Cycle lane blocked by signs

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement?

No. Shift them a bit to the right - on to the road.
--

Cheers,

Al

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

Just came off a roundabout when confronted with a metal 'Men working'
sign in the cycle lane. White van was speeding past my ear at this point,
so I let discretion be the better part of valour and stopped till it came
past.

[...]

Quoted message said:

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement?

Before you do make sure the pavement is wide enough for both the signs and
wheelchair users to pass.

Quoted message said:

Would workmen get away with putting metal signs into a lane of
traffic without warning?

They seem to get away with a lot.

Colin

John Hearns typed:

Quoted message said:

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement?

Nope .. move them further into the roadway, unless it's a wide pavement ..

Quoted message said:

Would workmen get away with putting metal signs into a lane of
traffic without warning?

Of course .. it's normal practice .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cycling east along the A206 Woolwich Road last night.
I'm not usually in favour of cycle lanes, but this is a fastish
dual carriageway, with a wide enough green painted cycle lane
which I was using.
Just came off a roundabout when confronted with a metal 'Men working'
sign in the cycle lane. White van was speeding past my ear at this point,
so I let discretion be the better part of valour and stopped till it came
past.
There are two hefty metal triangular signs, one after the other in the
cycle lane. And coming just after a roundabout makes them rather unsafe,
IMHO. There are some smal lroadworks further on, and the cycle lane is dug
up.

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement? Would workmen get away with putting metal signs into a lane of
traffic without warning?

I noticed those cycle lane works too.

The cycle lane is part of the Thames Cycle Route and is mandatory.
There is nothing to advise cyclists about how to proceed around the
cycle lane obstruction.

In fairness, Greenwich Council have some superb cycle lanes.

Along the road outside Woolwich College there is a car lane, bus lane
and cycle lane. The cycle lane is separated from the bus lane by a
low double sided ramp, and the lane is swept daily during the early
hours.

Unfortunately that too is being dug up and there is a sign which
commands, "Cyclists dismount" and "Bus lane suspended 7am - 10am".

Gonzalez said:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement? Would workmen get away with putting metal signs into a lane of
traffic without warning?

I noticed those cycle lane works too.

The cycle lane is part of the Thames Cycle Route and is mandatory.
There is nothing to advise cyclists about how to proceed around the
cycle lane obstruction.

In the normal lane with the non-cycle traffic. A mandatory lane is there
to keep the cars out not the bikes in.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

Gonzalez said:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does the gallery think - should I have put the signs up onto the
pavement? Would workmen get away with putting metal signs into a lane of
traffic without warning?

I noticed those cycle lane works too.

The cycle lane is part of the Thames Cycle Route and is mandatory.
There is nothing to advise cyclists about how to proceed around the
cycle lane obstruction.

In the normal lane with the non-cycle traffic. A mandatory lane is there
to keep the cars out not the bikes in.

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

Gonzalez said:

Quoted message said:

In the normal lane with the non-cycle traffic. A mandatory lane is there
to keep the cars out not the bikes in.

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

I agree. Keep in mind that these signs some within a few yards of a
roundabout, on a slight upwards gradient. Its not safe to suddenly
move into the normal lane at that point. Better further on when both cars
and cycles have 'sorted themselves out' after turning off the roundabout.
Looking at it from a drivers point of view, the next thing along the road
is a set of pedestrian lights (the roadworks are here). A driver should be
checking to see what state these lights are at, and won't expect a
cyclist to come in from the left suddenly.
That's what happened to me - I'm damn glad I glanced behind before
swerving to avoid this roadsign.

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

Why should traffic give way? If I were cycling (or driving) along the main
carriageway I would not wish to be forced to give way to cyclists emerging from
another lane.

Adrian Boliston said:

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

Why should traffic give way? If I were cycling (or driving) along the main
carriageway I would not wish to be forced to give way to cyclists emerging from
another lane.

I think it's hyperbole. The point is that it's not acceptable to block
off a traffic lane that soon after a roundabout.

A

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:54:50 +0100 someone who may be John Hearns
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

There are two hefty metal triangular signs, one after the other in the
cycle lane. And coming just after a roundabout makes them rather unsafe,
IMHO. There are some smal lroadworks further on, and the cycle lane is dug
up.

Is it just the cycle lane that is dug up? If so then suggest smaller
signs to the council.

What do they have to say about it anyway?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Gonzalez wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately that too is being dug up and there is a sign which
commands, "Cyclists dismount" and "Bus lane suspended 7am - 10am".

Does /anyone/ (amongst the readers of U.R.Cycling, that is) ever
obey one of those d@mned "Cyclists dismount" signs ? I certainly
don't, but I'm still waiting for the day when I see a "Motorists
get out and push" sign to match ...

** Phil.

Philip TAYLOR said:

Does /anyone/ (amongst the readers of U.R.Cycling, that is) ever
obey one of those d@mned "Cyclists dismount" signs ? I certainly
don't, but I'm still waiting for the day when I see a "Motorists
get out and push" sign to match ...

"Obey" suggests that you might think it is an instruction;
surely it's an observation (which may be accurate or not).

"Geraint Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Obey" suggests that you might think it is an instruction;
surely it's an observation (which may be accurate or not).

Don't signs giving an "instruction" have to be in a triangle or circle with red
border?

Adrian Boliston said:

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

Why should traffic give way? If I were cycling (or driving) along the main
carriageway I would not wish to be forced to give way to cyclists emerging from
another lane.

Cycles are traffic!

Motor vehicles should give way because the closure of the cycle lane
makes the main carriageway a cycle lane with cars allowed to use it.
When a pavement is closed pedestrians use a coned off section of the
road, so cyclists have to give way. The same order of things should
happen when a mandatory cycle lane is closed. The cyclists use the
main carriageway and vehicles have to give priority to cyclists.

Philip TAYLOR said:

Gonzalez wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately that too is being dug up and there is a sign which
commands, "Cyclists dismount" and "Bus lane suspended 7am - 10am".

Does /anyone/ (amongst the readers of U.R.Cycling, that is) ever
obey one of those d@mned "Cyclists dismount" signs ? I certainly
don't, but I'm still waiting for the day when I see a "Motorists
get out and push" sign to match ...

Before the spiral staircase to the Greenwich foot tunnel is a
*Cyclists dismount* sign which I always obey.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:23:50 +0100 someone who may be Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Cycles are traffic!

Motor vehicles should give way because the closure of the cycle lane
makes the main carriageway a cycle lane with cars allowed to use it.
When a pavement is closed pedestrians use a coned off section of the
road, so cyclists have to give way. The same order of things should
happen when a mandatory cycle lane is closed. The cyclists use the
main carriageway and vehicles have to give priority to cyclists.

Cycles are vehicles!

It is the driver of the motor vehicle who gives way.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cycles are traffic!

Did I say they are not traffic?

Quoted message said:

Motor vehicles should give way because the closure of the cycle lane
makes the main carriageway a cycle lane with cars allowed to use it.

Does it? I think that the status of the main carriageway stays the same.

Quoted message said:

When a pavement is closed pedestrians use a coned off section of the
road, so cyclists have to give way.

In this case, part of the road is closed to traffic and reserved for the use
of pedestrians. Cyclists don't "give way" to those pedestrians as they
would have to take the same course along the road whether there were peds or
not due to the carriageway having been narrowed.

Quoted message said:

... The same order of things should
happen when a mandatory cycle lane is closed. The cyclists use the
main carriageway and vehicles have to give priority to cyclists.

So are you saying that cyclists should be legally allowed to simply swerve
onto the main carriageway and that other traffic should have to slam on
their brakes to give way? I would say that normal lane rules apply and
that if you are switching lanes it is up to the lane switcher to give way
rather than someone who is already in a specific lane. That is why a
cyclist should join the main carriageway well in advance of the cycle lane
closure rather than cycling up to the restriction and simply suddenly
switching lanes and relying on other traffic (which could include cyclists)
to give way.

Philip TAYLOR said:

Does /anyone/ (amongst the readers of U.R.Cycling, that is) ever
obey one of those d@mned "Cyclists dismount" signs ?

I work on teh principle that, since they are not round or triangular
and do not have any red on them, they are advisory.

That's not actually technically rigorous, of course, because there are
mandatory rectangular signs - parking restrictions signs, or mandatory
bus / cycle lane signs, for example.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Gonzalez said:

I know that, but I would hope for a sign saying, "Cyclists join main
carriageway", and a sign for cars saying, "Give way to cyclists" at
the very minimum.

Much as it saddens me to ask, do you really think a car driver would pay any attention to a sign that says that?