Cycle lane hall of shame

[Piemaster]

A fairly new junction, with an ASL and a cycle lane leading into it. Quite nice.
But what is going on with the bit on the pavement? here

 

[on the road]

The HC does not make the distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes - this is true, but that does not mean that there is not a difference between the two types of cycle lanes. The HC is a code afer all and does not go into chapter and verse - check the DfT for more detail.

As others have said, the real issue is the lack of repsect that many people have for unbroken white lines...

No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.

People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.

 

[BentMikey]

If it's not now an official term, it has been in the past. These words didn't come out of thin air you know. It may not come from the HC either, might be direct from the relevant law. I don't care enough to look it up though.

 

[on the road]

Well we'll agree to dissagree

 

[HLaB]

No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.

People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.

There's plenty of documented literature on them calling them 'mandatory' folk are not just making things up.

PS check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'

 

[marinyork]

There's plenty of documented literature on them calling them 'mandatory' folk are not just making things up.

Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.

 

[Origamist]

No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.

Please read Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5: Road Markings
See pp.95-7
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5.pdf

It makes it quite clear that there is a difference between advisory and mandatory cycle lanes. If you look at this document you will see other markings/signs that are not explained/detailed in the HC.

People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.

You are wrong. Here's the relevant info from the above DfT document

Cycle lanes may be mandatory, where other vehicles are excluded for at least part of the day (see paras 16.4 to 16.8), or advisory, where other
vehicles may enter if necessary and when it is safe to do so (see paras 16.9 and 16.10). ​

They have diagrams, if you can't follow what I'm writing.

 

[HLaB]

Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.

A lot is also by folk who know what they are talking about too, eminent professors, etc and they're also referenced in standards, check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'

 

[Origamist]

Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.

Agreed.

 

[marinyork]

A lot is also by folk who know what they are talking about too, eminent professors, etc and they're also referenced in standards, check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'

Erm, yes, as a cycle campaigner I have read documents like this. There isn't actually anything 'new' or hard to understand in the section you quote, infact I've said many of the things mentioned in there to other people. Those things are already in the highway code or applying the principles of them. It's also quite amusing where councils make the odd mistake on them.

 

[Origamist]

Erm, yes, as a cycle campaigner I have read documents like this. There isn't actually anything 'new' or hard to understand in the section you quote, infact I've said many of the things mentioned in there to other people. Those things are already in the highway code or applying the principles of them. It's also quite amusing where councils make the odd mistake on them.

Marin, I recently came across this - apologies if you're already au fait with it:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingenglan...ds/2010/02/good_practice_common_in_europe.pdf

 

[marinyork]

Pages 3,4 and 5 are particularly applicable to many of the problems I see .

 

[marinyork]

Haven't they got a newer version of that, I'm sure someone was talking about it about 18 months ago (not that the stuff goes out of date)? It's really good that the 20mph section on that is lacking newer information , things are moving along nicely.

 

[BentMikey]

on the road, perhaps you could find something more useful and productive to debate than this?

 

[marinyork]

Getting back on topic, this is still my favourite local one, a cobbled contra-flow cycle lane. The cobbles not being there before, someone was actually stupid enough to build them, then demand red cobbles.