Right or wrong to use?

iPete

So on my route into London there is a cycle lane that appears to go around a red light, somewhat unsure of its intentions, it seems to flow perfectly around the lights, thoughts?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=brentfo ... 4,,0,11.91

alan_sherman

It is legal to use it to continue your journey if the light is red, however be very wary of peds crossing using the lights (which is why they are red presumably) and you have to give way to peds. Also watch out when re-joining the carriageway for RLJ cyclists (that you wil need to give way to) and if the lights have changd the general flow of trafic.

All things considered I'd probably stop at the red light for the 15 or so seconds as I prefer to be part of the traffic.

roger_merriman

As alan has said, there are dangers with merging in and out of traffic. like him I'd stay on the road.

I always quite like that bit of road. funny mix of housing around there.

lost_in_thought

It does look like it's intended for cyclists to miss the red light! I wouldn't, unless it was the middle of the night or something.

I've never noticed that, despite cycling down there rather a lot! :oops:

iPete

I'm very much inclined to agree with the above, just wanted to know its legality.

Nearly got turned into on one of the roads further up when a car assumed red light ahead meant they didn't have to look before turning! Better off being patient for sure... just happened to turn red right in front of me today!

Peasoup

looks to me like the exit and entry paths are for acess to/from the crossing which in turn gives access to the cycle path on the opposite pavement

Don't see a reason not to use it if you want.

Aidy

There's one of those in Edmonton, too.

I'm always a bit confused as to it's intention...

Stevo_666

There's one of these on the South Circular near the Horniman Museum. I've always treated it as a legal dodge round the red light and have never had any problems. OK so there is a bit missing out of the marked cycle path but it's pretty obvious what the intention is.

As said above, just keep any eye out for dozy pedestrians.

TommyEss

Remember that the cycle path is only the green bit - so there's a gap in the middle that's pavement - you'd be expected to to give way to any pedestrians at that point.

I also think most car drivers would miss the presence of the green cycle lane, and view you as a "bloody cyclist jumping on the pavement to avoid the red light"

As if they need any more incentive...!

PedalPedant

Peasoup wrote:

looks to me like the exit and entry paths are for acess to/from the crossing which in turn gives access to the cycle path on the opposite pavement

That would be my interpretation.

Don't see a reason not to use it if you want.

Not sure about that though. Using those paths to bypass the traffic lights would entail cycling across a stretch of what looks awfully like a pavement. You'd also be weaving your way through all the pedestrians that have just crossed or are about to cross the road.

You could dismount / remount at the ends of the marked paths but that really would be more trouble than it's worth.

PP

Eau Rouge

lost_in_thought wrote:

It does look like it's intended for cyclists to miss the red light!

I'd imagine it's intended for cyclists to be able to cross the road at the lights. You're thinking like a member of traffic. The planners are thinking of you as a pedestrian, and pedestrians need to use traffic lights to cross roads.

iPete

You know what, I think it might be a daft way for cyclists to leave the road, dismount and walk across or cross the road at the lights, mount and begin, if that makes sense.

lost_in_thought

Eau Rouge, iPete, Peasoup, I hadn't even considered that that might be the case!

You must be town planners or summat...

Peasoup

Don't see a reason not to use it if you want.

Not sure about that though. Using those paths to bypass the traffic lights would entail cycling across a stretch of what looks awfully like a pavement. You'd also be weaving your way through all the pedestrians that have just crossed or are about to cross the road.

You could dismount / remount at the ends of the marked paths but that really would be more trouble than it's worth.

PP[/quote]

... when I suggested it would be OK to use it, I don't think I suggested riding on the pavement at the same time.

By agreeing to use the cycle path, you also agree to the rules for its use.

iPete

lost_in_thought wrote:

Eau Rouge, iPete, Peasoup, I hadn't even considered that that might be the case!

You must be town planners or summat...

haha, it is a career option with my degree but no thanks... but on second thoughts, maybe I should

Eau Rouge

lost_in_thought wrote:

You must be town planners or summat...

It's a "know thyne enemy" thing.

Jamey

There's a very similar type of red light cycle bypass along my commute, on Garratt Lane, here:
http://bit.ly/9IAYOA

In that scene above the green cycle path looks very grey and old but trust me, it is actually green, just in need of a resurface perhaps.

As you can see it goes around the barrier at the edge of the T-junction and continues unbroken back onto the road again. I always treat it as a legitimate dodge around the lights but as has been mentioned I just take care to give pedestrians a wide berth.

coopster_the_1st

iPete wrote:

You know what, I think it might be a daft way for cyclists to leave the road, dismount and walk across or cross the road at the lights, mount and begin, if that makes sense.

I believe it is what you say above. There is a park which has a cycle route through it on the other side of the picture you posted and I am sure the lanes marked on the pavement are to use when crossing the road.

I always slow for those lights rather than use the path as you are in a bus lane and seperated somewhat from the traffic. It is a good piece of road to maintain some decent speed when they are green though

fnegroni

Coopster the 1st wrote:

iPete wrote:

You know what, I think it might be a daft way for cyclists to leave the road, dismount and walk across or cross the road at the lights, mount and begin, if that makes sense.

I believe it is what you say above. There is a park which has a cycle route through it on the other side of the picture you posted and I am sure the lanes marked on the pavement are to use when crossing the road.

No need to guess.

Using google street view, just back up a few yeards, and a nice blue sign says extactly that: CYCLISTS USE CROSSING for Syon Park Estate.

iPete

fnegroni wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

iPete wrote:

You know what, I think it might be a daft way for cyclists to leave the road, dismount and walk across or cross the road at the lights, mount and begin, if that makes sense.

I believe it is what you say above. There is a park which has a cycle route through it on the other side of the picture you posted and I am sure the lanes marked on the pavement are to use when crossing the road.

No need to guess.

Using google street view, just back up a few yeards, and a nice blue sign says extactly that: CYCLISTS USE CROSSING for Syon Park Estate.

Spotted!

Mystery solved, the sign doesn't really stand out with the cars parked in front of it when your moving at 20mph & watching for opening doors and left turners!

Jamey

iPete wrote:

Mystery solved, the sign doesn't really stand out with the cars parked in front of it when your moving at 20mph & watching for opening doors and left turners!

Tell it to the judge.

/Slams cell door

iPete

Best grab some soap on a rope before they come to get me!

whyamihere

Heading out of Brum, we have this.

There's 2 merging car lanes and a bus lane. The bus lane has activated lights, so when a bus pulls up, both car lanes are stopped and buses can proceed. In addition, there's a bike lane which goes to the left of the bus lane, skipping the lights, and merges into the single lane that they all become.

This clearly allows cyclists who are using the bus lane to skip the lights when they're on red (a bike won't cause those lights to change, annoyingly). Unfortunately, the cycle lane's narrow and full of crap, so I stay in the bus lane and jump the light.

I'm legally allowed to do it if I ride on the crappy bit of red tarmac, so I'm perfectly happy doing it using the better green bit of tarmac instead.

Eau Rouge

Your not tempted to just stay to the right altogether and go through with the cars?
You're going to be merging with that traffic anyway 25 meters later...

whyamihere

Eau Rouge wrote:

Your not tempted to just stay to the right altogether and go through with the cars?
You're going to be merging with that traffic anyway 25 meters later...

One of the lanes which merge in is a 40 limit 'express' lane to avoid the island which comes before it. My friends who drive hate merging into this lane because the visibility's so bad. Going to the end where the bus lane merges in gives me a perfect view down all lanes to see whether any cars are coming at high speed. It feels an awful lot safer.

Specialized Needs

iPete wrote:

You know what, I think it might be a daft way for cyclists to leave the road, dismount and walk across or cross the road at the lights, mount and begin, if that makes sense.

It's a Toucan crossing, no need to dismount (go to the middle of the crossing in Streetview and rotate and look at the arrangement of the crossing lights). Also, on the pavement in view through the link above, yes, the green path is a cycle path, but it doesn't end, it just morphs into a shared use pavement without a defined 'cycle' area (round blue sign, person symbol below cycle symbol) until you join up with the other green path (if you want). On the other side of the crossing, after cycling across the Toucan crossing, cyclists can share the path up to the defined green cycle path (i.e they can turn right across that pavement, but not left).

Although it is clearly designed for cycle traffic entering/exiting the estate from/to travelling West on London Road, I see nothing that makes using the path to bypass the light illegal. Whether you'd want to do that is a completely different thing :shock:.

nwallace

The signs show the pavement is shared use, except on that green bit
But if you are at the lights how do you join the shared use without SPAD-ing?

Ignore me, I was looking at the wrong pavement, seems strange to do that in only 1 direction though

Specialized Needs

nwallace wrote:

<snip>seems strange to do that in only 1 direction though

Looks to be a facility to allow access to/from the bus lane on the far carriageway of a busy urban road to an estate.

If on or joining the other carriageway you are on the same side as the estate, so little need for a special facility, indeed if you rotate the view you will see that the cycle lane (or rather the non specific green patch on the side of the road :roll: ) branches to the estate round the sideroad junction. The facility on the pavement that side is designed to get cyclists who have crossed over the Toucan to the same sideroad.

prj45

TommyEss wrote:

Remember that the cycle path is only the green bit - so there's a gap in the middle that's pavement - you'd be expected to to give way to any pedestrians at that point.

As you would be expected to do so if a ped was standing ON the green bit.