Parking on cycle lanes

[DaveGos]

"While a proposed ban on pavement parking has proved a mostly popular suggestion, Cycling UK highlight that beneath this, new rules were quietly brought in recently that allows parking in cycle lanes marked with solid white lines. Cycling UK say: "This change, made without notifying councils or the public - needs to be reversed."

I dont live in an area with many cycle lanes, I suppose this mainly effects London and big cities . Do most cycle lanes have solid white lines. Seems these days we have a democratic system with consultations and procedures and politicians find a way around them when it suits

[mjr]

Does anyone know what these "new rules" are, please? The quote from CyclingUK seems to be from an image in https://mobile.twitter.com/WeAreCycling ... 6327816192 - I've asked there too.

At a glance, the various bits in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Road Traffic Act 1988 and Highways Act 1980 still make it look like parking in solid-line cycle lanes would be an offence, although government doesn't seem keen to ticket it without double-yellow lines too.

[DaveReading]

Some background:

A little published amendment to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions meant that it became legal to park in mandatory bike lines (assuming there was no double yellow line) created after 2016. The change did not affect cycle lanes created before 2016.

The change undermines rule 140 of the Highway Code, which states “you must drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.”

Cars parked in the bike lane can force cyclists to move out into moving traffic, and can also block a driver’s view of a cyclist in the upcoming lane.

“The Department for Transport made this change without letting local authorities or other stakeholders know, let alone consulting on it,” said Roger Geffen, Policy Director at Cycling UK.

“We’re now in the situation where DfT has to reverse these changes or else amend the Highway Code in a way which would worsen cycle safety as part of a review that’s meant to improve it.

“It’s an absolute mess, as we’ve now two different types of mandatory cycle lanes that look identical but legally are very different. Cycling UK is keen to re-engage with the DfT to resolve this issue as a matter of urgency.”

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ups-437139

[tatanab]

Worst case here is probably a contraflow cycle lane. If obstructed, the cyclist would have to ride in road against the flow of traffic and so be liable to be being booked by police or at least verbally abused by those who cannot understand the situation.

edit - but I imagine the powers that be will have foreseen that circumstance and put down double yellow lines in contraflows.

[mjr]

Worst case here is probably a contraflow cycle lane. If obstructed, the cyclist would have to ride in road against the flow of traffic and so be liable to be being booked by police or at least verbally abused by those who cannot understand the situation.

edit - but I imagine the powers that be will have foreseen that circumstance and put down double yellow lines in contraflows.

Double yellows don't prevent some obstructions!

Contraflow cycling is not normally confined to a contraflow cycle lane - you may use full width, subject to there being space.

[mjr]

Some background:

Still no detail of what change.

Also:

The change undermines rule 140 of the Highway Code, which states “you must drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.”

I guess they missed a "not" there!

[DaveReading]

Still no detail of what change.

I suspect it's connected with the change in the 2016 TSRGD that meant mandatory cycle lanes no longer need a TRO in order to implement them.

TROs typically prohibited both driving and parking in one, whereas the TSRGD only says that you can't drive in one.

[ratherbeintobago]

although government doesn't seem keen to ticket it without double-yellow lines too.

Enforcement is another issue though, and like the mobile phone while driving thing, it’s not good changing the rules if the existing ones aren’t going to be enforced.

[DaveGos]

although government doesn't seem keen to ticket it without double-yellow lines too.

Enforcement is another issue though, and like the mobile phone while driving thing, it’s not good changing the rules if the existing ones aren’t going to be enforced.

So we should make driving while using a phone , legal , What level of enforcement is required. Perhaps speeding should also be legalised

[ratherbeintobago]

although government doesn't seem keen to ticket it without double-yellow lines too.

Enforcement is another issue though, and like the mobile phone while driving thing, it’s not good changing the rules if the existing ones aren’t going to be enforced.

So we should make driving while using a phone , legal , What level of enforcement is required. Perhaps speeding should also be legalised

I didn’t say that; what I said was there was little point in expecting new laws to have an effect if they’re not going to be enforced.

One could easily speculate why these things aren’t a policing priority.

[mjr]

Roger Geffen points out the detail of the one word replaced in TSRGD 2016 in https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhan ... ycle-lanes and describes a DfT being daft and refusing to admit the error.

I am surprised by the interpetation taken but that's where we are.

[Pete Owens]

Considering how much worse cycle lanes make conditions for cyclists
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
Why on earth is Roger Geffen defending them.

[Vorpal]

Considering how much worse cycle lanes make conditions for cyclists
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
Why on earth is Roger Geffen defending them.

Roger Geffen is not defending the concept of cycle lanes. He is defending space that cyclists can use to bypass congestion, when it isn't full of parked cars. He is defending space that is sometimes the only concession cyclists can get.

The report linked shows cycle lanes only in a situation where they make things worse for cyclists.

One place where they make things better, is where they allow cyclists to easily bypass congestion. And that of course, is where we find cars parked in them.

[Pete Owens]

The only purpose of the vast majority of cycle lanes is to reallocate road space from cyclists to motorists - forcing cyclists into the gutter to facilitate close passes. They make it more difficult for cyclists to overtake safely on the correct side (ie the right).

Certainly the example that Roger Geffen is championing: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory-cycle-lanes looks to be a typical horrendous half-width job. (ironically including double yellow lines). This is barely wide enough to ride in - let alone provide the minimum 1.5m minimum passing distance. https://road.cc/content/news/229554-west-midlands-polices-close-pass-operation-sees-number-cyclists-killed-or

Of course there are extremely rare examples of cycle lanes that actually create space for cyclists by re-purposing a general traffic lane rather than subdividing it. eg. https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/58773/, but even then the design is liable to go horribly wrong: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/58847/

[mjr]

The only purpose of the vast majority of cycle lanes is to reallocate road space from cyclists to motorists - forcing cyclists into the gutter to facilitate close passes. They make it more difficult for cyclists to overtake safely on the correct side (ie the right).

What's the source for that claim? I suspect that's the effect of the vast majority of UK cycle lanes but I doubt it's "the only purpose".

There is no law making one side or the other "correct" for overtaking. Filtering is legal and sometimes desirable.

Certainly the example that Roger Geffen is championing: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory-cycle-lanes looks to be a typical horrendous half-width job. (ironically including double yellow lines). This is barely wide enough to ride in - let alone provide the minimum 1.5m minimum passing distance. https://road.cc/content/news/229554-west-midlands-polices-close-pass-operation-sees-number-cyclists-killed-or

Let's be generous and assume some web editor has made a poor choice of photo.

Of course there are extremely rare examples of cycle lanes that actually create space for cyclists by re-purposing a general traffic lane rather than subdividing it. eg. https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/58773/, but even then the design is liable to go horribly wrong: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/58847/

How did that create space? Were cyclists banned from that road before? It looks like just a different paint job and some legal order that no-one will enforce.

I prefer ones like https://goo.gl/maps/w7keZmAcXt5mHhd76 which have posts to discourage motorists from swerving into cyclists as they pass the central refuge island. It still sucks that they feel they have to put yellow lines in it to stop motorists parking there - it must treble the cost of the paint of every damn lane.