Cycling UK Forum

Why should a solid line cycle lane have yellow lines?

The highway code is extremely clear about this matter. Rule 140 says

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.

The existence of a solid white line means that yellow lines of any type are superfluous, and to paint them would be a waste of money. There are other examples of where yellow lines are not required, such as when a road has double white no overtaking lines in the middle. This automatically means that no parking is allowed.

blackbike wrote:Why should a solid line cycle lane have yellow lines?

The highway code is extremely clear about this matter. Rule 140 says

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.

The existence of a solid white line means that yellow lines of any type are superfluous, and to paint them would be a waste of money. There are other examples of where yellow lines are not required, such as when a road has double white no overtaking lines in the middle. This automatically means that no parking is allowed.

I can only reply with another question: is it preferable to have a cycle lane relatively free of parked vehicles or to have the satisfaction of knowing that the people responsible for the countless vehicles parked there have committed an offence by crossing the white line? There is quite a bit about mandatory cycle lanes in chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. I've not quoted it all for reasons of space but the main paragraph is here. The author of this seems unsure. I've added a couple of comments in red.

16.7 A traffic regulation order will be required to prohibit other vehicles from using the lane (except for emergency and statutory purposes). The order should also prohibit waiting and loading during the operational hours of the lane. (Logically, why is this necessary if it is not legally possible to drive into the lane anyway?) Yellow “no waiting” lines and kerb “no loading” marks are not necessary, unless it is required to prohibit waiting or loading for some period outside the operational hours of the cycle lane. In practice, many authorities nevertheless provide yellow lines and loading marks, even when the restrictions do not apply outside these hours, to encourage better compliance. (Pragmatism rules OK?) Upright signs detailing the times of waiting and loading restrictions must then also be used.

Your point about double white lines in the middle of the road is, of course, correct. Another example would be the zig-zags marking the approach to a zebra crossing. I can only say that both these prohibitions are much more widely understood by drivers (if not universally respected.) Double white lines are a specified traffic sign for the purposes of s 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and non-compliance with prohibitions is ranked so seriously it carries a licence endorsement. I'm fairly sure that zebra crossing offences also carry an endorsement.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see a streetview of of the cycle lane where your efforts eventually achieved compliance, to see what other features such as nearby shops are there to cause parking.

========================================================================
Added later.

Another point about enforcement. If we put aside any feelings that nothing seems to be enforced these days, I think it's fair to say that most people would not expect 100% enforcement of traffic offences. If most people who are driving on a motorway at 70mph when they are overtaken by somebody way over the limit, they are generally satisfied by the idea that the driver may be stopped and reported. OTOH, there are some offences where people feel an almost proprietary interest. The example I would give is "Access only" streets, which still exist in plenty of places outside London. The idea is that where residential streets are close to shopping centres, hospitals or other large generators of parking, local residents should be protected from having their street turned into an extension of the shopping centre car park. Residents don't see it quite like that, but rather as evidence that the street, especially the bit outside their house is theirs. They may even "authorise" friends or family to park there when shopping. Any transgressor provokes a 999 call with the expectation of an emergency response and letters of complaint when this is not provided. A moment's thought shows that that standard of enforcement is virtually impossible through the criminal justice system and nobody not living in such a place would expect or support it.

In fact, as part of the local authority push to extract as much dosh as they can, where they can, parking charging systems have been extended - in London at least, possible elsewhere - to charges for on-street residential parking. The same push led to the so-called decriminalisation of yellow line parking, with the transfer of traffic wardens and their duties from the police to local authorities. There are plenty of reports that the London boroughs tend to be zealous in the enforcement of the residents' parking schemes - obviously for financial reasons.

It seems to me that some cyclists - for understandable reasons - have a similar proprietorial interest in cycle lanes being kept completely clear 24/7. Again, it's not going to happen though the criminal justice system, and again, I doubt if most people would support it. It seems to me that the former traffic warden service, now local authority civil enforcement officers, issuing tickets with the bunce going into the local coffers, is the only way something might be done.

I've experience of this from at least four sides of the fence.

In the case I took up with the council it seems that enforcement is adequate to keep the lane clear.

After about 5 years of non-enforcement the lane had become a very popular town centre parking spot for cars. When the council was eventually persuaded to enforce it they decided on a policy of asking the wardens to hand out warnings to drivers of cars parked on the lane telling them that enforcement was about to begin.

Things improved immediately and now, about 4 months after the decision to enforce, the lane is nearly always completely free of parked cars. It doesn't take long for word to get around.

I've just had a visit from the Police about a similar matter.

I'm a cyclist and a driver so I do appreciate both sides. I found this post because we have recently been having problems with indirect threats (made by a cyclist via the nearby lollipop man) to damage our car. Prior to that, we returned from dropping our youngest at school twice to find spit down the drivers side window which we then had to clear up. We park well away from the island in the middle of the road, and the road concerned is wide. As a cyclist myself, I would consider this acceptable and think the behaviour of this particular cyclist is disgraceful.

The Police who visited us intends to speak to the cyclist concerned. Whilst he has not committed an offence (yet), it is clearly unacceptable behaviour.

The advice that we have been given is that if a cycle lane is a separate track or has a solid line, a driver can not cross the line or park across it. If it is a broken line, you can park on it if unavoidable. So, in our case, when the nearby layby is full, and the narrow road close to the school poses a threat to the children, we can park on the road which has cycle lanes down both sides as long as we do so in a safe manner. Unfortunately for the cyclist, they just have to accept that they will have to pull out to pass the car in this case.

MelodyMaker wrote: ...The Police who visited us intends to speak to the cyclist concerned. Whilst he has not committed an offence (yet), it is clearly unacceptable behaviour. ...

Before this thread reignites over this rather inflammatory post, I'll reiterate something I've posted more that once before: The police offering to go and have a word with somebody often amounts to nothing more than a fob off, especially if they are saying from the start that no offence has been committed.

MelodyMaker wrote:I've just had a visit from the Police about a similar matter.

I'm a cyclist and a driver so I do appreciate both sides. I found this post because we have recently been having problems with indirect threats (made by a cyclist via the nearby lollipop man) to damage our car. Prior to that, we returned from dropping our youngest at school twice to find spit down the drivers side window which we then had to clear up. We park well away from the island in the middle of the road, and the road concerned is wide. As a cyclist myself, I would consider this acceptable and think the behaviour of this particular cyclist is disgraceful.

The Police who visited us intends to speak to the cyclist concerned. Whilst he has not committed an offence (yet), it is clearly unacceptable behaviour.

The advice that we have been given is that if a cycle lane is a separate track or has a solid line, a driver can not cross the line or park across it. If it is a broken line, you can park on it if unavoidable. So, in our case, when the nearby layby is full, and the narrow road close to the school poses a threat to the children, we can park on the road which has cycle lanes down both sides as long as we do so in a safe manner. Unfortunately for the cyclist, they just have to accept that they will have to pull out to pass the car in this case.

Define unavoidable...

I'd say that there are likely parking spaces within a mile of the school which aren't a cycle path - maybe a mile is too far, maybe 10 yards is the accepted limit?

Yours is the very definition of something which is avoidable. STOP PARKING IN THE CYCLE LANES. You are part of the problem.

.

That's part of the problem with the UK. The attitude of "it's not illegal so I'll do what the hell I want"

MelodyMaker wrote:... I found this post because we have recently been having problems with indirect threats (made by a cyclist via the nearby lollipop man) to damage our car. Prior to that, we returned from dropping our youngest at school twice to find spit down the drivers side window...

If your allegations about this supposed cyclist are true, yes then their behaviour is unacceptable. But spit (by which I presume you imply saliva) on the window? How can you prove that it comes from 'your' cyclist? How can you even prove that it is human saliva (did you have it DNA tested)?

And - oh dear oh dear, here we go on the school run again! I have to say, my commute until about a year ago took me past three schools. Two of them: a State primary and a State secondary, I had no problems with (apart from the odd sprog stepping into the road without looking, but you have to be wise to that). But the third! A highly exclusive and expensive girls-only with a mix of boarders and day pupils. My ride took me along a residential street past the back entrance, continually reduced to a single lane by the lines of Range Rovers and 4x4s parked along its length - just so that Mummy can drop off her precious little darling Tamsin or Jocasta as close as possible to the school gates, while at the same time hoping for an admiring glance from rival Mummies with perhaps a less spectacular 4x4!

I won't say there was anything illegal or anti-social in what they were doing - and I wasn't unduly inconvenienced, though if I met yet another 4x4 bearing down on me in search of the last available space, I'd have to duck out of the way! Just part of the game I suppose. I never complained - but I couldn't help tut-tutting under my breath as I passed, and muttering "couldn't you let the little brats walk - or even cycle?" After all the area is not a den of terrorists or paedophiles. Boy racers don't mount the local pavements at 80mph. There are no snipers on the roofs of the nearby semi-detacheds. I'd see plenty of other schoolkids - same age group - walking straight past this school entrance. In a different uniform of course - they're on their way to the comprehensive half a mile further on...

So, instead of ('legally' or whatever) occupying a lane which even you understand is put there for the convenience and safety of other road users, why not have a re-think about the whole school run business?

Relevant blog http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... chool-run/

gaz wrote:I think the Highway Code makes a reasonable stab at defining unavoidable.

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

"Stationary traffic" is not "vehicles which are waiting in the legal waiting locations", it is traffic which is queuing due to congestion. So I would not interpret this exception as meaning you can wait in a cycle lane merely because the other local waiting locations are occupied. It is your problem to find a legal location to carry out this activity.

I remember once complaining to a coach driver (since I'd ended up stationary next to him due to the quite dreadful congestion he was causing) that he wasn't allowed to stop there - he had chosen to unload the passengers from his coach in "no loading at any time" location on Shaftesbury Avenue, that made it very difficult for any bus to get past. He complained that the local legal coach parking locations were full, so where was he supposed to let his people out. The answer is, anywhere legal, it is your problem to find such a location. It remains unclear to me whether a coach disgorging its passengers is "loading" or "parking", and if it is "loading", whether it can be extended to the 3 hours between them getting off and getting on again. Because the police don't seem to move them on.

iviehoff wrote:

gaz wrote:I think the Highway Code makes a reasonable stab at defining unavoidable.

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

"Stationary traffic" is not "vehicles which are waiting in the legal waiting locations", it is traffic which is queuing due to congestion. So I would not interpret this exception as meaning you can wait in a cycle lane merely because the other local waiting locations are occupied. It is your problem to find a legal location to carry out this activity.

I remember once complaining to a coach driver (since I'd ended up stationary next to him due to the quite dreadful congestion he was causing) that he wasn't allowed to stop there - he had chosen to unload the passengers from his coach in "no loading at any time" location on Shaftesbury Avenue, that made it very difficult for any bus to get past. He complained that the local legal coach parking locations were full, so where was he supposed to let his people out. The answer is, anywhere legal, it is your problem to find such a location. It remains unclear to me whether a coach disgorging its passengers is "loading" or "parking", and if it is "loading", whether it can be extended to the 3 hours between them getting off and getting on again. Because the police don't seem to move them on.

I can not help but think that this will be decided by a Police Officer/Traffic Warden first and then possibly a Magistrate and that unlike a forum of cyclists they will be quite sympathetic to

So, in our case, when the nearby layby is full, and the narrow road close to the school poses a threat to the children, we can park on the road which has cycle lanes down both sides as long as we do so in a safe manner. Unfortunately for the cyclist, they just have to accept that they will have to pull out to pass the car in this case.

being a case of "unavoidable" or just about anything else that would mean walking over 50 metres.

Mark1978 wrote:That's part of the problem with the UK. The attitude of "it's not illegal so I'll do what the hell I want"

Though to be fair many cyclists use the "it's only advisory" line to justify not having helmets, hi-vis or bells, not using cycle farcilities nor obeying cyclists dismount signs. Many also choose to disobey laws that we don't believe should exist (fitment of lights and reflectors, pavement cycling, RLJing etc.). We find a justification for our own actions. Our new poster is doing the same. Really the parking in cycle lanes is a failure of councils who ought to have implemented parking restrictions. It should have been obvious to them that mere advice is often going to be ignored.

Once again I am amazed that somebody would join a cycle forum to admonish cyclists (as if we are all one group) because of a bad experience with a single individual.

Bicycler wrote:

Mark1978 wrote:That's part of the problem with the UK. The attitude of "it's not illegal so I'll do what the hell I want"

Though to be fair many cyclists use the "it's only advisory" line to justify not having helmets, hi-vis or bells, not using cycle farcilities nor obeying cyclists dismount signs. Many also choose to disobey laws that we don't believe should exist (fitment of lights and reflectors, pavement cycling, RLJing etc.). We find a justification for our own actions. Our new poster is doing the same. Really the parking in cycle lanes is a failure of councils who ought to have implemented parking restrictions. It should have been obvious to them that mere advice is often going to be ignored.

Once again I am amazed that somebody would join a cycle forum to admonish cyclists (as if we are all one group) because of a bad experience with a single individual.

Yes but it isn't obligitory to have a 5' inflatable penis on the roof on ones motorcar, but noone seems to think that should be legislated.

There is a difference between "it's not illegal to drive to school, then stop at the zigzag lines (so I don't stop on them) to let my kids out" and the "there is no law regarding wearing magic hats, so I choose not to"

One of those is breaking the spirit of the law, the other is making a personal choice...