Builders/lorries: are they allowed to park on cycle lanes?

[pjclinch]

Yes, including in London and Manchester, but relatively rarely and not recently. Have you and, if so, did you feel parking illegally and dangerously was a safe working practice?

Running my own business(joinery and construction) I worked out of LWB Transits almost every working day for 25 years,and sometimes I'd simply have to park in awkward and illegal sitiuations to either load or unload,if only for a short time.
..

Had to park illegally? Did you get a lot of parking tickets, was your vehicle often towed away?
I see vehicles parked illegally cos the drivers are too lazy or do not think
One could use a trolley to transport the stuff, takes a bit more time so the bill can be adjusted upwards, +1!

Okay sir, I'll take longer to do the job and charge you more, but you can be assured I will be legally parked!

But Bloggs will do the job quicker and for less.

But I will be legally parked!

Yeah, I can see that cutting a whole lot of mustard...

[reohn2]

Sorry, but there are laws and regulations that govern such activity, and it's not acceptable to ignore them for the sake of commercial expedience. The regs exist to maintain traffic flow and protect pedestrian and road user safety, and it's the people that think they can ignore them that are high minded.

I blame the people who choose to live and have businesses where there's no parking allowed that need work doing to them .

To be clear I've never restricted traffic flow or compromised any road user's safety,in the 25+years I was in business.
The only highminded one's here are those who spout off without knowing the whole story and without realising that sometimes compromises and care are needed to make the world go around.These people are usually the one's who've never fitted a shop front on a High St!.
FWIW the twitter link shows a van parked in a position that's awkward and possibly illegally,whilst a job was carried out,possibly because there was nowhere else to park or it couldnt be carried out if it weren't parked where it was,we don't know for sure.
What is for sure is that if everyone was careful whilst it was parked where it was,safety and traffic flow wasn't impeded.
As for the scaffold truck,I donno why it's parked where it is but I sermise it's because it needed to unload and in such a situation I give plenty of room as I pass it,as previously posted.

Jeez! the perfect perfectionists on here has to be seen to be believed at times......

[mjr]

The only highminded one's here are those who spout off without knowing the whole story and without realising that sometimes compromises and care are needed to make the world go around.These people are usually the one's who've never fitted a shop front on a High St!.

Aha! Now the demand for experience gets more specific because it turned out some of us have driven works vans in major cities, picking up, dropping off and working!

And to answer another point: I've moved fairly large stuff across London by sackbarrow and tube train, and another city by hand truck, because there was nowhere nearby to unload legally. We probably could have been undercut by lawbreakers but our employer valued reputation and doing things right.

FWIW the twitter link shows a van parked in a position that's awkward and possibly illegally,

No possibly about it. Pavement parking is normally illegal in London, unlike the rest of England. I can see at least three offences being committed. Lance Dopestrong's experienced expert eye might spot more.

This is a good example why we should reverse mad Mr Pickles's ban on roving CCTV enforcement, to raise the costs of the Bloggses of this world and make illegal parking commercially unviable as well as immoral. They'd soon find other ways to do the work.

What is for sure is that if everyone was careful whilst it was parked where it was,safety and traffic flow wasn't impeded.

Not really fair to blame the kid on the bike for the unsafe situation created by illegal acts. Part of the cycleway and most of the footway were removed from use, so it was clearly impeded. Or are people walking and cycling not traffic to you?

Jeez! the perfect perfectionists on here has to be seen to be believed at times......

Perfectionist? I'm just seeking basic legality. I think it's the motoring apologists on here which are more shocking: blocking cycleways is OK, speeding is OK, getting T-boned is the cyclists' fault for being on a cycleway or maybe the designer's fault, getting crushed against the kerb by a left-turning lorry is the cyclist's fault - but it's never ever the driver's fault if there is any excuse possible.

[thirdcrank]

Re the question posed in the thread title, it's impossible to say without detailed knowledge of the circumstances. In this case, it seems the cycle lane in question wasn't mandatory so its force is weak.

Any TRO - necessary for yellow lines but no longer so for a mandatory cycle lane - will have plenty of exceptions for wombles (working underground, overground or at adjacent premises) and others besides like vehicles used for ambulance, FB or police purposes. A moment's thought shows it could not be otherwise.

OTOH, those exceptions may be abused, which is where detailed knowledge comes in. We do get those hilarious stories about council enforcement officers ticketing vehicles which evry fule kno are allowed to park. One way of looking at that is that hopefully they will also be ticketing vehicles whose users are taking liberties and when pushed cannot justify being parked there.

[reohn2]

The only highminded one's here are those who spout off without knowing the whole story and without realising that sometimes compromises and care are needed to make the world go around.These people are usually the one's who've never fitted a shop front on a High St!.

Aha! Now the demand for experience gets more specific because it turned out some of us have driven works vans in major cities, picking up, dropping off and working!

There's a world of difference between deliveries and actually working out of a van.My shop front example is classic,the van needs to be close at hand for tools and materials and for removal of the old materials,youll not be familiar with handling large sheets of glass.
There will be disruption and inconvenience which will be as short a time as possible.
It's the same story for telecoms workers,drainage and groundworks,etc,etc.

And to answer another point: I've moved fairly large stuff across London by sackbarrow and tube train, and another city by hand truck, because there was nowhere nearby to unload legally. We probably could have been undercut by lawbreakers but our employer valued reputation and doing things right

See above

No possibly about it. Pavement parking is normally illegal in London, unlike the rest of England. I can see at least three offences being committed. Lance Dopestrong's experienced expert eye might spot more

We can all play that game,I can walk out of my door and see roads blocked by cars unnecessarily,but that's not what were seeing in the examples linked to, they're people trying to make the world go around with the least amount of disruption for themselves and the public,though something tells me I'm trying to convince the the unconvinceable,as I posted previously perfectionists seek perfection in an imperfect world.

This is a good example why we should reverse mad Mr Pickles's ban on roving CCTV enforcement, to raise the costs of the Bloggses of this world and make illegal parking commercially unviable as well as immoral. They'd soon find other ways to do the work.

Ordinarily I'd agree but there are exceptions to the rule out of necessity,but in MJR perfect world there are non

Perfectionist? I'm just seeking basic legality. I think it's the motoring apologists on here which are more shocking: blocking cycleways is OK, speeding is OK, getting T-boned is the cyclists' fault for being on a cycleway or maybe the designer's fault, getting crushed against the kerb by a left-turning lorry is the cyclist's fault - but it's never ever the driver's fault if there is any excuse possible.

NON,that's NON of that applies to me or anything being discussed on this thread,so don't attempt to tar me with that brush.
I'm as much against motors having all their own way as anyone else on here and I'm no "motoring apologist"

[mjr]

I've reported the personal attacks and will not respond to them here. Sorry if anyone feels I've ignored some valid point wrapped up with the abuse.

The only highminded one's here are those who spout off without knowing the whole story and without realising that sometimes compromises and care are needed to make the world go around.These people are usually the one's who've never fitted a shop front on a High St!.

Aha! Now the demand for experience gets more specific because it turned out some of us have driven works vans in major cities, picking up, dropping off and working!

What are you rabbiting on about? [...personal attack cut...]

I'm referring to the previous challenge to me in viewtopic.php?p=1341417#p1341417 - that didn't work, so now the challenge gets more specific: not only must I have worked out of a van, but now I must have fitted a shop front on a High St to be qualified enough to contradict your excuses for dangerous/illegal parking.

There's a world of difference between deliveries and actually working out of a van.My shop front example is classic,the van needs to be close at hand for tools and materials and for removal of the old materials,youll not be familiar with handling large sheets of glass.
There will be disruption and inconvenience which will be as short a time as possible.
It's the same story for telecoms workers,drainage and groundworks,etc,etc.

Yes, and it's the same story as for telecoms workers,drainage and groundworks,etc,etc: get the correct permits or traffic orders (depending on whether that district has switched over yet) and do the job properly and safely. Yes, there are exceptional circumstances and that's why we have ways to grant exceptions. Not just every Tom, Dick and r2 deciding they are an exception and can ignore the law.

[...personal attack cut...]

Perfectionist? I'm just seeking basic legality. I think it's the motoring apologists on here which are more shocking: blocking cycleways is OK, speeding is OK, getting T-boned is the cyclists' fault for being on a cycleway or maybe the designer's fault, getting crushed against the kerb by a left-turning lorry is the cyclist's fault - but it's never ever the driver's fault if there is any excuse possible.

NON,that's NON of that applies to me or anything being discussed on this thread,so don't attempt to tar me with that brush.

I'm not saying that everyone does all of it, but I sometimes wonder if there's any illegal motoring that wouldn't have someone to defend it on this forum!

And you do seem to be saying that the twitter example of the van blocking part of a cycleway is OK.

I'm as much against motors having all their own way as anyone else on here and I'm no "motoring apologist", [...personal attack cut...] :

unless the motorist is someone working out of a van who you identify with, it seems.

[reohn2]

MJR
I shall leave it at that,other than to wish you to have a nice day

PS, watch out for all those nasty vans out there

[MikeF]

I don't see the problem. Just go round him, taking the lane. Carry on with your day. He is entitled to be there, just doing his, at times, difficult, job.

No he's not if Drayton Park is within the GLC. (which I think it is)

Rule 244
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15.

And Rule 246
Goods vehicles. Vehicles with a maximum laden weight of over 7.5 tonnes (including any trailer) MUST NOT be parked on a verge, pavement or any land situated between carriageways, without police permission. The only exception is when parking is essential for loading and unloading, in which case the vehicle MUST NOT be left unattended.

[thirdcrank]

In this case, I understood that the vehicle was on the carriageway partly within an advisory cycle lane.

Anyway, I see the legislation quoted with HC Rule 244 has quite a few exceptions.

7) (a) Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful under subsection (1) of this section to park a vehicle of any of the following descriptions, that is to say:—
(i) vehicles used for fire brigade purposes [F12or for purposes relating to the functions of Ministry of Defence fire-fighters (as defined in section 16 of the Armed Forces Act 2016)];
(ii) vehicles used for police purposes;
(iii) vehicles used for ambulance purposes;
(iv) street cleansing purposes;
(v) vehicles used for the collection of refuse;
(vi) vehicles used for the purpose of gritting or salting or the clearance of snow;
(vii) vehicles used for the purpose of cleansing, repairing or maintaining lighting apparatus;
(viii) vehicles used in connection with the reconstruction, alteration or maintenance of, or the provision of services to, a road, or of or to any premises adjoining a road;
(ix) vehicles used in connection with the placing, inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering, renewing or removing of apparatus or accommodation therefor in, under or over a road;
(x) any vehicle not falling within sub-paragraph (viii) or (ix) of this paragraph used by statutory undertakers in pursuance of their statutory powers or duties provided that is reasonably necessary for the vehicle to be so parked;
(xi) vehicles of any class for the time being specified by resolution of the Council for the purposes of this subsection;
(xii) any vehicle, specified by the highway authority from time to time for the purposes of this subsection, which is parked at such place and at such time as may be authorised by that highway authority.

There's also this in relation to (xii) which seems to mean there's a system of paid-for permits:

c) The highway authority may charge such fees for the specification of vehicles under sub-paragraph (xii) of the foregoing paragraph as they may determine and as may be sufficient in the aggregate to cover in whole or in part the reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with their functions under that sub-paragraph

Somebody like Nick Freeman might charge an arm and a leg for providing this information

PS Re Rule 246, whatever else may be said, I take it that the vehicle was attended in one form or another from the altercation the op had.

[Phil Fouracre]

Highly entertaining how people get so excited. Surely a bit of leeway is all that is needed - I work in the Taunton area, and have a phone number to ring for dispensation to park on the event of an emergency. Always seemed to me to be a very reasonable way to proceed.

[Gattonero]

Highly entertaining how people get so excited. Surely a bit of leeway is all that is needed - I work in the Taunton area, and have a phone number to ring for dispensation to park on the event of an emergency. Always seemed to me to be a very reasonable way to proceed.

Indeed people are losing their minds.
Especially when the solution could be relatively simple, as it's already there but not used too often.
This:


All it needs, is TFL/London councils to enforce a rule that
A- will make compulsory for drivers to prove they have to stop for a given business
B- this stop should not exceed 10 minutes
C- if the stop exceeds this time the company/driver MUST get authorization and use signs to divert the traffic
D- the cyclists MUST respect the diversion
E- other road users MUST respect the cyclists and the diversion
F- pedestrians too MUST respect the diversion and not cause trouble

I'm sure someone will say that's way too complicated and impossible to put down in practice, perhaps is those people that will give the same importance to the delivery of 10 loafs of bread (or a sofa) vs a cyclist/pedestrian safety

Like I've said many times already, it need the effort of ALL road users to keep everyone safe, cannot demand the whole burden to one or two categories only.

[drossall]

Good in principle. However, knowing the area, it would be overkill I think for the rather small situation, in limited road space, that triggered the original post. That just needs give and take all round.

[reohn2]

Good in principle. However, knowing the area, it would be overkill I think for the rather small situation, in limited road space, that triggered the original post. That just needs give and take all round.

Quite!
If a scaffold Lorry needs to unload and erect scaffold on site it can be there for upto an hour or morewhilst tube,fitting and boards are unloaded as the structure is erected,a "please use other footpath" sign would be better for pedestrians safety if the lorry is parked on the footpath.
Traffic needs to sort itself out for the short time there is restricted or narrow lanes.
As for authorisartion for such short delays IMO it isn't necessary if as you say a little give and take is used.

[thirdcrank]

It's always worth being careful what you wish for. I presume that the specialist companies who do the signing for these schemes are paid by the cone etc. I see an increasing number of works where a road is completely closed temporarily with a signed diversion, which may be an irritation for drivers but can add a disproportionate distance for riders and may force them onto a busier route, made even busier by the extra traffic using the diversion.

[pete75]

It's always worth being careful what you wish for. I presume that the specialist companies who do the signing for these schemes are paid by the cone etc. I see an increasing number of works where a road is completely closed temporarily with a signed diversion, which may be an irritation for drivers but can add a disproportionate distance for riders and may force them onto a busier route, made even busier by the extra traffic using the diversion.

Signs put up saying a road is closed are very often lying. It's rare for a bridge to be up or a trench right across the road which actually do close a road. Usually all that's preventing the use of the road are cones or even nothing more than road closed signs. I came across an example of this last week intending to ride through Brant towards Stragglethorpe. Stopped when I saw a road closed sign at a junction. A local lady walking her dog told me the signs were wrong and the road wasn't actually closed to cars never mind bikes.
There was stupid example of this in a village near here a couple of years ago. Some contractors were working on the verge of the road between the fen and the village. They put up signs and plastic barriers. They did this at harvest when corn was being carted from fields on the fen to grain stores on farms in the village. Tractor drivers didn't even bother to move the signs and barriers they just drove over them.