Cycling compulsory?

[David Martin]

Alex wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> > And talking of signs, what does this one mean?
> > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
>
> Pedal cycles only. No pedestrians.

Wrong. No vehicles except bicycles. It does not exclude pedestrians.
>
> > Next question, what does the very similar one but with a bicycle above
> > the parent/child pedestrian mean? (Similar to
> > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign077.htm but without the "Only" and
> > peds instead of the bus, and not the segregated path one.) This one
> > isn't shown on the Highway Code website, but I pass a couple on my commute.
>
Shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists.

The two are effectively synonymous but the first is typically used for
a road where there is alternative pedestrian accommodation, the second
where the accommodation is shared.


> Mixed use path (Pedestrians and Cycles).
>
> And, more importantly...
>
> Pedestrians have priority.
>
> > Now what's the difference between the two?
>
> Should be obvious now...
>
...d

 

[David Martin]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 16/08/2006 17:34, wafflycat said,
>
> >> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.htm
> > route to be used by pedal cycles only
>
> Yes, that's what I understood. Just trying to get a general consensus
> here....
>
> ...before I moan at the council for allowing pedestrians to use a narrow
> overgrown cycle-only path which for once is actually very useful.
> Trouble is I'm scuppered already because of the number of cyclists who
> use the pavement on the opposite side of the road :-(
>
AIUI pedestrians have a right to use every highway in UK. There are
patches of road which are not highway (motorways, some tunnels and
bridges) which pedestrians do not have a right to use.
Basically anything on land that is a public right of way (rather than
permissive use[1]) is accessible to pedestrians. In the same way that
pedestrians can legally walk in a bus lane.

...d

[1] such as the Docks cycle path in Dundee which is permissive use,
upon obtaining a permit to traverse said path. You may not walk on the
path. What a tandem passenger who gets left behind is supposd to do, I
do not know.

..

 

[david lloyd]

"Mike Causer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> What does this sign mean?
> http://www.mikecauser.com/images/ely-sign.jpg
>
> "No cycling" looks like this:
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign053.htm
>
> and a bar across a sign negates its meaning. So I reckon it means that
> cycling is compulsory.
>
It means some joker has been out with a roll of red insulation tape.

--
Dave Lloyd
So open minded, my brains dribbled out.

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 16/08/2006 20:08, David Martin said,

> Wrong. No vehicles except bicycles. It does not exclude pedestrians.

Here we go!

> The two are effectively synonymous but the first is typically used for
> a road where there is alternative pedestrian accommodation, the second
> where the accommodation is shared.

The particular application I have in mind has a pavement on side of the
road, and a lane marked by the sign indicating "Cycles only" on the
other side. At one end, it has an additional sign saying "and mopeds."

On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
etc....". The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
heading that says "positive instruction". There is nothing stated to
exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
well. The very first rule, no 1, says to pedestrians "Pavements or
footpaths should be used if provided." The cycle lane is neither, and
there is a pavement available.

This path isn't a pavement that has been turned into a cyclepath, it was
originally part of the road surface which had a pavement on one side
only, and the cyclepath was created on the other side at road level when
the road was made one-way. It has been separated from the road by
double sloping kerbstones placed back-to-back, and the cyclepath surface
was at one time painted red, although this has mostly been worn off.

So, why should a pedestrian be allowed to use a purpose-built cyclepath
that is clearly marked "Route to be used by pedal cycles only",
particularly as the path can also be used by mopeds in one direction?
Mopeds and pedestrians on a path maybe a metre wide, and less as it goes
over a railway bridge, are hardly a good combination, never mind bikes
and pedestrians in this restricted space.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
> etc....". The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
> heading that says "positive instruction". There is nothing stated to
> exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
> well.

Not necessarily. The highway code is horribly shoddy about such
things. It even says as much in a footnote on the signs pages. What
do the traffic signs regulations say?

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Boyd ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On the front cover of the HC, it says "For pedestrians, cyclists
> etc....".  The "Route to be used by pedal cycles only" sign is under a
> heading that says "positive instruction".  There is nothing stated to
> exclude pedestrians, so this instruction in theory applies to them as
> well.  The very first rule, no 1, says to pedestrians "Pavements or
> footpaths should be used if provided."  The cycle lane is neither, and
> there is a pavement available.

Nevertheless, the highways in Britain (as a whole, all jurisdictions) are
all (except, as someone else pointed out, Motorways) legally
speaking /primarily/ for pedestrians, and all other modes of transport
are secondary and must give way to them. So this is just another of
those points at which the Highway Code contradicts the law.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.