Hills Road roadworks mess or not?

[Michael Kilpatrick]

What sort of mess is Hills Road in? Can I drive up from Addenbrookes to
Station Road/St Paul's Road etc, or is there an almighty mess owing to
the works that are signed on the approach to the city?

Michael

[Theo Markettos]

Those roadworks are clear now, I think... did Trumpington to St Paul's
on Sunday and there wasn't anything there.

Queen's Road/Silver St/Sidgwick Avenue, on the other hand...

And don't forget M11 J11, whose roadworks are overrunning by another week -
I was not amused at having to drive to Duxford and back when they closed the
sliproad.

Theo

[Richard Kettlewell]

It was OK from Station Road northwards this morning. I don’t know about
south of that.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Ric Parkin]

Cycled back from Addenbrooke's into town last night and are clear the whole length.

Ric

[Andrew May]

Came up that way last week. The only way to go on reaching the
roundabout was the M11 north. Made me wonder what I would have been
expected to do had I been driving a vehicle that was not allowed on the
motorway. The signage didn't seem to consider that possibility.

[ke10]

On 06/11/2012 12:23, Theo Markettos wrote:

>

> Queen's Road/Silver St/Sidgwick Avenue, on the other hand...
>

At the east and west approaches to those lights (I haven't checked the
other two), there are notices saying "Cyclists please dismount". Why?
It adds nothing to safety (I have not seen any driver, even the
craziest, attempt to go through that intersection as it is at present at
more than cycling speed), and hugely inconveniences cyclists and
pedestrians to no purpose whatever.

Actually, of course, everyone is ignoring the notices, even people like
me who conscientiously stop at traffic lights, and no harm is being
done, except for reinforcing the habit of ignoring notices.

Who is responsible for such things - the City, the contractors, the Gas
Board? They could do with being reminded that cyclists are road users
too and that closing a road to them needs a real safety justification,
not a knee-jerk reaction.

For those who haven't been there recently (don't) there are now four-way
lights perhaps 10 yards or more from the actual junction on each
approach road. Each road is limited to half its width. The process of
getting through is slow but much safer than it was when there was just
one hole in the road - as long as you stay on your bike!

Katy

[Douglas de Lacey]

On 06/11/12 15:21, ke10 wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 12:23, Theo Markettos wrote:
>
>>
>> Queen's Road/Silver St/Sidgwick Avenue, on the other hand...
>>
>
> At the east and west approaches to those lights (I haven't checked the
> other two), there are notices saying "Cyclists please dismount". Why?
> It adds nothing to safety (I have not seen any driver, even the
> craziest, attempt to go through that intersection as it is at present at
> more than cycling speed), and hugely inconveniences cyclists and
> pedestrians to no purpose whatever.

One of them rather endearingly says something like `Cyclists please wait
for a green light'. In fact it is only the furniture they have added
(specifically, the lights) that makes it hard for cyclists to continue
in perfect safety whatever the light phase (so at least I am told by a
colleague who did it).

> Actually, of course, everyone is ignoring the notices

And many, the lights; that much I saw for myself.

Douglas de Lacey

[Katy Edgcombe]

I think you're thinking of the works outside Queens'.

That's where the notice is about waiting for the green light,
and some people (not a majority) are ignoring it. It is almost but not
quite safe to do so,
whatever your colleague says.

I was thinking about the intersection, where I have not yet seen any
cyclist ignoring the lights (and it is certainly far from safe to do
so), though some respond by riding on the pavement.

This evening - and this was predictable - the queue outbound for the
intersection lights is backed up right through the Queens' narrowing,
which is therefore completely blocked. Buses going the other way, with
a green light, have no hope of getting through; there were three waiting
when I cam past. I can't see how they are going to disentangle that
unless some intelligent peron in Silver Street realises what's happening
(which they can't see) and nobly refrains from mvoing forward on a green
light.

Katy

[TimB]

I'd like to see the county council take a stand and say that any contractor who puts up these ridiculous 'Cyclists Dismount' signs will not get work for say a couple of years - cyclists are legitimate road users and can't just be brushed under the carpet!
Tim

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:13:44 -0800 (PST)
TimB <twbu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I'd like to see the county council take a stand and say that any
> contractor who puts up these ridiculous 'Cyclists Dismount' signs will
> not get work for say a couple of years - cyclists are legitimate road
> users and can't just be brushed under the carpet!

But Cambridgeshire is the county that likes "Cyclist Dismount" signs so
much it must order them in bulk. For example 5 of them between Swaffham
Prior and Bottisham on NCN 51.



Mike

[Espen Koht]

In article <9Ho*fR...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

ke10 <ke...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 06/11/2012 12:23, Theo Markettos wrote:
>
> >
> > Queen's Road/Silver St/Sidgwick Avenue, on the other hand...
> >
>
> At the east and west approaches to those lights (I haven't checked the
> other two), there are notices saying "Cyclists please dismount". Why?
> It adds nothing to safety (I have not seen any driver, even the
> craziest, attempt to go through that intersection as it is at present at
> more than cycling speed), and hugely inconveniences cyclists and
> pedestrians to no purpose whatever.

This morning there was a PCSO actively stopping cyclists and encouraging
them to do the same, which probably worked out to be more efficient,
*howver* at that point the west-bound lane was completely closed off and
the lights, as she suggested, 'far too slow to change', so the
circumstances were exceptionally complicated by fact that there was only
a single lane available for traffic in and out of Silver St.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <47da06c5-dc3d-4f4d...@googlegroups.com>,

twbu...@yahoo.co.uk (TimB) wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:21:59 PM UTC, ke10 wrote:
> > On 06/11/2012 12:23, Theo Markettos wrote:
> >
> > > Queen's Road/Silver St/Sidgwick Avenue, on the other hand...
> >
> > At the east and west approaches to those lights (I haven't checked the
> > other two), there are notices saying "Cyclists please dismount". Why?
> >
> > It adds nothing to safety (I have not seen any driver, even the
> > craziest, attempt to go through that intersection as it is at present at
> > more than cycling speed), and hugely inconveniences cyclists and
> > pedestrians to no purpose whatever.
> >
> > Actually, of course, everyone is ignoring the notices, even people like
> > me who conscientiously stop at traffic lights, and no harm is being
> > done, except for reinforcing the habit of ignoring notices.
> >
> > Who is responsible for such things - the City, the contractors, the Gas
> > Board? They could do with being reminded that cyclists are road users
> > too and that closing a road to them needs a real safety justification,
> > not a knee-jerk reaction.

The contractors, with some supervision by the County Council which is the
Highway Authority.

> > For those who haven't been there recently (don't) there are now four-way
> > lights perhaps 10 yards or more from the actual junction on each
> > approach road. Each road is limited to half its width. The process of
> > getting through is slow but much safer than it was when there was just
> > one hole in the road - as long as you stay on your bike!
>

> I'd like to see the county council take a stand and say that any
> contractor who puts up these ridiculous 'Cyclists Dismount' signs
> will not get work for say a couple of years - cyclists are legitimate
> road users and can't just be brushed under the carpet!

The point was raised with Cllr Martin Curtis, the County's Cycling Champion,
at tonight's Cycling Campaign AGM.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[TimB]

You mean the blue and white ones? Yes, they're appalling too, presumably foisted on us by a risk-averse legal department, but this is about the temporary ones contractors dump in cycle lanes.
Tim

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <J6SdnT0DrrYkOATN...@giganews.com>,

<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <47da06c5-dc3d-4f4d...@googlegroups.com>,
>twbu...@yahoo.co.uk (TimB) wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:21:59 PM UTC, ke10 wrote:
>> >
>> > Who is responsible for such things - the City, the contractors, the Gas
>> > Board? They could do with being reminded that cyclists are road users
>> > too and that closing a road to them needs a real safety justification,
>> > not a knee-jerk reaction.
>
>The contractors, with some supervision by the County Council which is the
>Highway Authority.

While that is correct, the County has outsourced its supervision to the
contractors. It's not allowed to, but so what? And, no, real safety
justification is NOT needed - that's only for pedestrian access, and
for actually preventing cyclists getting through at all for more than
8 hours a day.

>> I'd like to see the county council take a stand and say that any
>> contractor who puts up these ridiculous 'Cyclists Dismount' signs
>> will not get work for say a couple of years - cyclists are legitimate
>> road users and can't just be brushed under the carpet!
>
>The point was raised with Cllr Martin Curtis, the County's Cycling Champion,
>at tonight's Cycling Campaign AGM.

As it has been many times before. The only question now is whether
this results in some wittering in public or not, because it assuredly
isn't going to result in any action. Despite their claims, both of
those organisations regard cyclists as wheeled pedestrians rather than
vehicular traffic.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Martin]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> As it has been many times before. The only question now is whether this
> results in some wittering in public or not, because it assuredly isn't
> going to result in any action.

That would be why the County got the Hills Road contractors to put in a
segregated contraflow then during the recent works, then?

http://cambridge.cyclestreets.net/location/45882/


Martin

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,

Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> As it has been many times before. The only question now is whether this
>> results in some wittering in public or not, because it assuredly isn't
>> going to result in any action.
>
>That would be why the County got the Hills Road contractors to put in a
>segregated contraflow then during the recent works, then?

That is not even remotely comparable, as you know perfectly well.

Adopting a policy of no "cyclists dismount" signs and providing the
resources to enforce it is about as likely as them doing the same
for blocking pavements without providing a safe alternative. Well
into flying pig territory. Anyway, you would oppose it, in any case
where the alternatives were "cyclists" dismount or a 1 mile diversion.

Providing a contraflow in a case where it was clear to the meanest
intelligence that not doing so would cause utter chaos, and even
expose the County to a claim for negligence by injured pedestrians
or cyclists, is quite another matter.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[TimB]

I'm sorry? Did you mean that the Cycling Campaign regards cyclists as wheeled pedestrians?
Tim

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <f547ed22-4e34-4306...@googlegroups.com>,

TimB <twbu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm sorry? Did you mean that the Cycling Campaign regards cyclists
>as wheeled pedestrians?

Their official position, as stated on the Web page, doesn't. However,
I base my opinions far more on actions, as well as personal experience
of the committee's attitude when I was a member. The latter is also
confirmed by what the County's development people have old me that the
Cambridge Cycling Campaign said to them verbally. But that last is
hearsay, so I give it a relatively low reliability rating.

I do keep an eye on their Web page, and responses to planning proposals
and consultations, to see if there is any evidence of change, but have
not yet seen any.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Jon Warbrick]

In article <9Ho*fR...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
ke10 <ke...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>At the east and west approaches to those lights (I haven't checked the
>other two), there are notices saying "Cyclists please dismount". Why?
>It adds nothing to safety (I have not seen any driver, even the
>craziest, attempt to go through that intersection as it is at present at
>more than cycling speed), and hugely inconveniences cyclists and
>pedestrians to no purpose whatever.

I have noticed that many, but not quite all, contractors seem to put
these up whenever any sort of cycle facility is obstructed (typically
an on-road cycle lane) is obstructed. Several weeks ago there were two
sets of pavement works on Hills Road that each diverted pedestrians into
the cycle lane. One sported 'Cyclist Dismount' signs, one 'Cycle Lane
Closed' ones. Obviously I preferred the latter.

My theory is that there's some sort of liability concern about
diverting cyclists out of cycle lanes onto the road, probably combined
with a belief by some of the people on the ground that cyclists either
are or should be requited to stay within those lanes.

I think the solution is simple. Yes, contractors can close sections of
road to cyclists. But if they do it needs to be taken as seriously as
closing the road to any other class of user. So require permission
from the council, advanced notice, establishing alternative routes,
etc. Indeed, roughly what happened on Hills Road what they also closed
it one way to motor vehicle.

Jon.

--
Jon Warbrick

[Roland Perry]

In message <k7eb3e$8aa$1...@mnementh.csi.cam.ac.uk>, at 18:59:58 on Wed, 7
Nov 2012, Jon Warbrick <jw...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>'Cyclist Dismount' signs

I still think there's a business in selling "Oh No They Don't" signs to
fly-post to those.

--
Roland Perry

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <k7eb3e$8aa$1...@mnementh.csi.cam.ac.uk>,

Jon Warbrick <jw...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>I think the solution is simple. Yes, contractors can close sections of
>road to cyclists. But if they do it needs to be taken as seriously as
>closing the road to any other class of user. So require permission
>from the council, advanced notice, establishing alternative routes,
>etc. Indeed, roughly what happened on Hills Road what they also closed
>it one way to motor vehicle.

That would need primary legislation. Sorry, but ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Douglas de Lacey]

Isn't all that's necessary already embedded in the TRO? And it's easy
enough to cone off a temporary cycle lane. For major works, where
perhaps the lane would become too narrow for that, there is presumably
consultation with the Council anyway over rerouting.

Douglas de Lacey

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <Htz*ZG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Douglas de Lacey <de...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the solution is simple. Yes, contractors can close sections of
>>> road to cyclists. But if they do it needs to be taken as seriously as
>>> closing the road to any other class of user. So require permission
>>>from the council, advanced notice, establishing alternative routes,
>>> etc. Indeed, roughly what happened on Hills Road what they also closed
>>> it one way to motor vehicle.
>>
>> That would need primary legislation. Sorry, but ....
>
>Isn't all that's necessary already embedded in the TRO? And it's easy
>enough to cone off a temporary cycle lane. For major works, where
>perhaps the lane would become too narrow for that, there is presumably
>consultation with the Council anyway over rerouting.

TRO's are (effectively) delegated secondary legislation, and there
are MAJOR constraints on what they may impose. Inter alia, some
statutory undertakers can perform road works without permission
(and hence without a TRO), and it would probably fail if imposed
as a blanket rule on others and was challenged in judicial review.

Note that forcing cyclists to walk is NOT closing the road to
cyclists, and closing the road to all traffic is definitely OK.
So it is only in the VERY rare case that cyclists are excluded
from the motor lane that would have a chance - and then only if
a case was brought by a tricyclist and/or invalid carriage user.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Paul Rudin]

Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> writes:


> Came up that way last week. The only way to go on reaching the
> roundabout was the M11 north. Made me wonder what I would have been
> expected to do had I been driving a vehicle that was not allowed on
> the motorway. The signage didn't seem to consider that possibility.

The signage might not consider it, but you can go through Granchester
rather than on the M11...

[Roland Perry]

In message <k7fufd$vto$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>, at 09:36:45 on Thu, 8
Nov 2012, nm...@cam.ac.uk remarked:

>TRO's are (effectively) delegated secondary legislation, and there
>are MAJOR constraints on what they may impose.

Can you apply a TRO to a vehicle, not a road?

I noticed a kerb-crawling roadsweeper the other day, which had a
circular blue arrow roadsign on the rear, indicating that people should
only pass on its offside.

Which is what they'd normally do, especially when it's crawling the
kerb. But despite the low probability of needing to disobey it, what
kind of regulation permits the use of a sign giving instructions to
other motorists in this way?

(They are also sometimes used on the back of trucks on Motorways, to
protect work sites and slow moving convoys doing things like putting out
road cones).
--
Roland Perry

[Andrew May]

From memory there was no way to enter the roundabout. But since I was
heading north on the M11 I could be wrong.

[Martin]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Jon Warbrick wrote:

> I have noticed that many, but not quite all, contractors seem to put
> these up whenever any sort of cycle facility is obstructed (typically an
> on-road cycle lane) is obstructed. Several weeks ago there were two sets
> of pavement works on Hills Road that each diverted pedestrians into the
> cycle lane. One sported 'Cyclist Dismount' signs, one 'Cycle Lane
> Closed' ones. Obviously I preferred the latter.

Cycle Lane Closed is the correct sign to use and explains the situation
perfectly. It also correctly indicates to motorists that it is more likely
that cyclists will be present in the main carriageway section.


Martin

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

Unfortunately, that is true only for the law as written, but is 20
years out of data for the law as read.

The mindset that cyclists can be required to dismount is now too
deeply entrenched, as can be seen in many of the local psychle
farcilities, including several supported by the 'pro-cycling' groups.
But the more serious point is that is NOT now what it indicates to
many motorists, who will interpret it as meaning that the road is
closed to cyclists.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Roland Perry]

In message <k7g6ib$26u$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>, at 11:54:51 on Thu, 8
Nov 2012, nm...@cam.ac.uk remarked:

>>Cycle Lane Closed is the correct sign to use and explains the situation
>>perfectly. It also correctly indicates to motorists that it is more likely
>>that cyclists will be present in the main carriageway section.

>many motorists, who will interpret it as meaning that the road is
>closed to cyclists.

It's possible to have additional advisory signs saying something like
"Beware cyclists in main carriageway".

Although some people will say that gives the impression they shouldn't
be there in normal times. It's a very difficult balance.
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Warbrick]

In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>Cycle Lane Closed is the correct sign to use and explains the situation
>perfectly. It also correctly indicates to motorists that it is more likely
>that cyclists will be present in the main carriageway section.

I agree. So:

a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and

b) What canwe do about it?

Jon.

--
Jon Warbrick

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:34:03 +0000 (GMT)
Jon Warbrick wrote:

> a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and

Maybe they don't like spending money on new signs when the old ones are
still in perfectly good nick.

--

Brian Morrison

[Eleanor Blair]

Jon Warbrick wrote:
>I have noticed that many, but not quite all, contractors seem to put
>these up whenever any sort of cycle facility is obstructed (typically
>an on-road cycle lane) is obstructed. Several weeks ago there were two
>sets of pavement works on Hills Road that each diverted pedestrians into
>the cycle lane. One sported 'Cyclist Dismount' signs, one 'Cycle Lane
>Closed' ones. Obviously I preferred the latter.

Personally I'd rather they had neither, and just put up road narrows
sign and maybe the blue and white arrows indicating a necessity to pull
out round the obstruction. I don't know if I'm a minority on this one
though.

--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/

[TimB]

Just repaint the bloody things with acceptable wording then.
Tim

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:17:22 -0800 (PST)
TimB wrote:

> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 5:12:32 PM UTC, Brian Morrison wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:34:03 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> > Jon Warbrick wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe they don't like spending money on new signs when the old ones
> > are still in perfectly good nick.
>

> Just repaint the bloody things with acceptable wording then.

I imagine that there are shedloads of regulations about signs that have
to be complied with, and "repaint" is not an option that's allowed.

--

Brian Morrison

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <20121108171...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,

The expensive part of signs it the metalwork which can have new lettering
applied to it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <d96dnb-LSvkekwHN...@giganews.com>,

Maybe they just don't like cyclists?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <20121108184...@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>,

It's common practice, actually.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <20121109012...@peterson.fenrir.org.uk>,
b...@fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) wrote:

> I've seen one or two over the years that have been obviously re-used,
> but at one time there seemed to be signs of the reflective variety with
> the letters inset into the reflective matrix below. Can't see how you
> would re-use those.

They are stuck over the reflective background which can itself be renewed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Espen Koht]

In article <k7gmtr$kq5$1...@mnementh.csi.cam.ac.uk>,

jw...@cam.ac.uk (Jon Warbrick) wrote:

> In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Cycle Lane Closed is the correct sign to use and explains the situation
> >perfectly. It also correctly indicates to motorists that it is more likely
> >that cyclists will be present in the main carriageway section.
>
> I agree. So:
>
> a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and

With the follow up question why are they still doing despite the DfT
advising them not to?

'Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs
should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely
great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely
to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be
advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the
footway remains open.'

<http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tal-15-99/tal-15-99.pdf>

[Jon Warbrick]

In article <ehk20-DEB556....@nnrp.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>With the follow up question why are they still doing despite the DfT
>advising them not to?
>
>'Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs
>should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely
>great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely
>to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be
>advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the
>footway remains open.'
>
><http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tal-15-99/tal-15-99.pdf>

Aha! Now that's a really useful reference. Though knowing the DfT
there's probably contrary advice on their site too...

Jon.

--
Jon Warbrick

[Tim Ward]

On 09/11/2012 12:20, Espen Koht wrote:
>
> "Cyclist Dismount" signs ... such instructions

Oh, does someone thing that "cyclists dismount" signs are instructions?
- I've always taken them as simply a true statement of fact: cyclists do
indeed dismount; some cyclists dismount sometimes, and all cyclists
dismount eventually.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Katy Edgcombe]

I realise we've moved on from Sidgwick Avenue, but in this case there is
no cycle lane to be closed. Cyclists are on the main carriageway
anyway, and (provided they are riding not walking) are as safe there in
present conditions as they are at any other time.

It was different after they dug the hole and before they put in the
four-way lights; that really was dangerous for cyclists.

Katy

[Katy Edgcombe]

On 08/11/2012 11:38, Martin wrote:
>
>

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Jon Warbrick wrote:
> In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Cycle Lane Closed is the correct sign to use and explains the situation
>> perfectly. It also correctly indicates to motorists that it is more likely
>> that cyclists will be present in the main carriageway section.
>
> I agree. So:
>
> a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and

They are confused and don't understand the law:
http://www.oneroadnetwork.org/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAyADEANAA4AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0

This is a the Code of Practice and failure to comply is an offence.
Unfortunately the Enforcement Authority - Cambridgeshire Highways is
also, on occasion, a transgressor

Page 51 (59/82 in the PDF) has the main piece of text that applies.
You'll see that 'Cyclists Dismount....' is mentioned but only in the
context of when the carriageway is closed but the footway remains open.

> b) What canwe do about it?
>

Every time you come across this, give the Highways people a ring and
make a complaint. Ask for an incident number and follow up the following
day. Perhaps the Cycling Campaign can aggregate reports and, if it
turns out the County Council aren't doing their job, make a complaint to
the Ombudsman.

[Jon Warbrick]

In article <ag7fpv...@mid.individual.net>,
Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> wrote:

>Jon Warbrick wrote:

>> a) Why do so many contractors use 'cyclists dismount'?; and
>
>They are confused and don't understand the law:
>http://www.oneroadnetwork.org/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAAyADEANAA4AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0
>
>This is a the Code of Practice and failure to comply is an offence.
>Unfortunately the Enforcement Authority - Cambridgeshire Highways is
>also, on occasion, a transgressor
>
>Page 51 (59/82 in the PDF) has the main piece of text that applies.
>You'll see that 'Cyclists Dismount....' is mentioned but only in the
>context of when the carriageway is closed but the footway remains open.

Thanks - that's just what I wanted and sounds entirely sensible.

I note from the introduction (Page viii, PDF page 8) that 'Cyclists
Dismount and use Footway' was only introduced in the version of
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions published in 2002
which may explain the proliferation of temporary 'Cyclists Dismount'
signs.

>> b) What canwe do about it?
>
>Every time you come across this, give the Highways people a ring and
>make a complaint. Ask for an incident number and follow up the following
>day.

Noted.

Jon.

--
Jon Warbrick