No entry - Except Cycles
Meldrew of Meldreth
about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads to a
chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow vans).
I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
"Except 'cycles'".
--
Meldrew of Meldreth - Beware imitations
The Original Meldrew Man - posting since November 2000
J. Chisholm
>
> It has been brought to my attention that there's one of these signs
> about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
> exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
>
> Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads to a
> chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow vans).
>
> I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
> "Except 'cycles'".
>
not allowed with a No Entry. They won't even put one up for the
'illegal' No Enrty sign that currently exists outside the Senate House.
It currently appears that it is not possible to cyclist from King's
Parade to Senate House Passage.
I've seen puzzled cylists dismount and push their bikes for some metres
at that location.
Jim Chisholm
Paul Bolchover
>It currently appears that it is not possible to cyclist from King's
>Parade to Senate House Passage.
It is also not possible to cycle from Market Square to Senate House
Passage (after the traffic light, there is a "turn left" sign)
And, finally, the traffic lights are not visible from Senate House
Passage, nor is there a sign warning you of their existance. The first
time I encountered the traffic lights, I was going from Senate House
Passage to Kings Parade, and assumed that I had priority over traffic
coming from Market St (since I joined Senate House Hill first). However,
the van on Market St had a green traffic light so (quite reasonably)
assumed that it had priority, and I must have jumped a light. He honked
me, I gesticulated back, and we had a fair argument, until he pointed out
the existance of the lights...
Paul Bolchover
Colin Rosenstiel
Meldreth) wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that there's one of these signs
> about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
> exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
>
> Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads to
> a chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow vans).
>
> I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
> "Except 'cycles'".
Are you saying the "Except <cycle symbol>" plate is next to a "No Entry"
sign or not?
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
(Paul Bolchover) wrote:
I wish someone here on the spot would tackle the city centre pedestrian
office about this. The signing of this contract has been one of its many
disasters.
Colin Rosenstiel
Alan Braggins
> In message <3DC79049...@cam.ac.uk>, J. Chisholm <jc...@cam.ac.uk>
> writes
> >Cambridgeshire County Council insists that an 'except cyclists' plate is
> >not allowed with a No Entry.
>
How do you suggest that we get Peterborough County Council responsible
for putting up signs in Cambridge? (Or more sensibly, get Cambridge City
Council responsible).
Meldrew of Meldreth
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>How do you suggest that we get Peterborough County Council responsible
>for putting up signs in Cambridge? (Or more sensibly, get Cambridge City
>Council responsible).
Become a unitary authority.
Meldrew of Meldreth
Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> writes
>> It has been brought to my attention that there's one of these signs
>> about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
>> exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
>>
>> Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads to
>> a chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow vans).
>>
>> I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
>> "Except 'cycles'".
>
>Are you saying the "Except <cycle symbol>" plate is next to a "No Entry"
>sign or not?
The "No Entry" sign has a plate that says "Except Cycles" underneath.
The "No through road" sign (on a different but nearby road) has a plate
that says "Except <cycle symbol>" underneath.
Meldrew of Meldreth
>not allowed with a No Entry.
Clearly, Peterborough County Council disagrees!
Malcolm Gray
Get central goverment to change the highway authority?
I suspect for consitency someone would object to the sign in
Peterborough
and get it taken down....
Mark Ayliffe
Malcolm Gray <malcol...@jobstream.co.uk> typed:
Probably not. Peterborough is a city which was designed to accomodate
cyclists. And therefore cycle friendliness of the council is prolly a bvit
more natural. A luxury denied us in Cambridge as the bike was a few
centuries short of being invented when it was built.
Mark
Colin Rosenstiel
Meldreth) wrote:
> In message <4uu1iw9...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
> <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
> >How do you suggest that we get Peterborough County Council responsible
> >for putting up signs in Cambridge? (Or more sensibly, get Cambridge
> City
> >Council responsible).
>
> Become a unitary authority.
It's still Peterborough City Council, though.
Colin Rosenstiel
Meldrew of Meldreth
<mark.ayl...@nospam.pem.cam.andthis.ac.uk> writes
>> I suspect for consitency someone would object to the sign in
>> Peterborough
>> and get it taken down....
>
>Probably not. Peterborough is a city which was designed to accomodate
>cyclists. And therefore cycle friendliness of the council is prolly a bvit
>more natural.
Although there are dedicated cycle and footpaths on the edges of the
City, the sign in question is right in the middle, where there are no
cycle friendly measures other than a few cycle lanes and the odd cycle-
accommodating barrier to stop rat-running cars.
Patrick Gosling
Paul Bolchover <pb1...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>And, finally, the traffic lights are not visible from Senate House
>Passage, nor is there a sign warning you of their existance.
What's this "finally" ? You haven't touched on the fact that the
(temporary) traffic lights have neither a stop line, nor a "wait
behind this sign" sign (at any rate when approaching from Trinity
St).
Well dodgy.
-patrick.
John Joyce
wrote:
>Cambridgeshire County Council insists that an 'except cyclists' plate is
>not allowed with a No Entry. They won't even put one up for the
>'illegal' No Enrty sign that currently exists outside the Senate House.
>It currently appears that it is not possible to cyclist from King's
>Parade to Senate House Passage.
What about 'no motor vehicles' then - similar effect?
Am I right in thinking that Bene't St is two-way to cycles? It seems
to be 'no motor vehicles' from King's Parade where I'm sure it used to
be 'no entry'. (I haven't cycled much for two or three years)
bfn
John Joyce
Colin Rosenstiel
(John Joyce) wrote:
Your memory is correct. When the paving is rearranged to provide a cycle
lane entry the No Entry signs will be back.
Colin Rosenstiel
Simon Lane
> Cambridgeshire County Council insists that an 'except cyclists' plate is
> not allowed with a No Entry. They won't even put one up for the
> 'illegal' No Enrty sign that currently exists outside the Senate House.
> It currently appears that it is not possible to cyclist from King's
> Parade to Senate House Passage.
>
> I've seen puzzled cylists dismount and push their bikes for some metres
> at that location.
What laws would be broken if a few concerned locals bought an "except for
cycles" sign and affixed it below the "no entry" sign there?
http://www.streetfurnishings.co.uk
;-)
Cheers,
Simon.
Douglas de Lacey
>
> http://www.streetfurnishings.co.uk
>
Which is *simply* a redirect to www.macromedia,com (unless, I presume,
you are unlucky enough to have flash preinstalled)-:
Douglas de Lacey.
Colin Rosenstiel
Meldreth) wrote:
> In message <memo.2002110...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.ukwrites
> >> It has been brought to my attention that there's one of these signs
> >> about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
> >> exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
> >>
> >> Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads
> >> to a chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow
> >> vans).
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
> >> "Except 'cycles'".
> >
> >Are you saying the "Except <cycle symbol>" plate is next to a "No
> >Entry" sign or not?
>
> The "No Entry" sign has a plate that says "Except Cycles" underneath.
>
> The "No through road" sign (on a different but nearby road) has a plate
> that says "Except <cycle symbol>" underneath.
I expect that Peterborough City Council haven't properly checked or
understood the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. The
County Council discussed a possible relaxation with the DfT without
success. This makes it very difficult to claim ignorance as a defence if
they were to be erected now.
We even had trouble getting the 'No Entry' signs with 'except for
authorised buses and taxis' signs at the bollards authorised - they wanted
us to use 'no motor vehicles' signs.
Remember also the stiff letter the council got from the DfT about the Give
Way to the Right signs in Grange Road.
I expect Peterborough will be keeping their heads down.
Colin Rosenstiel
Douglas de Lacey
>
> In article <GvVIYhKN...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Meldrew of
> Meldreth) wrote:
>
> > In message <memo.2002110...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk>,
> > Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.ukwrites
> > >> It has been brought to my attention that there's one of these signs
> > >> about a hundred yards from my office in Peterborough. So they *do*
> > >> exist! It allows entry to a contraflow cycle lane.
> > >>
> > >> Nearby is a "No through road" - "Except <cycle symbol>" which leads
> > >> to a chicane only wide enough for cycles (and those very narrow
> > >> vans).
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure what the significance is of the two different forms of
> > >> "Except 'cycles'".
> > >
> > >Are you saying the "Except <cycle symbol>" plate is next to a "No
> > >Entry" sign or not?
> >
> > The "No Entry" sign has a plate that says "Except Cycles" underneath.
> >
> > The "No through road" sign (on a different but nearby road) has a plate
> > that says "Except <cycle symbol>" underneath.
>
> I expect that Peterborough City Council haven't properly checked or
> understood the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.
Good for them.
> Remember also the stiff letter the council got from the DfT about the Give
> Way to the Right signs in Grange Road.
I remember stiff letters from many here; I remember passionate defences
of the signs by at least one Councillor. I dohn't remember this list
being told by Councillors that they were dodgy. Why in this one case
were you so areless about properly checking out the tastes of the DfT?
Douglas de Lacey.
Meldrew of Meldreth
Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> writes
>Way to the Right signs in Grange Road.
They are plain misleading anyway.
Simon Lane
They sell traffic signs. Not worth downloading flash just to find that
out :-). I wonder what the legal position _would_ be if a member of
the public bought a suitable sign and stuck it up there. Obviously it
could be taken down (if anyone who cared noticed), but what would the
installer be charged with if caught? Littering?
Cheers,
Simon.
Doug Deboys
> Cambridgeshire County Council insists that an 'except cyclists' plate is
> not allowed with a No Entry.
There's one (<No Entry sign> Except <Bicycle symbol>) in the new
Park St cycle park.
Don't know which council would have put it up though...
--
Doug Deboys
Colin Rosenstiel
(Doug Deboys) wrote:
Not on the highway so not bound by silly government regulations.
Colin Rosenstiel