Cars parking in cycle lanes

thirdcrank
Posts: 28688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Mar 2007, 9:25pm

The police have considerable discretion in how they enforce the law. The leading case is probably R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex p Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118, when Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, made an often quoted judgment more or less pre-empting sentence 1 above. So you can ask, complain, cajole, but I do not think there is a simple way to be certain of a result. (The authorities tend to see cars parked off the main carriageway as less of a nuisance than those on it which is why so much footway parking is condoned.)

I cannot envisage the road arrangement you are describing, unless it is a shared-use footway arrangement. If it is somewhere where parking is prohibited by yellow lines, enforcement has passed to the local highway authority and they will be round pronto issuing tickets because they keep the £££.

(I've edited this to cite the decided case correctly.)
Last edited by thirdcrank on 10 Mar 2007, 3:17pm, edited 1 time in total.

herwin
Posts: 45
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 8:05pm

Postby herwin » 9 Mar 2007, 10:43pm

Pavement, then kerb, then cycle path (bidirectional), double yellow line, and finally one-way road. This image was taken on a light day--usually the pavement and the cycle path are both blocked.

Image

drossall
Posts: 4780
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 9 Mar 2007, 11:35pm

What's hard to understand is the number of drivers who park on the pavement when parking on the road would not cause an obstruction.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 10 Mar 2007, 11:26am

A double yellow line applies to the whole of the highway on that side of the road i.e. not just to the carriageway. A highway extends from one 'highway fence' to the other. This can be confusing because there does not need to be a fence at all in the usual meaning, but in your pic, the highway fence is the wall behind the footway. So, this double yellow line applies to the vehicle parked in your pic. My only proviso is that from what I can see there is no restriction on loading. If so, drivers can stop to load and unload. This can be more difficult to enforce as it is an easy excuse to use.

The authority responsible for enforcement in London is something I am unclear about - I think it is split between TfL and the boroughs. Somebody else on here may know. Elsewhere, it is the highway authority. The point being that in the past the highway authorities introduced any amount of traffic management schemes at considerable cost to deal with specific problems than the police 'excercised their discretion' and did little. ('Proper' traffic wardens - those in a police type uniform but with yellow hatbands and epaulettes were under the control of the police.) Responsibility for a lot of enforcement has now passed to the highway authorities who employ their own wardens. These authorities in theory have a double incentive to enforce the lines: first, they put them there, secondly, they can keep most of the £££.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Postby meic » 13 Mar 2007, 1:49am

To some drivers it is the correct thing to do to park on the pavement so that they are out of everybodies way!
There is a lovely large lay-by on my way to town with a pavement alongside it. Many motorists will make the extra effort of getting on to the pavement I assume so they can open their drivers' doors out of the way of road traffic.

User avatar
Tandemist
Posts: 468
Joined: 14 Jan 2007, 12:45am
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Postby Tandemist » 15 Mar 2007, 1:21am

I remember seeing a photo of a cycle campaign group painting lines over the top of cars parked on a cycle lane. Double yellow lines I think.
I guess we need to remember that some cycle lanes are only created to make chicanes to slow motorised traffic down, and are not really there for cyclist's use anyway. So if cars park on them they are still fulfilling their original purpose.
Having said that, it did not stop me from spitting at the side of the same car I used to pass every day on my cycle commute that was always parked on the short stretch of cycle lane I was trying to use !
Power to the People !

herwin
Posts: 45
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 8:05pm

Illegal parking on the cycle lane

Postby herwin » 15 Mar 2007, 9:24am

This morning's picture:

Image

This is NCN1 in Sunderland. It's bidirectional, while the road is one-way.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Mar 2007, 7:55pm

There are no apparent loading restrictions, so what I said before will apply. I imagine that a lot of the people who park there think it is an ideal and legal place to park. Without being familiar with the set up, I am surprised that the highway authority have gone to what looks like quite a lot of trouble to provide the cycle route and have then done nothing obvious to protect it from obstruction.

I think if I were looking for a birthday card for our president, something with this photo on the front would be spot on. Apart from the parked cars, the surface does not look as though it has been swept since it was put down. (It also looks as though half the width of the footway is obstructed by an advertising sign.)

User avatar
Lusting my Pinnarello
Posts: 266
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:53pm
Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire

Postby Lusting my Pinnarello » 15 Mar 2007, 9:37pm

now, I can't drive thirdcrank.... but even I know the 4x4 car is parking Illigal. You cannot park over or under 10 metres? next to a junction.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Mar 2007, 9:52pm

LmP

You've lost me there. It's illegal to park within 15 mtres of a junction without lights during the hours of darkness, but I think that is it. There are all sorts of offences, parking in a dangerous position, obstruction, and so on. Anybody who parks in contravention of a yellow line is likely to get a ticket for that or nothing. All I am saying, is that loading is allowed, and it is often a difficult defence to disprove. It is even possible the the drivers are loading. To minimise disruption to motor traffic at this location, some drivers are going to park on the cycle route, just as they would use the footway if thare were no cycle route. And some enforcement officials are likely to agree with them unless they get a strong push from their supervisors.

Whatever, it is a good illustration of some of the problems with separate provision for cyclists.

drossall
Posts: 4780
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 15 Mar 2007, 10:18pm

LmP is correct except that it is advice not legislation.

herwin
Posts: 45
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 8:05pm

Postby herwin » 15 Mar 2007, 10:53pm

thirdcrank wrote:There are no apparent loading restrictions, so what I said before will apply. I imagine that a lot of the people who park there think it is an ideal and legal place to park. Without being familiar with the set up, I am surprised that the highway authority have gone to what looks like quite a lot of trouble to provide the cycle route and have then done nothing obvious to protect it from obstruction.

I think if I were looking for a birthday card for our president, something with this photo on the front would be spot on. Apart from the parked cars, the surface does not look as though it has been swept since it was put down. (It also looks as though half the width of the footway is obstructed by an advertising sign.)


Yes, there is an advertising sign obstructing the pavement, but that's common practice in Sunderland. The responses so far to the picture suggest a game of spot the violation might be fun. I'm attaching two pictures of the same area from about 6 pm tonight.

Image

Illegal parking in the evening, seen from the east. The two cars facing the camera are parked on a double yellow line.

Image

Illegal parking seen from the west (as in the original picture). Double parking on the double yellow line and cycle path extends quite some distance down the block.

Having worked in transportation safety with the US Department of Transportation for fifteen years, I find the UK attitude difficult to understand. (I flunked my first driving test here because I drove like an American around pedestrians and cyclists.) If you want to reduce the serious accident rate for pedestrians and cyclists, make the initial assumption of fault lie with the driver of the motor vehicle. Pedestrians and cyclists can't afford to make an error--drivers can and so drive aggressively, insisting on taking the right of way, even when they don't actually have it.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28688
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 16 Mar 2007, 2:38pm

Berwin

I am in Leeds, not Sunderland and I am not familiar with that area so these are mainly general comments.

Sunderland City Council seems to be the highway authority for the area so they are responsible, I presume, for this layout and for yellow line enforcement. I mentioned loading being allowed. This has other implications: one of the most significant being that blue badge holders (disabled drivers) can park unless there is a specific ban. It would be possible, therefore for this cycle route to be more or less permanently blocked by vehicles parked legally. For there ever to have been any hope of a waiting ban being enforceable at such a location, a twenty four hour loading prohibition would have been required. The occupiers of affected premises obviously are likely to oppose such a step and it is one of the few circumstances when an objector to a traffic regulation order (TRO) may take things to a public inquiry. Whoever designed this road arrangement should have been aware of that. Unfortunately, cycling ‘facilities’ are often dealt with by a temporary assistant deputy relief junior sub-underling. The big misters deal with proper jobs like providing for motor cars. I think you mentioned this was a NCN route. It may be that Sustrans may be able to help but I think they tend to take the line that they provide the advice and the highway authority is responsible. (I am not a Sustrans sort of person so I may be wrong there.)

Beyond yellow lines, I suppose the next thing to consider would be ‘unnecessary obstruction’. I think the most relevant decided case (whose citation I cannot remember) concerned a bill-poster who parked partly on a footway. It was held that he was OK because he was trying to keep the carriageway free. I cannot see things here ever leading to a prosecution but if they did, I cannot imagine the courts would give greater protection to a cycle route than they have to the footway. In any event, the likelihood of the police doing anything about the parking which is causing you concern is probably zilch.

Normally, I would urge anybody with a cycling problem in an area to contact the local CTC Right to Ride rep., but I cannot see this as a CTC issue as this is not the sort of ‘facility’ the CTC campaigns to have installed. There is a controversy raging a couple of posts away with people suggesting that the CTC president should be impeached or worse for advocating this sort of provision.

I think that many who post on here might agree with me that there is a perfectly normal looking road in your pic., which ought to be safe, or made safe, for cycling. There is a cycle route which looks like an excellent lay-by for car parking (and it may once have been that.)

In conclusion, Mickey Mouse cycling facilities are more of an issue for Walt Disney, or perhaps PY Gerbeau.
:wink:

User avatar
Lusting my Pinnarello
Posts: 266
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:53pm
Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire

Postby Lusting my Pinnarello » 16 Mar 2007, 9:07pm

well I knew I was right (technically).. but a picture is just a picture... it only tells a story at that particullar time.

For me, I'm not interested about the cars in the cycle lane.... I wouldnt be riding in it. Bugger that 1 metre from the yellow line, and sod to the car drivers behind.