Using cycle lanes?

by **Rick** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 pm

What would the view be from a Police point of view towards a motorcyclist passing a row of stationary traffic using an advisory cycle lane (broken white line) if there were no cyclists using it at the time?

by **James** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:21 pm

Not much, from my perspective. I would'nt view it as dangerous SO LONG AS there were no cyclists using it, no cyclists waiting/about to use it and that the bike was crawling at such a speed as to be able to easily stop or pull into a gap in the traffic.

However you may find officers deeming it as dangerous, misusing the lane or undertaking... depends on the circumstances and road layout and of course how the officer perceives it and writes it up. I see it happen alot in London on 30mph roads and it is generally accepted.

by **Nigel** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:30 pm

Its all a bit stupid, these cycle lanes.

The ones described with broken lines can (as far as I understand it) be used like the normal road if you so desire.

The solid lined ones are something else !

Motor vehicles cannot use them at all, but cyclists don't have to, they can have parts of the road sectioned off just for their own use, then still get in the way of motor traffic at will.

by **7db** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:57 am

If there's a broken line then a cyclist has priority in the lane, but motorists may use it, yielding to cyclists.

If there are cyclists out of the lane, unnecessarily holding up traffic then they can be prosecuted (there was one doing 30-40 on an NSL that I recall who took a fine from magistrates).

by **Nigel** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:20 am

7db wrote:If there's a broken line then a cyclist has priority in the lane, but motorists may use it, yielding to cyclists.

If there are cyclists out of the lane, unnecessarily holding up traffic then they can be prosecuted (there was one doing 30-40 on an NSL that I recall who took a fine from magistrates).

Thats all very true, but a cyclist using the road in front of me has priority anyway, I'm not allowed to run them over, so those type of lanes are actually quite pointless.

I know cyclists can be held to account, but it is all very rare, even the most basic of rules, like cycling with the traffic flow, displaying lights at night etc are almost entirely unenforced.

by **Rick** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:56 pm

The thing that annoys me with some cyclists is the blatant ignoranve when it comes to red lights!

by **Nigel** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:12 pm

Don't get me started Rick, I'm doing my grumpy old git impression on the club driving thread

by **7db** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:20 pm

Nigel wrote:Thats all very true, but a cyclist using the road in front of me has priority anyway, I'm not allowed to run them over, so those type of lanes are actually quite pointless.

Notice that with the broken lane marking, a cyclist behind you and passing you on your left has priority as a vehicle "established in lane" over you entering his lane.

by **Nigel** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:22 pm

why ?, he shouldn't be undertaking to start with !

by **SammyTheSnake** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:02 am

Nigel wrote:why ?, he shouldn't be undertaking to start with !

He's in a separate lane. It's the same as when you're waiting to turn right at traffic lights and people are going straight ahead / turning left, even though they're on your nearside. Besides, that's the exact point of the dividing line, to allow the cyclists the space to continue even when the car lane is congested.

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

by **Nigel** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:16 am

A car couldn't fit into a cycle lane, so if the road ahead is congested, a car is rather unlikely to try to do so.

by **7db** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:44 am

Nigel wrote:why ?, he shouldn't be undertaking to start with !

Why on earth not?

by **Nigel** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:13 am

7db wrote:
Nigel wrote:why ?, he shouldn't be undertaking to start with !

Why on earth not?

because undertaking is naughty, one should overtake a vehicle on its right, as far as I'm aware, even cyclists do not actually have an exemption to this, although in line with their willingness to ignore any other road rule, they probably think they do.

by **7db** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:37 am

Naughty? Sheeesh.

Probably using Rule 139 - penultimate point.

by **TripleS** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:13 am

If cycle lanes were to be arranged on a meaningful scale and in a sensible manner, and a sufficient number of cyclists made proper use of them I could see some merit in the system.

Instead of that we seem to have cycle lanes dotted around in short lengths with no continuity, and in many cases hardly anybody uses them anyhow, so it ends up largely a waste of time and effort and money.

It looks like a case of going though the motions of being seen to do something, but without actually achieving much that benefits many people.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Using cycle lanes?

Who is online