Crapper Cycle Lanes

[661-Pete]

No, it is simply not true. Whilst pedestrians are banned from motorways and some A roads, I defy anyone to show a public cycle path in the UK where pedestrians are not allowed.

You're probably right....
...but....
From the Highway Code, 1954 edition:

Shame paragraph 5 didn't make the cut in later editions....

[Bmblbzzz]

Apart from being 62 years old, that is merely advice. "Do not" as opposed to "you must not". It carries no more legal authority than a "Cyclists dismount" sign.

[661-Pete]

A little more legal authority than that. From the preamble pages to the same edition:

This wording is also present, practically unchanged, in the current Road Traffic Acts.

Of course, since there is no offence of 'jaywalking' in this country, there is probably nothing one can do if a pedestrian walks where they shouldn't (except on motorways, which are covered by special by-laws.)

[thirdcrank]

On the subject of pedestrians prohibited from cycle routes, this bizarre mess is in Leeds. The signed bit of tarmac is some highwayman's idea of a cycle route to bypass a quite normal light-controlled crossroads, involving a couple of CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs along the way before rejoining the road they have just left but on the far side of the junction. As originally installed, there were signs at either end of the cycle track prohibiting pedestrian use, even though it's in a direct line to the pedestrian crossing. Luckily, and AFAIK, no conflict between pedestrians and cyclists because the latter generally stick to the road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.81670 ... 312!8i6656

Here's another cycle route in Leeds where the signs ban pedestrians, although I am unsure if there's a supporting TRO. The cycle route itself is not a bad attempt at providing for cyclists, in that it gives them some space up a long drag on a multi-lane dual carriageway Claypit Lane) where traffic travels at some speed. Not in my bit of Leeds and IIRC, when it was installed some regular users had gripes about some of the details, but it is an example of a cycle route where pedestrians are banned.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.80646 ... 312!8i6656

[Pete Owens]

On the subject of pedestrians prohibited from cycle routes, this bizarre mess is in Leeds. The signed bit of tarmac is some highwayman's idea of a cycle route to bypass a quite normal light-controlled crossroads, involving a couple of CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs along the way before rejoining the road they have just left but on the far side of the junction. As originally installed, there were signs at either end of the cycle track prohibiting pedestrian use, even though it's in a direct line to the pedestrian crossing.

That would actually make it illegal to comply with the Cyclists Dismount sign. As soon as you have dismounted you become a prohibited pedestrian.

[thirdcrank]

... That would actually make it illegal to comply with the Cyclists Dismount sign. As soon as you have dismounted you become a prohibited pedestrian.

I didn't explain it very well. Originally, a cyclist intending to go straight ahead at the junction could do so on the main carriageway, subject to complying with the traffic lights.

The farcility involves what I believe is called a jug handle. A rider wishing to go ahead turns into the side street on the left before the main junction, copes with any traffic waiting to emerge, crosses the footway (no DISMOUNT sign there) and rides on the short stretch of cycle route which starts at the post box. At the next pavement, just by the pedestrian crossing, there is the first DISMOUNT sign. After crossing the carriageway, there is the second part of the jug handle (extremely narrow at that point BTW) before the second DISMOUNT sign at the footway, before the (dismounted) rider rejoins the original carriageway but beyond the junction.

This was all installed without going through the council's own consultation procedure. I subsequently had it put on the agenda, but too late by then, of course.

There may be some inquisitive people wondering why on earth would they go to all that trouble to turn a simple manoeuvre for a cyclist into a silly one? The road crossing this junction leads to a big junction some distance away, whose planned "improvement" was the subject of some controversy and there was a wish to eliminate anything which might affect capacity.

[AlaninWales]

Here's another cycle route in Leeds where the signs ban pedestrians, although I am unsure if there's a supporting TRO. The cycle route itself is not a bad attempt at providing for cyclists, in that it gives them some space up a long drag on a multi-lane dual carriageway Claypit Lane) where traffic travels at some speed. Not in my bit of Leeds and IIRC, when it was installed some regular users had gripes about some of the details, but it is an example of a cycle route where pedestrians are banned.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.80646 ... 312!8i6656

Three plus lanes in each direction, fenced off from the estates. I suspect the pedestrian ban applies to the A-road itself, which is not unusual.

[karlt]

On the subject of pedestrians prohibited from cycle routes, this bizarre mess is in Leeds. The signed bit of tarmac is some highwayman's idea of a cycle route to bypass a quite normal light-controlled crossroads, involving a couple of CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs along the way before rejoining the road they have just left but on the far side of the junction. As originally installed, there were signs at either end of the cycle track prohibiting pedestrian use, even though it's in a direct line to the pedestrian crossing. Luckily, and AFAIK, no conflict between pedestrians and cyclists because the latter generally stick to the road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.81670 ... 312!8i6656

Here's another cycle route in Leeds where the signs ban pedestrians, although I am unsure if there's a supporting TRO. The cycle route itself is not a bad attempt at providing for cyclists, in that it gives them some space up a long drag on a multi-lane dual carriageway Claypit Lane) where traffic travels at some speed. Not in my bit of Leeds and IIRC, when it was installed some regular users had gripes about some of the details, but it is an example of a cycle route where pedestrians are banned.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.80646 ... 312!8i6656

I'm guessing there's probably a TRO banning pedestrians from that bit of road as a whole, rather than specifically the carriageway. The A57 into Sheffield from the East is interesting; there's a No Pedestrians restriction at the roundabout before reaching the Parkway, but no restriction on cycling, at least not signed anyway. But this bit of the A57 ONLY leads to the Parkway, which does have a TRO banning cycling. So you can ride up it, but you have to ride straight back down it again...

Edit - I tell a lie. Turns out there is a new no cycling sign at the entrance to this stretch now. I expect someone noticed the discrepancy; whether the TRO always banned cycling but wasn't signed or whether it's been amended I know not.

[Bmblbzzz]

A Must Not in the Highway Code indicates that contravention of that rule is itself an offence. A good example would be speeding. A Do Not indicates advice. Contravention is not in itself an offence but might contribute to or be deemed to be another offence. For instance, lots of Do Nots could lead to prosecution for Careless Driving*. I don't think there is a Careless Walking offence but something similar could probably be found by an irate cop or zealous lawyer.

*As if cops and courts bothered with that nowadays.

[thirdcrank]

... Three plus lanes in each direction, fenced off from the estates. I suspect the pedestrian ban applies to the A-road itself, which is not unusual.

The only sign prohibiting pedestrians on that length of road is the one in my streetview.

The only reason I expressed doubts about the existence of a TRO with either of the signed cycle routes in my post was that I have a vague memory of a cycling officer mentioning it during discussions at consultation meetings.

Claypit Lane in my second example, is a major route into Leeds. On the basis of my argument that if you want a change of mode from car to cycling for utility journeys (Notional Cycling Strategy) you have to assume that people will still want to make the same journeys, there was some pressure for cyclists on that side of Leeds for good routes. Outbound (opposite carriageway) there's more of an off-road route which in my CRN/ RtoR days had various "barriers to cycling" including a barrier. As there were several local riders maintaining the pressure over that route, it was on the consultation meeting agenda quite often and I tended to leave it to those with the local knowledge, which is why my memory of the TRO is only vague.

The Kirkstall Lane example was quite different, being a stupid attempt to marginalise cycling. I'm pretty sure that the bit of farcility in the foreground of my first streetview was already an informal pedestrian route, ie path through the grass formed by people taking the shortest route from the corner by the post box to the pedestrian crossing. The only way to have stopped pedestrians continuing to use it would have involved physical means like barbed wire which would have stopped cyclists as well, but there were "NO PEDESTRIANS" signs originally. It has occurred to me during typing this that some cyclists at consultation meetings mentioned confusion among pedestrians they had encountered who thought that the NO PEDESTRIANS sign, which shows a pedestrian in a red circles meant is was a special pedestrian route. Easy to be incredulous, but pedestrians don't have to pass a walking test including knowledge of the HC etc.

If there were to be one of those telly programmes which pad out the sxchedules at Crimbo eg "20th century's 100 top...." listing crap cycle farcilities, I'd be confiodent of its being in the running for the top spot.

(I'm not sufficiently bothered to check the TRO's to prove a point of no significance.)
==================================================================

PS. A propos not very much. This has reminded me that elsewhere in Leeds (part of Armley Gyratory) there's been a sign banning pedestrians since the roundabout was built (1974ish) and to avoid confusion, it's a blue rectangle with the words NO PEDESTRIANS. I've worked in that area for two periods of several years, the first when it was all newly opened and I don't remember it ever being an issue so it must have worked, although you don't seen lions and tigers down there either, without the need for a prohibition sign.

I've had a look on streetview and I can't spot it but the standard I think it's on is hidden by shrubbery. If I remember I'll try to check and even possibly take a pic, always avoiding walking of course.

==============================================
PPS at the risk of turning the thread into an esoteric form of I-Spy, here, one banning the... er ... pony and trap.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.71980 ... 312!8i6656

[MikeF]

How many pedestrians know they must keep on the designated side of a split path?

Must they? That's rarely true in the creation orders so far, is it?

No, it is simply not true. Whilst pedestrians are banned from motorways and some A roads, I defy anyone to show a public cycle path in the UK where pedestrians are not allowed.

Sign.png (12.92 KiB) Viewed 1498 times

"Separated", to me, means two adjacent routes ie a track and a path.

[Pete Owens]

But it doesn't mean it is illegal for pedestrians to walk on the part designated for cyclists. The law does prohibit cyclists riding on the pedestrian bit (just like any other footway), but not vice versa. Fortunately, although the sign is circular (generally indicating compulsion) this is not the case with this one - or indeed the blue circle with just a cycle in it. We are still free in this country to ignore the c**p and continue riding on the carriageway.

[AlaninWales]

Sign.png"Separated", to me, means two adjacent routes ie a track and a path.

There is no legal restriction on which side of the line pedestrians walk. There is a legal restriction on which side of the line a cycle can be used; Highway Code rule 62 "When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. " references the law concerning this.

[squeaker]

PPS at the risk of turning the thread into an esoteric form of I-Spy, here, one banning the... er ... pony and trap.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.71980 ... 312!8i6656

Challenge accepted: horse drawn vehicles allowed here (A27 east of Tangmere) but only if they're Not Racing
PS: clearly the cyclist was lost - not a road I'd happily pedal along...

[thirdcrank]

You jest, but it happens round here. There have been several well-documented cases of the Drighlington by-pass A650 being summarily cordoned off by large 4x4's and horse boxes, at 0600 on Sundays, when there are even fewer police able to respond than normal (if that's possible) so that trotting races can be run. Spending cuts in these parts so no futile traffic signs have been erected in this context.

From time-to-time I do see these rigs out training, generally with a 4x4 behind in a primary position.