Cycle path sign - compulsory?



On 5 Mar 2006 10:11:18 -0800, PD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
> > route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
> > (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
> > wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
> > on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
> > them.
>
> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
> path.

Eh? The OP referred to a "divided pavement". If you think it was a
cycles-only path, what, exactly, was it divided into or for?

> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line.

A "divided pavement", yes. Like the OP said. Explicitly, and I
quoted, and you snipped.

> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?

Yes. The rule change that allows cycles onto part of it does just
that - allows cycles ontop part of it. It does not remove any right
from anyone, so pedestrians, who were free to walk on any part of teh
path before teh rule change, remain free to walk on any part of teh
path after teh rule change.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
"MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Discussed often at length before here but; Circular blue can mean
> compulsory (and still does for some things like minimum speed, one way
> etc) but since cycle paths became widespread the definition is "route
> to be used by pedal cycles only". I think a lot of drivers misinterpret
> the signs. Tell them to read the HC if they get shirty.

Doesn't matter a fishes *** whether a roadsign is blue, white with a red
circle, got a bright red light, or anything else.

The average cyclist will ignore it.
>
 
"PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
>> them.
>
> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
> path.
> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?
>
> PD

Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>
 
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:12:39 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
>>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
>>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
>>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
>>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
>>> them.
>>
>> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
>> path.
>> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
>> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
>> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?
>>
>> PD
>
>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
>them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!

Oh do behave.

Someone might take you licence away.

Of course, we cyclists do not need licences since we use the highway as a matter
of right, not an earned and revokable priviledge like motor vehicle users.
 
"ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:

> "PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
>>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
>>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
>>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
>>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
>>> them.
>>
>> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
>> path.
>> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
>> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
>> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?
>
> Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
> them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!

Why are you here, Ian?

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
 
triddletree wrote:

>
> And usually leading to somewhere you don't want to go.
>

That'll be Hartlepool then !!!!!!
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2006 10:49:06 -0800 someone who may be "Simon Proven"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >13: Routes shared with cyclists. Cycle tracks may run alongside
> >footpaths, with a dividing line segregating the two. Keep to the
> >section for pedestrians.
>
> There is no "you must", so this is advice rather than a legal
> requirement.

Yeah, I am aware of that.

I was intending to draw a comparison between the nature of this
requirement and the advice to use cycle facilities in the proposed
changes to the HC.

Simon
 
Chris Eilbeck wrote:
> "ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
> >>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
> >>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
> >>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
> >>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
> >> path.
> >> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
> >> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
> >> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?
> >
> > Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
> > them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>
> Why are you here, Ian?
>
> Chris

to fill the gap left by **** B?

he's in my (virtual) KF
 
Ian Smith wrote:

> Eh? The OP referred to a "divided pavement". If you think it was a
> cycles-only path, what, exactly, was it divided into or for?

Uh, perhaps worth re-reading the OP carefully - the sign he is
referring to relates to the first bit of his path which he explicitly
says is not shared.
 
John Pitcock wrote:
> I'm unsure about the meaning of blue circular "Route to be used by
> pedal cycles only" sign
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm
> says:
> "Signs with blue circles but no red border mostly give positive
> instruction."
> Some people take this to mean that cyclists MUST use this path and
> not the road. My concern is motorists might abuse cyclists who don't
> use the cycle path. It seems it might be an anomaly in the colour
> coding of signs.
>
> I don't use a dedicated cycle (not shared) path recently built
> parallel to a road
> on my commute (between Harborne and Selly Oak, Birmingham) because it
> often has wayward pedestrians on it; when I reach a side road I have
> to slow right down to go round bends and give way to traffic entering
> and leaving it -
> which I don't whilst cycling on the road. It becomes a wide divided
> pavement but pedestrians ignore the cycle markings and it is often
> obstructed by parked vehicles - if I veer on to the pedestrian side
> to avoid an obstruction I'm breaking the law: something I don't risk
> when on the road. If I have an accident whilst on the road it might
> be argued that I should have been using the cycle facility - although
> I consider an accident more likely using the cycle path.
>
> www.JohnPitcock.com

I'm more concerned about the "No vehicles carrying explosives" sign.
--


Martin Bulmer
 
"Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:12:39 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
>>>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
>>>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
>>>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
>>>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
>>> path.
>>> I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
>>> certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
>>> designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?
>>>
>>> PD
>>
>>Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set aside for
>>them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>
> Oh do behave.
>
> Someone might take you licence away.
>
> Of course, we cyclists do not need licences since we use the highway as a
> matter
> of right, not an earned and revokable priviledge like motor vehicle users.

But then you can hardly complain about peds walking on the cycle paths,
either, can you!
 
In article <[email protected]>, PD wrote:
>Ian Smith wrote:
>> As indeed they are at liberty to do - the whole of the path remains a
>> route for pedestrians - cyclists are permitted on the cycle side ONLY
>> (as you correctly identify), but pedestrians can wander at will
>> wherever they fancy. Cyclists have no priority over pedestrians, even
>> on the cycling side of any line. Another good reason to avoid using
>> them.
>
>This needs clarifying - I think the OP was referring to a 'cycles only'
>path.
>I think you are describing a shared path with a dividing line. I
>certainly never knew that pedestrians could legitimately use the lane
>designated for cycles in these paths - is this really the case?

Yes, just as they are allowed in the road even if there is a pavement,
and cyclists are allowed in the rest of the road even if there is a
cycle lane.
 
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:50:11 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:


>But then you can hardly complain about peds walking on the cycle paths,
>either, can you!

I wasn't aware that I had.

I use reularly one shared use path, and am quite happy to speed up and slow down
to accomodate the pedestrians using it.

Any other shared use paths I always apply the same rule: "people first". That
way, apart from groups doing a 'magnificent seven' impression, there's nothing
for me to get annoyed about.
 
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:50:11 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>But then you can hardly complain about peds walking on the cycle paths,
>either, can you!

He didn't.

Don't let "minor" details like that get in the way though.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
Colin McKenzie wrote:

> Nope. Mandatory cycle lanes (the ones with solid white lines) have
> hours of operation. At least one I know of is a car park the rest of
> the time.

This is something I've wondered about in the past. I know of some
mandatory lanes whose hours of operation are given on plates under the
cycle lane sign. Others have no such plates and I've assumed that they
are in force all the time. However, I know of a number of these that
also have single yellow lines which do have hours of operation.

There seems to be a contradiction here. If the cycle lane is in force
permanently then yellow lines are unnecessary as there is already a
permanent ban on parking. If OTOH there is a yellow line with specified
times that it is in force this implies that parking is legal outside
those times though it seems it should still be illegal because of the
mandatory cycle lane.

Is it the case then that the cycle lane is in force only at the same
times as the yellow line, or is the yellow line simply meaningless? If
the cycle lane has times of operation, and these times are not shown on
a plate, how is a cyclist or motorist supposed to know what rules are
in force without looking up the specific traffic orders covering that
section of road?

Confused of Twickenham.

--
Dave...
 
On 6 Mar 2006 04:02:48 -0800, "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> Nope. Mandatory cycle lanes (the ones with solid white lines) have
>> hours of operation. At least one I know of is a car park the rest of
>> the time.
>
>This is something I've wondered about in the past. I know of some
>mandatory lanes whose hours of operation are given on plates under the
>cycle lane sign. Others have no such plates and I've assumed that they
>are in force all the time. However, I know of a number of these that
>also have single yellow lines which do have hours of operation.
>
>There seems to be a contradiction here. If the cycle lane is in force
>permanently then yellow lines are unnecessary as there is already a
>permanent ban on parking. If OTOH there is a yellow line with specified
>times that it is in force this implies that parking is legal outside
>those times though it seems it should still be illegal because of the
>mandatory cycle lane.
>
>Is it the case then that the cycle lane is in force only at the same
>times as the yellow line, or is the yellow line simply meaningless? If
>the cycle lane has times of operation, and these times are not shown on
>a plate, how is a cyclist or motorist supposed to know what rules are
>in force without looking up the specific traffic orders covering that
>section of road?

Sadly it's all completely academic since traffic wardens never ticket motorists
for parking in cycle lanes. (well, not in any of the locations of which I'm
aware).

In fact, in a lot of places, the traffic wardens _are_ as motorists suspect,
revenue protection operatives, because they spend their time checking that
people have paid appropriate fees, and completely ignore those who've parked
illegaly.

As the latter are the ones causing danger/inconvenience to the rest of the
population _including_ other motorists, it would be nice if they were dealt with
first.
 
Colin McKenzie wrote:

> It is not compulsory to use any cycle facility in this country - but
> see also recent threads on proposed changes to the Highway Code.

Interesting one, this - what would happen as regards competitive
cycling on roads with a segregated cycle path (i.e. not just a cycle
lane on the main carriageway)? Would extra rules & regs be needed to
ensure exemption for racing? One case in point that springs straight to
mind is the main A449 dual carriageway in South Staffs. between the M54
and A5 roundabouts - often features in local 25-mile time trial
courses, but has a cycle path (and a rough & bumpy one at that)
alongside.

David Belcher
 
"ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Chris Eilbeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> "PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>>> aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>>
>> Why are you here, Ian?
>>
> I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.

Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
cycling or cycles themselves.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
 
"Chris Eilbeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Chris Eilbeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "ian henden" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> "PD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't it be so? Cyclists ignore the bits of path set
>>>> aside for them, and obstruct the main traffic running lanes!
>>>
>>> Why are you here, Ian?
>>>
>> I - and wife - own and ride cycles. Responsibly.
>
> Funny, you never seem to post anything positive about cyclists,
> cycling or cycles themselves.
>
On occasion, yes I do.

When cirmstances warrant it.

===
IanH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Karen KI
Has anyone cycled the Inn River cycle path
Replies
0
Views
5K
UK and Europe
Karen KI
Karen KI
D
bristol-bath cycle path
Replies
4
Views
408
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
M
Bristol-Bath cycle path could become a bus route.
Replies
38
Views
1K
UK and Europe
JNugent
J
M
Cycle path standards
Replies
7
Views
314
UK and Europe
Coyoteboy
C
T
Thames Cycle Path Closed
Replies
37
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Tim Hall
T
Top Bottom Back