Boy threatened with screwdriver during violent bike robbery; Sainsbury's delivery driver barges into cycle lane; "Backwards" no cycling signs; Quick-Step duo testify against TV presenter; City bikes a long way from home; Cav beaten + more on the live blog

Traffic sign regulations only apply to signs on roads, though, and I'm guessing that paved area is not classed as a road.

mdavidford wrote:

Traffic sign regulations only apply to signs on roads, though, and I'm guessing that paved area is not classed as a road.

Good point... Altough, you can have signs on footpaths (for example "no vehicles"), so I thought that the laws apply to any public highway, not just motor vehicle roads, although most signs really only make sense on roads.

But I'm not a legal expert, just wondering as I assumed you can't just put up  official road signs without due process.

If it's not on a road, you can put up pretty much any sign you like (unless it falls foul of things like planning regulations), but in and of itself it probably won't have any legal status, although it might be indicative of an underlying PSPO, byelaw, etc.

A pedestrianised area can still be a road. 

The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a road as [in England]: "...any highway and any other road to which the public has access..." [s192(1)(a)].  That is somewhat circular, however, a highway is defined in common law as:  'A highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage, that is to say a right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and repass without let or hindrance.' (Halsbury’s Laws 21[1]) - courtesy of planninggeek dot co dot uk.

Traffic sign regulations apply to all highways, that's road, footway,footpath and right of way maintained by a highway authority. 

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

It's interesting (well, to me) that traffic signs that prohibit something (no vehicles, no overtaking etc) do not have a diagonal bar, whereas official health&safety signs (no smoking) do have a diagonal bar.

It's not even that straightforward or consistent. Most prohibitory traffic signs do not have a diagonal bar (no vehicles, no overtaking etc) but some do (no left / right / u-turn). 

OK, fair enough.

In any case, the graphics are all a bit "down with the kids", I feel... 

(edit: and I have never actually managed to pop a wheelie.  In my entire life...).

I popped a wheelie once. Front wheel buckled immediately after.

Lesson learned. 

OllieB wrote:

I popped a wheelie once. Front wheel buckled immediately after.

Lesson learned. 

was the lesson "stop buying cheap wheels"?

I'm struggling to find the top two signs in the highway code. I assume the top one is No No Wheelies. Lucky for Danny MacAskill he'd be able to cycle around there all day.

as mdavidford says it's not a road, so it is of the form of an official health&safety sign eg no smoking which does have a diagonal bar (see stephan's comment).

The PSPO specifically says:

• No person shall cycle or skateboard in the Restricted Area in a dangerous manner that may put others at risk, including travelling at excessive speed, or travelling without paying due care and attention to others or conditions pertaining at the time. 

As a principle, it is poor practice to duplicate existing regulations, but that is, in practice, difficult to avoid.  Of course, all of the above exists in legislation for cycling already.  Except "excessive speed", which applies only to motor vehicles in the main, since "excess" has a specific meaning with regard to a defined and applicable limit.  However, since no provision is made to define or apply "excess", it's difficult to see how they could apply that.

So, a cyclist appears to be free to continue to ride safely along.

The fact that the signage does not conform to the Highway Code is neither here nor there, since it is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions that stipulates them.  But that's academic, too, since the signage relates to a PSPO, not a TRO.  Rules for publicising the requirements of a PSPO are less specific:  the detail on the street can be minimal, as long as it tells you where to find the details; and the PSPO applies (subject to legal challenge on specific grounds).

GMBasix wrote:

But that's academic, too, since the signage relates to a PSPO, not a TRO.

My question was sort of the opposite of that argument... Is the council allowed to put up signs that normally relate to a TRO (namely, the correct "no cycling" sign) when (or if) there is actually no TRO in place? Is there a TRO?

If it conforms with planning regs or has specific planning permission.

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

My question was sort of the opposite of that argument... Is the council allowed to put up signs that normally relate to a TRO (namely, the correct "no cycling" sign) when (or if) there is actually no TRO in place? Is there a TRO?

In accordance with the TSDGR:  "The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic."

So, yes, it can use a sign other than in relation to a TRO, as long as there is another order.  (Some signs don't require an order to have effect, but this isn't one of them.)

At first glance, then, it appears the sign complies with that requirement in that it relates to a PSPO (an order) that restricts the use the road by traffic... 

Except the PSPO does not restrict the use of the road; it restricts the manner in which the use is carried out.  Specifically, No Cycling is not a provision that is made in the PSPO.  The PSPO prohibits dangerous cycling, excessive speed, and cycling without due care and attention "to others or conditions pertaining at the time".  It makes no reference to a timed prohibition, and you can't just intepret that 10am-6pm will automatically be conditions that prevent cycling at all.

Moreover, in accordance with TSRGD, the No Cycling sign (951) does not have provision for a supplementary plate, which is what the '10am-6pm' bit is.

After all that, there could be a TRO, but there probably isn't, otherwise that bit of the PSPO would not be necessary.  It's hard to track TROs down - even borough solicitors can have a job identifying older ones.  They are not often catalogued on web sites; they are usually piecemeal in their adoption; they are published in a local newspaper or on a web site news page.

Now, all of that takes quite a bit of unpacking -- would a warden or copper in the middle of High Street know the ins and outs?  Good luck avoiding a ticket in the first place; but it should be defendable if a cyclist decides to argue it in court.  Unless they were cycling like a bandit.  Or it turns out there is a TRO.

I am not a solicitor and this isn't legal advice.

Thank you, that was a very useful explanation!

brooksby wrote:

The Worcester signage says 'no dangerous cycling' so presumably for so long as you ride safely you're fine?

(No, I didn't really think so).

Yes, safe cycling (and safe skateboarding) is permitted.
But there's a separate regulation that bans all cycling (safe or otherwise) between 10am and 6pm.

brooksby wrote:

Pretty sure that the Sainsbury's driver had absolutely no idea that cyclist was anywhere near...  I bet the driver would say, "I didn't realise it was a cycle lane!" as if parking on a footway would have been more acceptable.

Ignorance is a poor excuse. As a driver of a large vehicle:

• They shouldn't be driving on the pavement.
• They should be aware of their surroundings: looking, using mirrors, etc
• This could have easily ended with a pedestrian fatality.

He really looks like he could benefit from active travel and I also wonder if his teeth are radioactive?

He has a doctorate from a university that the US education department doesn't recognise and once claimed to have healed 18,000 people.

He fits right in with UKIP.

I know... I laughed out loud when I realised that was actually his name, not a description!

I don't think just delivering them is enough to feel the benefits.

Shhhh... the Luftwaffe will find out.