You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
There are two examples near me at the moment. An alley, which is rarely used and wide enough for three abreast, allows you to cut out using either an A road or big diversion. It's only 30 meters long, but has a no cycling sign. I ignore it every day. I've never had any issues and no one has even nearly died.
Kynaston Avenue?
Oliver Schick
Mr_Sworld
I see your point. However I generally object to the fact that "no cycling" or "cyclists dismount" signs seem to pop up everywhere, particularly where a few cyclists would be no big deal or even preferable to maintaining safe cycle routes.
There are two examples near me at the moment. An alley, which is rarely used and wide enough for three abreast, allows you to cut out using either an A road or big diversion. It's only 30 meters long, but has a no cycling sign. I ignore it every day. I've never had any issues and no one has even nearly died.
On the main road by my house they've just dug up the road side cycle path for about 50 meters. In its place is a large "cyclists dismount" sign. Why? There remains a perfectly good road. What is should say is "cyclists merging, do not overtake unless safe".
My beef is, no cycling signs seem very easy to put up, but often don't seem to have been properly thought through or even remotely necessary.
Finally, flagrantly disregarding them can lead to change. There are examples of one way streets being made two way for cyclists because many would go the wrong way up them with no accidents or issues. At the tunnel, they may only be looking at formaly allowing cycling because so many people seem to be doing so without incident.
Ramble babble over.