It is when it comes to speed limits, thus why they are posted at every feasible point where they change.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Princes Street "Cyclist Dismount"
(154 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"Can that sign really be displayed somewhere where you can't actually see it and be used against you?"
Ignorance of the law is no defence...
So the real question becomes: is there a 'no cycling' TRO for Princes St, and is there a No Cycling sign to accompany it? Either CEC has erected one or it hasn't.
Posted 12 years ago # -
FOI request anyone? Or is there someplace else one can look up TROs?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I refer learned members to
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4242#post-46595
And onwards
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yes but I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the TRO just prohibited turning onto Princes Street. If one happened to find ones self on ones bike in the lane (for whatever reason) it would be legal to cycle there?
And is a bicycle a vehicle anyway?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I wasn't suggesting that there was a hidden 'correct' no cycling sign. They would (as steveo points out) have to be correctly displayed at every entry point.
I was more making the hypothetical point so that people don't immediately assume when seeing a Cyclists Dismount sign that they can gaily carry on cycling - missing seeing a correctly placed 'no cycling' sign is no defence...
Interestingly there's a crossing of the Western Approach that carries a shared use path either side - bikes on the crossing lights and everything - and I'm not sure I've seen 'no cycling' signs on the road at that point...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Apparently from Google, "Until appropriate lining and signing has been completed on site, the TRO cannot come into force"
So if you don't sign for no cycling, can the TRO be binding?
Posted 12 years ago # -
The "Cyclists Dismount" sign probably falls into the category of a non-pescribed temporary sign (Regulation 53, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002). These signs are in the correct format for such signs and, if there is a TRO in place which prevents cycling, then they are perfectly "legal" - whether a cycling prohibited sign is displayed or not.
Anth is correct - it is not a good policy just to ignore road signs that you consider to be incorrect.
Posted 12 years ago # -
If you look at the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (2002), under item 966 (Cyclists Del Monte) it specifies the layout for the sign, which must be a blue rectangle. Also there are no permitted variants.So does that a big red version is not actually even worth the big piece of metal it's printed on? And furthermore, these signs are only to be placed "at the end of, or at a break in, a cycle lane, track or route". That big red one is not in any such location, therefore under my laymans interpretation of these regualtions, it shouldn't even legally be there!
The law states 11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.
Igonre all of the above, it's only to do with permanent signs.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I was more making the hypothetical point so that people don't immediately assume when seeing a Cyclists Dismount sign that they can gaily carry on cycling - missing seeing a correctly placed 'no cycling' sign is no defence..."
It's a good point, although I think that there shouldn't be any dismount signs within a prohibited area. For instance, there aren't dismount signs on ordinary pavements, or on motorways.
You could almost argue (maybe) that a dismount sign signals that it is OK to cycle - it is just advising cyclists that they might like to dismount, which suggests that it was OK for them to be riding in the first place. If it wasn't, the correct sign would be a repeater of the 'prohibited' sign.
I wouldn't suggest that as a viable defence but it certainly doesn't indicate that cycling is illegal.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@morningsider one other things I've dug up about "Temporary signs" is that a red sign with white lettering is only to be used for warnings about, or information on how to avoid, any temporary hazards .
So does "warning" or "information" constitute a prohibition order? I've still never seen the legally correct "no cycling" sign anywhere near Princes Street and according to my google defence, without correct signage the TRO would not be valid?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I wouldn't suggest that as a viable defence but it certainly doesn't indicate that cycling is illegal"
That's more or less my point. I'll let someone else be the test case... ;)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Agreeing with Kaputnik, I don't think a temporary sign can be used to legally sign a TRO prohibiting certain types of traffic.
53. - (1) In this regulation "temporary sign" means a sign placed on or near a road for the purpose of conveying to traffic -
(a) information about convenient routes to be followed on the occasion of -
(i) a sporting event;
(ii) an exhibition; or
(iii) any other public gathering,
which is in each case likely to attract a large volume of traffic;(b) information about diversions or alternative traffic routes;
(c) information about the availability of new routes or destinations;
(d) information about changes in route numbers;
(e) warnings about, or information on how to avoid, any temporary hazards caused by -
(i) works being executed on or near a road;
(ii) adverse weather conditions or other natural causes;
(iii) the failure of street lighting or malfunction of or damage to any other apparatus, equipment or facility used in connection with the road or anything situated on or near or under it; or
(iv) damage to the road itself; or
(f) requests by the police for information in connection with road traffic accidents.
They could potentially argue that they'd put a diversion in place and the sign was advising of it, but a) there is no diversion,
b) cyclists are not advised to take an alternative route - just to walk rather than ride along the carriageway.Posted 12 years ago # -
Kaputnik - I would argue that highlighting the provisions of a TRO falls under providing "information and warning".
In addition, Regulation 53(2) makes it clear that temporary signs can indicate "warning, requirement, restriction or prohibition ". Pretty sloppy wording from the parliamentary draughtsman in my opinion.
None of this is to say the Princes Street signs have any legal backing. I think haranguing the Council over the shape/type of road signs makes us all look like nutcases. I think a few questions along these lines might be better:
1. Can I legally cycle along Princes Street?
2. If not, can you explain why this prohibition is necessary?
3. If not, can you change the temporary TRO to allow cyclists to use Princes Street?Posted 12 years ago # -
@morningsider I would wager that the council / tram people don't even know for sure themselves if they've banned cyclists from Princes Street, they just have some vague inklings that they might have so they've put up some ambiguous and non-binding signs just in case.
I think our discussions with cyclecop Quentin indicated that the Police are none the wiser, and (so long as no harrassment is being caused and you're not on the pavement) they really have more pressing priorities.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Kaputnik - agreed, but if we asked the Council about this then they would have to find out and take action accordingly re signs etc.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Personally I don't have a problem with the way things are. It's unrealistic to expect the council to do anything to benefit cyclists, so pursuing it is only likely to lead to:
1. no action
2. correctly signing / making a TRO that *does* prohibit cyclingAt the moment, you can cycle along Princes St and have a virtually cast-iron defence that even if there is a TRO, it is not signed correctly at at least one of the dozen or so possible entry points. This makes it rather pleasant - enjoyable ride, potential to snub a jobsworth.
Pity I never need to cycle along Princes St!
Posted 12 years ago # -
"if we asked the Council about this then they would have to find out and take action accordingly re signs etc."
That's being optimistic!
CEC has form - Porty Prom, Meadows, Links.
As for the the 'tram project'...
Just because that has come 'in house' doesn't mean it's any likely to be taking notice of CEC's alleged pro-cycling policies!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Though Dave, there is the reputational damage to be done to cycling by you doing so. Y'see Joe Public sees the 'Cyclists Dismount' signs, and Joe Public thinks that means 'No Cycling', and Joe Public sees you as 'yet another cyclist thinking the rules of the road don't apply to him'.
I propose we make banners stating 'This sign has not been erected pursuant to a correctly in force TRO and the correct signage has not been placed at any entry points to this road, accordingly cycling here is perfectly legal and the dismount signs are therefore merely advisory and unenforceable and I am riding at a sedate pace which is unlikely to cause any harm to anyone'
It'll have to be quite a large banner. Obviously.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"It'll have to be quite a large banner"
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Anth is correct - it is not a good policy just to ignore road signs that you consider to be incorrect."
I'll let other people chance it when there's a police standing there; I didn't have time to either be stopped or to get into an argument.
Posted 12 years ago # -
round and round we go ...
Morningsider: In addition, Regulation 53(2) makes it clear that temporary signs can indicate "warning, requirement, restriction or prohibition ".
But if it "can be conveyed by a sign shown in a diagram in Schedules 1 to 12 (whether on its own or in conjunction or in combination with another such sign) shall be of the size, colour and type shown in that diagram"
So I think we're back to asking what authorisation is there for the sign (white letters on red background "cyclists dismount") to be there? (None?) So rather than cycling past such a sign being an offence, is it not putting up the sign that is an offence?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"... is it not putting up the sign that is an offence?"
No. The legislation/regulation is for making signs legal and/or effective; not for making other signs 'illegal'.
'Illegal' isn't a synonym for 'not legal/legally enforceable'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Regarding the "disobedience of the spirit of invalid road signage", I cheerfully flaunt such small-minded spirit!
In my opinion peaceful civil disobedience (ignoring stupidly erected signage not backed by a TRO so it can't be objected-to) in this case is wonderfully justified.
IMO we should all be careful not to fall into the trap of justifying prejudice because we can imagine circumstances that may genuinely irritate the prejudiced.
At the end of the day, even if every cyclist obeyed every law (real and implied) and even dodgy signage put up by third parties, it would make not a jot of difference to our situation vis-a-vis the "wrong type" of person.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"IMO we should all be careful not to fall into the trap of justifying prejudice because we can imagine circumstances that may genuinely irritate the prejudiced."
If you don't mind me saying so, that sounds very like drivers justifying their 'right' to break the speed limit because they think the limit at that particular point is artificially slow.
It's not 'justifying prejudice' if we recognise it exists and adjust accordingly, it's 'not backing up that prejudice', which is a much stronger position to argue from.
Posted 12 years ago # -
You added that last paragraph as I was typing my reply - and you're right, to many it wouldn't alter how they feel. But to the wider audience it would give a much stronger arguing position.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Can I just ask, Dave, say you were riding home really late, the streets are deserted save for a few people walking, there's a red light ahead. Do you stop at the red light or ride through (safely and paying attention)?
Posted 12 years ago # -
@anth you forgot the "and check over your shoulder for following Police cars" :)
If a cyclist goes through a red light in the woods, and nobody is around to see them do it, do they make a noise?
Posted 12 years ago # -
slowcoach - I'm not sure I agree. The sign Dave showed in a previous post means "Riding of pedal cycles prohibited". Mounting these signs on routes where there are clearly marked on-road cycle lanes could lead to confusion. I would argue that the "Cyclists dismount" sign is a much clearer instruction to cyclists about what is expected and permitted under the 2002 Direction as it conveys a message that is not the subject of a prescribed sign.
I'm not trying to justify these signs (see previous threads), but we can't really argue they are illegal or incorrect.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ok - skimmed most of the above....
The sign whether legal or not is to remind the general population that cycling is not to be encouraged.No doubt if I cycled by it someone could say - 'typical cyclist - can't even read'. This may well be same person who pays scant attention to road signs and has just legally parked on the Mound's non working cycle route.
The sign reminds the majority that cycling has become a nuisance and are at liberty to ignore/obstruct the swarms of cyclists who might use Princes St if encouraged.
I read it like 'no spitting allowed - don't drop litter, chewing gum etc'.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
