Cycle Lanes - MUST we use them...?

KonaKurt

I've started a debate with a friend it seems, can anyone help settle it?

Is it an offence to NOT use a cycle lane provided, and use an adjacent road instead?
A WPC once told me that I 'MUST' use them where provided, but I say that they are ONLY additional rights of way to adjecant roads... am I right?

KK.

alfablue

Not compulsory

From the Highway Code

61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.
[Law HA 1835 sect 72]
63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

KonaKurt

Thanks alfa! Part 63 is what I wanted to see. I was right, lanes are only provided to ASSIST cyclists ride safer in suitable areas.


I don't know why police officers are suggesting to cyclists that cycle lanes are compulsary. Although I am a good fast rider, I've had many an angry truck driver yell at me for not 'moving over' onto a parallell cycle lane, when already using a road.

KK.

simon_e

KonaKurt wrote:

Is it an offence to NOT use a cycle lane provided, and use an adjacent road instead?

No.

A WPC once told me that I 'MUST' use them where provided

She is WRONG.

Highway Code Rule 63 states: Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. The CTC fought hard to ensure that the latest revision to the Highway Code made it clear that lanes and offroad cyclepaths were optional. CTC page. Daniel Cadden's case highlighted this subject - see the CTC page and a Word doc.

A couple of months ago I had an argument with an ignorant car driver over whether I should use the on-road cycle lane. The section inside the white line was only just wide enough to avoid drain covers; it disappeared at every junction or turning - 10 yards behind where we stopped it hadn't existed; 25 yards ahead from where we stopped a car was parked in it, with wheels on both the pavement and out in the road beyond the lane.

They are an insult to the intelligence and safety of human beings who choose to travel by bicycle and are ignored and abused by everyone else. Road planners who implement such things should be shot... or at least made to ride in them every day until they learn the error of their ways.

KonaKurt

Thanks Simon, and yes I completely agree with you about obstructed cycle lanes. Earlier this year I led a small campaign against a local authority who daily allowed city bus companies to daily park on top of a busy cycle lane completely unchallanged. I completely agree that it Is a sheer insult to the safety and intelligence of us cyclists who's right it is to use cycle lanes free from obstructions like parked vehicles.

Sadly, I doubt that any such planners will ever see the error of their ways, simply because business and money talks. I often think that planners and authorities consider us common cyclists are somehow inferior and unimportant, just because we are unlikely to earn them and their councils some kind of revenue.

I can just about remember the days (back in the 70's) when The Highway Code was taken very seriously and commuters rights were respected.

On the subject, I must appluade Boris Johnson (no really!) for promoting cycling and taking cyclists rights seriously.

KK.

alfablue

Sorry, I deplore Boris Johnson, he is pro cycling, but he doesn't understand the fundamentals! If we had his vision (we won't because there won't be the investment fortunately), there would be segregated cycling rather than cyclists as traffic. Also, left turns on red? Crazy, recipe for disaster and yet more cyclist hatred! Oh, and doesn't he want a new style Routemaster bus? Thats so passengers can jump off in the path of cyclists! Motorbikes in bus lanes? More peril for the cyclist - and you can't turn the clock back if you decide the rule change didn't work.

Spiny_Norman

KonaKurt wrote:

I don't know why police officers are suggesting to cyclists that cycle lanes are compulsary.

Probably not paying attention. It was proposed a few years ago to make their use compulsory (the bright sparks at the Department of Transport thought cyclists would welcome the change :roll: ), but it never happened, thanks to the effective lobbying of cyclists and cycling groups. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the WPC and others who believe the myth had heard the proposal, and took it as law.

KonaKurt

Spiny: Yep, I reckon you are right. I sometimes wonder if any of the younger generation of police officers have any idea about what is actually 'law' in this country and what is not..!

Alfa: I agree with you too, I only meant I thought good of Boris for being a cyclist at all! So many politicians snob cycling and will only ever sit of a bike (let alone actually ride it!) if it is for some fake photoshoot, in the vain hope that they will convince the public that they value cyclists and their rights, by giving a quick 10 second pose of them looking smug on a bike saddle. I just meant that it is better they ride than not at all. Boris does seem to be a little dazed by reality and common sense.

Ooops, sorry... enough of the politics!

KK.

alfablue

Kona, yes, I am pleased he is a cyclist too, and recently nearly became a statistic (did you see that?).

Unfortunately I think he is a maverick, which makes him fun, but a little dangerous. He means well . . .

ride_whenever

why did you stop to listen to the WPC, a simple you have no idea how wrong you are, i suggest you check next time... then ride off into the sunset.

jimmcdonnell

Boris isn't pro-cycling, he's an utter tool who's simply pro-the cycling vote. Why London voted out Ken who despite being a spiky old-school Red is one of few committed politicians is beyond me. Instead of someone with the nerve to actually do the city some good (and not afraid of unpopular but effective moves like Congestion Charge), we have this witless braying hooray with all the political and social sense of a turnip.

But I digress. I get beeped fairly frequently on the North Circ in the morning - 6:30am when the traffic is pretty light - for choosing to ride on the road, as close to the kerb as I safely can, and at around 27-30mph, instead of in the cycle lane on the adjacent path which is covered in debris including broken glass, abruptly stops to detour round bus stops, and requires me to kerb hop as I cross side-roads.

Cycle lanes, unfortunately, are there just so councils can say "we've created xx miles of cycle paths this year" without mentioning they're all in 20-metre chunks randomly distributed across any given borough.

Jehannum

Annex Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists, from the DfT website

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688

The 6th bullet point makes clear that "fast" cyclists should be on the road. In fact, the wording is such that you don't have to be going fast, you just have to want to. :-)

Now this isn't law, but it does gives an insight into the way the DfT thinks cyclists should be using the facilities.

Kieran_Burns

Ah.

I owe several people an apology :oops:

"•Always respect pedestrians even if they stray onto the cycling side (if there is one); they are entitled to do so. Always thank people who move out of your way."

I've always cursed people wandering into the cycle section of the lane, and been a little too snotty.

:oops:

Eau Rouge

Jehannum wrote:

Annex Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists, from the DfT website

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688

The 6th bullet point makes clear that "fast" cyclists should be on the road. In fact, the wording is such that you don't have to be going fast, you just have to want to. :-)

Now this isn't law, but it does gives an insight into the way the DfT thinks cyclists should be using the facilities.

Thanks to the wonderfull but slightly wierd way the law works in the UK, I think the 6th bullet point actually is law, courtesy of the Appeal's Court. They (I think it was them) overturned a conviction of a cyclist in (I think) Manchester who had been convicted for not using the provided cycle path and instead staying on the road. The 30kph(18mph) figure came from the Court, and in this country, it's the Courts, not Parliament or the police who decide what the law actually means.
.

Wallace1492

While I agree with a lot of what has been said on here, I would like to make a small point.

Where there is a cycle lane provided, and it is clean, part of the road, clear of debris and parked cars, does not deviate into bus stops/juntions, why do some cyclists not use it? My belief is that they feel too superior to use it, or it is beneath their "level", for mere mortal commuters. They then hold up the cars who get frustrated and become anti cycling. It's mostly roadies in full kit that don't use it.....

MrChuck

Wallace1492 wrote:

While I agree with a lot of what has been said on here, I would like to make a small point.

Where there is a cycle lane provided, and it is clean, part of the road, clear of debris and parked cars, does not deviate into bus stops/juntions, why do some cyclists not use it? My belief is that they feel too superior to use it, or it is beneath their "level", for mere mortal commuters. They then hold up the cars who get frustrated and become anti cycling. It's mostly roadies in full kit that don't use it.....

Depends what you mean by lane, but in the scenario (I'm assuming you mean just a painted bit on the road- still to the right of the kerb?) you describe would many people deliberately not use it? A lot of the time surely it's going to be where you'd be riding anyway if it didn't exist?

dav1

Nice to read this, There is a stretch of road with a cycle lane for 2 way traffic. I don't use the lane because:

1. Its a twisty road and coiners are obscured
2. 2 way traffic + peds + any reasonable speed feels like a very unsafe combination
3. The surface is in very poor condition
4. Its full of thorns

I still usually get shouted at at least once a week by a driver in a hurry though. Ranges from a horn blast and a driver angrily pointing at the cycle lane to the window down and someone yelling "why don't you use the F****** cycle lane you F****** C***"

Headhuunter

Wallace1492 wrote:

While I agree with a lot of what has been said on here, I would like to make a small point.

Where there is a cycle lane provided, and it is clean, part of the road, clear of debris and parked cars, does not deviate into bus stops/juntions, why do some cyclists not use it? My belief is that they feel too superior to use it, or it is beneath their "level", for mere mortal commuters. They then hold up the cars who get frustrated and become anti cycling. It's mostly roadies in full kit that don't use it.....

Unfortunately most cycle lanes are littered with drain covers, manhole covers, broken glass/other litter, potholes and parked motor vehicles. Also it's far safer to position yourself in primary wherever possible (without greatly inconveniencing traffic) it also helps avoid punctures, as car and lorry tyres tend to kick up any small bits of stone and glass and deposit it in the gutter where the cycle lane is.

I rarely use cycle lanes - they seem for the most part utterly pointless. I would prefer to see the money spent on filter light systems at major intersections allowing cyclists to traverse junctions whilst motor traffic is held at red.

biondino

Wallace1492 wrote:

While I agree with a lot of what has been said on here, I would like to make a small point.

Where there is a cycle lane provided, and it is clean, part of the road, clear of debris and parked cars, does not deviate into bus stops/juntions, why do some cyclists not use it? My belief is that they feel too superior to use it, or it is beneath their "level", for mere mortal commuters. They then hold up the cars who get frustrated and become anti cycling. It's mostly roadies in full kit that don't use it.....

For a start, you're basically describing where a sensible cyclist would likely be riding anyway, if it's on the road. And if it's NOT on the road, then the substantial likelihood is it'll only last a short distance, or be punctuated by sideroads.

Also, if it is on the road, but road conditions make taking the primary position the best approach, then any cyclist should do that rather than, presumably, hugging the kerb to remain in the lane.

wgwarburton

Wallace1492 wrote:

...Where there is a cycle lane provided, and it is clean, part of the road, clear of debris and parked cars, does not deviate into bus stops/juntions, why do some cyclists not use it? ....

My guess is that they are in the habit of avoiding them and don't want to risk dropping out of the traffic flow.
If you're in a bike lane, you tend to get ignored by traffic, so when you need to re-integrate yourself you have to make a distinct effort to alert drivers to the fact that you're about to appear, as if by magic and apparantly from thin air...
Most of these lanes are on 30mph roads, anyway, so if you're clocking along at 20+ mph you oughtn't to be holding any one up to any great extent. Once someone's adopted this stance, it probably just doesn't occur to them to move over.

"You're holding up the traffic!"
"No, I am traffic."

Cheers,
W.
Now back in Queen Street, BTW, after commuting to Balmore Road & Alexandra Parade last year...

Soul Boy

I couldn't believe that they were actually going to write it into the highway code and NOT using a cycle lane, where provided would mean a cyclist would be liable if involved in an accident. :evil:

Good sense prevailded.

For all the reasons above, I don't tend to use them, I belong on the road and main roads are usually most direct. I don't want to be 'protected' fom motorists, I can deal with them. Don't give a monkeys if drivers don't want me on the road, its none of their business, ranty, rant, rant .

I feel money spent on segregated lanes is a waste, but thats me talking as an experienced cyclist, noobs may feel different. :?

il_principe

jimmcdonnell wrote:

Boris isn't pro-cycling, he's an utter tool who's simply pro-the cycling vote. Why London voted out Ken who despite being a spiky old-school Red is one of few committed politicians is beyond me. Instead of someone with the nerve to actually do the city some good (and not afraid of unpopular but effective moves like Congestion Charge), we have this witless braying hooray with all the political and social sense of a turnip.

I'm sorry but that's a bit much. Boris has cleared out a lot of pointless bureaucracy installed by Ken and I applaud him for that. City hall was profligate and rife with cronyism under Ken.

Boris has been cycling in London for years so to accuse him of cycling simply for the vote is rubbish - especially considering that cyclists are a massive minority in London anyway, I doubt our vote counts for much. Face it, we live in a democracy and London had had enough of Ken. Anyone who pallies up to despots like Chavez in the manner Ken did deserves to get booted out. Chavez is an utter scumbag and I'm delighted that we're not buying his oil anymore.

Finally, you may not like Boris' manner, but he's hardly witless. Underneath the clownish exterior lurks a very switched on guy, far more intelligent than Ken could ever hope to be. He certainly doesn't lack in political sense and I like that fact that he's not afraid to speak his mind. Finally, he's getting rid of those awful bendy buses - which aside from being totally ill suited to London's old narrow streets, and a boon to fare dodgers, are a menace to cyclists. Oh and he got rid of Ian Blair who was a total incompetent. Good work Boris.

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Anyone who pallies up to despots like Chavez in the manner Ken did deserves to get booted out. Chavez is an utter scumbag and I'm delighted that we're not buying his oil anymore. .

Can you justify any of that with actual facts?

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

[ far more intelligent than Ken could ever hope to be. He certainly doesn't lack in political sense and I like that fact that he's not afraid to speak his mind. Finally, he's getting rid of those awful bendy buses - which aside from being totally ill suited to London's old narrow streets, and a boon to fare dodgers, are a menace to cyclists. Oh and he got rid of Ian Blair who was a total incompetent. Good work Boris.

No - still nothing factual there - you're entitiled to your opinions sure, but to have any validity it's useful if they have at least a nodding acquaintence with reality.

Wallace1492

WGWarburton wrote:

Now back in Queen Street, BTW, after commuting to Balmore Road & Alexandra Parade last year...

Balmore Road? Used to commute by car along there, not sure I would like to cycle it, though have seen a few doing it. Seems a bit narrow and windy at times, seen enough car crashes on it too. What is your artery of choice now?

il_principe

Porgy wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Anyone who pallies up to despots like Chavez in the manner Ken did deserves to get booted out. Chavez is an utter scumbag and I'm delighted that we're not buying his oil anymore. .

Can you justify any of that with actual facts?

Not really, it's opinion based on what I've read and a conversation I had last year with a client who'd just moved here from Venezuala. http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela He's not the sort of bloke I think a London Mayor should ever have been dealing with, let alone offering support to. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_macshane/2006/05/chavez_is_populist_not_a_socia.html

Porgy wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

[ far more intelligent than Ken could ever hope to be. He certainly doesn't lack in political sense and I like that fact that he's not afraid to speak his mind. Finally, he's getting rid of those awful bendy buses - which aside from being totally ill suited to London's old narrow streets, and a boon to fare dodgers, are a menace to cyclists. Oh and he got rid of Ian Blair who was a total incompetent. Good work Boris.

No - still nothing factual there - you're entitiled to your opinions sure, but to have any validity it's useful if they have at least a nodding acquaintence with reality.

Yes I am entitled to my opinion. I'm not going to other elaborating on why Blair going was a good thing, the whole De Menezes debacle was enough. Finally - Bendy buses, I have no proof that they are a menace to cyclists, not sure anyone has done a study, but I've experienced the danger they pose, as have many other cyclists I've spoken to or read articles by. If you want to witness the fare dodging then sit on one for a few mins, sit at the back and watch how many people don't wipe their oyster cards...

So yep, anecdotal, but I'm glad to see the back of Ken and the Bendy Bus.

biondino

Ken wasn't a perfect politician but to label him "stupid" seems way off. He was clearly very clever in, at the very least, a cunning, Machiavellian sense. Boris may have the education behind him, and may even be a capable politician, but you wouldn't want him to, say, babysit for you, would you?

Spiny_Norman

Soul Boy wrote:

I feel money spent on segregated lanes is a waste, but thats me talking as an experienced cyclist, noobs may feel different. :?

It's a tricky one. I used to think about commuting by bike years ago (only 3 miles each way), but the roads I'd have had to take were just too scary for me. Similarly, when I started commuting to my new job, although I used the road everywhere else, I was initially grateful for the poorly-maintained shared-use pavement path alongside a busy main road, which allowed me to commute without feeling that I was taking my life into my hands until I could MTFU.

Lanes and paths aren't all bad, as long as they go somewhere, meet a need, and don't put cyclists using them in more danger. Unfortunately, there are very few that meet those basic criteria.

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Not really, it's opinion based on what I've read and a conversation I had last year with a client who'd just moved here from Venezuala. http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela He's not the sort of bloke I think a London Mayor should ever have been dealing with, let alone offering support to. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_macshane/2006/05/chavez_is_populist_not_a_socia.html
.

you have to put Chavez in context - it's a country without a history of democracy where the poor majority have been sh@t on from above as far back as recorded history....& you need a strong man to stand up against the influence of the united states

it's not like if Chavez wasn't in charge that Venezuela would be democratic; it would be a typical neo-liberal south american state with limited democracy for the wealthy and death squads and slavery for the poor.

- and he is undeniably popular amongst the downtrodden who are by a long way the majority in Venezuela.

As for Ken - It's not as if our beloved western leaderhsip don;t do deals with despots. Saddam Hussein was a favoured business partner - we even put him in power - as was Pinochet in Chile, a personal friend of Thatcher - Putin is quite sinister - fixing elections, working with gangsters, attacking neighbours and strenghtening the remnants of what used to be the KGB; there's Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Gadaffi in Libya...we're quite happy to work with nasty leaders...what makes Chavez different is that he's actually been redistributing the wealth to the poor and working to keep Venezuala and allies independent from the US. That's why he'd get my support - enemy's enemy and all that.

MrChuck

Lanes and paths aren't all bad, as long as they go somewhere, meet a need, and don't put cyclists using them in more danger.

There's the wider argument that they reinforce the view that cyclists don't belong on the roads.

CiB

biondino wrote:

Boris may have the education behind him, and may even be a capable politician, but you wouldn't want him to, say, babysit for you, would you?

I would. Boris is much more than the baffled presenter of HIGNFY. A couple of biogs of him that I've read both make it clear that he has a huge intellect, and the ability to grasp the crux of a subject very quickly. The fact that he's (portrayed as) a bumbling toff makes him an anathema to some, to others he's what we need.

Bring him on. I wanted to call our youngest Boris, but it was ruled out on the grounds of her being a bit of a lefty.