Birmingham City Council insists 'No Cycling' signs on National Cycle Network will stay

"The council insists however that the signs are not misleading and that they will stay in place, with a spokesman saying: “Although the signs may look contradictory, the reality is that cyclists know what they need to do on this stretch of the route."

Which translated from council-speak means:

"We have cocked up completely, but are too pig-headed and arrogant to admit our mistake."

John, I read a story once about a guy who had a house somewhere on the lancashire coast, I think. Because he had a beachfront property, sand used to blow into his garden. Periodically he would gather the sand up and put it back onto the beach.

Local council threatened to do him for fly-tipping.

Sorry, slightly off-topic I know but it does get to illustrate the kind of idiots you get in local government. These people are in the public sector mostly because if they were in the private sector they'd go bust.

I am the cyclist featured in the newrpaper article.

eviltoystealer is correct when he says the sign refers to the whole width of the highway - a point the "experts" at the council didn't seem to accept.

I reported this sign to the council as being wrong 10 weeks earlier. When they showed no willingness to remove or change it I contacted the newspaper as I thought it was particularly silly. I'm glad Sustrans and RoSPA backed me up.

I have reported several other signs that are plainly wrong I and have had to make a fuss before they are eventually removed or corrected. I got frustrated at being ignored and thought this particularly silly one would be of interest to the press.

If the sign at the top of the article is a 'No Cycling' sign it should have a diagonal bar across it.
As it is, it means cycling allowed here, in fact we positively welcome it.

Councils put up Shared Use signs to encourage people to cycle on doorways and then change their mind and erect No Cycling signs. I wish they'd make their minds up.

The No Cycling sign erected at the side of the road applies to the full width of the highway (that means the footways and the carriageway). It should also have a Traffic Regulation Order behind it (following a legal process) or to inform of an existing Local By Law.

The book on the use of these signs (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs) states in Para 5.26 "The sign to diagram 951 (no cycling) should not be used to indicate the end of a shared pedestrian and cycle facility (see para 17.36)." To me it look like they have done just this!

Not very clearly thought through. We are now accustomed to blue signage for cycle paths/ways and as Sustrans stated, a sign advising 'rejoin carriageway' would have been clearer. It is kind of ironic especially when the DfT earlier in the year is aiming to reduce and make signage clearer on our roads. I am assuming that the council applied for permission to make this change. I know that there are very specific guidelines regards highway signage and councils can't really do there own thing in this area!!

looks like the way to get yourself through this recession is to start a sign making business.

A waste of money they don't have for more cycling facilities. Local government - like national government but with funny accents and strange haircuts.

!Although the signs may look contradictory, the reality is that cyclists know what they need to do on this stretch of the route."

My answer is: ignore all the signs.

The citizens of Buirmingham have been well served indeed.

It's Birmingham... they're still slowly dragging themselves out of the 1990's... backwards as hell.