Cycle lane hall of shame

[Sheffield_Tiger]

This one is a great one

http://bit.ly/da66ID

It's off the road. It's smooth. Grass either side, quiet - ideal, and it heads off alongside the river Sheaf, looking to cut out a busy junction.

Then it reaches a steel fence. No turn off, no way around (the footpath is the same!)

I suppose it's nice for a little 100 metre tootle there and back again?

 

[marinyork]

Just to stand up for Norm, he was on about solid white lines and these mean something quite specific in the United Kingdom, they are one of the most important line markings on the road. His point was that they aren't obeyed and I agree with him. We shouldn't really see them as just cycle lanes but solid white lines.

 

[marinyork]

^^ The above one is hilarious . When it hits the small problem of a river though, there is a point to it, supposedly they will build a bridge one day! I thought this sounded far fetched but they are spending something like a million smackeroons building one in town that I thought was someone pulling someone's leg.

 

[Norm]

I don't think you're talking about the same thing. BM is asking about cycle lanes marked by a solid white line, you seem to be talking about solid white lines down the middle of the road....

Unintentionally perfectly making my point, Arch (with thanks to MY also).

A solid white line is a solid white line. It marks a boundary between two lanes (or the edge of the road!) which should only be crossed under certain circumstances. My understanding is that a solid white line down the middle of the road and a solid white line between a cycle lane and the main carriageway have the same status.

 

[BentMikey]

So you're saying that once a bicycle enters a cycle lane or bus lane, you can't leave it until there's an opening in the white line, or until forced to by something like parked vehicles?

I'm not convinced that bus lane lines are the same, btw, as they are a different thickness to normal white lines.

 

[Origamist]

Unintentionally perfectly making my point, Arch (with thanks to MY also).

A solid white line is a solid white line. It marks a boundary between two lanes (or the edge of the road!) which should only be crossed under certain circumstances. My understanding is that a solid white line down the middle of the road and a solid white line between a cycle lane and the main carriageway have the same status.

An unbroken line delineating a mandatory cycle lane can be crossed by cyclists as can an unbroken line marking a bus lane (it's different for cycle tracks though). AFAIK, it prohibits certain vehicle types entering, but does not preclude cyclists from leaving the mandatory lane. However, in the case of a collision when you moved out of the cycle lane (signal your intention), you would have to justify your road positioning, even though cycle lane usage is not compulsory.

To be honest, I'd never really thought about it.

 

[on the road]

I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.

 

[BentMikey]

I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.

Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.

 

[Origamist]

I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.

There is, it's just not mandatory for cyclists to use it - it's mandatory for vehicles to keep out of it. That said, I agree that the nomenclature is open to misinterpretation and I dislike the term.

 

[Origamist]

Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.

Beat me to it...

 

[Klaus]

WTF!!!!! What a spectacular waste of money all those signs are.

Still you have to laugh!!!!!!

Sad thing is that probably councils receive some grant money from a "cycling pot" somewhere, but nobody actually certifies that it complies with the regulations, or even makes sense ..........

 

[on the road]

Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.

That's what you call it, but "mandatory cycle lane" is not in the highway code. A "mandatory cycle lane" would suggest that it's compulsory for cyclists to use it. In reality it's just called a cycle lane where drivers arn't allowed to enter unless they are getting to a property. You never hear of bus lanes being called mandatory bus lanes.

 

[BentMikey]

That's only because there are no advisory bus lanes, whilst there are advisory cycle lanes with dashed lines.

 

[on the road]

I think you need to brush up on the highway code.

 

[Origamist]

I think you need to brush up on the highway code.

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...