# Does any one know more about this sign?



## Nusakan (13 Sep 2014)

Hey there!,
I am a cyclist living in Wales/ Cardiff.

We have been told off by pedestrians who were walking on the trail path which we often take on a number of occasions. They have stated that no cycling is allowed according to sign "which i Attached a photo of it to this thread". We been riding on this path for almost 3 years now and according to one of the pedestrian , this sign was up there since last Christmas. 

We feel so bad that our usual trailer path is stolen from us T.T. It is probably one of the best short path for off road cycling in the center of the city. However, we wanted to confirm that this sign was truly been placed by local authorities. so we done some search on the net. Which we couldn't find any result regarding to banning of cycling on an area that is considered a Site of interest for Natural Conservation. 

Are there anyone one on this form who knows more about this sign? Is it truly means no cycling? is it done by legal authorities? is it illegal by law to ride on a path that has this sign?





Thank you so much.


----------



## midlife (13 Sep 2014)

Not sure it has any legal standing. The national ones in the highway code are valid and if it's a local authority then it should be "by order".


----------



## ScotiaLass (13 Sep 2014)

Doesn't look like it is in anyway legal - I'd ask your local council, and until a definitive reply, I'd keep cycling.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (13 Sep 2014)

It's more than likely put up by someone who has an 'interest' in the land, be it Local Authority, land owner/manager or some wildlife organisation. Unless there is a right to cycle across the land then it nothing more than a 'formal' request not to do so


----------



## Cycleops (13 Sep 2014)

If I were you the next time you go there carry a small saw. Someone who tries to impose their non elected will over others just makes my blood boil!


----------



## Drago (13 Sep 2014)

A similar set of signs on the horse trails in our local forest, yet they are officially Bridleways so I ignore the signs.


----------



## winjim (13 Sep 2014)

According to Wikipedia, there are *Sites of Nature Conservation Interest* (*SNCI*) and *Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation*(*SINC*) but not Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation. It also states these are terms used in *England. *I would have thought that a no cycling sign would require a specific bylaw. Maybe check with the Welsh local goverment website?


----------



## Dayvo (13 Sep 2014)

It doesn't say that you can't _drive_ there, so take your BIG 4x4 up there and rip the path to bits.

That'll learn them.


----------



## Nusakan (13 Sep 2014)

Thanks so much for all the answers everyone! We will be giving a call to Welsh Local government sometimes next week to get more information about this. I'll post the result once we get some answers from the local authorities.


----------



## marzjennings (13 Sep 2014)

Check an OS map of the area, if the trail is marked as a bridleway and not a footpath then you should be fine.


----------



## classic33 (13 Sep 2014)

Nusakan said:


> Hey there!,
> I am a cyclist living in Wales/ Cardiff.
> 
> We have been told off by pedestrians who were walking on the trail path which we often take on a number of occasions. They have stated that no cycling is allowed according to sign "which i Attached a photo of it to this thread". We been riding on this path for almost 3 years now and according to one of the pedestrian , this sign was up there since last Christmas.
> ...


I'd say a close copy of the real thing which in your area is known as *Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)* and details are available on our website. http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/75/en-GB/Cardiff


----------



## classic33 (13 Sep 2014)

Nusakan said:


> Thanks so much for all the answers everyone! We will be giving a call to Welsh Local government sometimes next week to get more information about this. I'll post the result once we get some answers from the local authorities.


Natural Environment Group
Cardiff Council
Room 132
City Hall
Cathays Park
Cardiff CF10 3ND

*Phone:* 02920 871 382
*Email:* mbharris@cardiff.gov.uk


----------



## Nusakan (14 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> I'd say a close copy of the real thing which in your area is known as *Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)* and details are available on our website. http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/75/en-GB/Cardiff



Edit: I got a feeling you quoted the bit where you mentioned *"details are available on our website". *But i will assume that your actually working with biodiversity. if not I am sorry for asking the questions to the wrong individual at advance ^.^

Firstly, let me thank you for the information classic33. I have been to the website and I can't seem to find a clear explanation of the sign that has been put in place. The trailer which the (SINCs) sign in place is known as Blackweird Woodland trail.

There is one paragraph that i was interested on the website link you have provided. _"Other sites are non-statutory because they are regulated by policy rather than legislation. In Cardiff these are known as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and details are available on our website."_

Before asking my questions allow me to agree that I am and surely all the mountain bikers on this forum, more then happy to abide rules which are lay down for Conserving natural environment (whether if its a non-statutory policy or a statutory legislation laws). After all the Nature itself is what makes mounting biking fun for us.

- According to the sign has been placed, my assumption is that no cycling is allowed in a place that has a (SINCs) sign . Am I correct ?
- If the assumption is correct then;

 what sort of damage cycling can make on a trailer path that is passing through a SINCs signed sites compared to a pedestrian who's taking a dog walk?
if we ignore the sign and continue cycling, then are we doing something illegal?
- if it is not correct, by that what i mean is if cycling is allowed;

Is there any way that we can ask the local authorities to get rid of the cycling with a cross sign on it so that pedestrians don't assume that this path is belongs only to pedestrians?


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (14 Sep 2014)

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

Is the land publicly or privately owned? 
What is the status of current public access - definitive rights of way, defacto, permissive or open access (Crow or similar)?
What is the reason it's important to nature conservation?

What is a 'trailer path'?


----------



## subaqua (14 Sep 2014)

marzjennings said:


> Check an OS map of the area, if the trail is marked as a bridleway and not a footpath then you should be fine.


definitive map held by the local authority rather than an OS map.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Sep 2014)

Local council will have a definitive map that will show up to date and correct use of this path

Check and act upon this


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2014)

As @winjim said before me, the *SINC* is incorrect. It comes close to the wording of a real site. Which is why I believe it to be fake. Also why the contact details of those who check the sites were given.
At present there aree only four such sites in the Cardiff area. Contact the people who oversee the scheme, and report it to them. Also the PROW officer at the local council.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Sep 2014)

The sign has no validity and no authority. I don't think you need to do anything, no checking, no emailing, no nothing. Just keep riding!


----------



## CopperCyclist (14 Sep 2014)

Either way, personally I'd presume that sign was advisory, as it's more blue than red, and not 'by order' of a local council. 

I'd also likely point out to walkers that actually walking can cause more damage than cycling, as footprints hold rainwater creating muddy slush, whereas a cycle track is continuous and as such can provide it's own natural drainage!


----------



## Drago (14 Sep 2014)

If were being picky, the sign is only banning riderless flying Dutch bicycles.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (14 Sep 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'd also likely point out to walkers that actually walking can cause more damage than cycling, as footprints hold rainwater creating muddy slush, whereas a cycle track is continuous and as such can provide it's own natural drainage!


And on the other side of the coin, wheel ruts can increase the speed of water run off on slopes, causing greater erosion than foot traffic. Everything we do has an effect


----------



## Cycleops (14 Sep 2014)

Ffoeg said:


> And on the other side of the coin, wheel ruts can increase the speed of water run off on slopes, causing greater erosion than foot traffic. Everything we do has an effect


Maybe we should all just stay in front of the tele.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Sep 2014)

I could be miles off here, but I thought the thing by the side of a road is a foot_way, _and these are the ones it can be an offence to ride on, whereas the track in the OP is a foot_path _which you can generally ride on, but risk a claim being made against you for any damage you can be proven to have caused?


----------



## BigonaBianchi (15 Sep 2014)

ignore it...it's probably just put there by some pompous arse who hates cyclists as a matter of course....or is there an obvious safty hazard there??


----------



## Richard Fairhurst (15 Sep 2014)

There's no Public Right of Way shown on the OS map. Assuming that's correct, which it usually is, the owner of the land (Cardiff Council, by the look of it) can impose whatever access conditions they like. It looks like they've chosen not to permit cycling.

That said, if you've been cycling on it without obstruction for 20 years, you _might_ be able to make an application to have it registered as a right of way that permits cycling (e.g. bridleway, restricted byway). But that's pretty complex and potentially expensive.


----------



## Gravity Aided (15 Sep 2014)

Harkens me back to this weekend, when someone had taken a crayon and written on the side of a cardboard box "No Parking, This side of Street". Then he was out yelling at yard sale goers at his neighbors' house-"Can't you see the sign?". I got there, he was saying this to a lady and her kids, and she told him-"Can't you read the local ordinances? You can't enforce such traffic rules without authority!" Good on her.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (15 Sep 2014)

Richard Fairhurst said:


> That said, if you've been cycling on it without obstruction for 20 years, you _might_ be able to make an application to have it registered as a right of way that permits cycling (e.g. bridleway, restricted byway). But that's pretty complex and potentially expensive.


You can't claim a bridleway in the absence of historic equine usage. Historic sage by cycle only result in the claiming of a restricted byway, which would automatically give any non-mechanically propelled vehicle a right to use it. It's a dumb oversight in recent legislation that can create far more problems that it ever attempts to solve. Added to that, if the landowner has made a Section 31(6) declaration with the local highway authority, then you ain't gonna be able to make a claim.

SINC sites aren't much more than a colour on a planning map - essentially it'd be be the last place you'd planning permission for. They offer no direct legal protection in the same way as an SSSI, SAC, LNR, NNR etc. But they do give somewhere for charitable organisations to attempt to manage. I used to manage a SINC for the local council a few years, and eventually got it declared as a local nature reserve, and multiple green flag winner - it's protected now .

And without knowing the type(s) of cycling activity that's taking place on the land, it's difficult to say if the sign might be justified or a 'pompous action'. If the level of cycling is just passing and re-passing on well defined established lines, then it'd be difficult to justify the sign/ban as there will be far less damage and disturbance than that caused by someone walking their dog off lead twice a day. However if 'cycling' means cutting down trees and digging holes, jump, berms etc and destroying/disturbing sensitive ground flora/fauna then trying to stop that sort of deleterious activity might be well justified. I suspect the true picture might lie somewhere in the middle, and it's far easier to tar everyone with the same brush


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (16 Sep 2014)

Coincidentally this topic popped up at work today, and here's something for your amusement/bemusement.

The standard sign for use on highways (inc PROWs) to indicate that cycling is prohibited is this...







*note the absense of a diagonal bar*

So by adding a diagonal bar the sign can be taken to mean 'end of cycling prohibition'. The diagonal bar only appears on standard highway signage where a change of direction is prohibited - no U-turn, no left turn etc. Now this sign might not be on a PRoW, but if it was installed by a council then they should now better than use non-standard signs.

I'll leave the OP to argue that one out


----------



## subaqua (23 Sep 2014)

Ffoeg said:


> Coincidentally this topic popped up at work today, and here's something for your amusement/bemusement.
> 
> The standard sign for use on highways (inc PROWs) to indicate that cycling is prohibited is this...
> 
> ...


 

Not quite true . the adding of a diagonal bar to this sign ( sign 951) would not be a recognised sign based on guidance in chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual. the use of the rectangular plate under with the words end may be suitable but there is no direct refernce to this in chapter 3.

reading chapter 3 does not show any guidance for marking the end of the no cycling restriction and it seems that there is no provision as the guidance for the rectangular plate End ( diagram 645) seems to apply only to the end of direction turns. it could be argued and I would imagine succesfully , that plate 645 could/should be used at the end of all restrictions/prohibitions, but this would also mean a plate at the start denoting how long ( in Miles) the restriction was for.

confused. you will be.


----------



## Ticktockmy (25 Sep 2014)

Looking at the picture, it looks like it is on the wall of what looks like a block of flats, which I guess is not on the Highway, and as the sign indicates it is put in place by the council, thus the council can use any use any sign it wants, Signs as regulated by the Highways act do not have any authority on private land, unless a right of way runs over the private or council owned land then signs as regulated by the Highways act should be used.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Sep 2014)

Gravity Aided said:


> Harkens me back to this weekend, when someone had taken a crayon and written on the side of a cardboard box "No Parking, This side of Street". Then he was out yelling at yard sale goers at his neighbors' house-"Can't you see the sign?". I got there, he was saying this to a lady and her kids, and she told him-"Can't you read the local ordinances? You can't enforce such traffic rules without authority!" Good on her.



I like car boot sales, the people attending are so thick!

We had on that used to park on the pavement outside our house, and delightfully informed us that we could not stop him as he had a right to do so....on video



Shame the Police disagreed, and issued an FPN

He also managed to highlight an issue for locals, got picked up by the local press as an example, and we now have between 20 and 30 parking fines issued some weeks.


----------



## classic33 (25 Sep 2014)

Cycleops said:


> The sign has no validity and no authority. I don't think you need to do anything, no checking, no emailing, no nothing. Just keep riding!


If it is illegal, both the council and SINC would appreciate knowing about it.


----------

