Vehicles parked on cycle lanes

[Gattonero]

What do you guys think?

During my commuting to work I see vehicles parked on mandatory cycle lanes. Those vehicles are usually vans and even coaches.
According to the Highway code

Rule 140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply

So I wonder why the other day I was quickly dismissed by a London Police patrol when a coach was parked just after the junction between King's Cross/Farringdon rd. and Calthorpe st.
I understand that the coach has to pick up some people form the hotel that is right there, but given that I've seen those coaches parking there several times, it all sound like there is the need to find an alternative solution.
To simply abuse of a facility for another category of road users, is not a solution and is quite arrogant IMO.

[thirdcrank]

Hopefully, gaz will be along in a minute to link to similar earlier threads with endless links.

... whilst waiting restrictions apply

is the important escape hatch in your quote from the HC.

With reference to coaches picking up passengers, I think the only thing which might amount to an offence would be if a coach were to be parked for a demonstrably excessive period eg overnight. AFAIK, a cycle lane of whatever type does not , in itself prohibit picking up/ dropping off passengers. That would need a traffic regulation order (TRO) If a TRO banned coaches there would be signs saying so, and if there were yellow lines, it would depend on the wording of the TRO which would almost certainly allow it. A TRO which bans all stopping (with exceptions ) would be signed at the start with a "No stopping" sign. (Red circle, red X, blue background.)

In any event, as a practical point, unless general traffic flow were to be badly compromised, there is no likelihood of the police taking action. IMO.

------------------------
PS I see this was in London where there are Red Routes with different regulations.
PPS A streetview might facilitate analysis. Or not.

[Audax67]

Best I've seen:

Car not only parked on mandatory cycle lane but bloke asleep inside.

Ditto without sleeping beauty but front end up on axle trees with one bloke underneath and another up to his fundament in the engine compartment, with an extension cable over fence and into house. Mind you, "cycle lane" was crappy pavement of sort scorned by all cyclists over 10.

[Gattonero]

Hopefully, gaz will be along in a minute to link to similar earlier threads with endless links.

... whilst waiting restrictions apply

is the important escape hatch in your quote from the HC.

With reference to coaches picking up passengers, I think the only thing which might amount to an offence would be if a coach were to be parked for a demonstrably excessive period eg overnight. AFAIK, a cycle lane of whatever type does not , in itself prohibit picking up/ dropping off passengers. That would need a traffic regulation order (TRO) If a TRO banned coaches there would be signs saying so, and if there were yellow lines, it would depend on the wording of the TRO which would almost certainly allow it. A TRO which bans all stopping (with exceptions ) would be signed at the start with a "No stopping" sign. (Red circle, red X, blue background.)

In any event, as a practical point, unless general traffic flow were to be badly compromised, there is no likelihood of the police taking action. IMO.

------------------------
PS I see this was in London where there are Red Routes with different regulations.
PPS A streetview might facilitate analysis. Or not.

There you go.

I am talking peak time 8-8.30am, no sings of "waiting restrictions", the road is not wide enough to permit vehicles to carry on the same lane if a coach is parked there. Cars have to swing partially in the opposite lane, cyclists have to abrupt leave the cycle lane and expose themselves to vehicles coming from behind that are going around the bloody coach too.
On top of this, when (when!) the hotel's customers have to board they have to cross this B Road, and you may guess if they actually do it on the pedestrian crossing 30mt down the road!

This is the cycle lane, as seen from the junction
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52643 ... 312!8i6656

This is the road where no less than 100 cyclists would pass during that hour, going towards Calthorpe st. where the cycle lane is. I've seen the coaches staying in the mentioned cycle lane for over 15 minutes, and very likely for longer after I had to leave.
Note the car and moped staying the cycling box, the car is close to the left so to not leave any chance to the cyclists. But nobody seems to care
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52643 ... 312!8i6656

[thirdcrank]

Research is your only answer: the TRO's hold the key. Out here in the sticks, there's only the highway authority to check with but in London, I think there's a split between the boroughs and TfL. Again, enforcement is divided between the highway authority (what used to be parking wardens and are now CEO's ) who deal with yellow line parking (ie the "decriminalised" stuff) and the police who deal with offences such as "unnecessary obstruction." Again, in London, I believe TfL have their own staff. The move away from traffic enforcement as a police priority means that parking, even the stuff that hasn't been decriminalised is so far down the list it's often off the bottom, as you seem to have found.

In broad terms, any stopping on a highway is an obstruction, simply because that bit of road is unavailable for movement, but things like loading / unloading, embarking / disembarking passengers, are "necessary" in this context. The increasing inroads which the courts have made into "unnecessary obstruction" have really undermined its usefulness, which is why specific TRO's are so important. When TRO's are made - and again there are different rules for London AFAIK - the rights of the occupiers of premises have to be considered with regard to access etc. That will generally be reflected in the relevant TRO(s) which can be local to just a short bit of street.

So much is different in London that the relevant local branch of the London Cycle Campaign may have knowledge of this specific issue.

Even with the answer, getting the authorities interested may be difficult.

[gaz]

Research is your only answer: the TRO's hold the key.

+1

Although if you'd like to plough through some previous threads:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=48869

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=92320

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=78328

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=76992

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55494

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16119

[thirdcrank]

Thanks gaz.

It goes to show that this has come up before and we've never found a solution.

[gaz]

At least one of those threads contains a link to The Vilnius Solution.

[Gattonero]

Won't be easier to remove the cycle lanes then?
All this confusion and time spent trying to find the right answer is just crazy. Law should be simple: if you make a designated restriction of use, then stick to it. By creating exclusions and this and that, no one seems to have the answer. If something bad happens, who's to blame? do we have rights?

In this specific case, there is a big problem for several reasons. I wouldn't bother more than is necessary, but "what if?"
As seen from the picture:
-the coach has the engine switched off and no lights on
-the doors are closed, is NOT picking up any passenger, nor will do for the next 10 minutes or more
-the road is not wide enough to allow vehicles to safely overtake without going in the opposite lane
-the visibility of the opposite lane is limited
-the passengers have to cross the road to board the coach
-this is a B Road, at peak time
-there is parking right by the hotel, but guess what? Is used by other vehicles that should not have the same priority (as safely boarding passengers is)

[Threevok]

This is my absolute fave

[landsurfer]

Some recently applied cycle lanes here in Rotherham have a broken white line !!
And cars parked in them ...........

[gaz]

Some recently applied cycle lanes here in Rotherham have a broken white line !!
And cars parked in them ...........

Broken white line = advisory cycle lane = no restriction on parking (or driving) unless separately marked.

All this confusion and time spent trying to find the right answer is just crazy. Law should be simple: if you make a designated restriction of use, then stick to it. By creating exclusions and this and that, no one seems to have the answer. If something bad happens, who's to blame? do we have rights?

There are others on here who have far more knowledge of the general regulations than I do.

The law is simple, a TRO once passed designates the restrictions of use which can then be enforced. The TRO is likely to be the complicated bit because it will designate exemptions. The information in LTN 1/89 is dated but Annex D contains a sample TRO with the most common exemptions included. An exemption for coaches to stop and set down / pick up passengers does not seem beyond the realms of possibility.

That's assuming there is a TRO. Historically some authorities have painted "mandatory" cycle lanes without passing the required TROs. The result is an unenforceable strip of paint. The existence of other parking restrictions at this location suggests this may be the case for this mandatory cycle lane.

The TSRGD 2016 regulations have changed things, mandatory with flow cycle lanes can now be created without a TRO. What implications that has for lanes painted before that time I really couldn't say.

Nobody is going to be able to definitively answer specific questions without reference to the TRO(s) at that precise location.

Research is your only answer: the TRO's hold the key.

[thirdcrank]

Won't be easier to remove the cycle lanes then?
All this confusion and time spent trying to find the right answer is just crazy. Law should be simple: if you make a designated restriction of use, then stick to it. By creating exclusions and this and that, no one seems to have the answer. If something bad happens, who's to blame? do we have rights?
...

Not much to be achieved by fulminating on here.

TRO's are the way it's done or not done.

The experience of at least one forum member who persisted (cunobelin?) was that the police said it was the responsibility of the council and the council said that while they enforced the lines, any obstruction was the responsibility of the police.

The broad history of this is that the origins of the highway legislation are in the days of the horse. In the days before Earnie Marples, unnecessary obstruction was the main offence and on street parking was at the mercy of the local police. IIRC, Marples introduced yellow lines and traffic wardens to enforce them but also introduced parking meters to generate cash from the very on-street parking he was claiming to prevent. Older readers may remember that the promise was that meter revenue would be used to create off-street parking to bring an eventual end to on-street parking. Most of the subsequent decided cases on "unnecessary obstruction" seem to have gone in favour of extending the right to park where it's not specifically prohibited.

Add to that a general police retreat from traffic enforcement, including training on this complicated subject.

On the question of something bad happening, if that involved death or very serious injury, the police would launch a detailed enquiry. The horse mentioned above having bolted.

(gaz posted while I was labouring over this - and having my tea.)

[Gattonero]

Bloody hell, I thought there was a lot of bureaucracy in Italy!

[MikeF]

Won't be easier to remove the cycle lanes then?
All this confusion and time spent trying to find the right answer is just crazy. Law should be simple: if you make a designated restriction of use, then stick to it. By creating exclusions and this and that, no one seems to have the answer. If something bad happens, who's to blame? do we have rights?

I have to agree it's absurd. Another case of cyclists don't count. A cycle blocking a lane ie parked would soon be removed regardless of law or anything else. It would be so called "common sense".