Correct name for a cycle path

[horizon]

I was a bit confused by a thread calling for cycle tracks here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=126101

AIUI:

A marked cycle lane on a road is called a cycle lane.
A separate path (or track or road) for cyclists is called a cycle path.
A cycle track is a sporting venue.

Has anyone trod this road before?

[mjr]

I was a bit confused by a thread calling for cycle tracks here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=126101

AIUI:

A marked cycle lane on a road is called a cycle lane.
A separate path (or track or road) for cyclists is called a cycle path.
A cycle track is a sporting venue.

Has anyone trod this road before?

Yes. Our legislators. So IIRC:
A marked cycle lane on a road is called a cycle lane.
A separate path (or track or road) for cyclists is called a cycle track.
A piece of usually-too-narrow-crap shared with walkers is called a cycle path (OK, this one isn't in law, but it's what politrickians use).
A cycleway alongside a carriageway is also a cycle track.
A velodrome is a sporting venue.

[pwa]

People sometimes refer to shared use paths (eg former rail lines) as "cycle tracks", but in reality they are as much for walkers as cyclists. For that reason those in my area are called "community routes".

[mjr]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ule/1/made has what I think are the most recent definitions of lane and track.

[thirdcrank]

Cycle tracks are mentioned in s 65 and s 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/65

That was amended by the Cycle Tracks Act 1984

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/38

[landsurfer]

Well, for a start it begins with a "P" ..............

[mjr]

People sometimes refer to shared use paths (eg former rail lines) as "cycle tracks", but in reality they are as much for walkers as cyclists. For that reason those in my area are called "community routes".

They refer to them as cycle tracks because that's the accurate term, whereas "shared use paths" creates conflicts with each party shouting at the other to "share" when they really mean "you stop and wait for me" If it's busy with either type of use, a cycle track with a footway is probably a better idea, but they're rarely built any more.

[pwa]

People sometimes refer to shared use paths (eg former rail lines) as "cycle tracks", but in reality they are as much for walkers as cyclists. For that reason those in my area are called "community routes".

They refer to them as cycle tracks because that's the accurate term, whereas "shared use paths" creates conflicts with each party shouting at the other to "share" when they really mean "you stop and wait for me" If it's busy with either type of use, a cycle track with a footway is probably a better idea, but they're rarely built any more.

Does this official terminology apply on paths / tracks that are permissive rather than PROWs, because the former rail lines that constitute maybe 20 miles of track near me are leased from Network Rail on a long lease and in theory NR could take them back one day. If a path is not a PROW, surely it is the landowner and tenant who say who can use it and on what terms, and what it is called.

[mjr]

Does this official terminology apply on paths / tracks that are permissive rather than PROWs, because the former rail lines that constitute maybe 20 miles of track near me are leased from Network Rail on a long lease and in theory NR could take them back one day. If a path is not a PROW, surely it is the landowner and tenant who say who can use it and on what terms, and what it is called.

As I understand it, the legal names still apply, albeit prefixed with "permissive" if we want to be clear, just like the lighting laws still apply. The landowner and tenant can call it Mary if they want, but the accurate legal name still applies.

Permissive routes are a poor substitute. We lost miles of stone road (strade bianchi!) here a few years ago because AIUI a farm changed hands - journeys became about a mile longer, crossing the A47 twice at often-lethal crossroads. Any permissive routes that are actually used or strategically significant should be subject of a PROW creation order but councils only seem to do things like that for King Car.

[pwa]

Does this official terminology apply on paths / tracks that are permissive rather than PROWs, because the former rail lines that constitute maybe 20 miles of track near me are leased from Network Rail on a long lease and in theory NR could take them back one day. If a path is not a PROW, surely it is the landowner and tenant who say who can use it and on what terms, and what it is called.

As I understand it, the legal names still apply, albeit prefixed with "permissive" if we want to be clear, just like the lighting laws still apply. The landowner and tenant can call it Mary if they want, but the accurate legal name still applies.

Permissive routes are a poor substitute. We lost miles of stone road (strade bianchi!) here a few years ago because AIUI a farm changed hands - journeys became about a mile longer, crossing the A47 twice at often-lethal crossroads. Any permissive routes that are actually used or strategically significant should be subject of a PROW creation order but councils only seem to do things like that for King Car.

Rail property has always been exempt from PROW creation. A lot of public footpaths run up to a level crossing from either side but the crossing itself is never part of the PROW. And a lot of "cycle tracks" are on former rail bed still owned by Network Rail and leased out on a token rent, so they will remain permissive.

[gaz]

Rail property has always been exempt from PROW creation. A lot of public footpaths run up to a level crossing from either side but the crossing itself is never part of the PROW.

I think not.

A few years ago Network Rail closed a nearby level crossing as there was no PRoW on the definitive map over the crossing.

It took several years but the definitive map was proved to be wrong.

Footpath NS368.

The route has a width of one metre between the pedestrian gates where it crosses the level crossing.

[pwa]

Rail property has always been exempt from PROW creation. A lot of public footpaths run up to a level crossing from either side but the crossing itself is never part of the PROW.

I think not.

A few years ago Network Rail closed a nearby level crossing as there was no PRoW on the definitive map over the crossing.

It took several years but the definitive map was proved to be wrong.

Footpath NS368.

The route has a width of one metre between the pedestrian gates where it crosses the level crossing.

You learn something every day. But I know that in my area the rail beds used for the *community routes* were leased in an agreement that meant there would only be permissive use that could be withdrawn should Network Rail ever want to turn them back into railway. Signs have gone up at various times to indicate there is no PROW. That includes some of NCN4, for example. Still owned by Railtrack, not officially any sort of highway as far as I know, so I wonder about its designation. The Local Authority and publications refer to it as Community Route to avoid giving the impression that it is mainly for any particular user group.

[thirdcrank]

I was a bit confused by a thread calling for cycle tracks here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=126101

AIUI:

A marked cycle lane on a road is called a cycle lane.
A separate path (or track or road) for cyclists is called a cycle path.
A cycle track is a sporting venue.

Has anyone trod this road before?

Snibgo did. Briefly, a cycle track can be alongside a road or elsewhere.

[mjr]

That reminds me: around here, a trod is a type of footway built on the cheap which is nearly impossible for wheelchairs, mobility scooters and pushchairs to use. Ironically, larger tyres of bicycles can use them more easily but it's illegal to do so and usually you have to use carriageway to getto them, so most stay on the smoother carriageway.
https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-a ... /trod-path

[thirdcrank]

There's a lesson to be learned here. Over the years, we've repeatedly gone over the niceties of different types of provision for cyclists and that has included cycle tracks. The OP is a forum regular who seems to have an interest in the subject. The list which began the thread betrays some confusion about the official lingo. Is it any wonder that the general public has no idea at all about the subject?