Cycle lane rules/regs

[Reading]

Cycle Lane (or not)

I have a theoretical question (I am not trying to wiggle out of some ticket) - I remember when this https://goo.gl/maps/61XCXtbt9az was installed there being conversations about the fact the road was not wide enough to install a proper cycle lane (it is a main bus route) so instead this dotted edged one was put in which doesn't have any signage other than road markings. For context in evening rush hour the road is a solid crawl and it allows cyclists to have a free passage up the left side (unless there is a bus or lorry)

What is it's actual legal standing does anyone know ? If for instance a car is stopped indicating right, can I legally undertake it on my motorcycle crossing that dotted line (the buses have to straddle it anyway) as long as I check I am not impeding a cyclist (due care and attention). All i can find in the Highway code is under Rule140 it says "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" but it also says "These are shown by road markings and signs" which this one isn't and what is the legal meaning of "unavoidable" - only in an emergency or only if you feel the need ?


I have also heard rumour that the council have said they are not going to repaint the markings (which are now very worn) so I guess they must be unsure about something themselves as well.

[Chris Bertram]

AIUI dashed line markings for cycle lanes have the same standing as dashed line markings for any lane. You should do your best to keep out of the marked cycle lane, but there is no penalty for intruding into it, as there would be for a solid line cycle lane.

Happy to be corrected, of course.

[Bryn666]

Effectively they are meaningless and just mark out a 'recommended' space for cyclists. Hence why cyclists hate them because they are just thoughtlessly slapped down alongside gutters and then drivers expect the cyclist to be in the unsuitable space it has created.

[Reading]

That was sort of what I thought - if i enter it and cut up a cyclist it is a "care and attention" offence but entering the lane itself is not an offence. Would rather know though for sure - the highway code is no good at the RTA link it has underneath goes to the wrong place.

The worse bit for the cyclist in this one is the fact in a few places it just ends - reason being is a central reservation, so cars move left as cyclists fly up inside, wing mirror goes flying and a lot of shouting occurs - 200m up is the worst example as coincides with a 20mph limit and a busy side road so drivers generally very busy doing everything other than checking left hand wing mirror for suicidal cyclists https://goo.gl/maps/oAJ4NJLC6122 (it ends at the 20 sign )

[Stevie D]

Cycle Lane (or not)

I have a theoretical question (I am not trying to wiggle out of some ticket) - I remember when this https://goo.gl/maps/61XCXtbt9az was installed there being conversations about the fact the road was not wide enough to install a proper cycle lane (it is a main bus route) so instead this dotted edged one was put in which doesn't have any signage other than road markings. For context in evening rush hour the road is a solid crawl and it allows cyclists to have a free passage up the left side (unless there is a bus or lorry)

What is it's actual legal standing does anyone know ?

The legal standing is that it is just another part of the road. If it doesn't have a solid line then there is absolutely no prohibition or restriction on driving in it.

Incidentally, that cycle "lane" is another prime example of a supposedly cycle-friendly facility that does far more harm than good. It should be illegal to install a cycle lane that is that narrow – it is dangerous, as it encourages cyclists to stay too close to the kerb and encourages drivers to think there is room to squeeze past without broaching the oncoming lane. A safe and sensible cycling position would be outside the marked lane.

[Reading]

As i posted above look up at the end of the lane - I have seen 4 or 5 cycle meets wing mirror crashes there and another 25m up I have had 2 altercations with cyclists cycling into me as I turn left as they have continued up the left of the traffic after the end of the lane with an assumed right of way - someone will be killed at this point 1 day https://goo.gl/maps/W5gpxVZscSF2 the last one had gone up the bus stop and tried to cut across behind the bin - he then would have gone straight into me turning if I had not handed him off - after he picked himself off he was adamantly trying to tell me that the cycles painted on the road up that stretch meant cycles have priority over motor traffic and he could prove it because a man from the councils cycle team had told him

[Chris Bertram]

... cycles painted on the road up that stretch meant cycles have priority over motor traffic ...

Birmingham City Council have recently had bicycle stencil markings applied in the middle of general traffic lanes all over town. They are the biggest waste of thermoplastic imaginable, since they indicate no restrictions nor any change in priority. There are no roadside signs to indicate their possible meaning. I'm sure that the city council meant well in installing them, but the road to hell ...

[Mark Hewitt]

The legal standing is that it is just another part of the road. If it doesn't have a solid line then there is absolutely no prohibition or restriction on driving in it.

Indeed it's often recommended practice that if turning left you do drive into the cycle lane (making sure it's clear obv) before you slow down for your turn, by doing so you make sure that you don't left hook any cyclist using the lane.

[AndyB]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."

Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.

[Reading]

Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.

I would agree with you except in most of the case i have seen at the end of that lane it is the car moving left to miss the traffic island whilst creeping at c 5mph and a cyclist misjudging their closing speed , trying to fit through the shrinking gap at 15-20mph without braking (there is a hill coming) and failing, in 2 cases the car hasn't been moving at all - with me on that left turn one of the times (not bus stop man) I had started to turn and stopped as a pedestrian stepped onto the raised brick crossing - that cyclist's reason was he thought i was going to be clear of his way so hadn't braked as he wanted to keep speed for the hill - he clipped my topbox and shot right into/onto the bonnet of a car waiting to turn across the traffic into the same road as me

[AndyB]

And that brings all sorts of issues about merging, where motor vehicles simply give way to each other and don't (usually) try to use imaginary gaps - and if the car is following the road markings and gets there first, with the cyclist not paying attention to what's going on (Traffic island. Every car is moving to the left. It should be that obvious.)

[Piatkow]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."

One reason for being "advisory" is the legitimate need for kerbside access. It is far easier to slap some paint down and claim "x miles of cycle facility" rather than build something that works and I don't mean slapping paint on the pavement leaving pedestrians with a space narrower than a baby buggy.

[Stevie D]

One reason for being "advisory" is the legitimate need for kerbside access. It is far easier to slap some paint down and claim "x miles of cycle facility" rather than build something that works and I don't mean slapping paint on the pavement leaving pedestrians with a space narrower than a baby buggy.

It's the classic case of the politician's fallacy ... being seen to do something is more important than actually doing something, let alone doing the right thing.

[Piatkow]

One reason for being "advisory" is the legitimate need for kerbside access. It is far easier to slap some paint down and claim "x miles of cycle facility" rather than build something that works and I don't mean slapping paint on the pavement leaving pedestrians with a space narrower than a baby buggy.

It's the classic case of the politician's fallacy ... being seen to do something is more important than actually doing something, let alone doing the right thing.

exactly - not to mention the nice little trick for doubling the milage of a cycle facility by making the footway shared use and painting an extra line on the carriageway as well.

[Vierwielen]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."
... snip

Not here! The cycle lane and the parking area do not intersect. Cyclists merely get on a magic carpet and fly over the parking area to where the cycle lane picks up again.

[A9NWIL]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."

Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.

Perhaps to make it safer, seeing as there is a junction shortly after the so called cycle lane ends, that the cycle lane should have a mini give way at the end?
That way its the cyclists responsibility to only pull out if there is a safe gap, as drivers will be watching for the junction up ahead and while they should watch for cyclists, it would be safer all round to let drivers focus on the junction ahead which might have more hazards to watch for.

[Reading]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."
... snip

Not here! The cycle lane and the parking area do not intersect. Cyclists merely get on a magic carpet and fly over the parking area to where the cycle lane picks up again.

we have one of those as well - but it is also near invisible
https://goo.gl/maps/vfioBy5ycHy

[Piatkow]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."

Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.

Perhaps to make it safer, seeing as there is a junction shortly after the so called cycle lane ends, that the cycle lane should have a mini give way at the end?
That way its the cyclists responsibility to only pull out if there is a safe gap, as drivers will be watching for the junction up ahead and while they should watch for cyclists, it would be safer all round to let drivers focus on the junction ahead which might have more hazards to watch for.

I thought that the driver was supposed to concentrate watching for cyclists in the wing mirrors rather than where he is going. At least that is the impression that some of the cycling campaigns give.

[A9NWIL]

Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."

Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.

Perhaps to make it safer, seeing as there is a junction shortly after the so called cycle lane ends, that the cycle lane should have a mini give way at the end?
That way its the cyclists responsibility to only pull out if there is a safe gap, as drivers will be watching for the junction up ahead and while they should watch for cyclists, it would be safer all round to let drivers focus on the junction ahead which might have more hazards to watch for.

I thought that the driver was supposed to concentrate watching for cyclists in the wing mirrors rather than where he is going. At least that is the impression that some of the cycling campaigns give.

Somehow you are supposed to do both, but as 99% of hazards will be in front of you thats harder than it looks! Especially when you have a junction in front of you to negotiate.
Cyclists should be vigilant for their own safety and not rely on drivers to always do exactly what they are supposed to do. As was taught when learning to drive expect the unexpected, you can be dead when you are in the right too!

Its a shame that basic cycle training isnt taught as a compulsory subject at primary school and that the theory test isnt compulsory as a GCSE exam, which it is in Australia I believe.

[Johnathan404]

I'm not a fan of on-road cycle lanes, especially when they take up space from the traffic lane meaning you have two unsuitably narrow lanes instead of one shared one. However, I accept they have their uses:

- to highlight to motorists that there are cyclists about (as a very cheap solution to a specific problem)
- to be able to tell cyclists you have a route from A to B where most of that route is of a high quality, but otherwise there would be a short gap in it

What I have absolutely no understanding of the need for is part-time cycle lanes. Either one of the points above apply, or they don't. Why would you say you need 80% of the road in the day but 100% at night? If parking is the problem, use parking restrictions.