"Cycling dismount" signs

[jon0844]

Mods note: split from 1915 not calling at Reading thread

I agree we have too many signs. Just look abroad to see this.

But the signs we have are usually there for a reason. All the signs for cyclists to dismount here are at the end of a cycle lane, a narrow path or somewhere else where it wouldn't be safe for all path users to have people continuing to ride.

Even if I can't immediately see a reason, I am not sure the right thing is to just ignore such signs/rules. But, it's obvious that an awful lot people don't think that way.

And as time goes on and people get more used to being selective, so too do people get all the more upset when caught.

 

[route:oxford]

Is there a corresponding "cyclists remount" sign?

 

[455driver]

Is there a corresponding "cyclists remount" sign?

No, there isnt any need because 'they' know that the cyclists will all ignore the dismount sign anyway!

 

[jon0844]

Is there a corresponding "cyclists remount" sign?

Presumably that's the cycle symbol on the road/path or a cycle path sign, but 455driver has a better explanation!

 

[richw]

There was a report out a few years ago that said we too many signs and it can be a distraction to motorists have too many.

As for breaking the law, cyclists regularly cycle on the pavement or public footpaths. Perhaps they object to the lack of cycle ways.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Red traffic lights and cyclists inability to obey is my main observation

 

[infobleep]

Talking of cyclists, they are installing a cycle path along the Thames in Kingston. I wondered if it would be cheaper to do nothing because currently cyclists ignore the do not cycle signs anyway and no one stops them.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[ExRes]

Talking of cyclists, they are installing a cycle path along the Thames in Kingston. I wondered if it would be cheaper to do nothing because currently cyclists ignore the do not cycle signs anyway and no one stops them.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I know cyclists think they're God, but cycling along the Thames ........... ?

 

[infobleep]

I know cyclists think they're God, but cycling along the Thames ........... ?

I was of course referring to a flying bicycle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10125921/UK-inventors-create-flying-bicycle.html

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[ExRes]

I was of course referring to a flying bicycle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10125921/UK-inventors-create-flying-bicycle.html

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Top idea, with the added bonus that it would keep the beggars off the pavements, ah rethink, what about landings and takeoffs ....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Getting back to thread though, flying bicycles could have distinct influence over loading factors on Friday night only non stopping trains if they had a major sales and service hub development for them at Reading

 

[Doctor Fegg]

"Cyclists Dismount" is advisory only. It isn't a "rule" or a "law" as some are suggesting.

 

[jon0844]

"Cyclists Dismount" is advisory only. It isn't a "rule" or a "law" as some are suggesting.

But if it's before a pavement/path where people can no longer cycle?

There's still a law on cycling on the pavement, no? Surely such signs are only before them, not just for the fun of it.

 

[Bill Stanier]

The 'Cylists dismount' sign is a get out by the local authority who are not providing suitable cycle lanes - they just 'cop out' at junctions, roundabouts etc. instead of providing proper accommodation for cyclists.

Most UK 'cycle lanes' are mere 'box ticking' exercises by local authorities who don't actually believe in proper provision. Any self respecting cyclist will ignore these signs and take their rightful place in the traffic flow. The bureaucrats that erect these signs would be quite happy for cyclists to become pedestrians at those signs. If I wanted to be a pedestrian I'd have left my bike at home!

They are advisory. They are a cop out. They serve cars, not cyclists. Ignore them!

EDIT: I've been advised by the mods I should point out this does not approve pavement cycling. You should revert to the road on encountering these silly cop-out signs. Of course!

Bicycles should always be on the road or a suitable (many are not fit for purpose due debris etc) cycle path.

 

[radamfi]

I can think of a number of 'cycle dismount' signs where bus stops are placed alongside a combined pedestrian/cycle path, so not really at the end of a cycle path.

I remember reading a children's book on cycling in the 80s where the author advised that cycling on footpaths was illegal but 'it is better to be illegal and alive rather than legal and dead'.

Of course, nothing is done about cars parking on the pavement and that isn't even illegal outside London.

Obviously this thread wouldn't exist if we were discussing cycling in the Netherlands. After David Hembrow moved to the Netherlands, he took a number of years to find such a sign there

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/07/cyclists-dismount-at-last-ive-found-one.html

 

[GatwickDepress]

As someone who has been run down by some berk ignoring a "cyclists dismount" sign before a blind bend - I don't believe the "cyclists ignore the signs" spiel.

 

[causton]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this one yet.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

A Gentle Introduction to Mountain Biking

Market research by Windsor and Maidenhead council revealed that the most common cycles sold in Datchet were full suspension mountain bikes, yet few of their owners were choosing to cycle to work. In order to make their cycle provision more attractive to this demographic, they have installed this small mountain on the cycle path running alongside Major's Farm Road.

 

[12CSVT]

I was of course referring to a flying bicycle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10125921/UK-inventors-create-flying-bicycle.html

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Nothing new about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR1-UFrcZ0k

And Wallace & Gromit invented the motorcycle sidecar that turns into an aeroplane about 20 years ago.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They're advisory signs, not mandatory: the mandatory "no cycling" sign is a bicycle in a red circle. They're a bit rarer, but there is one on the bus lane at Holborn, which is stupid and dangerous as it sends cyclists round the busy gyratory instead.

My favourite is this one on St John Street in Islington. http://instagram.com/p/dDFzEFOUDJ/. Beyond the sign is a high kerb and then a choice of a wall or a steel gate followed by a steep flight of steps.

 

[gordonthemoron]

IME cyclist dismount signs are put in stupid places:

1. Cycle lane narrows, impossible to push bike as path is too narrow, possible to cycle carefully
2. MK council routing a national cycleway through a shopping centre
3. MK council putting barriers on cycle paths to stop cyclists racing across 'busy' roads (which are generally not busy)