Obstructing the Cycle Lane - You Couldn't Make It Up

[snibgo]

... we can only shift one of these modern menhirs at a time, but as soon as Carradice get round to reinforcing some panniers, it will be one on each side.

Nah, just get Mick in there with his trailer.

[Mick F]

They look a big too chunky for me!

[sirmy]

Ask them where they displayed their TRO notices, they should be displayed on site before and during the closure period, after all the CP is part of the highway. No TRO - kick up a fuss

[Pete Owens]

There is no need for a traffic order as the bollards do not actually prevent cyclists continuing to use the road - they simply require cyclists to adopt what is after all a safer position further to the right.

If the bollards were in the general traffic lane such that motor vehicles may have needed to enter the cycle lane - THEN a TRO would be needed suspending the cycle lane.

[gaz]

There is no need for a traffic order as the bollards do not actually prevent cyclists continuing to use the road ...

That sums up the sentiments of the Highway Authority very well, although they also currently deny the existence of a TRO for the mandatory cycle lane.

...they simply require cyclists to adopt what is after all a safer position further to the right...

I take issue with the simply bit.

There is no signage on the approach to advise that the cycle lane is closed. So Johnny motorist is still expecting cyclists to be in their lane. The approach is uphill until about 10 yards before the bollards, 50 mph limit dropping to 40 mph about 100 yards before the bollards. Motor traffic is quite high volume and free flowing so these speeds are easily exceeded. Adopting a safer position is not simple.


As for TC's pic .

[Pete Owens]

What on earth would you have them do? The only relevant option for a TRO would be one prohibiting cyclists from riding on that stretch of road - is that really what you want? A TRO is a legal instrument and since the cycle lane markings only have legal significance to motor vehicles; obstructing the cycle lane does not cause a legal obstruction to the passage of cyclists therefore there is no more need for a TRO then there would be for coning off one lane of a dual carriageway.

However, if they deny that there is a TRO in the first place (and it wouldn't surprise me) then the cycle lane markings themselves are illegal and it would be worth asking for them to be painted out and there would then be less of a problem with motorists expecting cyclists to keep in the gutter. Here is an example of another cycle lane that somehow tuned out not to be:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... ry2006.htm
It is worth reading the correspondence - it is genuine!

[sirmy]

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 2 (1)

"2 What a traffic regulation order may provide.
(1)[F1A traffic regulation order may make] any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or of any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic, or by vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order,—
(a)either generally or subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order or determined in a manner provided for by it, and
(b)subject to such exceptions as may be so specified or determined, either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified." - so if they are removing part of highway from use by a class of vehiclar traffic (cyclists) it should have a TRO

[thirdcrank]

sirmy

The finer points are outside my experience but I think the mistake you are making is in confusing "may" with "must." I'm pretty sure that the legislation you quote, is permissive rather than mandatory. The sections on TRO's have to be read as a whole, especially sec 1, and "may" is repeatedly used. If I've understood you correctly, the implication would be that a TRO would be necessary every time bit of road was coned off for repairs.

[Pete Owens]

There is still no need for a TRO just because part of the carriageway happens to be occupied - if that were the case you would need a TRO to park a car.

The only thing a TRO as you suggest would achieve would be that any cyclist who reached their destination at that stretch of road would be legally required to stop and dismount in the main traffic lane rather than ride to side of the road and stop between the bollards. Do you really want to see cyclists pulling over to the kerb to stop to be issued with fixed penalty notices?

[Phil_Lee]

You could use a TRO to prohibit all overtaking by motor vehicles, including the overtaking of cycles (for which the wording used in the ZPPPCRGD could provide a template).

Correctly worded, such a restriction would not even prevent cyclists from filtering when traffic is queueing.

[thirdcrank]

Just to make clear the reason for posting my pic. It was an attempt at humour.

I noticed the blocks last week, although I suspect they have been there a while. I presume the works in question are to prevent a Great Heck type tragedy if a vehicle hit the original, relatively flimsy, railings; this is where the A 650 crosses the M62. I don't think for one minute that the blocks are there to obstruct the cycle lane, that's just a side effect.

Having said all that, it's the typical thing with roadworks: a bit of thought could provide a relatively safe route for cyclists behind the cones. Not always possible I know.

[gaz]

What on earth would you have them do? The only relevant option for a TRO would be one prohibiting cyclists from riding on that stretch of road - is that really what you want? A TRO is a legal instrument and since the cycle lane markings only have legal significance to motor vehicles; obstructing the cycle lane does not cause a legal obstruction to the passage of cyclists therefore there is no more need for a TRO then there would be for coning off one lane of a dual carriageway.

The Highway Authority has said that the decision to temporarily obstruct the cycle lane (if it is one ) was taken to allow "safe access" to and from a temporary car park at the school (created without prior planning consent). There has always been vehicular access to the school at these points, presumably the increased volume of useage is what has led to the safety fears. The Highway Authority added that the bollards will prevent drivers stopping at this point to drop off / pick up their kids from the school.

I am happy to accept the parallel of coning off one lane of a dual carriageway. Would this be done without any warning signs or notices on the approach to the coned off section?

What would I have them do?

1. If it's not safe to access the temporary car park without obstructing the cycle lane, refuse to allow the use of the temporary car park.
2. Since they've closed the cycle lane, put up warning notices on the approach, "Cycle Lane Closed".
3. If the cycle lane has been created by a TRO then enforce the TRO to prevent the parking problems surrounding drop off / pick up.
4. If the cycle lane has not been created by TRO then remove the markings and signage (approx 5 mile stretch of road, both sides of carriageway), or pass a TRO.

I'm fairly sure the reality is that they will do nothing.

Edit - 20 Dec 2012. A temporary road sign advising of the supsension of the cyclelane and an end of cycle route sign have been put up either today or yesterday.

[sirmy]

sirmy

The finer points are outside my experience but I think the mistake you are making is in confusing "may" with "must." I'm pretty sure that the legislation you quote, is permissive rather than mandatory. The sections on TRO's have to be read as a whole, especially sec 1, and "may" is repeatedly used. If I've understood you correctly, the implication would be that a TRO would be necessary every time bit of road was coned off for repairs.

The road would have had an order to create it, or been created by long use and is used as of right, so closing any part of legally it should, must have an order. Rights cannot be removed without a legal process, even temporarily. Not having an order is sloppy practice and if anyone should collide with those bollards ......

[Pete Owens]

You are missing the point, which is that the cycle lane has NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER from the cyclists perspective.

All it is is an area of the road from which motor vehicle are prohibited. Since cyclists are legally entitled to ride in any part of the carriageway the bollards do not legally obstruct a cyclists passage - or at least not any more than any object whatsoever that may be placed in any part of any carriageway.

Do you really think it would be a good idea to ban cyclists from riding along that road - or ban cyclists from stopping in the cycle lane? - because that is all that you could achieve with a traffic order.

[gaz]

From my own perspective, initially I believed the bollards to be permanent. That IMO would require a TRO. However it has turned out that they are temporary, although the duration of temporary has yet to be determined.

I fully accept your earlier comparison with coning off a lane of a dual carriageway for roadworks, a TRO would not be required, neither IMO is it for the temporary suspension of the cycle lane. It's a piece of carriageway that it is mandatory for motor vehicles to stay out of, not for cycles to stay in.

Signage has now been erected indicating the temporary closure of the lane, that's a huge improvement.

I will continue (in my own good time) to pursue the question of whether or not a TRO exists for the cycle lane. If there isn't one I'll be quite happy to see it removed.

Edit: The Red Book states consent is required for the closure of a cycle lane on the carriageway, p35.