Cycle path sign - compulsory?

PD said:

Ian Smith said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] whether a roadsign is blue, white with a red
circle, got a bright red light, or anything else.

The average cyclist will ignore it.

Quoted message said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

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!

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

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 said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

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 said:

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

That'll be Hartlepool then !!!!!!

David Hansen said:

On 5 Mar 2006 10:49:06 -0800 someone who may be "Simon Proven"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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 said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] B?

he's in my (virtual) KF

Ian Smith said:

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 said:

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

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

"Paul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Ian Smith said:

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.

ian henden said:

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 hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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...

dkahn400 said:

Colin McKenzie said:

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 said:

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 said:

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ian henden said:

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"ian henden" <[email hidden]> writes:

> "PD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> Ian Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

>
> 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