Cyclists Dismount

Some kind person has found the sign in the legislation. It's a gif on the statute law site so was not searchable (useful that!).

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 schedule 5

It says regulations and directions none but not sure how to read this damn legislation to tell what it means.

I think it is advisory but failing to find the actual legislation defining it.


  1. These Regs only really say what a prescribed sign should look like and what there meaning is in relation to these regs. Reg 6 says what Items 1 and 2 in the box mean and reg 11 explains what Sch 5 actually is. It doesn't mean these define road use, just what the prescribed signs are. s36 of the The Road Trafic Act 1988 makes it an offence to "fail[s] to comply with the indication given by the sign" but goes on to say the sign must indicate a statutory requirement. But I can't find one!

  2. There was some communication at work from South Gloucestershire council about these signs - not being located anywhere near South Gloucs. I took very little notice, but I think they were planning to get rid of all their "Cyclists Dismount" signs on the basis that (a) nobody took any notice and (b) it made no sense when most of said signs were on official cycle routes.

  3. I think that is the point of the "Regulations:" and "Directions:" bit. Part 6 does not seem to clarify that much!

  4. I don't think they've bothered to actually ascribe a function to it in the legislation. Diagram 966 is not mentioned anywhere else in the instrument. It is mentioned in Chapter 3, paragraph 17.37 of the Traffic Signs Manual:

    The sign to diagram 966 (CYCLISTS DISMOUNT) may be used together with the sign to diagram 965, or on its own. The sign should be provided only where cyclists are required to use a pedestrian crossing facility that they cannot legally cycle on, at the entrance to a pedestrian area, at a location with a low headroom or width restriction (e.g. a subway or bridge) or at places where visibility is restricted to such an extent that cycling would be unsafe (see also para 5.8).

  5. Oooh. Good find Fawksie. So what matters now is if the Handbook has any statutory meaning under the legislation. It opens with "[this] is intended to give advice... on the
    correct use of signs and road markings. Mandatory requirements are set out in the current version of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions;
    nothing in the manual can override these."
    Which seems to clearly throw the onus back on the Regs.

    So what this seems to be saying is the signs *should* only be deployed where it would be illegal or dangerous not to dismount. But the sign does not inherently make something illegal which wouldn't be if the sign wasn't there.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

Hot tubs are expensive (again)

Yes, my hot tub is expensive. Our whole house total power consumption was, typically, 55 to 60 kWh per day. Which is a lot. I have some excu...