On 16 May 2012, at 01:05, Jason Cunningham wrote:
On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention to
these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and foot
signs (segregated or
I doubt there are any instances in the UK where there's a TRO supporting a
No Pedestrians sign on a cycle track (welcome to be proved wrong!). The
possibility exists in the legislation, but you'd have to explicitly sign it
(the white-bike-on-blue-circle does not of itself exclude pedestrians in
On 16 May 2012 01:05, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never
prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the
Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1].
The DFT
I think the confusion here relates to a failure to differentiate
criminal law - in this case failing to comply with a traffic sign - and
civil law - trespass - in this case not being within the class(es) of
users permitted on a particular section of highway.
It's not a criminal offence to cycle
Hi,
On the UK tagging guidelines consultation page [1] both Andrew C and
Richard M pointed out that the blue sign with a bicycle on it [2] does
_not_ imply foot=no. As I had copied this tag over from the original
guidelines page I would like to seek advice before removing the foot=no
On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention
to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and
foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign for cases
where traffic
6 matches
Mail list logo
