What you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that aggressive drivers in Dalmeny will, because there are no signs telling them to beware of cyclists, deliberately run over cyclists
No... what I'm saying is that drivers on the estate are noting the signage and inferring that the burden of responsibility obviously lies fully with the cyclist to "beware", ie. get out of the way, of me, me who is the "local estate traffic".
These drivers already feel that cyclists are not particularly welcome, and will not typically recognise their own duty of care to slow down around vulnerable road users.
Since they can plainly see that there are a number of signs telling the cyclists to "beware" of them, the native traffic -- they are further enabled in this view. So why slow down even a little? Why not aggressively make the point that they aren't particuarly welcome?
could it be that [...] a sign telling an aggressive driver to beware cyclists would have naff all impact on that aggressive driver
Possibly, but it least it would be clearly recognised as specifically out of order.
Just as it would be for a cyclist to take a blind summit or corner at speed, without considering there might be a lamb or two hanging around. Or even a land rover.
This diversion remains in place for two months, possibly more.
Questionable driving has been noted from the outset -- how long before the stakes are raised, on a miserable monday morning, and some innocent cyclist is run off the road entirely, to their injury, a situation enabled because the signs all point only to the non-native cyclist's obligations around native traffic?
That the estate recognises the equitable rights of all road users is being held in some quarters to be self-evident.
I'm saying that it is anything but self-evident.
By the way I've no idea who put all the diversion and beware signs up. I'm not assuming it was definitely the estate.
Regardless, there should be advisory signs for all road users, not just one class of user.