- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
No Cycling sign 3x224-hour ban on bikes on Devon street - but cars only banned for 12 hours a day
Cyclists riding their bikes down a street in a Devon seaside town face being fined £50, irrespective of the time of day or night – although motor vehicles are permitted to use the road for 12 hours a day.
The issue came to light after Police Sergeant Steve Cayless, the neighbourhood policing sergeant for Brixham, posted a picture to Twitter last Friday showing him standing next to a ‘no cycling’ sign in the south Devon town's Fore Street.
In Fore Street, #Brixham enforcing the "No Cycling" for Pedestrian and Cycling Safety Month @TorbayRS @brixhamtc pic.twitter.com/pca7yhTDN7
— Sgt Steve Cayless (@BrixhamSgt) October 10, 2014
The previous day, he had tweeted that a £50 fine had been issued to a man riding a bike in Brixham Town Centre.
The ‘No cycling”’ sign appears beneath one that says “Pedestrian Zone – No Vehicles 10am – 10pm.”
That restriction would ban bicycles as well as motor vehicles, and while Sergeant Cayless explained that the former had been erected to make it clearer that the ban applied also to bikes.
But he also made it clear that unlike for motor vehicles, it applied around the clock.
He told the Torquay Herald Express: "You are allowed to drive your car down there between 10pm and 10am, but no cycling is allowed [sic] at any time.
"The main issue is that people are riding down Fore Street in the middle of the day when there are lots of elderly people who are not expecting someone to come bombing down on their bike.
"That's what I have been getting complaints about from the council.
"We have now had all the signs replaced, making the no cycling rule in Fore Street enforceable.
"It was always illegal but we couldn't really enforce it because the signage wasn't clear.” He added.
"There is a £50 fine for cycling down Fore Street at any time."
Several Twitter users have queried the restrictions with the police officer.
Yesterday, cycle campaigner Charlie Holland who tweets as KenningtonPOB, asked him if he could “explain why 24hr cycling ban but only 12hr driving ban,” adding, “Seems a stupid situation frankly.”
Sergeant Cayless retweeted that message, and replied: “Good point, well made,” adding that he would raise the issue with Brixham Town Council.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 2 hours 41 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 3 hours 1 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 3 hours 27 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 4 hours 13 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 41 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 22 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 6 hours 1 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 6 hours 58 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 14 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
29 comments
Sgt. Cayless has obtained some clarification on this issue which means the addition of the no cyclists sign which is posted under not above the time constraints is confusing to cyclists and one would expect given the confusion in the newspaper and from the officer himself need further thought and rectification. In the meantime I think the no cycling sign should be taken down.
https://twitter.com/BrixhamSgt/status/521909327708577792
In the UK road signage when something is prohibited the sign is an icon surrounded by a red circle.
In this case a cycle icon in a red circle means 'No Cycling'.
So a cycle icon in a red circle with a red diagonal through it must mean 'No, no cycling'. A double negative; hence cycling is permitted.
Er... Yes... The sign in Brixham is a red circle with a bicycle in it. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Anyway... Sgt Cayless (who by now is probably wishing he'd never tweeted the bloody thing in the first place) gave an update this morning:
https://twitter.com/BrixhamSgt/status/521910427253768192
As per my reply there, I'm somewhat bemused.
levermonkey, a good point mate. The new uniform tops are meant to be a "wicking material" but you end up sweating even more because the body armour is crap.
Its neither light weight or comfortable but I suppose if it saves my life then its worth it. The old tunic's (mine had a belt on it as well) were itchy, uncomfortable, bloody heavy and just soaked up the rain like sponges but they still look the part at official functions and funerals for colleagues killed on duty, of which there are far to many.
Its time we went to the full combat style trousers, boots and body armour that's light weight and can be worn under a top (like the USA) but we have no chance of that in this country.
All this hot air for nothing. Its just a cock up and we all know that.
Can't see that there is any harm in a bikes ban when cars are banned. Only snag is that its never policed. Lets have cycles actually impounded for rule breaking. A bit of that would go a long way to reduce the dislike that many non riders have.
Just so long as it applies to cars and lorries too. Fair dos.
It's a bike ban when cars are NOT banned.
Are you sure it's a cock up? Here's a similar one from Norfolk: on the left, no motor vehicles except disabled and loading and on the right, no cycling (no exceptions):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.7521337,0.3982413,3a,45.5y,286.64h,88.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSXm6IDJvmHOV7jGBMtD3DQ!2e0
I think the no motor vehicles sign is on a timer and the road is just open to motors late at night, while the no cycling sign is permanent.
Of course, because loading is allowed and the road has a slight bend in it so it's not immediately obvious to a police officer whether you've stopped anywhere, loads of motor vehicles used to drive straight through because it avoided waiting at two sets of traffic lights on the legal route.
Meanwhile, trying to allow bikes along it was greeted with howls of protests about how all the non-existant evening shoppers (the small shops there are nearly all 9-5s) would be mown down by them in some way that they aren't by motorists. Huh?
I'm sure there are plenty of these in pedestrian zones across the countries. Elsewhere in Europe, bikes are allowed in pedestrian zones as long as they're not ridden recklessly. Why are we so anti-bike?
That copper looks like the thick hapless one in Doc Martin. Similar area. There can't be much crime down there if this is a major event for the local plod.
What a farce; The cyclist, the OAP, the copper and the councillor.
"Foreplay in Fore Street".
I always thought that neither pedestrians, horse riders or cyclists could be banned from the public highway. Cyclists have enjoyed the same rights-of-way as pedestrians and horse riders to use a public road (but not the footway) since the Taylor v Goodwin judgement in 1879.
Motor vehicles, on the other hand, do not automatically have the 'right of way' to use the roads but may be permitted by the licensing of both the vehicle and the driver.
In this case I don't see how cyclists can be banned from riding on Fore Street unless it is redefined as a designated footway. If however, at certain times, motor vehicles are permitted to drive down the road then it becomes a 'road' and cyclists cannot be banned from using it.
"...in the middle of the day..." - so cycling not a problem between 10pm and 10am, then.
This road is OK for motor vehicles to drive down between 10pm and 10am, but not for cyclists at any time...?
I think the technical term for this is WTF?
And another thing.
Is it just me or do Police Officers look scruffy and untidy these days. I know that there are very good reasons (or so I'm told) for the new uniform but it's not a good look.
When I was a kid, if you had the misfortune to find yourself staring at the third shiny button down of a Policeman's tunic you stood up straight and said "Yes Sir! No Sir!". I don't think the modern uniform generates the same sense of fear and/or respect.
Over to you, Stumps.
This is just the same sort of inane generalizing bollocks that the 'all cyclists jump red lights' brigade trot out without thinking. Coppers wore 'lovely' uniforms in the 1970's but were completely unaccountable and out of control to such an extent that the Tory's had to bring in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984.
The copper didn't put the sign up, it was probably a jobsworth dickhead in the Highways Maintenance section of the council. Probably the same nerk who designs cycle paths without any clue as to what is needed.
If they had really wanted to prevent confusion a simple "Including Cycles" plate would have been more apt.
All they have really done is cause additional confusion and introduce ambiguity to the situation. They have also ruled that a cycle is NOT a vehicle. Is that a new by-law and does a by-law trump Statute Law?
I feel the need for a mass ride-through coming on.
The "including cycles" would have been helpful but had no legal force. On the flip side the original sign, legally, already included cycles.
The trumping point is an interesting one but, ultimately, of little consequence. Cyclists cannot use the road between 10am or 10pm either because of the original sign or the new one. There is no conflict between them other than that there are two signs. And, between, 10pm and 10am there's simply no cycling.
Totally bonkers.
Oh well - if cycling through Brixham, be sure to get off the bike and push it up Fore st.. nice a slow... in the middle of the road.
Is he a proper policeman or one of those plastic ones?
Ban cycling for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Month.
Orwell would be most impressed.
"£50", you say? "Safety", you say?
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/the-bolton-price-compariso...
"The main issue is that people are riding down Fore Street in the middle of the day when there are lots of elderly people who are not expecting someone to come bombing down on their bike."
No, that misses the main issue. By all means ban all vehicles (including cycles) but allow them at the same time that other vehicles can use it!
Actually, that was originally the case. Google Streetview shows that the original signage was just the time-restricted "No Vehicles" sign.
According to the police quoted in the local paper, the signage was changed because the original was "confusing and unenforceable". I assume the change was to add the "no bicycles" sign.
What the police are basically saying is that they believe a standard sign in the Highway Code is unenforceable.
It's utterly farcical.
Indeed. It doesn't take two minutes to just google what a sign means, if you're a layman. Walking plod should be well aware of what "no vehicles" means. And it should also be abundantly clear that the addition of a complete prohibition is at least, equally confusing.
We have similar in Durham, bikes are banned 24 hours a day but HGV's are fine between 11pm & 10am as long as they are loading:
http://goo.gl/maps/qG3v4
and I've seen that TRO being enforced with that signage.
The Spanish Inquisition?
1. Cyclists never ride but 'bomb'. Maybe some policing to stop 'furious cycling' AKA 'Bombing' and encourage 'respect' between different users - as the government has been telling cyclists to do.
2. With an aging population does this mean Britain will eventually become bicycle free due to elderly people not expecting cyclists. I wonder what else will be banned because elderly people don't expect something.
Should we ban mobility scooters, they are a menace!
Maybe they should ban that policeman as well seeing that the police kill more people every year than cyclists do!
Hmm, mown down by a cyclist or "slipped and fell" in Police custody?
That is nuts.
Rather like our Queen St in Oxford, which buses use all the time, cars are banned all the time, and bikes are banned during the day.
Only more so.