Pavement rules for cyclists answers needed

[steveindenmark]

in kettering we have some signs rectangular blue with a white cycle on and also round blue signs with a cycle and mother and child. i only got my trike today and would like someone to enlighten me on whether i can use the pavement with these signs in place, also i saw both these signs round and rectangular side by side, so i am kerfuffled

I think you are in a grey area.

If you are a trike the rules regarding do not apply to you as you do not come under the definition of "bicycle", the same as a pram doesnt. Now as a forum we can sit and argue the point all day. but what we say does not count. Only a test case could give a definitive answer.

Personally, I rode my trike wherever I wanted and never had a problem. But I was always polite and careful. Whenever i was somewhere where I would not take a bicycle, it was always in my mind that it really was someone elses space and I acted accordingly.

 

[confusedcyclist]

Oh, I'm happy to come to a complete standstill while we sort ourselves out. It just amuses me how people seem to be drawn towards the line.

I thought it was a target. Like a landing strip.

 

[confusedcyclist]

I think you are in a grey area.

If you are a trike the rules regarding do not apply to you as you do not come under the definition of "bicycle", the same as a pram doesnt. Now as a forum we can sit and argue the point all day. but what we say does not count. Only a test case could give a definitive answer.

Personally, I rode my trike wherever I wanted and never had a problem. But I was always polite and careful. Whenever i was somewhere where I would not take a bicycle, it was always in my mind that it really was someone elses space and I acted accordingly.

There is no grey area in the UK at least, a tricycle is a cycle, but not a bicycle. The highway code refers to cycles, not bicycles. So yes, unicycles and velombiles are permitted and restricted to the same places a bicycle would be, unless local bylaws come into effect. I imagine these are very rare.

 

[mjr]

The rectangular sign is a ‘Recommmended route for pedal cycles’ https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs

The rectangular sign usually applies to the road. People are not normally allowed to cycle on any part of the pavement unless a round sign is also present. This is different to many other countries, where a rectangular sign means there's an optional cycleway (often packed stone/gravel, not suitable for all cycles) and a round one indicates a compulsory one (cycles banned from the adjacent carriageway).

[QUOTE 5104443, member: 45"]White lines splitting pavements do more harm than good. It instills ownership and brings the problem with the roads onto the pavement. Just let everyone use all of it.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a peculiarly British problem. In my experience, in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, people mostly kept to their designated side, whereas in places like France and Portugal, no-one got the hump about making a gap when someone rang a bike bell. Why?

 

[mjr]

It also makes things easier if cyclists slow the fark down on shared use paths and stopped acting like they own said path "you're in the cycle lane" as beloved of B'ton sea front nobbers. "fark off" as beloved of me.

I think that's as unreasonable as demanding that all walkers stop for 10 seconds every 10 paces. Let others make progress. Brighton seafront is mostly wide enough that staying out of the already-mostly-far-too-narrow cycleway wouldn't be a great hardship and it's nicer if people are on cycles than in cars. Plenty of places to walk where cycling isn't allowed, too.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5104443, member: 45"]White lines splitting pavements do more harm than good. It instills ownership and brings the problem with the roads onto the pavement. Just let everyone use all of it.[/QUOTE]
I'd keep the white lines, though, both to let motorists know that they're crossing a cycleway and as centre lines that you keep to the left of (cycling) or right of (walking). It seemed to work here:

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think that's as unreasonable as demanding that all walkers stop for 10 seconds every 10 paces. Let others make progress. Brighton seafront is mostly wide enough that staying out of the already-mostly-far-too-narrow cycleway wouldn't be a great hardship and it's nicer if people are on cycles than in cars. Plenty of places to walk where cycling isn't allowed, too.

If riders want to make progress there's a perfectly good road about 2m from the cycle lane, where cycling is allowed, too.

 

[mjr]

If riders want to make progress there's a perfectly good road about 2m from the cycle lane, where cycling is allowed, too.

Walking is allowed there too, yet you're not complaining about motorists on it honking their horns and wanting to come by if you use it. Why are only cyclists in cycleways singled out for this hate, even by other cyclists?

 

[byegad]

On a recumbent, I'd recommend avoiding shared use and dedicated cycle paths like the plague. Both have poor sight lines and entail turning your head like an owl at junctions and anywhere else the 'designer'* has 'given way' to other routes.

You are safer on a road where rearward observation can be monitored in a mirror and only checked by turning your head when you are about to cross someone else's right of way. Otherwise a head turn of 90 degrees is the most you'll need to make, at roundabouts, junctions and the like.

 

[Alan O]

I have to say I'm surprised by how often cyclists/pedestrians animosity relating to mixed-use paths is raised. Most of my cycling routes are on such paths and I also walk them a lot, and I've never (well, over the year and a bit I've been back cycling) had any unpleasant interactions at all. I always find a cheery "morning" or whatever works a treat, I welcome being informed by faster cyclists that I'm about to be overtaken, and when I'm cycling I always give priority to walkers (whatever the road markings say). In fact, I think it's a good general policy to always give way to those slower or softer than oneself.

In fact, I find riding mixed-use paths to be significantly more relaxing (and safer) than riding on the roads.

 

[mjr]

On a recumbent, I'd recommend avoiding shared use and dedicated cycle paths like the plague. Both have poor sight lines and entail turning your head like an owl at junctions and anywhere else the 'designer'* has 'given way' to other routes.

That wouldn't happen if the guidelines were followed. However, because the UK has mere guidelines rather than requirements or instructions like NL, the guidelines are almost never followed completely.

More importantly, you are depressingly likely to encounter obstacles like barriers that are not spaced correctly to allow a trike through or narrow sections and dropped kerbs which aren't wide enough for a trike - so I'd only use UK cycleways if you either know they're good, are able to lift your trike or have enough time/ability to turn back to the next access point.

 

[mjr]

[...] In fact, I think it's a good general policy to always give way to those slower or softer than oneself.

In fact, I find riding mixed-use paths to be significantly more relaxing (and safer) than riding on the roads.

I agree with most of that, although I think the "safer" is unproven, which I suspect is because of the stupid junction designs.

There's a bit of a difference between giving way and submitting to being slowed to walking pace by a mouthy nobber telling me to fark off apparently only because they want to walk in a cycleway rather than a much wider adjacent footway to make some sort of vehicularist point that faster cyclists should use the carriageway instead.

I rarely encounter problems on cycleways around here (we don't have many segregated any more and Norfolk people are lovely - I even get occasional compliments about the Dutch bike and everyone seems to love trikes), but I have in some places, including Brighton, which seems especially odd when you notice how narrow NCR 2 is, while walking gets twice as much space right next to it, as well as an entire other promenade closer to the sea where cycling is banned, and usually a footway on the other side of the carriageway too. Streetview:

ETA: by the way, how wide is that two-way cycleway? I doubt two people can ride side-by-side and passing oncoming riders was unpleasantly close unless one of us left the lane.

 

[jefmcg]

It also makes things easier if cyclists slow the fark down on shared use paths and stopped acting like they own said path "you're in the cycle lane" as beloved of B'ton sea front nobbers. "fark off" as beloved of me.

I don't see how this follows from what I said. We all agree, and it's been said many times before, that the pedestrians have priority. But it makes it nicer for the cyclists if they stay on "their" side of the path. Some pedestrians do this, out of politeness.

It's also polite to hold the door for someone, and I thank them when they do it and - surprise! - I don't swear at them when they don't

For the record, I'm a paragon on shared use paths, for examle staying behind a group that has strayed across the path if I can see a place ahead that I can pass them without interrupting their conversation. I tend to stay away from them if I can, usually only ending up on them when I have had to resort to google maps for a route to my destination.

 

[Alan O]

I agree with most of that, although I think the "safer" is unproven, which I suspect is because of the stupid junction designs.

Actually, I should mention that my only fall of 2017 was on a cycle path (a slippery boardwalk bit through some woods) - entirely my own fault ("What does that sign say? Slippery when w.... aargh"), and it wouldn't have happened on the road

 

[lutonloony]

Have to say that in Sunny Devon, most people move out of the way with a ting from the bell, with little bother. Surprisingly the schoolchildren often say sorry when they move out of the way. I do always thank the peds