Where do shared cycle paths end?

MattDB

Senior Member
I usually cycle on the road but there has been a diversion so I moved over to a shared pavement as indicated by a blue sign with person and cyclist image.

The sign is located on a wide quiet part of pavement which continues over a pedestrian crossing displaying the green person and also green cyclist light = shared crossing.

However after the crossing the pavement is narrower and busier - there is no 'Cyclist dismount' sign and further up this pavement there are some blue cycle route signs.

This morning I was told by a pedestrian that I shouldn't be cycling on the pavement - common sense also tells me that this part of the pavement isn't really wide enough to be a shared path (also there are bus stops at several points) although I'd waited until it was clear and cycled around him slowly.

However legally, does this sound like a shared path still? i.e. does a shared path continue until I see a notice saying 'Cyclists Dismount'?
 
When using them, I personally take the view that if there's a sign saying it's a shared path, and nothing says it has ended. Then it's good to continue.
 
I usually cycle on the road but there has been a diversion so I moved over to a shared pavement as indicated by a blue sign with person and cyclist image.

The sign is located on a wide quiet part of pavement which continues over a pedestrian crossing displaying the green person and also green cyclist light = shared crossing.

However after the crossing the pavement is narrower and busier - there is no 'Cyclist dismount' sign and further up this pavement there are some blue cycle route signs.

This morning I was told by a pedestrian that I shouldn't be cycling on the pavement - common sense also tells me that this part of the pavement isn't really wide enough to be a shared path (also there are bus stops at several points) although I'd waited until it was clear and cycled around him slowly.

However legally, does this sound like a shared path still? i.e. does a shared path continue until I see a notice saying 'Cyclists Dismount'?
If you cross the road from a signposted, marked, shared path,

image.jpeg






at a crossing with the 'person on a bike' light

image.jpeg



and the side of the road to which you cross, has no signage, to indicate a shared path, but you see the blue rectangular shaped 'cycle route' sign,

image.jpeg



that means the path isn't shared use, the cycle route is the road alongside the path.

Unless you see the explicit 'shared path' sign, either on a lamp post / on the actual path, assume it isn't a shared path.

The sign you really need to take particular notice of, is this one.

image.jpeg


If you cycle on a bit with this sign, you'll risk an on the spot fine.
 
Unless you see the explicit 'shared path' sign, either on a lamp post / on the actual path, assume it isn't a shared path.
There's a shared path I use on the way home from the train station. it runs down the side of a busy (and not moving dual carriageway). It has a shared path sign at the start. But then goes on for nearly a mile with no repeated signs. At which point would I assume it stops? Or am I generally safe to continue until I change road/path and there is no sign?
 
There's a shared path I use on the way home from the train station. it runs down the side of a busy (and not moving dual carriageway). It has a shared path sign at the start. But then goes on for nearly a mile with no repeated signs. At which point would I assume it stops? Or am I generally safe to continue until I change road/path and there is no sign?
If there has been a shared path sign, continue on until you see a rectangular 'cyclists dismount' or 'cyclists rejoin the carriageway sign'

image.jpeg


Unless it's been knocked off / nicked by students etc. there should be one.
 
The DNA path to Addenrbookes is similar. It only has shared use signs at the joining points - no repeaters.

The problem is that the use of signage by the relevant authorities is so inconsistent - and some even make up their own signage (how many time have you seen a sign with a black bike in a red roundel with a red diagonal for example).

8545368242_046a7799ba.jpg
That's an interesting example, and one I've seen frequently. Effectively, that's a double negative ( don't do not cycle ), which actually means you can cycle here.
 
@User @Racing roadkill Thanks!

I don't use cycle paths regularly, either road. Or canal tow path depending on how I feel. But recently started commuting by train, cycling to the station and leave the bike locked there.

Since it is sat at the station for a while, I am just using an old beater that I found on Gumtree. Of course, that means it's a mountain BSO, and I don't feel too comfy mixing with cars on it :biggrin:, thankfully it is only a 10 minute cycle or so.
 
As a trike rider I'm excluded :sad:
That's why it says "cyclists" and not "bicyclists / unicyclists / Tricyclists". "cyclist" is all inclusive :okay:.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
If you cross the road from a signposted, marked, shared path,
at a crossing with the 'person on a bike' light and the side of the road to which you cross, has no signage, to indicate a shared path, but you see the blue rectangular shaped 'cycle route' sign,
that means the path isn't shared use, the cycle route is the road alongside the path.

Unless you see the explicit 'shared path' sign, either on a lamp post / on the actual path, assume it isn't a shared path.
That's not logical. If a Toucan crossing is provided, on which it is lawful to cycle across from one footpath to another, it makes no sense that you would not be allowed to continue your journey on that opposite footpath.

The sign you really need to take particular notice of, is this one.

If you cycle on a bit with this sign, you'll risk an on the spot fine.
Pedantry note here: there's no such thing as an on the spot fine. You can be issued with a fixed penalty notice which you may elect to pay (not on the spot to the issuer) or reject and go to court.

GC
 
The problem is that neither 'Cyclists Dismount' nor 'Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway' have any legal force. They are for information only - they are not a prohibition.

The correct sign for ending a shared use path, as with other cycle routes, is the 'End of Cycle Route' sign or a 'Cycling Prohibited' sign. The problem is that the advice provided by DfT to traffic planners is not consistent with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.
Very true, very frequently misunderstood as well.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The correct sign for ending a shared use path, as with other cycle routes, is the 'End of Cycle Route' sign or a 'Cycling Prohibited' sign. The problem is that the advice provided by DfT to traffic planners is not consistent with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.
TSRGD 2016 has come into force recently... but isn't the end of a cycle track created by its order and the absence of the white-on-blue bike repeaters what gives legal force to "CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY"?

The absence of any end markings (even a line across the track with END painted under it is sufficient) may make enforcement against cycling on that bit of footway impossible, but doesn't make it properly legal.

Oh and "End of Cycle Route" should die because it's often not true where those signs are used (the route often continues over a crossing or along the carriageway) and "Cyclists Dismount" is often madness because it's worse to have slower, wider bikes squeezing past people - rebuild the cycle track properly, councils!

But to the OP - the pedestrian was probably wrong and should be invited to www.WriteToThem.com and ask for the cycle track to be upgraded, with a footway provided alongside. ;)
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I don't think so - but I might be wrong. To me, it would make sense to have a sign that is the equivalent of the 'end of the the home zone' or the 'end of the minimum speed limit' sign - a blue sign with a red diagonal. The precedent in there and the concept generally understood.
I agree and it's already used overseas (in both mandatory and optional cycleway variants), but they've just made new regulations, so expect it to take at least a decade for that harmonisation to happen. Until then, we will keep having small essays written on signs that make us look quaint and backwards to foreign tourists :sad:
 
Top Bottom