CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Guerilla anti cycling signs

(78 posts)

123

  1. neddie
    Member

    Some clown has been putting up "Police" notices telling cyclists not to cycle on the pavements. This guerrilla anti-cycling sign appeared on the Balgreen-Corstophine path over the weekend of 17/18 Nov 2012. It is clearly homemade and not a police sign.

    If the police put up a sign for every law, the country would be obliterated in signs! How about a sign "Thou shalt not murder"? Or how about "POLICE NOTICE TO MOTORISTS - YOU MUST NOT RUN PEOPLE DOWN"

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonsai_bonus/8201034740/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonsai_bonus/8201035154/

    (sorry can't get the pics to display)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. steveo
    Member

    Yeah I rode past that on the pavement the other day wondering why any one would post them :D

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    edd1e_h - those aren't Guerilla, those are official police signs. There are further ones up at Roseburn near Balbirnie where you the path stops just ahead of the ski-slalom down to Russell Road.

    I assume the ones at Roseburn are to discourage people who would prefer not to cycle on the main A8 road to get between the Roseburn Path and Russell Road / Roseburn Park.

    I've no idea what the ones at Corstorphine are for, or why they are there. It's a very lightly used path (by cyclists).

    You could always get in touch through Clarence to complain about the signs - I did this about the paper signs on the Russell Road "cycling access maintained" section and got some crap excuses from the Tram people.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. SRD
    Moderator

    k'nik - are you sure? I thought the access act would make it impossible to ban cyclists from a path like that.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The signs aren't for the path I'm sure - they are just ahead of the access to the paths, I'm sure they are aimed at people riding too/from the paths via the pavement.

    The Corstorphine one is pretty baffling as it's access to a street that doesn't have any houses on it at that point! Pinkhill at that point is really just a car park... I can imagine the narrow pavements at Roseburn having caused issues with cyclist/pedestrian conflict. But there?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. neddie
    Member

    The signs don't seem to have any kind of police logo. And why not a more standard "Cyclists Dismount [while crossing the pavement]"?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Was going to mention the land access laws, but easier to cut n' paste Morningsider...

    Cycling on a footway (pavement) or footpath is an offence under section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Section 6(d) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 exempts any land where access is restricted by another Act from the access legislation - which would presumably cover the legislative restriction on cycling on pavements.

    So it's altogether possible the signs could apply to the path in the photo unless cycling has been specifically allowed.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    From this thread specifically about land access and pavement cycling.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "There are further ones up at Roseburn near Balbirnie where you the path stops just ahead of the ski-slalom down to Russell Road"

    Can you be more precise - do you mean on the Roseburn path just before it goes down to Balbirnie Place?

    The one by Pinkhill is just bizarre.

    Why would enough cyclists have exited there on to a fairly quiet road have felt the need to cycle on the pavement enough to get enough people to complain so that someone thought it would be a good idea/necessary to put signs up???

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. neddie
    Member


    Guerilla anti-cycling sign


    Guerilla anti-cycling sign

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. stiltskin
    Member

    Hmmm. I'm a fairly law abiding sort of bloke & people who ride on the pavement generally annoy me. ... But there is something about that sort of sign that makes me want to buunyhop off the road and join the pedestrians. I reckon that even though they clearly won't last that long they are liable to be counter-productive.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm a fairly law abiding sort of bloke & people who ride on the pavement generally annoy me"

    Haven't seen any for a few days. A few RLJs (mostly going on pedestrian green)

    BUT that's a fraction of the number of cars in ASL boxes every day.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. HankChief
    Member

    I saw it too and thought it applied to the access route. My thought was that it must have to do with some roadworks on Pinkhill and cyclists going round the blocked road on thepavement. I'm not down there enough to remember any such roadworks mind.

    The other possibility is that there's not a dropped curb there and cyclists are cycling on the pavement until they can comfortably get to road level.

    Definitely a puzzle about what they hoped to achieve by it. Maybe it is a low tech version of those general information boards on the motorway telling you to fasten your seatbelt.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. LivM
    Member

    I can't picture quite where those signs are, but the term "Pavement" seems inappropriate here - normally I would think of a pavement as being a footway (i.e. running alongside a carriageway as part of a "road") rather than what this looks like, which is a foot path (separated from a road, and which normally doesn't have the same restriction from cycling, unless there is a specific order). see article

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Dave
    Member

    Those do look highly collectable. Do they comply with the regulations for signage on the Queen's Highway? :P

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    LivD, that article is based on English law. From the linked thread above, s.129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act contains the rules with regad to Scotland, and riding on a foot way or footpath are offences. s.151 contains the interpretation provisions, where there is a similar distinction (footway is alongside a carriageway, footpath is separate), but basically, unless specifically allowed cycling is not permitted on either footways or footpaths, and as stated in the précis thread, and the Morningsider quote above, the Land Reform Act doesn't override that previous statute.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    p.s. Pavement has no legal definition in the R(S)A, so while it's arguable this should mean footway, there's no basis for it only being limited to that and could equally be applied as an understandable term to footpaths as well.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. kaputnik
    Moderator

    "There are further ones up at Roseburn near Balbirnie where you the path stops just ahead of the ski-slalom down to Russell Road"

    Can you be more precise - do you mean on the Roseburn path just before it goes down to Balbirnie Place?

    Yes.

    Here.

    I assume it's aimed at people who come off the path and use pavement to get round to Russell Road or Roseburn Park.

    There are a total of SEVEN yellow temporary signs conveying various, confusing and somewhat conflicting instructions here. I don't think the Police signs help the situation really.

    Re Hankchief's comment;

    The other possibility is that there's not a dropped curb there

    There is a dropped curb there, I use it every other day or so. I've never seen anyone pavement cycling around Pinkhill.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. SRD
    Moderator

    But it looks like the signs are oriented towards people entering the paths, not going onto to the pavements!

    Is the distinction between 'path' and 'pavement' very clear to indigenous communities? It's taken me nearly 20 years to fully grasp that 'pavement = sidewalk' in my native tongue. In my first week here, we were told 'don't cycle on the pavements!'. Only to have someone frantically try to explain that 'pavement' which in NA is a synonym for 'Tarmac' i.e.e road here means sidewalk.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. HankChief
    Member

    Kaputnik - thank for the correction. mine was the guess that went through my head.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Tulyar
    Member

    As SRD notes pavement is a generic term for paved surface, generally man made, which is also generally used as a route for transport on foot or by wheeled vehicle.

    Footway is the portion of a highway provided for exclusive use of traffic on foot, and carriageway is the portion of the highway for all traffic including that on foot. I hadn't noticed the footpath difference between Scotland and England as in England there is no criminal law applicable to cycling on a footpath.

    It would be a welcome campaign and avoid the silly idea that we need a new law to deal with footway parking to extend the same legal detail that allows the use of a verifiable photograph of a motor vehicle passing a traffic signal displaying a stop aspect (amber, red, red & amber), exceeding the speed limit, using a road over which passage of the vehicle is prohibited, and parking on a carriageway contra to parking or other restrictions, to fine or charge the registered keeper with the offence, unless the registerd keeper provides details of the person driving the vehicle at that time. It is patently obvious that a car parked on a footway can only have got there if it has been driven on the footway, and the law creating the facility to issue an FPN to a cyclist for breaching s.72 HA 1835 as amended by LGA 1888, is also delivered to the keeper/driver of a vehicle which has also broken the same law.

    A few FPN's banged off to the keepers of cars parked on a footway and we might see some changes

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I don't think the signs are saying 'don't cycle here', I don't think they are aimed at the paths (mostly at entrance/exit of shared use paths) on which they are sited specifically.

    I think they have been put at strategic locations (where there are lots of cyclists), simply to remind cyclists not to cycle on pavements.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "I think they have been put at strategic locations (where there are lots of cyclists), simply to remind cyclists not to cycle on pavements."

    That makes sense - though not the signs themselves!

    Apparently -

    "
    Local Safer Neighbourhood Teams in response to concerns by residents (rated as one of a number of high priorities by the community).

    "

    So when will there be signs aimed at 'motorists' at each ASL??

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. minus six
    Member

    simply to remind cyclists not to cycle on pavements

    If that were the case, surely it should say

    "you must not cycle on pavements"

    instead of

    "you must not cycle on THE pavements"

    Anyway you look at it, this signage is blatant discrimination, in the context of an environment where shared use paths are endemic due to lack of real cycling infrastructure.

    these signs might as well just say:

    "f*ck you, cyclists! you're not welcome round here"

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. SRD
    Moderator

    ....which is doubtless exactly the message that the 'local safer neighbourhood team' heard.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I take it the Safer Neighbourhood Team can justify the signs at Pinkhill somehow? I assume that they only listen to the whinges and gripes of local residents, so I as a transient commuter cant complain to them of off-leash dogs depositing their business all over same place.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. minus six
    Member

    ...public enemy number one

    in a country where road deaths are treated as collateral damage

    the mind boggles

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. kaputnik
    Moderator

    A FOI request to L&B could turn up how many incidents and complaints there have been here regarding pavement cycling...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I dont see the big deal.

    We talk about pavement cycling and dog fouling in the same breath as road deaths, as if somehow road deaths are of lesser concern.
    They are not of lesser concern, just a different department so to speak...

    If you ask some Wester Coates residents what concerns them about the local area, pavement cycling, and dog fouling may come out pretty high on the list, not many fatal road collisions on those leafy streets.

    Ask someone from Muirhouse, and I'm sure anti social behaviour, drug abuse, and fire raising may top their list. Don't imagine they would cite pavement cycling as a major concern.

    So if Police, Council, whoever, have decided to get all touchy feely, and put in Community liaison officers to help with local issues, these are exactly the type of things that will come up.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. neddie
    Member

    This is clearly discrimination against cyclists. If you have any doubt about that, substitute the word 'cyclist' for 'black people', 'cycle' for 'ride' and 'pavements' for 'buses' and quickly you have a sign that is completely socially unacceptable.

    What would be the best way to make a complaint to the Local "Safer" Neighbourhood Teams ?

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin