New Highway Code and Give Way markings on share-use paths

[Rob Archer]

Our local authority has been busy repainting the markings on many of our local cycle routes. My understanding of the reworded HC is that cyclists using shared foot/cycle paths alongside a major road have priority over vehicle joining or leaving a side road. The Give Way markings where the paths cross side roads have also been repainted. Do those 'give way'markings have any legal force now? If not, why would they repaint them?

[gaz]

The legal force of "Give way" markings is unchanged by the recent Highway Code updates.

Rules for cyclists: Rule 76
Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.

My emphasis.

See also:

Rules for cyclists: Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 3 part 3, schedule 7 part 4, schedule 9 parts 4 and 6, schedule 13 part 6, schedule 14 part 2

Give way markings fall under TSRGD.

If the local authority wants to change the legal priorities at the junction to better reflect Rule H3, they will need to change the priorities on the ground. That's best done with more than just paint.

[Nearholmer]

My view of these intersections is to assume that vehicle drivers haven’t the faintest idea that they are supposed to give way.

I found some new ones near home the other day, on a brand new cycleway in a brand new area of housing, in some ways beautifully laid-out, with good sight-lines, but still utter ambiguity about who has to give way to whom!

[simonhill]

When our seafront cyclepath was created, the Council painted Give Way to anything it crossed (cycles giving way). This included a number of boat slipways. We really are bottom of the pile.

I don't know if there was any legal reason for this but suspect it was the Council mistakenly trying to protect cyclists and having them give way to everything. Sounds like this is the same with you.

[Nearholmer]

Not really. I think they’ve tried to create intersections which fit the spirit of the latest version on of the HC, whereas all our older intersections are very clearly “cyclists must give way”, indicated by prominent yellow bollards in the cycleway.

The issue to me is lack of clear signage or road markings to indicate who has priority, combined with lack of knowledge/instinct on the part of both motorists and cyclists, combined worth hundreds of intersections across the city where the priority is the other way.

Upshot: confusion. When I encountered these new things for the first time it was clear that nobody, drivers or cyclists, knew what to do!

TBH, I think each intersection needs clear signage, and that on many of our local ones it will never be safe to give cyclists priority, because many of the road side-turnings are ‘slips’ off of 60mph dual carriageways, with the cycleways 100m+ from the main road, often partly obscured by shrubbery. As a car driver one simply can’t see the cyclists until very close to them, and as a cyclist one has to check really carefully for vehicles coming off the main drag at speed with no idea that you are there.

[gcogger]

I wonder what should happen along this (shared use) path? There are multiple entrances along this stretch. Does the yellow sign change anything? I'm thinking probably not, but what about the dashed white lines on the path? That means 'give way', but that's not very visible to people turning into the entrance.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84652 ... 312!8i6656

It's all academic, really - self preservation means that I check very carefully at each entrance, and don't try and play chicken with the lorries, regardless of the road markings!

[mjr]

I wonder what should happen along this (shared use) path? There are multiple entrances along this stretch. Does the yellow sign change anything? I'm thinking probably not, but what about the dashed white lines on the path? That means 'give way', but that's not very visible to people turning into the entrance.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84652 ... 312!8i6656

It's all academic, really - self preservation means that I check very carefully at each entrance, and don't try and play chicken with the lorries, regardless of the road markings!

It should be cyclist priority but it is not because the paint is definitely the other way. The yellow sign changes little. It's the white paint that has more effect. As you say, motorists can't easily see that give way, so should proceed cautiously, but many are reckless.

I know what you mean about self preservation, but general preservation of all cyclists means we must not let motorists get away with hijacking priority through bad behaviour, like they did with walkers crossing side roads under the previous highway code. It's a difficult balancing act. Sometimes I do stop, but raise my arms in a very visible "what?!?" gesture as they cut me up, then point the camera at the departing vehicle so it captures the number plate clearly.

[axel_knutt]

Upshot: confusion. When I encountered these new things for the first time it was clear that nobody, drivers or cyclists, knew what to do!

The problem with cycle paths is not confusion, it's the "you don't pay road tax" mentality. Unless you want to bet your life on your right of way being respected, you end up deferring at every junction.

[Nearholmer]

I can tell the difference between impatience/aggression, confusion, and the inability of any human being to see round a corner through a thicket of bushes, all of which can create trouble at various of these intersections.

In the case I mentioned, it was pure confusion, resulting in everyone coming to a halt, nobody knowing what to do. In the end, a bloke on a bike accompanying two tiny children on tiny bikes decided to cycle across, and the car drivers continued to wait.

Could easily have gone the other way, with an impatient car driver making the first move.

[Pete Owens]

I wonder what should happen along this (shared use) path?

Return it to exclusive pedestrian use.

[gcogger]

I wonder what should happen along this (shared use) path?

Return it to exclusive pedestrian use.

Not a bad idea, though I don't recall seeing any pedestrians (or other bikes, for that matter) using it. I only use the path if I'm with my wife - she'll do anything to avoid roads with traffic!

[mjr]

I wonder what should happen along this (shared use) path?

Return it to exclusive pedestrian use.

Not a bad idea, though I don't recall seeing any pedestrians (or other bikes, for that matter) using it. I only use the path if I'm with my wife - she'll do anything to avoid roads with traffic!

Sounds like a very bad idea to me because it's a 30mph road through an industrial estate leading to a quasimotorway. Plenty of disproportionately dangerous HGVs on it, I suspect. Even if the limit is lowered to 20mph, the traffic levels seem unlikely to reduce enough. A few pedestrians and bikes are even visible on Streetview and it's probably useful for commuters working in the industrial estates. The obvious alternative route through Bedhampton is longer, has a hill and the roads don't look much quieter. That Cycleway Resembling A Pavement is NCN22 and it should be brought up to full LTN 1/20 standard layouts.

[mjr]

The legal force of "Give way" markings is unchanged by the recent Highway Code updates.

Rules for cyclists: Rule 76
Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.

My emphasis.

But if a junction was unpainted before, would cyclists continuing straight ahead have had priority over turning motorists since the HC update? So painting give-ways across the cycleways is effectively a change to deprioritise cycling?

[gaz]

But if a junction was unpainted before, would cyclists continuing straight ahead have had priority over turning motorists since the HC update?

An example discussed some years ago on these boards where IMV the HC now states "... you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road ..." my emphasis. Presumably if motor traffic is stationary and queuing then it is waiting, if motor traffic is free-flowing it is not.

So painting give-ways across the cycleways is effectively a change to deprioritise cycling?

In the OP's case the markings were repainted, so no change.

The Give Way markings where the paths cross side roads have also been repainted.

If they were added to the cycletrack in the example then IMV yes, it would deprioritse people cycling, at least so far as waiting motor traffic is concerned.

I'm sure it won't be long before the lawyers start to work out what waiting really means.

[drossall]

Our local authority has been busy repainting the markings on many of our local cycle routes. My understanding of the reworded HC is that cyclists using shared foot/cycle paths alongside a major road have priority over vehicle joining or leaving a side road. The Give Way markings where the paths cross side roads have also been repainted. Do those 'give way'markings have any legal force now? If not, why would they repaint them?

Surely the changes are a more forceful stating of what was always the case, but for cyclists using the main carriageway. As others have said, cycle paths, and even many cycle lanes, alongside tend to have painted give way lines and so on, which must be obeyed (however badly thought-out they might be).