Cycling UK Forum

Doesn't the HC say that cars mustn't be parked in a cycle lane except where it's unavoidable?

Yeah, there are traffic wardens, but the roads in question are just outside the town centre and the traffic wardens never seem to venture out that way.

Edit:

Rule 240 seems to cover it:

240
You MUST NOT stop or park on ... a tram or cycle lane during its period of operation

Am I misunderstanding?

When you find a cycle lane obstructed by a parked car, what do you do? Near where I live, I've noticed that people routinely park their cars in cycle lanes and it's really starting to p___ me off. On two roads in particular, there are cars lining the sides of the road. This afternoon, along one stretch of road, there were at least ten cars parked outside residential properties and, to add insult to injury, a police car drove past and never so much as noticed the offending vehicles, let alone did anything to uphold the law.

I could report the matter to the police, but that's not really how I'd like to go about it - I don't want to get people into trouble if I can avoid it. After all, the owners of the cars are simply parking them outside their homes and it's possible that they don't even realise they're doing anything wrong. (In truth, I doubt the police would be interested in doing anything about the problem anyway.) Instead, I was thinking of getting in touch with my MP and local councillors to see if they can help.

Does anybody have any suggestions about how to deal with this problem?

thirdcrank wrote:My own gripe is people who straddle two bays.

Mine is non-disabled people who park in bays designed for disabled people.

slacker wrote:"If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should...."

Means exactly what it says. if you choose to ride round in the left hand lane you should do what ever it says. It doesn't mean if you choose to ride round you should ride round in the left hand lane.

Alternatively, it means exactly what is says. If you choose to ride round, you should do whatever the it says: keep to the left etc. etc.

[XAP]Bob wrote:"You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. Else you should ride round keeping to the left-hand lane and [...]"?

Something like that.

IF is not exclusive (i.e. there are further options)
ELSE is exclusive (i.e. there are no further options)

The use of the word, "if," makes it a conditional statement, though. The "further options" you mention amount to walking round the edge - as per the first sentence. These two sentences are giving the cyclist two options: walk or cycle. It's saying that should you choose to take the cycle option, you should do so, "keeping to the left-hand lane."

Again, if the authors were saying that cyclists should not cycle round the roundabout in the left-hand lane, then wouldn't they just say so? If they were reluctant that we should do it that way, then why give it as an option at all? Why would they say, "Here's the most dangerous way of negotiating a roundabout," and then proceed to give us instructions in how to do it, thus endangering ourselves and other road users?

DerekR wrote:shouldn't the "if" be read in the context of the preceding sentence ("You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge.")? Isn't it saying that if we choose to cycle around the roundabout, rather than walking round on the pavement or verge, we should "keep to the left-hand lane"?

[XAP]Bob wrote:

DerekR wrote:

[XAP]Bob wrote:It would say "else" not "if"

"Else you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should [...]"? What?

Else you should ride....

I'm still not getting what you mean. Rule 77:

You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should
be aware that drivers may not easily see you
take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout

You're saying, if my interpretation of Rule 77 were correct, the first two sentences would read, "You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. Else you should ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should [...]"? I'm starting to feel like Marjorie Dawes talking to the Asian lady at Fat Fighters, here.

fimm wrote:Thanks, I've seen that book mentioned and recommended in lots of places. I'm sure I'll pick it up at some point. I recently ordered City Cycling, by Richard Ballantine. Have you ever read it? Dunno whether it'll contain any info about roundabouts.

I have to admit that I've never heard of "City Cycling". "Cyclecraft" seems to be the book of choice for discussions on cycling. There's also one published by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (!) which was discussed on here a little while ago.[/quote]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/City-Cycling-Richard-Ballantine/dp/1905005601/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300461883&sr=8-1

Like I say, I'm waiting for it to be delivered, so don't know how useful it'll be. I'll also pick up a copy of Cyclecraft.

snibgo wrote:The HC should say, "Our previous advice, that cyclists should keep to the left around roundabouts, was wrong and dangerous. That is the last place a cyclist should be. It confuses other road users, and may lead to the cyclist getting squished. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused."

Well, exactly!

But it doesn't - hence the confusion!

[XAP]Bob wrote:It would say "else" not "if"

"Else you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should [...]"? What?

snibgo wrote:I'll try explaining it another way. The HC says if you decide to do something, watch out for the following problems.

It doesn't say you should do it. Instead, it implies that it's not a good idea.

What I don't get, though, is that, if the authors of the HC did not intend for cyclists to go round the roundabout in the left lane (because of the obvious dangers), then why do they suggest it at all? Surely, if they're acknowledging the inherent dangers in doing so and trying to convey a recommendation that we shouldn't, then they'd specifically say that we should not do it and instruct us instead to either follow Rules 184-190 or walk on the pavement or verge.

snibgo wrote:

DerekR wrote:However, I recently learnt from the Highway Code that when I'm on my bike I should remain in the left lane regardless of which exit I'm taking.

You are misreading HC #77, which says: "If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane ...".

Thanks, that's an excellent point. However, shouldn't the "if" be read in the context of the preceding sentence ("You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge.")? Isn't it saying that if we choose to cycle around the roundabout, rather than walking round on the pavement or verge, we should "keep to the left-hand lane"?

snibgo wrote:But you are misreading rule 77. It DOES NOT say what you think it says.

I hope you're right (I've always approached roundabouts on my bike in the same way as I do when driving a car). It does seem to, at least, be open to interpretation.

Guy951 wrote:While prosecutions for people not complying with the law as stated in the "must" and "must not" Rules are rare enough, I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for non-compliance with an HC advisory Rule. Hence "safely ignored".

Does it say in the HC that its provisions and advice can be "safely ignored"?

fimm wrote:Get this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-comp ... 416&sr=1-1
(Cyclecraft, by John Franklin).

Thanks, I've seen that book mentioned and recommended in lots of places. I'm sure I'll pick it up at some point. I recently ordered City Cycling, by Richard Ballantine. Have you ever read it? Dunno whether it'll contain any info about roundabouts.

Guy951 wrote:

DerekR wrote:Rule 77 says explicitly that cyclists should negotiate the roundabout, "keeping to the left-hand lane"; it doesn't seem at all ambiguous. Agreed, it doesn't use the word, "must," but surely saying that we should proceed, "keeping to the left-hand lane" amounts to the same thing.

Rules containing the words "should" or "should not" are purely advisory and can be safely* ignored. The only time a Rule must be obeyed is when the words "must" or "must not" appear in the text.

I hold the belief that the HC is written by people who don't even know what a bike looks like, let alone how to ride one safely on the road.



*Like ignoring Rule 77 is usually far safer than following it.

I absolutely agree with you that ignoring Rule 77 might be the least dangerous option. That's why I'm querying its meaning. Although the rule in question doesn't stipulate what we "must" do and leaves us a degree of discretion, the introduction to the HC says that it, "may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts [...] to establish liability."

Guy951 wrote:

...pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should
be aware that drivers may not easil...

It's not very clearly written, but that just implies that going round in the left-hand lane* is just one of the options a cyclist may take. Nowhere does it say you must keep to the left-hand lane on roundabouts.

Rule 77 says explicitly that cyclists should negotiate the roundabout, "keeping to the left-hand lane"; it doesn't seem at all ambiguous. Agreed, it doesn't use the word, "must," but surely saying that we should proceed, "keeping to the left-hand lane" amounts to the same thing.