason to notify the right of way officer for your county about it... for really very similar reasons as above in the article...
Afaik a cyclist has right of way on bridleways.
You're very probably right. What we actually do is competely ignore them. We give way to walkers (breather), we give way to horseriders (lycra) and everyone gets along just fine. I can't prove it, but I firmly believe there's a large cloud of "fuck the Council, we're grown ups enjoying the outdoors" hanging over the whole happy scene.
Bigtwin:
Please could you say:
* Which Council is this?
* What kind of "No Cycling" signs are you referring to?
- If you mean a red-bordered circular sign with a black bicycle symbol, then the signs would need to be backed by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). If the Council has a lawfully-made TRO, then legally we'd be hard-pushed to object to the signs - we'd have needed to object to the making of the TRO at the time. For more see https://www.cyclinguk.org/local-cycle-campaigning/traffic-regulation-ord....
- If it's any other kind of "no cycling" sign (including a red-bordered sign with a diagonal red line through the bicycle symbol), it has no legal meaning. Indeed, whoever put it up is likely to have been committing an offence under s57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which makes it an offence to place misleading signs next to rights of way which are intended to deter the public from using them.
Do please get in touch if you wish to discuss further. Roger.geffen [at] cyclinguk.org
The roadworks sign at the bottom is great but if this was baked into the highway code as a 'Must Not'
e.g. You must not overtake vulnerable road users through road works, on narrow roads, within 10 metres of a junction or through traffic calming or 20mph zones.
Might stop over use of signage like this:
At a risk of looking stupid: is that a real photo of a real place? WTF!?!
Yes. It's in Essex... http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm
Surely that's intended as a conceptual art installation? Have they entered it for the Turner prize?
Where is that picture from?
In fairness to Essex Council, those signs disappeared very rapidly once that hilarious photo started to circulate. Still, it remains a UK cycle planning classic!
Result!
There are signs up on a section of sustrans path warning of path closure, no diversion route illustrated and a jobsworth telling me I couldn't ride past the signs in spite of them being way before the closed section and in a public park which is still being used.
Another section of the same sustrans routs warns cyclists of works traffic, yet nothing to warn works traffic of cyclists.
The constant Give Way lines painted on cycle paths! Ride 10m, give way, ride another 10m, give way, etc...
These signs can only perpetuate the anti cycling attitude and are wrong.