Cycle lanes

i find that there are quite often problems regarding right of way when riding on cycleways (when small roads cross over with them. motorists seems pretty oblivious to the presence of cycle lanes a lot of the time.

The other problem with cycle lanes is that certain motorists then expect you to be in them, even when it's not appropriate. I find in London drivers are mostly actually quite tolerant if you take the lane in front of them, probably because the traffic is slow and they're are used to it. I've been riding round Brighton area quite a bit recently and in smaller towns, villages etc. I've had quite a few bad experiences with drivers cleary not used to the "take the lane" idea...

please read the thread properly Andy,
the whole scheme is designed to slow the overall speed of traffic down on main road, thus allowing for drivers to see junction and users of the cycle path who have priority at that point better flow.
we could just keep riders on the roads as you say but what about trying something which, gasp, makes all road users more responsible and aware of each other.

Sorry, my bad. If it makes people more aware then I guess it's a good thing. But as stormalx pointed out, drivers often think if there is a bike lane you shouldn't be on the road at all, which is a shame.

(there is of course no barrier to us riding as fast as fuck along the main road.)

Awesome! :D

mate, I cant believe you just used that saying here, "my bad", not dissing you just noticing what becomes common language,
check this thread out from a couple of weeks ago,:-
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread26188.html

Thanks for posting pics, very very interesting. We cant unfortunately tell whether main road users are given any indication of changed priorities?

Went along that road this morning. There is not a single sign on the main road for the car drivers to know they are likely to find a cyclist WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, blithely crossing under their front wheels as they round the corner.

The general speed of the road is about 40mph (think it's officially a 30 limit though) and people round the corners at about 25mph. That's going to hurt when it hits you. Luckily, it's not a hugely popular cycling route, but then again, that makes it all the more likely that a motorist won't see the cycle lane.

I'm all for cyclists getting priority anywhere. But I think it would be sensible to advise motorists that it might be happening.

Anyone know who I should contact to suggest that this is a potential death trap until there is better (or ANY) signage on the main road?

Went along that road this morning. There is not a single sign on the main road for the car drivers to know they are likely to find a cyclist WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, blithely crossing under their front wheels as they round the corner.

The general speed of the road is about 40mph (think it's officially a 30 limit though) and people round the corners at about 25mph. That's going to hurt when it hits you. Luckily, it's not a hugely popular cycling route, but then again, that makes it all the more likely that a motorist won't see the cycle lane.

I'm all for cyclists getting priority anywhere. But I think it would be sensible to advise motorists that it might be happening.

Anyone know who I should contact to suggest that this is a potential death trap until there is better (or ANY) signage on the main road?

Yes, this looks to be the main issue with this scheme, dont forget that there are many parties involved in getting this stuff made. it may be that a gung ho cyclist got it in, and overlooked some elements. It may also be true that because it is so new there isnt any best practice guidance for signage.
I will check out the manual (2008) for best practice and see if these schemes are mentioned, post again soon.
If you contact the relevant London Borough, Council cycling officer/road safety dept, they should be able to put you in touch with the individual who mooted the scheme originally. Be polite and we might all find out the roots of it.

I think it is a criminal offence. I'd need to check what the legal definition of a "cycle track" is to be sure (a piece of green tarmac may not be sufficient) but I think that people parking on a cycle lane are guilty of a breach of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Charge: "Park a mechanically propelled vehicle on a cycle track"

Legislation: Contrary to section 21(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Offence wording: "On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..), without lawful authority, parked a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), wholly or partly on a cycle track at **(..SPECIFY LOCATION..)."

Powers of arrest: Arrest without warrant

Penalty: A fine not exceedingly level three on the standard scale.

Report to your local bobbies and tell them to look it up on PNLD, Ref: H3039.

Is this genuinely all true, that a car parking on a cycle lane is a criminal offence, no fgss shinanegans now. I'm thinking possibly cycle lane != cycle track?

In each direction. Two-way tracks have completely different parameters (and are not recommended).

They're absolutely terrifying, and I've been on Oblivion at Alton Towers five times, so I know what terrifying is.

mate, I cant believe you just used that saying here, "my bad", not dissing you just noticing what becomes common language,
check this thread out from a couple of weeks ago,:-
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread26188.html

Not seen that thread before but have used the term plenty of times. I noticed in one post you said "I shit you not" and I think we both know who you picked that one up from! :p

Is a car is parked such that it is causing an obstruction, it is very much the police's job to issue a penalty notice, if not have the car towed.

This is irrespective of whether the cycle lane is bounded with a solid line or a dashed line.

Technically it's not causing an obstruction since there's nothing in the highway code that requires a cyclist to use the obstructed cycle lane.

Which is why I wonder if cycle track != cycle lane since if it's a cycle track it might be that there's no road a cyclist can use to bypass said obstruction.

Is this genuinely all true, that a car parking on a cycle lane is a criminal offence, no fgss shinanegans now. I'm thinking possibly cycle lane != cycle track?

Straight up. That was copied directly out of PNLD - the Police National Legal Database.

I tried to get a reference from the cut-down version available at www.pnld.co.uk but it seems a bit shite and has nothing about parking on a cycle track either. Rubbish.

I'm guessing that a cycle track is one that is separated from the road, rather than the 20 inches nearest the gutter with a smear of green tarmac on it. When I've got some time, I'll search the legislation for more info.

Edited to add that I just saw the post above, so maybe the green tarmac IS sufficient...

Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by section 70 and Schedule 7 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides the offence of parking or driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a cycle track without lawful authority.

OFFENCE
21(1) It is an offence for a person who, without lawful authority, drives or parks a mechanically propelled vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.
21(2) A person shall not be convicted of the offence with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court:-

(a) that the vehicle was driven or (as the case may be) parked in contravention for the purpose of saving life, or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency, or

(b) that the vehicle was owned or operated by a highway authority or by a person discharging functions on behalf of a highway authority and was driven or (as the case may be) parked in contravention in connection with the carrying out by or on behalf of that authority of any of the following, that is, the cleansing, maintenance or improvement of, or the maintenance or alteration of any structure or other work situated in the cycle track or its verges or the preventing or removing of obstructions to the cycle track or the preventing or abating in any other way of nuisances or other interferences with the cycle track, or

(c) that the vehicle was owned or operated by statutory undertakers and was driven or (as the case may be) parked in contravention in connection with the carrying out by those undertakers of any works in relation to any apparatus belonging to or used by them for the purpose of undertaking.

CYCLE TRACK
means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have a right of access on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of this Act) with or without a right of way on foot.
Thus, the offence can only be committed where passage is restricted to pedal cycles, or to pedal cycles and pedestrians.

NOTE This section does not extend to Scotland.

SOOOOO.... The final bit seems to confirm that it's got to be a cycle path as part of a pavement, or otherwise separated from a road and not just the bit of the road nearest the kerb.

discussion on radio 4 now.

Can anybody tell me what programme this was part of, please? I'd like to listen to it before the week is up.

In relation to the scheme photographed by Tea Bee, Ruislip.

the Daft (DfT) Local Transport Note 2/08 October 2008 Cycle Infrastructure Design has plenty to say, specifically.

Section 10.3 (p64) Cycle track crossings near junctions.

Acknowledges problems mentioned above in clause 10.3.1,2,3,

clause 10.3.4 " A report into cycle tracks crossing minor roads (Pedler and Davies 2000) concluded that "the risk (of crossing the minor road) must be weighed against the risks to cyclists using the major road. the safer option will depend on a variety of site-specific factors. If satisfactory crossings of minor roads cannot be provided, the creation of a cycle track may not be a sensible option"

It advises that
10.3.6 " Crossings can be modified to mitigate hazards to pedestrians and cyclists. Possible modifications include localised carriageway narrowing with tight kerb radii, and placing the crossing on a flat topped road hump.Where the crossing is placed on a road hump, it may be better if it is "bent out"
10.3.7 "on a bent out crossing, the cycle track approaches are deflected away from the main carriageway to create a gap of one or two car- lengths between the main road and the crossing. A gap of about 5 metres is required to accomodate one car." etc etc

so the guidance is for raised tables, and a significant gap between crossing and main road-- both of which if my eyes serve me correctly are missing from above scheme (without mentioning specifics about signage which includes proper 'Give ways' on main carriageway) So we could conclude that it is a bit of a rush job.

Interestingly the next bit:-

10.4 Cycle track with cycle lane at side road with crossing.
10.4.1 "As a result of concerns over the safety of parallel tracks crossing side roads, it is becoming common European practice to reintroduce cyclists to the main road in advance of a junction. Cyclists pass the junction on the carriageway and then rejoin th cycle track"
10.4.2 "Cyclists join the road in line with the main flow on build outs ramped to carriageway level (pic no.10.6) and use an advisory cycle lane that continues past the junction until it rejoins the cycle track. if a build out is not possible, the cycle track may need to give way where it joins the carriageway"
and
10.4.3 "The advantage of this arrangement is that ity gives the cyclist unambiguous priority at the junction. The solution precludes two -way use of the cycle track. the merge onto the carriageway should be at least 30 metres from the junction to reduce the risk of conflict with left-turning traffic"

These 3 clauses ^ are news to me.

and heres the rub, the pic shown 10.6 is of a huge wide road, room for cycle lane build out, greensward and pavement, and that just aint available in pretty much all our urban areas.

so the guidance is for raised tables, and a significant gap between crossing and main road-- both of which if my eyes serve me correctly are missing from above scheme (without mentioning specifics about signage which includes proper 'Give ways' on main carriageway) So we could conclude that it is a bit of a rush job.

Yup, that's correct - no 5m gap for a car to get into the side road and stop and no crossing on a built-up table. Which would be fine, because you'd see (and feel) there was something amiss with the junction and realise you were crossing a cycle path. With these in Ruislip, the cycle path is so close to the lines at the end of the road, it deceives your eye into not seeing them, because they kind of blur into one and there's no raised table to give you a clue.

I was in the car that drove into the side road, over these cycle paths and although I'd spotted there was a cycle track, I just hadn't realised it crossed the road in that way. Neither had any of my friends, we were all horrified to see it and thought it was a potential death trap. So if I didn't see that there was a cycle crossing because it was so well camouflaged, I can't see how a non-cyclist would see it or think that they might have to stop.

Think I'm going to conduct my own MORI-poll style Q&A with the pub regulars, to see if any of them have noticed it.

Can anybody tell me what programme this was part of, please? I'd like to listen to it before the week is up.

it was part of the pm programme.

there has been a study that showed drivers drove closer to riders when they were in a cycle lane than when they were not.

the corollary is that cyclists may be in more danger being in a cycle lane than if the road did not have one.

the interviewer said but cyclists dont follow the hc and do rlj's etc. chris peck of ctc said that a lot of road users dont obey the hc / road regs etc. and the presenter shut up for a bit.

and chris peck of ctc made the point that non and beginner cyclists kinda think that cycle lanes must be good but that more confident cyclists think they are not so good and cycle on the road via their desire lane.

chris peck went on to say that what cyclists want is for mpv's to slow down.

so yes please to 20 mph on all urban roads. then all road users are safer and we can stop these stupid attempts to segregate road users.

here endeth the lesson....

sometimes i think i am a bit of a tosser....

then we would be breaking the speed limit all the time ;-)

^^^^ Speak for yourself, Mr Speedy Gonzalez.

I fat and lazy. Plus drinking tinnies riding no-handed slows you right down.

The final bit is incorrect, and does not relate to any specific legislation / instrument.

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) amends only the following part of the RTA:
i.e. It makes the distinction between a vehicle being parked, and a mechanically propelled vehicle being parked.

I don't follow the point you're making. Are you suggesting that a car doesn't fall under the definition of a "mechanically propelled vehicle"?

then we would be breaking the speed limit all the time ;-)

noted ;-). but there aint many riders that can average more than 20 mph for long.

and for those that can i would say a small sacrifice for what i believe would be a massive reduction in the number of people getting killed on the roads.

and if one can go that fast / wanna burn go enter a race / go on a track. where the risks can be controlled and accepted.

same for the drivers of mpv's / pistonheads - do the speed thing on the track but not in the community please.

then we would be breaking the speed limit all the time ;-)

but you actually got me thinking....

maybe because cyclists are not as heavy as mpv's and therefore do not kill like mpv's maybe they could go faster without a commensurate increase in risk of death.

that way to get somewhere fast cycling becomes the default mode of transport. if one is fit. but that nicely addresses the obesity problem.

just thinking out loud...

^^^^ Speak for yourself, Mr Speedy Gonzalez.

I fat and lazy. Plus drinking tinnies riding no-handed slows you right down.

man, you were so beautiful and slinky fast in Saturday Night Fever, what happened to you?

I'm sure I read somewhere on here that speed limits don't apply to cyclists, I may be talking rubbish though. Either way 20mph is a decent enough pace on a bike, but you'd struggle to keep under that limit going down a big hill!

They are introducing 20mph limits in more and more areas, and it makes them great to cycle through, the only issue is that to enforce the new limit they put in speed bumps.
There was an ad campaign a few years back that said you are twice as likely to kill someone if you hit them at 30 than if you had been travelling at 20. I don't know the stats, or whether that statement is still considered true, but if it is it's a pretty strong argument for reducing the limit if so.

man, you were so beautiful and slinky fast in Saturday Night Fever, what happened to you?

You know how it goes... I got typecast doing dancing stuff, my career stalled, and I just ended up sitting in doorways drinking tins at 7am, shouting random abuse at strangers.

But then I discovered that's what most of the people on the forum here do too, so it seemed kind of ok after that. ;-)

cycle lanes what do you think
do you use them
do you like them
should they be enforced
should they be on every road
should parking in them be against the law
should we get rid of them

I want all of your opinions