"Not every person on a cycle can dismount": Questions asked of 'cyclists dismount' signs on national cycle route during works

Dislike

Being one at the moment, to dismount you look for a suitable block or kerb or something raised above ground level, put your foot down on this and carefully ease your other leg over the saddle. Mounting is simply the reverse process. And it's still sufficiently uncomfortable that you don't want to do it unnecessarily. Without a block it is possible, but seriously painful, and I can't see anything to dismount on in the photo. However, once I am on the bike I can get around far more easily than on foot, which makes it worthwhile.

I assume that you only go on long rides then, as presumably these difficulties would mean that it's not worth it to take a short trip somewhere with no guarantee of dismounting. 

There are bikes that do allow for easy on and offing - like a dutch bike or often folding bikes are easier still. You could use them

I recommend a trip round the Wheels For Wellbeing site (plus there are several folks on here IIRC who can also share.

Once was riding for a minute behind someone before realising what was odd - no leg on one side! Had a quick chat at the next lights, they found it much easier and more convenient than crutches or a wheelchair. It wasn't just getting on and off that was the issue...

EDIT crutches strapped along top tube IIRC, bike was also a folder FWIW but again it wasn't simply about the act of dismounting.

If you are only able to walk 20m or 50m, the definition of a "long trip" is a little different.

I believe <50m is the requirement to obtain a blue badge for your car (open to correction as I have nto looked it up).

A Losers wrote:

And what sort of lunatic would suggest that cyclists cant dismount

As Rod suggests, they find a way to get their leg over. Something which, I doubt you have ever been able to do. 

I'm still proud to be a Woke, Snowflake, Lefty Loser.

MattieKempy wrote:

I'm still proud to be a Woke, Snowflake, Lefty Loser.

You can join Jeremy Corbyn in the gutter then. 

I didn't even know Jeremy Corbyn was in a band. Are they any good?

perce wrote:

I didn't even know Jeremy Corbyn was in a band. Are they any good?

Brilliant. Don't you remember the 100 000 people singing his name at Glastonbury a few years back. Should have gone on to do great things but sadly, his own band nobbled him resulting in the right mess: "Sunak and the kid killers",we have instead. 

essexian wrote:

perce wrote:

I didn't even know Jeremy Corbyn was in a band. Are they any good?

Brilliant. Don't you remember the 100 000 people singing his name at Glastonbury a few years back. Should have gone on to do great things but sadly, his own band nobbled him resulting in the right mess: "Sunak and the kid killers",we have instead. 

Hows that chip on your shoulder coming along?

A Losers wrote:

Hows that chip on your shoulder coming along?

Sigh... I am sure your Nanny has told you this, but chips either go in paper to be consumed on the move, or on a plate as dinner. They never go on your shoulder. 

I know using a knife and fork is difficult but with practice, you'll get there young Master Loser. 

essexian wrote:

Sigh... I am sure your Nanny has told you this, but chips either go in paper to be consumed on the move, or on a plate as dinner. They never go on your shoulder. 

I know using a knife and fork is difficult but with practice, you'll get there young Master Loser. 

Now now, no need to keep picking bones.

Also, you must have awful luck to be the dunce again. 

Yes I can.

I was in mild shock at the size of the Gullible demographic !

mattw wrote:

Yes I can.

I was in mild shock at the size of the Gullible demographic !

Something like 52% of voters, I believe

perce wrote:

I didn't even know Jeremy Corbyn was in a band. Are they any good?

No. 

Better than the boy band playing at the moment. I think they're called 'No Direction'

I've never been a fan either tbf

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

So...people are complaining because some cyclists cant apparently dismount

How the chuff do they get off then when they finish a ride? 

Or even, how do they get on the bike in the first place? 

And what sort of lunatic would suggest that cyclists cant dismount

I feel Fremdscham.

RicCycleCoach wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't "Cycists dismount" signs not actually legal/a requirement - you need a TRO. So you could just ignore them?

If this was on a road where cars were being allowed through – as they often are in contraflows, for example - then that would be the case. In this instance in Bath as far as I can see the "Cyclist dismount" signs are there to tell cyclists that they ride on the pavement to get round the roadworks, so they are simply confirming the law against pavement cycling. I think the council would actually have to put an order in place stating that part of the pavement had become a temporary cycle lane and established markings and signage to that effect to make it legal/safe. Not saying they couldn't/shouldn't have done that, but as it stands cyclists can't legally ignore the dismount signs because they are telling them not to cycle illegally on the pavement.

I think the edge of the footway is presumably where the tactile paving slabs are. From the picture shown, it would appear there is space for cyclists to pass by the works without cycling onto the footway - if you are to the left of the sign I think you would be on the carriageway (even if it is a "carriageway" from which motor vehicles are currently prohibited). It's not clear what is out of shot to the left - it's possible that the hoarding does entirely block the carriageway just out of frame. 

(location on street view: https://goo.gl/maps/giVJZJF6ZH37Scng8 ) 

Rendel Harris wrote:

If this was on a road where cars were being allowed through – as they often are in contraflows, for example - then that would be the case. In this instance in Bath as far as I can see the "Cyclist dismount" signs are there to tell cyclists that they ride on the pavement to get round the roadworks, so they are simply confirming the law against pavement cycling. I think the council would actually have to put an order in place stating that part of the pavement had become a temporary cycle lane and established markings and signage to that effect to make it legal/safe. Not saying they couldn't/shouldn't have done that, but as it stands cyclists can't legally ignore the dismount signs because they are telling them not to cycle illegally on the pavement.

I usually take the attitude that if a road sign isn't round, then it's advisory only.

Don't different rules apply for temporary road works as traffic is often affected and it doesn't sound very convenient that temporary lights etc. require a Traffic Regulation Order.

As a general summary:

Temporary traffic lights don't require a TRO; a Temprorary TRO would deal with significant restrictions such as a road closure to traffic for roadworks/construction. Other traffic lights for TM around roadworks where passage is limited would require a highways permit, except statutory undertakers have the right to implement in urgent cases, with the paperwork followed up.

"Cyclist dismount" shouldn't apply if motor traffic is still running (because cycle can pass just as motor traffic does; but it may apply if all vehicles are restricted. It doesn't have authority in its own right - it usually reflects the prevailing limit and the imposition of the temporary, all-vehicle restriction.

"Safety at Street Works and Road Works" covers the use of temporary "cyclists dismount" signage and is legally enforceable.

GMBasix wrote:

As a general summary:

Temporary traffic lights don't require a TRO; a Temprorary TRO would deal with significant restrictions such as a road closure to traffic for roadworks/construction. Other traffic lights for TM around roadworks where passage is limited would require a highways permit, except statutory undertakers have the right to implement in urgent cases, with the paperwork followed up.

"Cyclist dismount" shouldn't apply if motor traffic is still running (because cycle can pass just as motor traffic does; but it may apply if all vehicles are restricted. It doesn't have authority in its own right - it usually reflects the prevailing limit and the imposition of the temporary, all-vehicle restriction.

"Safety at Street Works and Road Works" covers the use of temporary "cyclists dismount" signage and is legally enforceable.

I presume that the "Safety at Street Works and Road Works" is legally enforceable for the people doing the street/road works rather than the "Cyclists Dismount" sign being legally enforceable.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I presume that the "Safety at Street Works and Road Works" is legally enforceable for the people doing the street/road works rather than the "Cyclists Dismount" sign being legally enforceable.

Yes. Although, if the "Cyclists Dismount" sign is legally placed, I presume it carries legally enforceable status if the road has been lawfully closed to vehicles. Not because the sign itself has effect, but because the road closure does.

GMBasix wrote:

Yes. Although, if the "Cyclists Dismount" sign is legally placed, I presume it carries legally enforceable status if the road has been lawfully closed to vehicles. Not because the sign itself has effect, but because the road closure does.

Well, that raises the question of whether cyclists can legally travel down a "closed road" if it isn't closed to pedestrians. I would presume you could claim that the signage was insufficient if it's not a round sign as usually used for mandatory instructions.

Probably, but I don't know if a road closure requires a round sign.

Red-bordered, round signs (usually) imply prohibition, but I'm not sure that's the only way a closure order can be lawfully effected.

To dissemble your question further, is a cyclist still a cyclist if they are wheeling their cycle unmounted? In which case, the answer would be yes (since the walking cyclist would not be prohibited by the sign). It would also be yes if the road is only closed to motor vehicles.

If you have to mount a footway (namely, a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only) then the answer is 'no'. Does a road that is temporarily closed to motor traffic amount to a way that also comprises a carriageway? In other words, does "carriageway" imply not only the physical presence of the bit that you expect vehicles to be on, but also the cenceptual presence of the right to pass along it in a carriage?

If so, you might argue that the path you've just ridden onto is no longer a footway for the purposes of the various acts that depend upon the definition. But you might be barking up a tree. A relevant officer might just suggest you take it up with the contacts at the bottom of the form he gives you.