More Farcilities

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Adrian Godwin wrote on 30/06/2007 09:31 +0100:
>> Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I tried to count them last night but got confused when I reached
>>> forty-eight. So in a mile and a half a cyclist using the path in
>>> accordance with the intentions of the spanner who designed would have
>>> to get off and walk at least twenty-four times in a mile and a half.
>>>
>>
>> I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue rectangles,
>> which makes them information rather than instruction or warning, right ?
>>
>> So they can't be instructing cyclists to dismount, or warning other
>> road users that cyclists stopping to dismount might cause a hazard. By
>> the logic of the highway code and the limited text on the signs
>> themselves, they appear to be informing the world at large that
>> cyclists do in fact, sometimes dismount their cycles in this area (but
>> they don't have to and aren't a hazard).
>>
>
> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of any
> cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must dismount at
> some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time by a wide
> range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope is a
> Catholic" and "Ducks swim"

I was on a bus a couple of months ago, and there was a
sign up on one of the windows that said
"Break glass with hammer". [1][2]
I have to say I was very tempted to obey this safety
instruction, but decided not to.

[1] There was no other text, e.g. "In an emergency"
[2] of very similar wording.

Martin.

 

[David Martin]

On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > warning, right ?
>
> Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.

No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
round.

> However, as it happens, there is no traffic order that can mandate
> cyclists dismount, so they are informational - someone thinks that it
> would be a good idea for cyclists to dismount somewhere in the
> vicinity of the sign.

It is a mistranslation of the phrase 'warning: path designed by
idiots'

...d

 

[Martin Dann]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> Riding home at the end of Bristol's Biggest Bike Ride on Sunday, there
> was a section of a few hundred yards where DW and my mum chose to use
> the shared-use pavement and accompanying toucan crossings while I chose
> to stay on the road. We agreed to meet at Valentines Bridge.
>
> Having reached the bridge and negotiated the barriers[1] with bike and
> trailer, I then sat and waited for 3 minutes before my riding companions
> came into sight.
>
> [1] <http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farce/021118val03.jpg>
>

I must have cycled within a couple of hundred yards of
that bridge many hundreds of times, gone right around it
on road quite a few times, but I had to look up on google
where it was. I did not know it even existed (I may have
been told before and have forgotten).

I am going to have a look in the near future.

Martin.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > > warning, right ?
> >
> > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
>
> No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> round.

No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
and start driving in the opposite direction.

The sign indicates something that is mandatory.

If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.

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

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
>> round.
>
> No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> and start driving in the opposite direction.
>

The HC defines them as 'mostly positive instruction' (by which I
understand it to describe things which are permitted, but not
required, like parking). Bizarrely, the rectangular one-way sign is
the first element in a list of 'signs with blue circles'.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm

I note from that page that there's apparently a document that describe
what each sign means in detail ..

But it's just been revised and isn't available yet.

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1207776&DI=513349

I wonder if there was any consultation on the revisions ?



I suspect that one-way streets are defined not by the permission
to travel in one direction but by the prohibition to travel
in the other.

> The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>
> If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
> instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.
>

But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.


> regards, Ian SMith

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 2 Jul, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > If you don't like that example, there are other non-circular
> > instruction signs - the stop sign and give way sign, for example.
> >
>
> But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.

Really?
The give way sign has a red circle?
Are you sure about that?

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

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> But they're not blue at all. They have red circles.
>
> Really?
> The give way sign has a red circle?
> Are you sure about that?
>

OK, I should have said 'red borders'. I'm clearly just as geometrically
challenged as the HC people .

-adrian

 

[David Martin]

On Jul 1, 9:21 am, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jun, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm confused by the intention of these signs. They're blue
> > > > rectangles, which makes them information rather than instruction or
> > > > warning, right ?
>
> > > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
>
> > No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> > round.
>
> No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> and start driving in the opposite direction.
>
> The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>

Being a pedant, it is not an instruction. The instructions are in
round signs (see the 'ahead only' and 'turn left'.)
The square one informs you that the street contains (OK, shoud
contain) one way traffic only.

...d

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 02 Jul, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:21 am, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun, David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 7:48 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Not exclusively. There are blue rectangular signs that indicate
> > > > things that are mandatory - one-way traffic arrows, for example.
> >
> > > No, these are information. Ones where you must only go one way are
> > > round.
> >
> > No. They indicate things that are mandatory. That is, if you are on
> > a one-way street, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot
> > see any circular signs. Despite this, it is prohibited to turn round
> > and start driving in the opposite direction.
> >
> > The sign indicates something that is mandatory.
>
> Being a pedant, it is not an instruction. The instructions are in
> round signs (see the 'ahead only' and 'turn left'.)
> The square one informs you that the street contains (OK, shoud
> contain) one way traffic only.

No, what I said is 100% true.

What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
- instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.

It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
what the sign indicates.

If you want to be stupidly pedantic, no sign is, of itself, mandatory.
If you put up a '30' speed limit sign, a speed limit does not suddenly
spring into being (and if you take it down, an existing one does not
cease). ALL signs are merely informing you of something, in some
cases the existence of traffic orders that mandate particular
behaviours. While these are mostly circular, they are not exclusively
so. While circular signs are mostly mandatory, they are not
exclusively so.

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

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No, what I said is 100% true.
>
> What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
> Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
> - instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.
>
> It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
> what the sign indicates.
>

So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?

I appreciate that local authorities sometimes put a sign up too
early or incorrectly, and an apparently valid sign has no legal force.
But ignoring that possibility, is there a definition somewhere of
which signs are truly mandatory and which are for information only ?

-adrian






> If you want to be stupidly pedantic, no sign is, of itself, mandatory.
> If you put up a '30' speed limit sign, a speed limit does not suddenly
> spring into being (and if you take it down, an existing one does not
> cease). ALL signs are merely informing you of something, in some
> cases the existence of traffic orders that mandate particular
> behaviours. While these are mostly circular, they are not exclusively
> so. While circular signs are mostly mandatory, they are not
> exclusively so.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

 

[Matt B]

Adrian Godwin wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, what I said is 100% true.
>>
>> What you said omitted the "generally" and the "mostly" that the
>> Highway Code actually has when talking about the shapes of teh signes
>> - instructions are NOT exclusively round. See 'give way' or 'stop'.
>>
>> It is not necesary for a sign to be round for it to be mandatory to do
>> what the sign indicates.
>
> So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?

According to the current Highway Code, rule 50: "You MUST obey all
traffic signs and traffic light signals."

And as it says in its introduction: "Many of the rules in the Code are
legal requirements... Such rules are identified by the use of the words
MUST/MUST NOT."

--
Matt B

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So how do you determine whether a sign is mandatory or not ?
>
> I appreciate that local authorities sometimes put a sign up too
> early or incorrectly, and an apparently valid sign has no legal force.
> But ignoring that possibility, is there a definition somewhere of
> which signs are truly mandatory and which are for information only ?


You find out if the sign is up properly by reading the traffic orders.
I don't know where you find the traffic orders, but expect their
location features locked filing cabinets and "beware of the leopard"
signs.

You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf. It has lots
of pictures, the pdf is easier, if you can face the 300MB download.
Or, you can buy it - it's easier to flick through on paper.

Schedule 2 has pictures of all the legal signs, gives you a
description of what they mean, how they can be used, how they can be
varied and the regulations or directions that apply.

For example, the octagonal (non-circular) stop sign is sign 601.1.
The caption under the picture refers you to regulation 16 ("Vehicular
traffic must comply with the requirements prescribed in regulation
16"). Regulation 16 tells you that "Every vehicle shall stop before
crossing the transverse line shown in diagram blaah" etc.

The other resource is the DfT, which has a chunk of website at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/ including links to the TSRGD and
parts of the traffic signs manual (which is what tells you what the
regulations etc mean).

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
> by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
> Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
> Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
> http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
> http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf.

Or, indeed,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
and
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf

respectively.

And, incidentally, it contains exactly this many instances of the
word 'dismount': zero.

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

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:40:59 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jul, Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> > You find out what the sign is supposed to mean if installed correctly
> > by reading the law. In this case, the TSRGD (Traffic Signs
> > Regulations and General Directions 2002) and ammendments. Statutory
> > Instrument 2002 No 3113. On the web at
> > http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm, and in pdf at
> > http:///www.opsi/gov/uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf.
>
> Or, indeed,
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
> and
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf
>
> respectively.
>
> And, incidentally, it contains exactly this many instances of the
> word 'dismount': zero.

Oops. Yes, I transliterated some . into /. I blame the existing
redundancy in the URL - who came up with si/si2002/2002 as a filing
location?

Cyclists dismount is sign 966. It has no relevant regulations or
directions, so no legal basis. This has pros and cons - it means
councils can put it wherever they like, but it also means you're not
obliged to do anything by the presence of the sign.

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

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Cyclists dismount is sign 966. It has no relevant regulations or
> directions, so no legal basis. This has pros and cons - it means
> councils can put it wherever they like, but it also means you're not
> obliged to do anything by the presence of the sign.
>

Well, thanks for that.

I guess the only possible reaction is 'never ascribe to malice that
which can adequately be explained by incompetence'. But if I get the
chance, I'll make sure I object to the siting of such a sign on the
grounds that it's a waste of public money if not outright fraud.

-adrian

 

[Martin Dann]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf

I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
"Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"

It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
the wild ;-)

Martin.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 03 Jul, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/uksi_20023113_en.pdf
>
> I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
> "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"
>
> It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
> the wild ;-)

But you've never seen a 667.2 "End of area where vehicles may be
parked partially on the verge or footway" either, have you? Perhaps
there's one just off Lands End, and another at Saxa Vord.

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

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Tony Raven <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of
> any cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must
> dismount at some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time
> by a wide range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope
> is a Catholic" and "Ducks swim"

Not to mention these:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005540558,00.html

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing
Supply Of History!

 

[Marcus Red]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
> us:
>
>> Indeed, I take it as a statement of fact and since I am not aware of
>> any cyclist that stays on their bike for life, all cyclists must
>> dismount at some point in time. I expect them to be joined over time
>> by a wide range of other public informational signs such as "The Pope
>> is a Catholic" and "Ducks swim"
>
> Not to mention these:
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005540558,00.html
>

So you don't have to contamintate yourself by going rto a Sun webpage
here's the BBC's gallery (different ones though):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4470516.stm

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was looking through this, and I noticed sign number 667
> "Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway"
>
> It is strange that I have never ever seen this sign out in
> the wild ;-)
>

There's an area in Cambridge where drivers are explicitly told to park
with 2 wheels on the footway and 2 on the road. It certainly has road
markings and signage to indicate this, but I don't remember if that
particular sign is used.

-adrian