Cycling compulsory?

Alex said:

Paul Boyd said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Mixed use path (Pedestrians and Cycles).

And, more importantly...

Pedestrians have priority.

Quoted message said:

Now what's the difference between the two?

Should be obvious now...

...d

Paul Boyd said:

On 16/08/2006 17:34, wafflycat said,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

..

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Here we go!

Quoted message said:

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/

Paul Boyd said:

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|
|/ \|

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul

Boyd (') said:

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 hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

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