Page 2 of 2
Posted: 1 Sep 2008, 7:57am
by Cunobelin
Apply to have the cycle lane removed as it is "not fit for purpose".....
Posted: 1 Sep 2008, 8:03am
by Cunobelin
drossall wrote:I think we are saying the same thing aren't we? Disobeying the HC is not of itself an offence, so you can't be prosecuted for it, but it can be used (including in court) as evidence of fault in an accident.
Therefore it's only in the latter context that the HC would be referred to in court. There's no need to refer to it if you broke the law; it's enough to prosecute you for that.
If you look atthe highway code carefully - there is often a small [square bracketed] references...
113
You MUST
ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226)
Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).
[Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched 
)]
Where there is a law or legislation coveringthe entry it is usually annotated in this way.
It is not alwasy helpful though for instance:
240
You MUST NOT stop or park on
the carriageway or the hard shoulder of a motorway except in an emergency (see Rule 270)
a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)
a clearway (see 'Traffic signs')
taxi bays as indicated by upright signs and markings
an urban clearway within its hours of operation, even when a broken white line is on your side of the road, except to pick up or set down passengers (see 'Traffic signs')
a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers
a tram or cycle lane during its period of operation
a cycle track
red lines, in the case of specially designated ‘red routes’, unless otherwise indicated by signs
Any vehicle may enter a bus lane to stop, load or unload where this is not prohibited (see Rule 141).
[Laws MT(E&W)R regs 7 & 9, MT(S)R regs 6 & 8, ZPPPCRGD regs 18 & 20, RTRA sects 5, 6 & 8, TSRGD regs 10, 26 & 27, RTA 1988 sects 21(1) & 36]
Has this reference, butthe more useful rule 243 does not:
243
DO NOT stop or park
near a school entrance
anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
in front of an entrance to a property
on a bend
where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities except when forced to do so by stationary traffic
Posted: 1 Sep 2008, 1:13pm
by thirdcrank
cunobelin
I think the point here is that in respect of rule 240, none of the abbreviated bits of legislation bans parking in cycle lanes.
Posted: 1 Sep 2008, 8:33pm
by jamesinealing
Love it, 140 states "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable."
What on earth makes parking in a cycle lane 'unavoidable'?!
Thanks all for your responses, information and advice. The chap at Hounslow has essentially admitted defeat in that he says there is nothing he can enforce (it is an advisory lane with no other parking restrictions), but he says he will monitor the area. I have also contacted the local police but not heard back as yet. I think it is persistent offenders (either residents or commuters) so if they can do a quick purge on a day or two it might alleviate the worst cases.
We can but live in hope!
Posted: 1 Sep 2008, 9:01pm
by thirdcrank
jamesinealing
Don't hold your breath.
(From the POV of the highway authority, there is nothing more guaranteed to send councillors into a white funk, than complaints from residents that they cannot park otside their houses.)
Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 12:25am
by Phil_Lee
There may be a valid argument that damage caused by the cars being parked in the cycle lane is their own responsibility, and not that of a cyclist legally using the lane.
Could be interesting to just ride over them on mountain bikes, staying within the lane
Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 7:56am
by Wildduck
This has been done on Waterloo Bridge in London. I remember seeing the photo some 15 years ago in my London Cycling Campaign days but unfortunately cannot find it on the internet.
Perhaps if there's any LCC campaigners from then, they could dig out the image for us?
Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 8:13am
by drossall
Phil_Lee wrote:There may be a valid argument that damage caused by the cars being parked in the cycle lane is their own responsibility, and not that of a cyclist legally using the lane.
I assume you mean damage caused
to cars?
Surely that would rely on a "two wrongs making a right" argument? Can't see the law supporting that. I'm not sure that anyone else's actions ever relieve you of your responsibility to behave reasonably. Even if traffic seemed so heavy that you could not safely go round, there'd normally be the option to get off and walk. Not that that is desirable or, with repeated incidents, all that practicable as a means of travel, but then repeated riding over the top wouldn't exactly be smooth and easy!
It might be different if the damage were accidental - for example, in going past through a narrow gap, you encountered a pot-hole and swerved into a car that should not have been there, but you initially had a
reasonable expectation of getting through the gap without problems.
Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 12:54pm
by 2Tubs
drossall wrote:Phil_Lee wrote:There may be a valid argument that damage caused by the cars being parked in the cycle lane is their own responsibility, and not that of a cyclist legally using the lane.
I assume you mean damage caused
to cars?
Surely that would rely on a "two wrongs making a right" argument? Can't see the law supporting that. I'm not sure that anyone else's actions ever relieve you of your responsibility to behave reasonably. Even if traffic seemed so heavy that you could not safely go round, there'd normally be the option to get off and walk. Not that that is desirable or, with repeated incidents, all that practicable as a means of travel, but then repeated riding over the top wouldn't exactly be smooth and easy!
It might be different if the damage were accidental - for example, in going past through a narrow gap, you encountered a pot-hole and swerved into a car that should not have been there, but you initially had a
reasonable expectation of getting through the gap without problems.
I have pushed through a gap knowing that it would probably result in the damage of a car quite recently.
Though I wasn't on my cycle, I was pushing my kid in a pushchair.
A car was parked on the pavement, on a blind corner of a residential road.
There was no way I was pushnig my kid into a potential collision with a car on the road, so I scraped the side of the parked car with the push chair (no way of getting through the gap without doing so).
No regrets, quite happy to defend it in court if need be.
Gazza
Posted: 6 Sep 2008, 5:12pm
by Coffee
I'm sure I read here about a campaign in Holland where they would have fly paper type stickers (a pain in the ar$e to remove) saying 'I like to park illegally in cycle lanes' and stick them on the front wind shield.
I'd love to get some of those! (And some 'I park in disabled spaces cos I'm an ignorant ba$tard')
A bit of name and shaming.....
Posted: 6 Sep 2008, 5:45pm
by aesmith
jamesinealing wrote:[140 states "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable."
We have a lot of those lanes around here, and in my opinion they serve no purpose at all. Drivers show no inhibition about driving in them, or parking, so they provide no protection for cyclists.
Posted: 8 Sep 2008, 1:07pm
by pjggy
aesmith wrote:jamesinealing wrote:[140 states "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable."
We have a lot of those lanes around here, and in my opinion they serve no purpose at all. Drivers show no inhibition about driving in them, or parking, so they provide no protection for cyclists.
We had some great ones painted in up near the university, the dotted line was so close to the pavement they didnt even have room to fit the cycle logo within the lines.
Posted: 9 Sep 2008, 3:51pm
by psvrichard
Not directly relevant but yesterday I was in Beeston in Leeds and saw an Audi A4 parked right across a t junction completely blocking about 60% of the end of the road. Whoever had driven it clearly hadn't appreciated where they were when they parked it up. Either that or I just cycled through a police blockade without realising it but police generally don't drive Audis!
