What defines a cyclepath.

On 15/11/04 12:10 pm, in article
[email hidden], "MartinM"

Quoted message said:

If it was an exclusion of other vehicles it would have a red circle.

Blue circle. Vehicles permitted.
Red circle. Vehicles excluded.

Simple really (though does require a bit of a broad interpretation of the
pictures on the sign)

...d

David Martin said:

On 15/11/04 12:10 pm, in article
[email hidden], "MartinM"

Quoted message said:

If it was an exclusion of other vehicles it would have a red

circle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blue circle. Vehicles permitted.
Red circle. Vehicles excluded.

Simple really (though does require a bit of a broad interpretation of

the

Quoted message said:

pictures on the sign)

..d

Just had a reply from John, more or less what Guy said, the compulsory
lanes thing seems to be a throwback to the 30's when apparently they
were built.

quote='MartinM'David Martin said:

On 15/11/04 12:10 pm, in article
[email hidden], "MartinM"

Quoted message said:

If it was an exclusion of other vehicles it would have a red

circle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Blue circle. Vehicles permitted.
Red circle. Vehicles excluded.

Simple really (though does require a bit of a broad interpretation of

the

Quoted message said:

pictures on the sign)

..d

Just had a reply from John, more or less what Guy said, the compulsory
lanes thing seems to be a throwback to the 30's when apparently they
were built.[/QUOTE]

Someone with a pathological hatred of manki...

Oh, it said CYCLEPATH! 🙄

MartinM said:

Just had a reply from John, more or less what Guy said, the compulsory
lanes thing seems to be a throwback to the 30's when apparently they
were built.

Told you ;-)

I picked up a bit of the history when I was writing this:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/images/gchn-5ssfqp/$file/ctc-presentation-handouts.pdf>

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

On 15 Nov 2004 06:08:47 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just had a reply from John, more or less what Guy said, the

compulsory

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lanes thing seems to be a throwback to the 30's when apparently they
were built.

Told you ;-)

I picked up a bit of the history when I was writing this:

<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/images/gchn-5ssfqp/$file/ctc-presentation-handouts.pdf>

good article, will read it when I get more time. But the whole point I
am making is that many road users are still labouring under the (wrong)
impression gained from old copies of the Highway code, including
probably our driving instructor. Everyone I have spoken to in the last
few days, all having taken their test during the 60's to early 80's,
think they are still compulsory. Time for a bit of public information
(whatever happened to those films?) methinks.

MartinM said:

I'm going back to the 70's here when the only ones that existed were
eg the one on the Severn Bridge, and alongside A roads like the A23
and A217, but I remember the blue circle and in those days that meant
compulsory, eg mimimum speed signs (do you still see them?)

IIRC they have 'em in the Blackwall Tunnel.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

On 15/11/04 2:21 pm, in article [email hidden],

Just zis Guy said:

MartinM said:

Just had a reply from John, more or less what Guy said, the compulsory
lanes thing seems to be a throwback to the 30's when apparently they
were built.

Told you ;-)

I picked up a bit of the history when I was writing this:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/images/gchn-5ssfqp/$file/c
tc-presentation-handouts.pdf>

That is not a compulsory cycle path any more than a cycle path by the side
of a motorway is. It is a road closed to bicycles with a parallel cycle
path. As the road is closed to bicycles, the cycle path is not part of the
carriageway.

...d

"John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My 1972 edition of the Highway Code says "Cycle lane, compulsory"

but the

Quoted message said:

word "compulsory" hasn't been in subsequent editions.

A round sign indeed does indicate compulsion, and I think it always
has indicated the same kind of compulsion. However it compels car to
stay **out** of the bike path, not cyclists to stay in.

I believe this has always been the case. To confine cyclists to cycle
tracks has always required other signs forbidding cyclists from using
other parts of the hgihway.

A good many official explanations have not been as clear about this
as they might have been, and this is still the case in a number of
official bike related publications. I am sure this is purely an
accidental oversight, and it would be grossly unfair to assume some
machiavellian scheme to mislead.

Jeremy Parker

Paul Rudin said:

I realise that there are many road users who are almost
completely ignorant of the contents of the HC and various relevant
pieces of legislation.

I blame the driving instructors ;-)

Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stoney silence from all the other posters who told me I was

talking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

b****cks I see ;-)

That's because there's nothing, so far, demonstrating otherwise...

I'll be hapy to apologise if someone can point to any kind of
reasonably authorative source demostrating that there was ever
compulsion on cylists to use cycle lanes. Describing something as
"compulsory" does not do so. Compare with the current situation

where

Quoted message said:

we have "mandatory" cycle lanes - it is _not_ mandatory for

cyclists

Quoted message said:

to use them, rather for motorists not to.

I have a copy of "Winged Wheel" by William Oakley. It's a history of
the CTC, published 1977. On p 134 it talks about the Road Traffic
Act of 1956, and how the CTC had to ensure that it was not amended
incommittee stage to restrict cyclists, because "Some sections of the
national press were openly advocating restrictions on the use of
roads by cyclists" . Next alarm was the Buchanan Report on Traffic
in Towns in 1963, (see p180) and also the problem of motorway
bridges, eg Forth, Severn, replacing ferries. The CTC issued a
policy statement "Cyclists Today" in 1967, (see p184) which might
have contained something on the subject, but it doesn't look as if
there was an active threat then.

In 1967 it seems that the Road Traffic Act gave considerable powers
to local authorities. "Cyclists were to be diverted, if not
prohibited, 'for their own safety'". What this means is not clear,
but the CTC had to fight off a ban from cycling over a flyover in
Croydon (see p215)

In 1968 the gov't printed the new Highway Code before it had been
approved by parliament. This resulted in considerable debate in
parliament, especially about the wording regarding riding two
abreast. The CTC lost, but the Minister for Transport phoned the CTC
secretary to personally apologise (p218). This was the start of the
Parliamentary Cycling Group

There's some interesting stuff. the CTC walked out of RoSPA in 1950,
and didn't come back until 1954.

"A new bogey arose in 1965 when a deputy director of the Road
Research Laboratory advocated safety helmets for cyclists. The CTC
Secretary was invited to test and comment on a manufacturer's
prototype. He declined as he could not accept that such helmets were
eithe appropriate or necessary" (p190)

Jeremy Parker

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

Quoted message said:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stoney silence from all the other posters who told me I was

talking

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

b****cks I see ;-)

That's because there's nothing, so far, demonstrating otherwise...

I'll be hapy to apologise if someone can point to any kind of
reasonably authorative source demostrating that there was ever
compulsion on cylists to use cycle lanes. Describing something as
"compulsory" does not do so. Compare with the current situation

where

Quoted message said:

we have "mandatory" cycle lanes - it is _not_ mandatory for

cyclists

Quoted message said:

to use them, rather for motorists not to.

I have a copy of "Winged Wheel" by William Oakley. It's a history of
the CTC, published 1977. On p 134 it talks about the Road Traffic
Act of 1956, and how the CTC had to ensure that it was not amended
incommittee stage to restrict cyclists, because "Some sections of the
national press were openly advocating restrictions on the use of
roads by cyclists" . Next alarm was the Buchanan Report on Traffic
in Towns in 1963, (see p180) and also the problem of motorway
bridges, eg Forth, Severn, replacing ferries. The CTC issued a
policy statement "Cyclists Today" in 1967, (see p184) which might
have contained something on the subject, but it doesn't look as if
there was an active threat then.

In 1967 it seems that the Road Traffic Act gave considerable powers
to local authorities. "Cyclists were to be diverted, if not
prohibited, 'for their own safety'". What this means is not clear,
but the CTC had to fight off a ban from cycling over a flyover in
Croydon (see p215)

thanks; interesting stuff; of course the lanes in question may well have
been confined to a few areas, but presumably the HC would have had to
reflect it in the signage even if it was not a national thing

Could some of our Netherlands posters clarify the position there? I have
cycled extensively in NL but have only ever come across one "no bikes" sign
on a public road (and been severely hooted for using it). The only sign I
remember on cycle paths was a rectangular one with "Fietspad"

Gonzalez said:

Quoted message said:

Is that the 1880s? Cyclepaths haven't been compulsory in the UK in my
lifetime.

Possibly excepting the Severn Bridge cycle path - although you could
go the long way round or pop your bike on the train and go under the
water.

And the Jersey Marine path on the A48 at Neath

But a sign prohibiting something is a round one with a red circle.

The 1972 Highway Code definitely says
"Route for cyclists and moped riders (compulsory)"
for the blue sign.
A square blue sign was, and still is, advisory and in the 1972 H.C.
was captioned "Cyclists and moped riders only".

I believe this round blue sign is a throw-back to the old (pre continental)
system of signing. In about the 1930's there were new roads being built with
a clearly marked cycle lane between the main carriageway and pavement and it
was compulsory for cyclists to use this. I remember these lanes were still
there in the 1960's on two roads north of Birmingham. I guess when cycling
was considered a rare means of transport in the 1970's these were
incorporated into the roadway.

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

Quoted message said:

"John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My 1972 edition of the Highway Code says "Cycle lane, compulsory"

but the

Quoted message said:

word "compulsory" hasn't been in subsequent editions.

A round sign indeed does indicate compulsion, and I think it always
has indicated the same kind of compulsion. However it compels car to
stay **out** of the bike path, not cyclists to stay in.

I believe this has always been the case. To confine cyclists to cycle
tracks has always required other signs forbidding cyclists from using
other parts of the highway.

A good many official explanations have not been as clear about this
as they might have been, and this is still the case in a number of
official bike related publications. I am sure this is purely an
accidental oversight, and it would be grossly unfair to assume some
machiavellian scheme to mislead.

Jeremy Parker

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:30:43 GMT, "John Pitcock"

j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com said:

was compulsory for cyclists to use this. I remember these lanes were still
there in the 1960's on two roads north of Birmingham. I guess when cycling

Are you referring to the Chester Road between Wylde Green and Tyburn
House?

--
If, as Einstein said, space is curved and occupies ten
dimensions including time; How can you be certain which
is the underneath of a ladder? And how can you be certain
you haven't already walked under one next week?

John Pitcock (nospam) said:

But a sign prohibiting something is a round one with a red circle.

The 1972 Highway Code definitely says
"Route for cyclists and moped riders (compulsory)"
for the blue sign.
A square blue sign was, and still is, advisory and in the 1972 H.C.
was captioned "Cyclists and moped riders only".

I believe this round blue sign is a throw-back to the old (pre

continental)

Quoted message said:

system of signing. In about the 1930's there were new roads being

built with

Quoted message said:

a clearly marked cycle lane between the main carriageway and pavement

and it

Quoted message said:

was compulsory for cyclists to use this. I remember these lanes were

still

Quoted message said:

there in the 1960's on two roads north of Birmingham. I guess when

cycling

Quoted message said:

was considered a rare means of transport in the 1970's these were
incorporated into the roadway.

Yes thinking about it the ones on the A217 may well have also been
built on the 30's, they were clearly demarked lanes between the
pavement and the road. But as a previous poster has commented they may
have been compulsory due to a local traffic bylaw.

On 16/11/04 12:11 pm, in article
[email hidden], "MartinM"

Quoted message said:

Yes thinking about it the ones on the A217 may well have also been
built on the 30's, they were clearly demarked lanes between the
pavement and the road. But as a previous poster has commented they may
have been compulsory due to a local traffic bylaw.

Which bit of the A217? I used to ride on that quite a bit from
Sutton->Dorking and don't recollect seeing any cycle paths?

...d

you know? said:

I picked up a bit of the history when I was writing this:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/images/gchn-5ssfqp/$file/ctc-presentation-handouts.pdf>

Very good.

James

David Martin said:

On 16/11/04 12:11 pm, in article
[email hidden], "MartinM"

Quoted message said:

Yes thinking about it the ones on the A217 may well have also been
built on the 30's, they were clearly demarked lanes between the
pavement and the road. But as a previous poster has commented they

may

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have been compulsory due to a local traffic bylaw.

Which bit of the A217? I used to ride on that quite a bit from
Sutton->Dorking and don't recollect seeing any cycle paths?

now you're asking! to give you an idea of how long ago we used to drive
through Reigate tunnel; it was either the by -pass around Cheam or the
bit North of Rose Hill, but may also have been the A24 or A240 from
Burgh Heath when it still had the pirate ship.

John Pitcock said:

But a sign prohibiting something is a round one with a red circle.

The 1972 Highway Code definitely says
"Route for cyclists and moped riders (compulsory)"
for the blue sign.

My copyright 1978 but revised 1984 (how does that work?) one has it
as "Route to be used by pedal cyclists only".

It also has "always keep both feet on teh pedals", so it is presumably
the version that the twits track-standing at traffic lights are using.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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

Quoted message said:

John Pitcock said:

But a sign prohibiting something is a round one with a red circle.

The 1972 Highway Code definitely says
"Route for cyclists and moped riders (compulsory)"
for the blue sign.

My copyright 1978 but revised 1984 (how does that work?) one has it
as "Route to be used by pedal cyclists only".

ergo they removed mopeds from them; any compulsion, if it ever existed,
disappeared as well; this was some time after they introduced the 30 mph max
slopeds but there were still some fizzies etc about. This must have been
about the time they started building pavement cyclepaths in earnest.
Thinking about it the cycle route alongside the A4 between the North
Circular and the M4 elevated section slip road was also one of the old
school ones as it avoided the ramp up to the M4; it is now a p**cture
fairy's paradise ;-(