ADUK Archive

Anyone seen anything like this in the UK? What does it actually mean?
(the 'flower' decoration is temporary as the street has been decorated by street artists with the blessing of the local council).

Closely followed by this:

Weird and not very clear in my view?
Any comments?

The second photo appears to be next to a cycle lane with a solid white line. Can't see the cycle lane in the first photo - do you know if it's bordered with a broken white line? Could it be the council trying to inform motorists how they're supposed to treat the cycle lanes?

Reading the wording is quite clear to me, differentiating between a mandatory (solid white line) and an advisory (broken white line) cycle lane. Neither sign should be necessary, is there a history of vehicles parking in the cycle lane in these areas?

Personally I rarely cycle in cycle lanes anyway!

Yes - I think there is a broken line for the 'advisory' bit...I'm well aware of the difference but I never seen or heard of cycle lanes being called 'advisory' or 'mandatory' before.

What makes it more tricky is the cycle lane is contraflow to the one-way street it's in - if you look carefully at the second photo you can see a blue sign showing this.

Altogether weird and I bet not many motorists understand it.

Central Bristol police station is literally metres away just around the corner...

oh - they are signs for drivers not cyclists

gannet wrote:oh - they are signs for drivers not cyclists

Exactly...I think I understood them once I looked at the overall context of the street and thought really hard... (it hurts like hell)...but what chance does a driver have as he turns the corner...

martine wrote:Anyone seen anything like this in the UK? What does it actually mean?
(the 'flower' decoration is temporary as the street has been decorated by street artists with the blessing of the local council).

Closely followed by this:

Weird and not very clear in my view?
Any comments?

Yes: we have too many signs.

A lot of the stuff that local councils do supposedly to aid cyclists is a load of nonsense in my view. In Scarborough we have bits and pieces of cycle lanes, but no coherent system that actually helps anybody:

a) because there are very few cyclists, and
b) because the cyclists that are around take no notice of the system anyhow

....and I can't say I blame them. Most of what has been done is a waste of money.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Does a cycle lane with a solid white line mean it's mandatory? Usually there are signs telling you the hours of operation, in the same way bus lanes are bordered by a solid white line, accompanied by signs when the bus lane is in operation.

Don't know if it's just a London thing, but the cycle superhighways which appear to be springing up everywhere, are usually bordered by a solid white line, along with such signs showing hours of operation (usually 7am to 7pm).

christopherwk wrote:Does a cycle lane with a solid white line mean it's mandatory?

And mandatory for who? Cyclists must use them or car drivers must keep out?

I think those signs are reasonably clear but utterly utterly redundant, stupid and non-standard. Why not put the blue cycle lane signs up -- the ones that everyone recognises -- even people who can't read English well.

Cars must keep out of solid line bordered cycle lanes (within times), and must yield to cycles in dashed cycle lanes. I assume solid lines out of hours revert to "just road" rather than advisory lanes.

A cyclist was famously successfully prosecuted for failing to use a cycle lane on an NSL section of road and holding up a large number of vehicles. The offence -- obviously -- isn't failing to be in the cycle lane, but is in the inconsiderate nature of the riding. One can't help hoping it was "wanton and furious". I seem to remember a lot of press surrounding the judgement so should be easy to find. Wonder if it was appealed.

Incidentally I watched a cyclist in a contraflow cycle lane with a giveway cut right across a motor vehicle to whom he should have yielded yesterday.

I don't know why they bother putting the giveway on the cycle lane. They so rarely do, and they so often bend or break if the other guy doesn't.

Riding in a contraflow cycle lane must be a dangerous and frightening thing to do. I would steer well clear of them and mix with the traffic in the normal way. Your illustration of the cyclist not giving way may be indicative of an issue of uncertainty over what to do to get out of the lane once in it. It can't be easy.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Riding in a contraflow cycle lane must be a dangerous and frightening thing to do. I would steer well clear of them and mix with the traffic in the normal way. Your illustration of the cyclist not giving way may be indicative of an issue of uncertainty over what to do to get out of the lane once in it. It can't be easy.

+1 no way Id cycle in a cycle lane contra to a one way street

But then again even politicians (ISTR David Cameron?) cycle the wrong way down one-way streets.

If you go to Holland, cyclists have right of way on a cycle lane, and cars crossing it have to yield. At a roundabout, I saw an artic stop to let a group of cyclists across even though he actually had right of way: can't see that happening in this country. Cyclists are supposed to yield at every road that crosses the lane, making the lanes useless for all but the slowest riders. No cycle lane is mandatory (ie no cyclist has to use a cycle lane if one is provided) though there has yet to a significant court case apportioning blame when one is not used.

It's all a matter of perception as to who has the "right" to keep going - those who use their own energy to move or those who use a motor...

martine wrote:

christopherwk wrote:Does a cycle lane with a solid white line mean it's mandatory?

And mandatory for who? Cyclists must use them or car drivers must keep out?

Drivers must keep out. There is absolutely no compulsion for a cyclist to use a cycle lane.