Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7693
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby find_bruce » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 pm

Spotted a "give way to cyclists" sign on Richmond Rd the other day. Will have to go back to get a pic.

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:34 am

Image

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4594
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:35 am

wellington_street wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:
Lukeyboy wrote:Image
It defeats me how a bicycle can be more dangerous to the workers than a car traveling at 40kph

and walking a bike through there! How does that pass risk assessment?
Lucky those 'Cyclist Dismount' signs are guide signs only, not regulatory.

I've always taken them to just be an alert to cyclists that the road or path conditions ahead may mean it's a safer option for the cyclist to walk over them than attempt to ride over them. e.g. if there is a lot of loose gravel/rocks, or holes in the surface where the works are taking place. Now for some these probably don't represent all that much of a risk to stay on your bike, but for others they may well prefer to dismount. Each can make their own judgement.

I don't think "cyclists dismount" is about road worker safety, where as the speed limit is much more a factor for both road user and road worker safety in road works zones.

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5614
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby bychosis » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:29 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:I don't think "cyclists dismount" is about road worker safety, where as the speed limit is much more a factor for both road user and road worker safety in road works zones.

I suspect it is put there to keep bikes from 'holding up' the other traffic. If it is a portable traffic light setup there might not be enough time on the phasing to allow a bicycle to pass through at 20km/h before the oncoming traffic is set free.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:40 pm

Image

User avatar
Mustang
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:20 am
Location: Little Mountain Q
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Mustang » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:24 am

I have not read all 29 pages,so this may already be here, but we were impressed with these signs while visiting Tassy last year.
Image
This one at Forth a popular climb in the area.
Image
This one 15km from Deloraine on the Lakes road.

Code: Select all

select all

Image

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7693
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby find_bruce » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:06 am

Image
Reported to be Gornergrat, Switzerland. IIRC the red circle means "no"

fat and old
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby fat and old » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:22 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
wellington_street wrote:
mikesbytes wrote: It defeats me how a bicycle can be more dangerous to the workers than a car traveling at 40kph

and walking a bike through there! How does that pass risk assessment?
Lucky those 'Cyclist Dismount' signs are guide signs only, not regulatory.

I've always taken them to just be an alert to cyclists that the road or path conditions ahead may mean it's a safer option for the cyclist to walk over them than attempt to ride over them. e.g. if there is a lot of loose gravel/rocks, or holes in the surface where the works are taking place. Now for some these probably don't represent all that much of a risk to stay on your bike, but for others they may well prefer to dismount. Each can make their own judgement.

I don't think "cyclists dismount" is about road worker safety, where as the speed limit is much more a factor for both road user and road worker safety in road works zones.


That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18985
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:27 am

fat and old wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
wellington_street wrote:and walking a bike through there! How does that pass risk assessment?
Lucky those 'Cyclist Dismount' signs are guide signs only, not regulatory.

I've always taken them to just be an alert to cyclists that the road or path conditions ahead may mean it's a safer option for the cyclist to walk over them than attempt to ride over them. e.g. if there is a lot of loose gravel/rocks, or holes in the surface where the works are taking place. Now for some these probably don't represent all that much of a risk to stay on your bike, but for others they may well prefer to dismount. Each can make their own judgement.

I don't think "cyclists dismount" is about road worker safety, where as the speed limit is much more a factor for both road user and road worker safety in road works zones.


That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.

Perhaps there's a better communication to communicate caution to the cyclists
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5614
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby bychosis » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:35 am

fat and old wrote:That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.


Are you sure it isn't so all the road workers can point at the fallen cyclist and laugh?
Image
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

Scott_C
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Scott_C » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:23 pm

fat and old wrote:That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.


Recommended in what? As far as I know they aren't found as a stand alone sign in the current revision of AS1742.3. Do any of the state based road authorities still have a yellow 'cyclists dismount' sign in their traffic control manual?

I would have thought if the sign is there to warn cyclists of a hazard it would be more appropriate to use a 'Cyclist' panel and a yellow description of the hazard like 'uneven surface' or 'loose stones' or 'water on road' in a multi-message sign, the same way as you would if you had a hazard specific to heavy vehicles or high vehicles.

User avatar
StevOz
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: Dunsborough, WA.

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby StevOz » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:39 pm


User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:58 am

Image

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:13 pm

Image

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:22 pm

A lot of ironry here as ACTION bus drivers are one of the worst offenders at close shaving cyclists. :evil:

Image

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7693
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby find_bruce » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:04 am

Ross wrote:A lot of ironry here as ACTION bus drivers are one of the worst offenders at close shaving cyclists. :evil:
Its judt the position of the sign that needs changing - slap it on the front window :wink:

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:27 am


fat and old
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby fat and old » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:28 am

Scott_C wrote:
fat and old wrote:That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.


Recommended in what? As far as I know they aren't found as a stand alone sign in the current revision of AS1742.3. Do any of the state based road authorities still have a yellow 'cyclists dismount' sign in their traffic control manual?

I would have thought if the sign is there to warn cyclists of a hazard it would be more appropriate to use a 'Cyclist' panel and a yellow description of the hazard like 'uneven surface' or 'loose stones' or 'water on road' in a multi-message sign, the same way as you would if you had a hazard specific to heavy vehicles or high vehicles.


Recommended by the fellas/girls who write up these TMP's. By our insurance companies. By worksafe (in my case, via an on site visit).

You have a point re the multi-message signs, although that is already covered on compliant sites. If I put up a standard 3 panel sign here....red working man, 40kmh limit, roadwork ahead then that applies to all, doesn't it? Cycles are road users and subject to the same road rules/understanding of such as other users? If a hazard sign is put out as you describe, why do cycles have to be specifically targeted? As you referenced AS1742.3, where is the specific reference to dealing with cycles as a seperate entity? TBH, I can't think of something that would affect a cyclist and not a car in the way you describe the high/wide vehicles, except maybe the profiling signs. If on the other hand you want to point at general road conditions that allow a 4wd to use the road but are unsuitable for high speed cycling then that's a different matter to what I'm referring to. Given that many cyclists actively seek out unsealed roads these days I don't really see the difference in road quality....although we do have to cater to the lowest denominator.

I can only speak for myself (and looking at the shite all over Melb would not speak for any T/C company at all)....we do all we can top pre-warn, guide and manage traffic through our sites. There is always someone who doesn't GAF, and those are the ones that the bulk of signs are erected for. Working on the M1 with a 60k limit at 2.00am and the bulk of cars go past at 90+. Close a lane on Swanston St, and the majority of "road cyclists" will try to ride straight through my worksite.

I am always interested in suggestions on how to better convey roadworks to all users, especially cyclists. I have no issue with whether or not a sign is "recommended" or "compliant" if they do the job. I have a job coming up shortly that will be a real test of T/M of cyclists and peds. It will be interesting to note what occurs.

User avatar
antigee
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:58 am
Location: just off the Yarra Trail but not lurking in the bushes

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby antigee » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:59 pm

this article from the UK has a couple of interesting examples if not already seen it

"Narrow Lanes Drivers DO NOT Pass Cyclists"

"CAUTION Cyclists have priority"

http://road.cc/content/news/130401-cyclists-dismount-no-thanks-says-rider-who-persuaded-contractor-change-signs

edit and in the city I used to live in the cycling forum failed to get the council to adopt the London guidelines - here is draft version (might be a final version somewhere)

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-london-cycling-design-standards/user_uploads/appendix-cyclists-at-roadworks.pdf

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:22 pm

Image

human909
Posts: 8839
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby human909 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:39 pm

fat and old wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
fat and old wrote:That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.


Recommended in what? As far as I know they aren't found as a stand alone sign in the current revision of AS1742.3. Do any of the state based road authorities still have a yellow 'cyclists dismount' sign in their traffic control manual?

I would have thought if the sign is there to warn cyclists of a hazard it would be more appropriate to use a 'Cyclist' panel and a yellow description of the hazard like 'uneven surface' or 'loose stones' or 'water on road' in a multi-message sign, the same way as you would if you had a hazard specific to heavy vehicles or high vehicles.

Exactly what I was going to say. "Cyclists dismount" isn't a warning at all. It is a direction and one that is over used and thus ignored. It doesn't describe the hazard and is entirely useless "safety" measure.

fat and old wrote:Recommended by the fellas/girls who write up these TMP's. By our insurance companies. By worksafe (in my case, via an on site visit).

Who know very little about providing for cyclist's safety. (And arguable quite incompetent at dealing with safety in general.)

fat and old wrote: If a hazard sign is put out as you describe, why do cycles have to be specifically targeted?

Shouldn't that question get asked about cyclists dismount signs?

fat and old wrote:I can only speak for myself (and looking at the shite all over Melb would not speak for any T/C company at all)....we do all we can top pre-warn, guide and manage traffic through our sites.

Which, when it comes to cyclists, is done poorly more times than it is done well in my experience. And when the safety issue is brought to workers attention expletives often follow. (In my experience.)


The job needs to be done. But it must be said that in general catering for the needs of cycling safety in Australia exceedingly poor and this extends to 'OH&S' too.

human909
Posts: 8839
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby human909 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:45 pm

antigee wrote:this article from the UK has a couple of interesting examples if not already seen it


Image

The only problem is that if I saw that in Australia I'd probably fall off my bike in shock. :lol:

wellington_street
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby wellington_street » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:53 pm

fat and old wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
fat and old wrote:That's spot on for why they're recommended when we do a job. If the cyclist wants to ride, so be it. He/she was fairly warned, and can then use their own judgement.


Recommended in what? As far as I know they aren't found as a stand alone sign in the current revision of AS1742.3. Do any of the state based road authorities still have a yellow 'cyclists dismount' sign in their traffic control manual?

I would have thought if the sign is there to warn cyclists of a hazard it would be more appropriate to use a 'Cyclist' panel and a yellow description of the hazard like 'uneven surface' or 'loose stones' or 'water on road' in a multi-message sign, the same way as you would if you had a hazard specific to heavy vehicles or high vehicles.


Recommended by the fellas/girls who write up these TMP's. By our insurance companies. By worksafe (in my case, via an on site visit).

You have a point re the multi-message signs, although that is already covered on compliant sites. If I put up a standard 3 panel sign here....red working man, 40kmh limit, roadwork ahead then that applies to all, doesn't it? Cycles are road users and subject to the same road rules/understanding of such as other users? If a hazard sign is put out as you describe, why do cycles have to be specifically targeted? As you referenced AS1742.3, where is the specific reference to dealing with cycles as a seperate entity? TBH, I can't think of something that would affect a cyclist and not a car in the way you describe the high/wide vehicles, except maybe the profiling signs. If on the other hand you want to point at general road conditions that allow a 4wd to use the road but are unsuitable for high speed cycling then that's a different matter to what I'm referring to. Given that many cyclists actively seek out unsealed roads these days I don't really see the difference in road quality....although we do have to cater to the lowest denominator.

If this is the case, then why are the people you quoted above recommending installing 'Cyclists Dismount' signs?

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby Ross » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:37 am

Image

fat and old
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Cycling related signs - good/bad/ugly

Postby fat and old » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:30 pm

wellington_street wrote:
fat and old wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
Recommended in what? As far as I know they aren't found as a stand alone sign in the current revision of AS1742.3. Do any of the state based road authorities still have a yellow 'cyclists dismount' sign in their traffic control manual?

I would have thought if the sign is there to warn cyclists of a hazard it would be more appropriate to use a 'Cyclist' panel and a yellow description of the hazard like 'uneven surface' or 'loose stones' or 'water on road' in a multi-message sign, the same way as you would if you had a hazard specific to heavy vehicles or high vehicles.


Recommended by the fellas/girls who write up these TMP's. By our insurance companies. By worksafe (in my case, via an on site visit).

You have a point re the multi-message signs, although that is already covered on compliant sites. If I put up a standard 3 panel sign here....red working man, 40kmh limit, roadwork ahead then that applies to all, doesn't it? Cycles are road users and subject to the same road rules/understanding of such as other users? If a hazard sign is put out as you describe, why do cycles have to be specifically targeted? As you referenced AS1742.3, where is the specific reference to dealing with cycles as a seperate entity? TBH, I can't think of something that would affect a cyclist and not a car in the way you describe the high/wide vehicles, except maybe the profiling signs. If on the other hand you want to point at general road conditions that allow a 4wd to use the road but are unsuitable for high speed cycling then that's a different matter to what I'm referring to. Given that many cyclists actively seek out unsealed roads these days I don't really see the difference in road quality....although we do have to cater to the lowest denominator.

If this is the case, then why are the people you quoted above recommending installing 'Cyclists Dismount' signs?


Short answer, they're ignorant and the prime objective on all sites as with everywhere is cover your ass.

An update on this

There's a job being done for VicRoads not far from here. They are using a cyclists dismount sign; in my opinion totally unnecessary and only there to save the contractor from keeping the cycle lane clear and safe after hours (during works they do need to close the cycle lane). So the cycle lane is closed at all hours now. Turned out that I was required for something on this job. So I contacted the V/R engineer supervising the works, and during the conversation bought up the signage and lane closure. Turns out that she doesn't understand why it's used....in fact she didn't realise that as legal road users we have the right to merge with the traffic and also that it's illegal for us to use the footpath. I opened up a great big can of worms actually by also pointing out the defeciencies in V/R's accreditation of Traffic Management companies if those companies don't know the legal status of all road users. It was quite fun actually. I have a meeting tomorrow so should have a bit more fun :lol:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Laidlaym, oxonabike, schurms, you cannot be sirrus