“Cyclists are entitled to use the road as much as anyone else”: Councillors and locals blast “discriminatory” ‘Cyclists Dismount and Proceed with Caution’ signs at temporary traffic lights

That requires use of the grey cells !

Pleasingly, these have now started appearing at roadworks in Edinburgh. Drivers would have a job getting past my primary positioning anyway

However the Dean Bridge "do not overtake cyclists" signs seem to have gone.  Not that everyone paid attention to them.

I would do precisely what the sign is instructing me to do.

Dismount and proceed with caution as I walk my bike in the centre of the lane.

Edit: just realised I'm a day late and chrisonatrike (and probably several others!) thought of posting this before I did! Lesson: always read all the comments before posting. Every day is a school day.

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

Why would they dismount they won't even stop at the light on red just ride straight through , the use of just plain common sense doesn't apply to cyclists they don't appear to have any 

Like the white van driver that couldn't be bothered to wait at the temporary lights on my route to work, two days in a row?

What you have to realise, is that when you see bad behaviour, you should concentrate on that behaviour and, to as much an extent as possible, disregard the form of transport whilst considering the consequences of the behaviour.
This irrational insistence that some other group are the devil's spawn whilst your own group wouldn't say boo to a goose, is not constructive, at all.
Whenever an article appears, attempting to promote balance and safety, all kinds of bigoted idiots pop up with their "but, mummy, he hit me first..." arguments.
Just take a look at yourselves - and be very, very disappointed.

I'm pretty sure it is not enforceable. The traffic authority can impose restrictions, but they have to be signed correctly. The sign shown in the photo does not appear in any official documents. The closest I can find is sign P7018.1 from this document (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...).

You'd make a good lawyer! That does seem to be a conundrum, since on the one hand they are allowed to make whatever restriction they "consider necessary", yet they are constrained to use only signage approved in legislation, which evidently does not cover all possibilites.

the authority may by order restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of that road, or of any part of it, by vehicles, or vehicles of any class, or by pedestrians, to such extent and subject to such conditions or exceptions as they may consider necessary...

So how are they legally supposed to make that order?

If they decide a prohibition on cycling is necessary, they can make the appropriate order and then the sign to use is the No Cycling sign - the circular  white one with a red border and a picture of a bike in the middle.

I've seen this a few times at roadworks - in particular on the A40 between Monmouth and Raglan. One carriageway of the dual carriageway was closed, and the other carriageway was a "one lane in each direction, separated by cones" contraflow. Cycling was banned and there were plenty of No Cycling signs in place, together with signs directing cyclists to an alternative route.

Non standard would I think need to be authorised at national level.

Sriracha wrote:

In answer to Labour councillor Richard Udall, pretty sure it is legally enforceable. The "traffic authority" (whoever they are) can set whatever restrictions they "consider necessary" upon any class of vehicle (back to whether a bicycle is some class of vehicle) during road works etc. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14

Not only is it not enforceable, it is reasonable to conclude that use of the sign in this situation is illegal:

The Code Itself wrote:

Legal status of the Code Local highway authorities in England and Wales, and the road authority in Northern Ireland must comply with this Code for their own works. Roads authorities in Scotland should comply with this Code for their own works, as recommended by Scottish Ministers. All instances in the text of ‘highway authorities’ are to be read as references to ‘roads authorities’ in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

An undertaker, and those working on its behalf, carrying out work under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 must comply with this Code for their own works.

With the exception of Scottish roads authorities, failure to comply with this Code is a criminal offence and may lead to criminal prosecution in addition to any civil proceedings. Compliance with the Code will be taken as compliance with the legal requirements to which it relates.

This Code is issued by the Secretary of State for Transport and Welsh Ministers under Section 65 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and Section 174 of the Highways Act 1980, by Scottish Ministers under Section 124 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and by the Department for Regional Development under article 25 of the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and Article 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Order (Northern Ireland) 1997. 

I wonder whether the difference is that the code is directed at the undertaker of the roadworks, whereas the legislation I linked to is giving the "traffic authority" powers. So I guess it depends upon which one, the undertakers or the traffic authority, is making the order. ... although, I've just reread the opening paragraph!

Or then again, maybe not all road works are carried out "under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991"?

It does seem odd that there is legislation giving them carte blanche to do as they see fit, and then there is regulation telling them to be all sensible and consider the needs of cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians, not just motorists.

It was drilled in to me that only times that NRSWA 1991 does not apply is if the works are on a Private, non-adopted highway, where the Local Highways Authority have no powers.
NRSWA 1991 applies to all roads, footpaths and verges that are in Public ownership.

Edit.
NRSWA 1991 may not be applicable in Scotland.

I think that there is some grey edges around that, eg if there is a Public ROW over the Private Road.

Or that afaik it is not unusual for a public highway which is a normal road to be in private ownership - some hosue plots extend up to the middle of the highway - with supervening rights for users of the road.

Not a rabbithole worth pursuing here, however.

Cadent Gas (or the cowboys they'll have contracted to do 'traffic management') are not the "traffic authority" for this road, much as I'm sure they'd like to self-appoint themselves to such a role.

Most of the signals and signage are designed by people who don't cycle, have little if any highway expertise, and  are likely to have media-induced anti-cycling bias. 
 

This is why I do often ride through temporary lights on a red, judging the traffic flow and being alert to the 'white speeding Audi' that will jump their lights at the other end (car insurance statistics).

Why jump the red light on roadworks? Because the incompetent designers and operators have ensured the sensor only detects a large wide object, and the timing through the roadworks is set at a very short duration for a typical cyclist. It's all 'car, van, truck' settings, because cyclists don't matter. 

I do regularly break the HWC because it is not fit for purpose. It is not observed by most drivers, and my life is more important than some biased legislation and ignorant users of motor vehicles. 

Yeah, there's nothing like getting 2/3rds of the way through one of these contraflows only to find yourself playing chicken with a driver who will happily hit you because they assume you've run the red.

That's standard on any narrow road.