A councillor in Bath has spoken out criticising the council’s decision to implement ‘cyclists dismount’ signs on a popular national cycle route through the city.
The signs have appeared on Cheap Street, part of National Cycle Route 4, a route Saskia Heijltjes points out is a “major route for cycling east to west in a low-traffic environment”. The council says this is due to a “road safety audit” which made the suggestion ahead of roadworks to install bollards.
With the road closed, cyclists would ride around the works via the pavement, something Bath and North East Somerset Council said would have “required a circuitous route around the works marked out by white road markings” and risked “conflict between pedestrians and cyclists”.
However, the Green Party councillor, formerly the city’s first Bicycle Mayor, pointed out that “not every person on a cycle can dismount” and said she has “been asking questions about this for a while”.
“I am disappointed by the fact that they haven’t really thought it through beforehand. It’s a major route for cycling east to west in a low-traffic environment,” she told the Somerset Live. “It’s a very narrow gap and once you dismount on, say, a cargo bike you are actually a very wide heavy thing.”
Earlier this month, a campaign group for disabled cyclists called upon North East Lincolnshire Council to implement clearer signage for a town centre cycling ban. Wheels for Wellbeing said the “just get off an walk” attitude, that one councillor told local cyclists, “only works for people who can” walk their bikes.
“If you can’t walk without pain or risk to your health, it’s not as simple as ‘just get off your bike and walk’,” they said, highlighting signage seen in Wandsworth in London that instead states: ‘Cyclists dismount unless a mobility aid’.
In reply to Bath’s concerned councillor, a letter from council officers told Ms Heijltjes how the decision to put up ‘cyclists dismount’ signs had been made.
It said: “A marked cycle route on the footway around the works would have required a circuitous route around the works marked out by white road markings. Aside from the impact that the temporary road markings would have made on the natural stone paving at this location, it was felt that it would be difficult to enforce segregation of pedestrians from cyclists at this location potentially leading to conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.
“It had been noted by site management staff that cyclists had been passing through very quickly prior to the signs being erected.”
Once completed the works will see bollards prevent motor traffic from accessing Cheap Street between 10am and 6pm, leaving the space open to cyclists and pedestrians, a sliding bollard providing access to blue badge holders and exempt vehicles.
66 thoughts on ““Not every person on a cycle can dismount”: Questions asked of ‘cyclists dismount’ signs on national cycle route during works”
It’s not just cargo bikes
It’s not just cargo bikes that make for a wider rider+vehicle when being pushed, any bike and rider are wider when pushing than when seated. The idea that cyclists should dismount because the passageway is narrow is a nonsense that exactly serves against the reason offered. A more sensible approach, better for the pedestrians as well, would be just to require cyclists to proceed with care at a pedestrian pace.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but
Correct me if i’m wrong, but aren’t “Cycists dismount” signs not actually legal/a requirement – you need a TRO. So you could just ignore them?
RicCycleCoach wrote:
If this was on a road where cars were being allowed through – as they often are in contraflows, for example – then that would be the case. In this instance in Bath as far as I can see the “Cyclist dismount” signs are there to tell cyclists that they ride on the pavement to get round the roadworks, so they are simply confirming the law against pavement cycling. I think the council would actually have to put an order in place stating that part of the pavement had become a temporary cycle lane and established markings and signage to that effect to make it legal/safe. Not saying they couldn’t/shouldn’t have done that, but as it stands cyclists can’t legally ignore the dismount signs because they are telling them not to cycle illegally on the pavement.
I think the edge of the
I think the edge of the footway is presumably where the tactile paving slabs are. From the picture shown, it would appear there is space for cyclists to pass by the works without cycling onto the footway – if you are to the left of the sign I think you would be on the carriageway (even if it is a “carriageway” from which motor vehicles are currently prohibited). It’s not clear what is out of shot to the left – it’s possible that the hoarding does entirely block the carriageway just out of frame.
(location on street view: https://goo.gl/maps/giVJZJF6ZH37Scng8 )
Rendel Harris wrote:
I usually take the attitude that if a road sign isn’t round, then it’s advisory only.
Don’t different rules apply for temporary road works as traffic is often affected and it doesn’t sound very convenient that temporary lights etc. require a Traffic Regulation Order.
As a general summary:
As a general summary:
Temporary traffic lights don’t require a TRO; a Temprorary TRO would deal with significant restrictions such as a road closure to traffic for roadworks/construction. Other traffic lights for TM around roadworks where passage is limited would require a highways permit, except statutory undertakers have the right to implement in urgent cases, with the paperwork followed up.
“Cyclist dismount” shouldn’t apply if motor traffic is still running (because cycle can pass just as motor traffic does; but it may apply if all vehicles are restricted. It doesn’t have authority in its own right – it usually reflects the prevailing limit and the imposition of the temporary, all-vehicle restriction.
“Safety at Street Works and Road Works” covers the use of temporary “cyclists dismount” signage and is legally enforceable.
GMBasix wrote:
I presume that the “Safety at Street Works and Road Works” is legally enforceable for the people doing the street/road works rather than the “Cyclists Dismount” sign being legally enforceable.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes. Although, if the “Cyclists Dismount” sign is legally placed, I presume it carries legally enforceable status if the road has been lawfully closed to vehicles. Not because the sign itself has effect, but because the road closure does.
GMBasix wrote:
Well, that raises the question of whether cyclists can legally travel down a “closed road” if it isn’t closed to pedestrians. I would presume you could claim that the signage was insufficient if it’s not a round sign as usually used for mandatory instructions.
Probably, but I don’t know if
Probably, but I don’t know if a road closure requires a round sign.
Red-bordered, round signs (usually) imply prohibition, but I’m not sure that’s the only way a closure order can be lawfully effected.
To dissemble your question further, is a cyclist still a cyclist if they are wheeling their cycle unmounted? In which case, the answer would be yes (since the walking cyclist would not be prohibited by the sign). It would also be yes if the road is only closed to motor vehicles.
If you have to mount a footway (namely, a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only) then the answer is ‘no’. Does a road that is temporarily closed to motor traffic amount to a way that also comprises a carriageway? In other words, does “carriageway” imply not only the physical presence of the bit that you expect vehicles to be on, but also the cenceptual presence of the right to pass along it in a carriage?
If so, you might argue that the path you’ve just ridden onto is no longer a footway for the purposes of the various acts that depend upon the definition. But you might be barking up a tree. A relevant officer might just suggest you take it up with the contacts at the bottom of the form he gives you.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I know you are vaguely around the same area as me, Peter, so you’ll know that Beggar Bush Lane is closed while they rejig the traffic lights and lane widths (to put in a dedicated bus lane for the one bus which goes past every half hour from Bristol to Portishead).
While the end of Beggar Bush Lane is closed, there is fencing up around their work site (with weird security monitor scanners which speak in a strong Northern Irish accent if you set them off, for some reason) and they have yellow “Cyclists dismount” signs at each end of the so-called diversion (a path slightly wider than my handlebars along one side, then rubberised plastic boards across the grass at the other side).
Where was I? Oh yes – anyhoo, I understand the dismount signs to be “Use your common sense”… If you see a pedestrian or another cyclist, you wait at the end (because a cyclist and anyone else cannot pass each other on that narrow bit).
Am I right? Are yellow signs purely advisory?
brooksby wrote:
I don’t think we’re that close – I’m over in St George, whilst you’re somewhere near Pill IIRC.
Yes, I interpret dismount signs as “be careful, you don’t have priority” and will cycle at walking speed if it’s too narrow for safe passes. After a quick check of Wikipedia, the colour of the sign usually just indicates the nature of the road e.g. motorways use blue and temporary diversions/closures are yellow.
The shape of the sign is significant – most of the mandatory signs are round. There’s the octagonal STOP sign and the upside down triangle for GIVE WAY – those two are designed to be recognisable even if covered with snow or something. There are some specific rectangular signs that are mandatory such as this:
There’s also rectangular signs with a round symbol(s) on it
Fallen down a squirrel hole
Fallen down a squirrel hole of UK road signage and happened across this official publication: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf
There’s a couple of examples of “Cyclist Dismount” signs in it, but as they’re not prohibitive (round) signs, I doubt they could be enforced without a TRO. (I noticed that the loose chippings, max speed 20 sign is advisory too – I previously thought that was enforceable).
I think my “only obey round signs” is a bit simplistic, but it’s mostly correct.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There is a statutorily approved sign for exactly that. I understood from another thread that they are supposed to restrict themselves to using such signs, rather than just making it up.
Quite possibly – but they
Quite possibly – but they ‘give permission’ for members of the public to have a go anyway, and so are not desirable.
There may be circs where a legal version of such a sign is appropriate, as illustrated on Wandsworth Bridge when the deck had been removed.
So…people are complaining
So…people are complaining because some cyclists cant apparently dismount
How the chuff do they get off then when they finish a ride?
Or even, how do they get on the bike in the first place?
And what sort of lunatic would suggest that cyclists cant dismount
Being one at the moment, to
Being one at the moment, to dismount you look for a suitable block or kerb or something raised above ground level, put your foot down on this and carefully ease your other leg over the saddle. Mounting is simply the reverse process. And it’s still sufficiently uncomfortable that you don’t want to do it unnecessarily. Without a block it is possible, but seriously painful, and I can’t see anything to dismount on in the photo. However, once I am on the bike I can get around far more easily than on foot, which makes it worthwhile.
I assume that you only go on
I assume that you only go on long rides then, as presumably these difficulties would mean that it’s not worth it to take a short trip somewhere with no guarantee of dismounting.
There are bikes that do allow for easy on and offing – like a dutch bike or often folding bikes are easier still. You could use them
I recommend a trip round the
I recommend a trip round the Wheels For Wellbeing site (plus there are several folks on here IIRC who can also share.
Once was riding for a minute behind someone before realising what was odd – no leg on one side! Had a quick chat at the next lights, they found it much easier and more convenient than crutches or a wheelchair. It wasn’t just getting on and off that was the issue…
EDIT crutches strapped along top tube IIRC, bike was also a folder FWIW but again it wasn’t simply about the act of dismounting.
If you are only able to walk
If you are only able to walk 20m or 50m, the definition of a “long trip” is a little different.
I believe <50m is the requirement to obtain a blue badge for your car (open to correction as I have nto looked it up).
A Losers wrote:
As Rod suggests, they find a way to get their leg over. Something which, I doubt you have ever been able to do.
I’m still proud to be a Woke,
I’m still proud to be a Woke, Snowflake, Lefty Loser.
MattieKempy wrote:
You can join Jeremy Corbyn in the gutter then.
I didn’t even know Jeremy
I didn’t even know Jeremy Corbyn was in a band. Are they any good?
perce wrote:
Brilliant. Don’t you remember the 100 000 people singing his name at Glastonbury a few years back. Should have gone on to do great things but sadly, his own band nobbled him resulting in the right mess: “Sunak and the kid killers”,we have instead.
essexian wrote:
Hows that chip on your shoulder coming along?
A Losers wrote:
Sigh… I am sure your Nanny has told you this, but chips either go in paper to be consumed on the move, or on a plate as dinner. They never go on your shoulder.
I know using a knife and fork is difficult but with practice, you’ll get there young Master Loser.
essexian wrote:
Now now, no need to keep picking bones.
Also, you must have awful luck to be the dunce again.
Yes I can.
Yes I can.
I was in mild shock at the size of the Gullible demographic
!
mattw wrote:
Something like 52% of voters, I believe
perce wrote:
No.
Better than the boy band
Better than the boy band playing at the moment. I think they’re called ‘No Direction’
I’ve never been a fan either
I’ve never been a fan either tbf
I feel Fremdscham.
I feel Fremdscham.
Might be more room for
Might be more room for cyclists and pedestrians to share the space safely if they move that huge sign from the middle of the pavement.
Cyclists making a fuss about
Cyclists making a fuss about something that isn’t worthwhile of any attention.
1. It’s illegal to ride on the pavement. Get off and walk. The sign is irrelevant.
2. It’s not about space per se. “Cyclists were cycling too fast” and therefore creating a risky situation for pedestrians who you are obliged to protect – yes, that new rule in the HC applies to you vis-a-vis pedestrians. You can’t pick and choose what applies and what doesn’t!
3. If you can’t get off, the road is effectively blocked to you. Find another route.
4. This is a temporary restriction and therefore a short term inconvenience that is providing a better future environment that you’ll benefit from. Unless, of course, this isn’t a change you want. In which case complain about the scheme and get it blocked instead!
1. Yes it is illegal in UK.
1. Yes it is illegal in UK. Not in other countries.
2. Let’s ban cars then for the few drivers speeding.
3. You are right here, the argument some people cannot dismount sounds really silly to me.
4. Construction sites must mimize nuisance as much as possible.
cyclisto wrote:
Surely no more so than “we must have driving and parking everywhere, because old / disabled people”? Or “we can’t do anything if we find your car on the footway (where it is illegal to drive) because a scrum of rugby forwards, a crane or a passing hurricane might have lifted it there”? Or “we set a maximum speed limit but you’re actually allowed to go significantly faster than that”?
It’s just “what fraction of the population do you want to negatively affect, and how much”? It could be a passing inconvenience, substantial effort or a complete barrier, depending on disability / how you arrived there.
Of course – construction / road works are both a “special case” and a daily occurrence. What we do depends on the individual circumstances to some extent but it’s also very much about what our priorities are for our public spaces / for people’s mobility.
You can see how different the approach could be by examining other places.
cyclisto wrote:
What sounds silly to you about point 3? It’s a factual observation that some cyclists have issues with mounting and dismounting and although they’re a minority, we should not be discriminating against people with mobility issues.
If someone has ridden a bike,
If someone has ridden a bike, he has to dismount once. Unless a crane waits him at his destination.
Everybody doesn’t like to dismount including me. Some definitely more. But saying that someone cannot dismount sound very silly to my ears.
cyclisto wrote:
There’s mobility issues that mean that someone needs assistance and/or special equipment to help them mount and dismount. If you compare a cyclist using their cycle as a mobility aid to a wheelchair user (using their wheelchair as a mobility aid), then it’s obvious that asking a wheelchair user to get up and walk through a secion of roadworks is discriminatory. Wheelchair users have to get in and out of their wheelchairs too, so I think your point is invalid.
Erm perhaps it isn’t the
Erm perhaps it isn’t the dismounting but how far they would have to ‘walk’.
Some people *can’t* dismount,
Dan Alexander – thank-you for covering this important question.
Some people *can’t* dismount in such a place, because they may not be able to walk more than a few metres (eg around the house), whilst able to cycle many km.
One of the issues is that people using their cycles – especially their standard cycles – as a mobility aid are bullied fairly routinely by Enforcement Officers and some badly-informed members of the public.
So there’s an educational agenda here, as well as making the route useable – amongst both whoever it was that put that sign there (they need a legal one), and also more gently among some elements of the cycling / anti-cycling communities who are not aware enoigh (which is why some of us will be continuing to talk about it occasionally) !
Full disclosure: I am a member of the Wheels for Wellbeing Disabled Cycling Activists Network.
Kate Ball (@tandemkate on twitter), who featured in NMOTD when she was riding one of her kids to school on a tandem tricycle, and met a taxi coming the other way on the wrong side of the road past a queue of traffic for 100m, is one of their national campaigns officers, who runs the network.
They are looking for new network members to give wider coverage if anyone here is active on these issues.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Ah yes, but you forget this is road.cc – no ordinary cycling site!
Here, the deluded, uneducated lefty members froth against the tyrannical right wing, worrying that somehow Rishi Sunak will make the sky fall on their heads. And, where better to vent your frustration but alongside other, poor halfwits all brainwashed by the corbynista regime?
Not to mention of course, that it has been stated and acknowledged by road.cc staff no less, that a good old frothbowl of lefty indignance about signs, helmets, speeding and a variety of other day to day matters actually generates them more revenue! What a surprise then, that they push controversial articles!
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Nurse, quick he is at the keyboard again.
essexian wrote:
All I can hear is that song of Rendels, “Creepy Obsession” running through my head.
Many, many years ago a new
Many, many years ago a new real ale pub opened in Sheffield. I went in one balmy evening, bought my drink and went to sit in the small outdoor courtyard. Imagine my surprise when I saw the three men huddled round a table in a corner were actually David Blunkett, Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn. Talk about meeting all your heroes at once! This was when Mr Blunkett was still leader of the city council and before they all went on to greater things. I don’t know what they were drinking but Timothy Taylor’s Landlord was one of the options on offer so it could have been that – I just don’t know.
Well, what did you drink? If
Well, what did you drink? If it had been TTL then you would have gone on to greater things..instead you’re stuck here with us lot
I also met the great Arthur
I also met the great Arthur Scargill in a shop just round the corner a few weeks later. Very nice he was too.
I recall having a pint of Old
I recall having a pint of Old Frothbowl in a Sheffield hostelry. But not a second.
I seem to remember lefty
I seem to remember lefty indignance was one of the beers on offer but it wasn’t very popular. I think it’s where the band got their name from. Not the band (RIP Robbie Robertson)
perce wrote:
Wasn’t very popular?! Me and my two mates ALWAYS used to drink it. I’m still fuming that they took it off; it was Thatchers fault (and all the Cidermen).
I’m spoilt – mylocal pub does
I’m spoilt – mylocal pub does both Landlord AND Abbott.
Without wanting to have too
Without wanting to have too much of a go at you, you need to talk to some disabled people about what aids they need to get around.
The sign is not legal under equality leglislation.
It is not uniformly illegal to cycle on the footway in the UK – there are exceptions, and offical advice about discretion in enforcement issued at the same time that the Act was passed in 1999.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Strange supposition that a cyclist would be unable to dismount. Would make the planned end of the journey somewhat problematic. And if you’re incapable of dismounting, what chance you’re capable of getting on it to start with?
Bigfoz wrote:
That’s a very narrow view of people’s capabilities. It may well be that the cyclist has people to assist with mounting/dismounting or it could simply be a difficult (and/or painful) process that they don’t want to be attempting in front of some officious rule enforcer.
Imagine asking this cyclist to get off and walk:
Now bear in mind that not all disabilities are visible and you have to realise that you’re being an arse by insisting that everyone can walk 50m and get on and off their bike easily.
“Strange supposition that a
“Strange supposition that a cyclist would be unable to dismount. Would make the planned end of the journey somewhat problematic. And if you’re incapable of dismounting, what chance you’re capable of getting on it to start with?”
as a wheelchair user, I get onto my recumbent handcycle at home to start my ride and, if not returning home, need another wheelchair at the end point. I used to leave an old ‘chair at work when commuting. I can “dismount” at any point in a ride but then I’m effectively immobile, when coming across a “Cyclists Dismount” command am I meant to drag myself along the road/footway/… pulling my handcycle after me?
If it helps, it is not
If it helps, it is not unusual for some disabled cyclists to take a manual wheelchair with them on the bike, using a creative towing hitch, or on a trailer.
@Tandemkate on twitter, for example, takes one with her on her E-Brompton (which is a Swytch E-conversion of a secondhand Brompton) if she will need to do much ‘walking’ (ie wheeling) at the other end.
She still gets challenged, but partly does it to smoke out challenges to create opportunities for education.
https://twitter.com/tandemkate/status/1668649046020333572
—————————–
Update
Here’s a piccie (posted with permission) of how @TandemKate, who is a Campaigns Officer at Wheels for Wellbeing, takes her wheelchair with her on her cycle – eg if travelling from Derby to London and needing to wheel around offices at the other end.
Well that’s logical. So now
Well that’s logical. So now you’re off (or out of) your cycle. Now what?
Isn’t the next bit rather important also? (More on that here)
EDIT better image
Dislike
Dislike
Very local to me; talk about
Very local to me; talk about a storm in a teacup and just provides some unnecessary oxygen for the anti-cycling brigade. It’s a bit of roadworks so there’s a dismount sign because you need to go onto the pavement for a few metres (usual H&S). There weren’t many pedestrians about last time I went through so I just nipped around the pavement; if someone couldn’t dismount then not really an issue. Are they just going to stop and shout at the sign.
….”It had been noted by
….“It had been noted by site management staff that cyclists had been passing through very quickly prior to the signs being erected.”
the too fast / too slow cyclist thing always bemuses me…when I read stuff like this I wonder if the people involved have ever walked through a car park with 1.5Tonne plus vehicles passing them very closely at speeds which are usually well above walking pace…of course they have but that is the normal car world
One could argue that whether
One could argue that whether you have a disability or not, a bicycle is a mobility aid.
Does anyone take any notice
Does anyone take any notice of dismount signs? Clearly if there are a lot of pedestrians fair enough, but it is safe to stay on your bicycle…
I very much take notice of
I very much take notice of the red ones.
And the blue ones increase my levels of concentration as I realise that anything untoward occuring will be counted being contributed by my ignoring of an advisory sign.
I want to see one sign on a
I want to see one sign on a public road that requires car drivers to disembark and continue on foot, for say the next kilometer.
One. One instance in the history of humanity where others than cyclists, traveling on vehicles on a road, to suddenly have no other options to continue except by foot, outside or off the vehicle.
Pedestrians, take off your shoes before crossing the road.
Mothers, remove the baby from the stroller for the next mile.
I love governmental threat assessment.