Crapper Cycle Lanes

[Bez]

But it doesn't mean it is illegal for pedestrians to walk on the part designated for cyclists. The law does prohibit cyclists riding on the pedestrian bit (just like any other footway), but not vice versa. Fortunately, although the sign is circular (generally indicating compulsion) this is not the case with this one - or indeed the blue circle with just a cycle in it. We are still free in this country to ignore the c**p and continue riding on the carriageway.

I think there is a widely held misconception about these blue signs. (I recently saw a letter to a paper which made the same mistake, claiming that blue circles with cycles in many that use for cycling was mandatory.)

The mandatory aspect is not that certain users must use them, but that others must not. This also applies to "mandatory cycle lanes": it is mandatory not to drive in them, but it is not mandatory to cycle in them.

In other words, and this is the easiest way to think about it, there is no mandate that applies outside of the signed lane or track. So people are still free to cycle on carriageways, to walk on carriageways and cycleways, and so on (motorways and TROs notwithstanding, of course).

The signage and the wording could perhaps be rather clearer, but they remain mandatory.

[mjr]

The mandatory aspect is not that certain users must use them, but that others must not. This also applies to "mandatory cycle lanes": it is mandatory not to drive in them, but it is not mandatory to cycle in them.

It used to be that you could ask the misunderstander to think about busways and bus lanes and whether buses are obliged to use them rather than the roads alongside... although now I've looked at two places with busways (Cambridge and Bradford) and the ones alongside roads seem to use No Entry with an "Except Buses" plate now. Possibly because motorists can't understand the blue bus circle sign?

[Bmblbzzz]

Perhaps the way to think of it is "[symbol] only".

[thirdcrank]

I think it's easy to lose sight of the underlying issues which are that highwaymen generally want cyclists off the carriageway but lack the wit to make decent separate provision. Once upon a time, cycling on the pavement was for delinquents but now it's legalised at the whim of these people and an increasing number of people who claim to represent cyclists are satisfied with such farcilities, often consisting of nothing more than a few blue signs and cycle logos on a pavement.

[reohn2]

I think it's easy to lose sight of the underlying issues which are that highwaymen generally want cyclists off the carriageway but lack the wit to make decent separate provision. Once upon a time, cycling on the pavement was for delinquents but now it's legalised at the whim of these people and an increasing number of people who claim to represent cyclists are satisfied with such farcilities, often consisting of nothing more than a few blue signs and cycle logos on a pavement.

That about sums it up.
Or put another way,the UK government both local and at national level,doesn't give a monkey's about decent cycling provision.
And the cycling organizations are pretty powerless to do much about it IMHO,yes there'll be some victories but on the whole the situation is dire if you ride a bike.

[661-Pete]

Once upon a time, cycling on the pavement was for delinquents

I always thought cycling on the pavements was for kiddies. At least, that's how it stood before the age of the blue lollipop-signs everywhere. And that's how it still stands wherever there isn't a lollipop...

Trouble is, some adults, Peter-Pan-like, never grow up. I'm one of those people who's sorely tempted, as I pass yet another illegal pavement-artist, to yell out "won't Mummy let you go on the road?" But better judgement (plus unwillingness to get into a punch-up) always holds me back.....

[mjr]

I think it's easy to lose sight of the underlying issues which are that highwaymen generally want cyclists off the carriageway but lack the wit to make decent separate provision. Once upon a time, cycling on the pavement was for delinquents but now it's legalised at the whim of these people and an increasing number of people who claim to represent cyclists are satisfied with such farcilities, often consisting of nothing more than a few blue signs and cycle logos on a pavement.

I think it's easy to lose sight of the underlying issues that all levels of government have failed for years to issue binding guidance to the highways departments to build stuff that is safe and convenient for cycling. Once upon a time, CTC members would direct their ire at government instead of inventing "an increasing number of people who claim to represent cyclists are satisfied with such farcilities" - I can think of one group which maybe that might be justified to say it of and even that's debatable, but the overwhelming majority of cycling groups object to such signs+paint conversions, for all the good it does. Maybe if CTC and Cyclenation groups had some power to signpost defective sections as defective legally, it might help make drivers aware that their councils had been micturating money up the wall.

Do try to remember who the enemy is, please - it's not other cycling organisations.

[Bicycler]

The problem with the blue signs is that confusion is inevitable. Many other round blue road signs in the UK do give orders and pretty much identical signs are used in parts of continental Europe to denote compulsory cycle facilities.

[thirdcrank]

[ ... Do try to remember who the enemy is, please - it's not other cycling organisations.

We have a thread about farcilities which has discussed (criticised?) pedestrian behaviour on shared-use pavements. I was trying to make the point - rather clumsily I fear because you missed it - that this was not the issue. Shoving cyclists onto the pavement tends to put them in conflict with another group of vulnerable users.

Turning to the lexicon of friends and foes, perhaps collaborators rather than enemies might better represent my feelings.

[bromptonrail]

The problem with the blue signs is that confusion is inevitable. Many other round blue road signs in the UK do give orders and pretty much identical signs are used in parts of continental Europe to denote compulsory cycle facilities.

Just asking the question and not trying to be controversial, but I am struggling to think of any "round blue signs" that give instructions.

Keep left signs on bollards around here are ignored regularly by drivers unwilling to wait for buses, for example. Blue round cycle signs 'advise' of a cycle path (including those with shared use - segregated or otherwise - symbols. You are not ordered to use those facilities, even if some drivers think you should. Red round signs (speed limits, no entry, prohibitions etc) are instructions.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong

[Bmblbzzz]

You've given yourself the examples. Keep left signs might be ignored but they are still giving instructions, as are left/right turn signs, minimum speed limits, ahead only signs.

[MikeF]

Once upon a time, cycling on the pavement was for delinquents

I always thought cycling on the pavements was for kiddies. At least, that's how it stood before the age of the blue lollipop-signs everywhere. And that's how it still stands wherever there isn't a lollipop...

Trouble is, some adults, Peter-Pan-like, never grow up. I'm one of those people who's sorely tempted, as I pass yet another illegal pavement-artist, to yell out "won't Mummy let you go on the road?" But better judgement (plus unwillingness to get into a punch-up) always holds me back.....

People cycling are cyclists wherever they are cycling. I wouldn't criticise them for riding on the pavement. The fact they are doing so demonstrates just how bad cycling facilities are in the UK - much more so than macho cyclists on the road. However I don't normally cycle on pavements and I don't think I can be classed as macho either.

[Pete Owens]

People cycling are cyclists wherever they are cycling. I wouldn't criticise them for riding on the pavement. The fact they are doing so demonstrates just how bad cycling facilities are in the UK - much more so than macho cyclists on the road.

People driving are drivers wherever they are driving. I wouldn't criticise them for driving on the cycle path. The fact they are doing so demonstrates just how bad parking facilities are in the UK - much more so than wealthy drivers who can afford the car parks.

[MikeF]

People cycling are cyclists wherever they are cycling. I wouldn't criticise them for riding on the pavement. The fact they are doing so demonstrates just how bad cycling facilities are in the UK - much more so than macho cyclists on the road.

People driving are drivers wherever they are driving. I wouldn't criticise them for driving on the cycle path. The fact they are doing so demonstrates just how bad parking facilities are in the UK - much more so than wealthy drivers who can afford the car parks.

People driving are drivers wherever they are driving. The fact they are driving and parking on pavements and cycle paths demonstrates just how cluttered the UK is with "metal boxes".

[thirdcrank]

... Just asking the question and not trying to be controversial, but I am struggling to think of any "round blue signs" that give instructions. ...

Big blue signs, usually the size of a dustbin lid (before wheelie bins were invented) with white arrows meaning TURN LEFT / TURN RIGHT with various variations, including the generally smaller KEEP LEFT and KEEP RIGHT arrows which are often scattered about willy-nilly at roadworks.

I've recently been trying to get myself up-to-date with the new traffic sign rules TSRGD 2016. I'm not going to go back and plough through it all to find a reference but the sign with two white arrows PASS EITHER SIDE has been reclassified as informational rather than mandatory, which is logical when you think about it but hardly something to pay people to worry about.