Cycle lane

[alasdairgf]

Who's being daft here: the council, for installing this cycle lane, or me for not understanding WTF it's good for?

Have a gander... this is on the "Woolton Cycle Route", a safe way to get from the south suburbs of Liverpool into the city, but there's no other cycle lane for at least half a mile in one direction and two miles in the other. Just this fragment, sitting in the middle of nowhere, or so it seems to me.

 

[ianrauk]

A complete waste of time.. as are the majority of cycle lanes.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Is it something to do with targets and having to install so many metres of cycle lanes in order to qualify for funding for a new canteen in the town hall, or something like that?

 

[Tynan]

I'm all for them, any space is space that cars should stay out of

granted that bit is very odd to say the least

 

[Shut Up Legs]

In Australia, that would be worse than useless; it would be actively dangerous. We're required by law to use bike lanes where they exist, and so we face the choice of ignoring such a ridiculously small segment of lane and breaking the law, or zipping in and out of it, and possibly being hit by cars in the process. We also have some stupid examples of short bike lanes. There's one road near where I live which has intermittent bike lanes; about every 50-100m there's another bike lane marked, then the markings disappear, then return, etc. Sounds to me like the local council is just being cheap.

In the UK it's optional to use some bike lanes and compulsory to use others, is that correct? How does that work, exactly?

 

[alasdairgf]

My understanding is that while cycle lanes are provided, there's no obligation to use them whatsoever.

 

[goo_mason]

My understanding is that while cycle lanes are provided, there's no obligation to use them whatsoever.

Despite what motorists believe and are often keen to tell you!

 

[battered]

There is indeed no obligation, and most are indeed useless. The LA is obliged to install them, but there's no test as to whether they are sensible or even remotely useful, so they get dropped in all over. 100 bike lanes, each 10 metres long, are apparently worth just as much as a single lane 1km long. In fact they may even be worth more. There are after all 100 of them, on key routes.

 

[DrSquirrel]

In Australia, that would be worse than useless; it would be actively dangerous. We're required by law to use bike lanes where they exist, and so we face the choice of ignoring such a ridiculously small segment of lane and breaking the law, or zipping in and out of it, and possibly being hit by cars in the process. We also have some stupid examples of short bike lanes. There's one road near where I live which has intermittent bike lanes; about every 50-100m there's another bike lane marked, then the markings disappear, then return, etc. Sounds to me like the local council is just being cheap.

In the UK it's optional to use some bike lanes and compulsory to use others, is that correct? How does that work, exactly?

If you have short lanes, go into it right on the line and instantly indicate to pull out... making yourself as big as possible by a nice long out stretched arm.


You might be confusing the "mandatory" cycle lane. Mandatory is a lane with a solid line and means that a car should not pass into it. A lane with a broken line means a car can pass into it only if they need to, and should give way to anything in it.

The broken and solid lines generally mean the same everywhere, give way at a junction is broken line, stop at a junction is solid, solid in the middle of the road no overtaking (unless under 10mph etc). Even entering a turn off that has broken lines means you need to give way to anyone in the road... ie. pedestrian crossing at the turning you want, though people don't realise this and still want to run you down.

DfT - Department for Transport, recommends that cyclists over 18mph use the road.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

In the UK it's optional to use some bike lanes and compulsory to use others, is that correct? How does that work, exactly?

You've got it back to front (common mistake with the wording of "mandatory")

It's optional for cars to keep out of some bike lanes, and compulsory for cars to keep out of others*. Cycles can use them at their discretion regardless of the type of lane it is


*unless the driver needs 20 Bensons and a Daily Star, in which case it's OK as long as he positions his vehicle to block both the cycle lane and the pavement, and puts the hazard lights on

OR unless it is a speed camera van, in which case it is allowed to cause as much obstruction and danger as it likes (the one aspect of the anti-speed-camera argument that I agree with, some positioning of camera vans is downright dangerous)

 

[hackbike 666]

I'm all for them, any space is space that cars should stay out of

granted that bit is very odd to say the least

Blimey...nice one.Nice to hear something positive for once.

This comes up time and time again when the real problem now is mobile phones and lack of due care and attention to driving.

 

[jonesy]

Despite what motorists believe and are often keen to tell you!

Yup. Got tooted at today, by yet another numpty who thinks the pavement near to where I work is a cycle path, just because the pavement further up the road is a cycle path...

 

[hackbike 666]

Agree though that is a 5h1t cyclepath...must be the same people who designed the Blackfriars Bridge Nortbound layout...

 

[Shut Up Legs]

If you have short lanes, go into it right on the line and instantly indicate to pull out... making yourself as big as possible by a nice long out stretched arm.


You might be confusing the "mandatory" cycle lane. Mandatory is a lane with a solid line and means that a car should not pass into it. A lane with a broken line means a car can pass into it only if they need to, and should give way to anything in it.

The broken and solid lines generally mean the same everywhere, give way at a junction is broken line, stop at a junction is solid, solid in the middle of the road no overtaking (unless under 10mph etc). Even entering a turn off that has broken lines means you need to give way to anyone in the road... ie. pedestrian crossing at the turning you want, though people don't realise this and still want to run you down.

DfT - Department for Transport, recommends that cyclists over 18mph use the road.

Thanks for the clarification, makes more sense to me now . In Australia, all* cycle lanes are bordered with solid white lines and are mandatory for cyclists to use, although the same road rule also says "if practicable to do so". In other words, if it's blocked (e.g. by bloody parked cars) or simply hazardous to use, then we're allowed to avoid them. I frequently use this to my advantage, because some of the cycle lanes I use have car parking spots directly to their left, leaving insufficient room for me to use the lane. I would have to ride within the cars' door zone, and that I refuse to do. I've been doored once, and that's enough. I also use this when the lane is blocked by detritus/debris of various types, e.g. broken bottles.

* As far as I know, it's the same for all, but I haven't seen the whole country!

 

[g00se]

It's optional for cars to keep out of some bike lanes, and compulsory for cars to keep out of others*. Cycles can use them at their discretion regardless of the type of lane it is

*unless the driver needs 20 Bensons and a Daily Star, in which case it's OK as long as he positions his vehicle to block both the cycle lane and the pavement, and puts the hazard lights on

Not quite right, they only need hazards on if it's a solid white line - if the cycle lane line is broken, it's sufficient to leave the engine running.