Is this true?

[mattybain]

been reading the fascinating discussion re James Martin on the register http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=11 and someone has posted this

"@John Tuffen, you might be horrified to know that if a cycle lane changes from a solid white line to a broken one at the junction, you are considered to be entering the main traffic lane and should therefore give way to cars turning left. This one has been through the courts, so beware."

Is this actually true? I find it hard to believe but can't find any evidence to prove it is or isn't.

 

[Will1985]

Your link is only to posting a new thread.

Is there a context to the claim? It sounds wrong whatever - if the line turns to broken, cars coming up from behind should be adhering to the Highway Code. If it is true, it is another reason not to use cycle lanes.

 

[BentMikey]

If you're moving out of a cycle lane and entering the car lane, why would this be any different to changing lanes anywhere else in the road system? Of course you have to do the usual negotiation to change lanes.

 

[BentMikey]

p.s. I don't think the dashed or solid lines are at all relevant, as they apply only to the mandatory or advisory nature of the cycle lane for motor vehicles.

 

[garrilla]

Highway Code: 140

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

 

[mattybain]

Sorry the link is http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/15/james_martin_wikikicking/

My reading of this was they were suggesting that if you are cycling along a cycle path on the road when a solid line cycle path stops for a junction (to legally let the car turn left) you have to give way to cars turning left.

I guess I am thinking of a situation where a car overtakes you then immediately turns left in front of you and you hit them and it's your fault for not giving way.

I understand if you see a car ahead turning left you should probably slow down and give way but sometimes you don't get that advance warning.

In most cases I would assume that the car turning left should give way to the cyclist as if they are going fast they will not be able to stop in time.

 

[BentMikey]

So you're talking about a merge of two lanes, effectively? One being the cycle lane, and the other the car lane?

 

[mattybain]

So you're talking about a merge of two lanes, effectively? One being the cycle lane, and the other the car lane?

No sorry, not being clear.

Imagine a road with a bike lane to the left, just a single carriageway lane which has the left portion painted and allocated to bikes only. It's a solid line bike lane which as Garilla points out cars must not cross.

However every time you come to a junction the bike lane changes from a solid line to a dashed line (or just ends), this is to legally allow the cars to turn left.

What they are suggesting is that at the end of solid bike lane bikes *have* to give way to cars and that this has been tested in the courts. This is what I find unbelievable.

 

[arallsopp]

what's the point of an 'advisory' cycle lane? Shouldn't drivers give consideration to cyclists as other road users, whether or no there's a little dashed line to hide behind?

Edit- OOh, just seen rule 140 above. My guess is 'unavoidable' means
"Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it doing so might temporarily alleviate some otherwise unendurable delay in your ongoing chase to the next traffic queue."

 

[BentMikey]

No sorry, not being clear.

Imagine a road with a bike lane to the left, just a single carriageway lane which has the left portion painted and allocated to bikes only. It's a solid line bike lane which as Garilla points out cars must not cross.

However every time you come to a junction the bike lane changes from a solid line to a dashed line (or just ends), this is to legally allow the cars to turn left.

What they are suggesting is that at the end of solid bike lane bikes *have* to give way to cars and that this has been tested in the courts. This is what I find unbelievable.

OK, I understand. I think that's probably wrong, and I doubt they would be able to cite a real court case. If they can, then I suspect the real situation won't be quite the same as they suggest. No different to the rules for turning across a bus lane after all.

 

[semislickstick]

Car's can only enter the cycle lane if it is necessary, turning etc, they still have to make sure it's clear, highway code mentions looking out for cycles coming up on the left and not entering lanes when they are in use....so a cyclist already in it when you want to turn.

Other wise you'd have to make this clear by painting lots of give way lines. They do have give way lines on some separate cycle paths that cross over roads, maybe that is what he means?

Surely you go by the Highway code, not a court ruling, that know one can back up?

 

[garrilla]

What they are suggesting is that at the end of solid bike lane bikes *have* to give way to cars and that this has been tested in the courts. This is what I find unbelievable.

I don't know about the law in the specific area, but many, many cycles lanes have Give Way markings (two banks of white dahsed lines) when they want you Give Way. This is something that councils appear not to be shy about.

I suppose there could be an issue if a car, that was ahead of a cyclist, was slowing down to turn left and indicating but the cyclist continued with their line and collided with the car. IMHO the cyclist is to blame here. Where we often find this is where the car rushes to overtake the cyclist and hits the cyclist, its an opion (again) that this would be the car driver at fault. But like I say how the law interprets this ina court I don't know, but you would think we'd have seen these type of cases?

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

what's the point of an 'advisory' cycle lane? Shouldn't drivers give consideration to cyclists as other road users, whether or no there's a little dashed line to hide behind?

Edit- OOh, just seen rule 140 above. My guess is 'unavoidable' means
"Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it doing so might temporarily alleviate some otherwise unendurable delay in your ongoing chase to the next traffic queue."

.. sounds about right. I might add, "or unless you really want to".

I went a different way to work the other day, past a mini-shopping centre, and had to go round all the exec saloons parked under the "do not park in the road, use the car park" signs.

 

[garrilla]

I'm trying to think what happens on a cycle lane when they approach a zebra or pelican crossing because I know the cycle lane markings are replaced/superceeded by the zig-zag lines. But I can't recall if there are give-way markings at these points? I assume here that the cyclist at these points would be considered to be rejoining traffic.

 

[mattybain]

I don't know about the law in the specific area, but many, many cycles lanes have Give Way markings (two banks of white dahsed lines) when they want you Give Way. This is something that councils appear not to be shy about.

I suppose there could be an issue if a car, that was ahead of a cyclist, was slowing down to turn left and indicating but the cyclist continued with their line and collided with the car. IMHO the cyclist is to blame here. Where we often find this is where the car rushes to overtake the cyclist and hits the cyclist, its an opion (again) that this would be the car driver at fault. But like I say how the law interprets this ina court I don't know, but you would think we'd have seen these type of cases?

Yes I agree on that last part, that is probably what happened and someone was just using that as an example in a very heated cyclists v driving debate.

The whole comment thing is actually quite amusing in sad kind of why. A lot of anti cycling rhetoric and some good arguments from cyclists just being ignored. I didn't know IT people were so anti-cycling!!