# Cycle lane hall of shame



## Matthames (17 Mar 2010)

Having seen threads mention about crap cycle lanes.

Take a look at this beauty: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...=WxLy1dZ8cT5cu2gNJQsIAg&cbp=12,74.51,,0,19.06

It is a total waste of council tax payers money on paint and I will never use it. The reason why, just rotate the view around 180 degrees and you will see what I am talking about.


----------



## automatic_jon (17 Mar 2010)

Oh that's about par for the course though isn't it? There's a fairly wide one that goes up by Southampton Uni which seems to be filled with small cars, the lane is the perfect width for a fnord fiesta or nissan micra to park in. I had to check it was still a cycle lane at that point and wasn't actually on street parking.


----------



## adscrim (17 Mar 2010)

Check this one out. The road is only just wide enough for two cars yet the council felt the need to put cycle lanes on it. You can't actually drive on the right side of the road without being in the lane!


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Mar 2010)

adscrim said:


> Check this one out. The road is only just wide enough for two cars yet the council felt the need to put cycle lanes on it. You can't actually drive on the right side of the road without being in the lane!



That one WOULD be perfect

Just needs the addition of:






to make it a fast "Cycle Motorway" with 2 lanes in either direction


----------



## Norm (17 Mar 2010)

What is the supposed function of the cycle lane with dotted lines? What purpose is it meant to serve? 

I ask because motorists abhor them and cyclists ignore them.

Are they meant to do anything other than allow a box to be ticked in some council office?


----------



## mcshroom (17 Mar 2010)

There are some great ones on this site: -

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/


----------



## gouldina (17 Mar 2010)

mcshroom said:


> There are some great ones on this site: -
> 
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/



I love that site. My favourite of all time. Truly brilliant. Imagine how much all those signs cost.


----------



## snorri (17 Mar 2010)

adscrim said:


> You can't actually drive on the right side of the road without being in the lane!


As I understand it, it is permissible to drive in the cycle lane as long as there is no cyclist in the lane at the time.


----------



## bauldbairn (17 Mar 2010)

gouldina said:


> I love that site. My favourite of all time. Truly brilliant. Imagine how much all those signs cost.



WTF!!!!! What a spectacular waste of money all those signs are.  

Still you have to laugh!!!!!!


----------



## Gasman (17 Mar 2010)

One of my own 'favourites'. Even if I did take the pic myself.


----------



## biking_fox (17 Mar 2010)

My personal local favourite now available through the glory of Streetview is http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...noid=Vst1DCT25l4cbsDDAILQOg&cbp=12,45.25,,0,5 here.

very short stretches of dualway cyclelane on btis of pavement on both sides of a roundabout. Each cyclelane is less wide than the width of the bike, and barely as long as a bike. No I've never seen anyone even attempt to use them.


----------



## gouldina (17 Mar 2010)

Gasman said:


> One of my own 'favourites'. Even if I did take the pic myself.



That's a cracker fair play.


----------



## BigSteev (17 Mar 2010)

This http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+E17+6PT,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.575229,-0.029655&spn=0,359.977856&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.575136,-0.029599&panoid=hqHkQBvmogY1oXvrDn5vjA&cbp=12,150.74,,0,-0.14 

is near me. What's interesting is that if you move one arrow back down the road you can see how it was before. So now instead of a narrow, not great cycle lane we now have several very wide pedestrian islands which create pinchspots where all but the narrowest of cars have no option but to move over into the cycle lane (as the black car in the pic demonstrates).
Nice one Waltham Forest council.


----------



## Armegatron (17 Mar 2010)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=IHf5I4vDehXToKkZ4AaObw&cbp=12,86.42,,0,24.72

The same car is parked there every day. Really irritates me as there is plenty of room on the driveways

And this one slightly gets my goat: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...jPmx61oJIF0bv0vLwkUC1w&cbp=12,168.31,,0,24.22


----------



## Theseus (17 Mar 2010)

Matthames said:


> Having seen threads mention about crap cycle lanes.
> 
> Take a look at this beauty: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...=WxLy1dZ8cT5cu2gNJQsIAg&cbp=12,74.51,,0,19.06
> 
> It is a total waste of council tax payers money on paint and I will never use it. The reason why, just rotate the view around 180 degrees and you will see what I am talking about.



Is it because of the death ray from the spaceship overhead?


----------



## Armegatron (17 Mar 2010)

Touche said:


> Is it because of the death ray from the spaceship overhead?



Or flying pliers?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/giant_pliers/


----------



## Brahan (17 Mar 2010)

gouldina said:


> I love that site. My favourite of all time. Truly brilliant. Imagine how much all those signs cost.




HAHAHAHA

That's one way to get rid of the whole region's quota.


----------



## gaz (17 Mar 2010)

This one is on my commute, the whole road surafce is bumpy, if your on a road bike you have to stand out of the saddle the whole time for it not to hurt your rear. i tend to just ride in the middle of the road. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=F5k_132HNHDzKIP2uGFXFA&cbp=12,330.06,,0,8.64

This one is just CRAZY, the cyclist gets a nice lane, but then they have to GIVE WAY to cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE!!!!!!!!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=aQnWHwPHbOCaCZMLyrC4tA&cbp=12,111.46,,0,7.02


----------



## manalog (17 Mar 2010)

This one is a complete waste of money!

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=-R-zs5DgDKWB3tt9yCWI9g&cbp=12,95.59,,0,9.84


----------



## marinyork (17 Mar 2010)

Matthames said:


> Having seen threads mention about crap cycle lanes.
> 
> Take a look at this beauty: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...=WxLy1dZ8cT5cu2gNJQsIAg&cbp=12,74.51,,0,19.06
> 
> It is a total waste of council tax payers money on paint and I will never use it. The reason why, just rotate the view around 180 degrees and you will see what I am talking about.



Thanks for that. Got a great laugh out of that. One of my sets of Grandparents used to live a stones throw from where that photo was taken quite a number of years ago. The thought of a cycle lane along that road now with how godawful the driving standards are in Bexhill got a real chuckle.


----------



## marinyork (17 Mar 2010)

gaz said:


> This one is just CRAZY, the cyclist gets a nice lane, but then they have to GIVE WAY to cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE!!!!!!!!
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=aQnWHwPHbOCaCZMLyrC4tA&cbp=12,111.46,,0,7.02



That one really is excellent. Touche .


----------



## manalog (17 Mar 2010)

Here is another one,good practice run if you want some "Dooring Experience"

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...oid=-gUglsIkgtlaT9FUs4yXEw&cbp=12,112.96,,0,5


----------



## redjedi (17 Mar 2010)

manalog said:


> This one is a complete waste of money!
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=-R-zs5DgDKWB3tt9yCWI9g&cbp=12,95.59,,0,9.84



I don't see the problem with that one. It lets cyclists enter a two way street which is no enter for motor vehicles. I have a similar one near me. Although I still haven't worked out the cycle lanes getting to and from it  I just end up pulling into the right hand lane and then into the little cycle bays.


----------



## Tynan (17 Mar 2010)

manalog said:


> Here is another one,good practice run if you want some "Dooring Experience"
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...oid=-gUglsIkgtlaT9FUs4yXEw&cbp=12,112.96,,0,5



Waltham Forest likes that sort of lane, not just dooring either, peds stepping out is another classic


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2010)

OK, these dazzlers are my local favourites. That pinch point is too narrow for car+bike, but there's nothing wrong with trying. There are several of these along this road, and johnny motorist gets mighty unhappy if you're not in your lane.


----------



## redjedi (17 Mar 2010)

Bollo said:


> OK, these dazzlers are my local favourites. That pinch point is too narrow for car+bike, but there's nothing wrong with trying. There are several of these along this road, and johnny motorist gets mighty unhappy if you're not in your lane.



 Those are pointless, but it's another 30m of cycle lane installed in the borough, every little helps


----------



## automatic_jon (17 Mar 2010)

I especially like the ones on the way out of the city which tuck in specifically to give motorists some target practice for their doors.

http://bit.ly/dgHjpp

At least the lanes are wider than most in Portsmouth.

And at home we have a road of 'traffic calming' with token cycle lanes in the gutter along the obstacles the council built.

http://bit.ly/chHJ8j


----------



## redjedi (17 Mar 2010)

I don't have too many bad ones near me, but there is this one

It starts on the left side of the pavement

then swings over to the right

before dropping you off into the road anyway

But if that's the worst I can come up with, then I count myself lucky. Perhaps I've just given up looking for them


----------



## manalog (17 Mar 2010)

redjedi said:


> I don't see the problem with that one. It lets cyclists enter a two way street which is no enter for motor vehicles. I have a similar one near me. Although I still haven't worked out the cycle lanes getting to and from it  I just end up pulling into the right hand lane and then into the little cycle bays.



Yes Redjedi I partly agree with you but if you look at the end of that cycle lane there is always, guaranteed a car/van parked there blocking the exit. Plus most cyclist will not gain anything going that way anyway unless you live in that road.


----------



## manalog (17 Mar 2010)

Bollo said:


> OK, these dazzlers are my local favourites. That pinch point is too narrow for car+bike, but there's nothing wrong with trying. There are several of these along this road, and johnny motorist gets mighty unhappy if you're not in your lane.



LOL  Hey, At least its nice and clean.


----------



## siadwell (17 Mar 2010)

BigSteev said:


> This http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+E17+6PT,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.575229,-0.029655&spn=0,359.977856&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.575136,-0.029599&panoid=hqHkQBvmogY1oXvrDn5vjA&cbp=12,150.74,,0,-0.14
> 
> is near me. What's interesting is that if you move one arrow back down the road you can see how it was before. So now instead of a narrow, not great cycle lane we now have several very wide pedestrian islands which create pinchspots where all but the narrowest of cars have no option but to move over into the cycle lane (as the black car in the pic demonstrates).
> Nice one Waltham Forest council.



The idea would be that the cycle lane gives priority to cyclists at the pinch point. As if.

I've seen it done better, where there was a mandatory cycle lane with red tarmac and everything, but only through the pinch points. Mind you, that had me scratching my head at the time, so I doubt a non-cycling driver would have a clue how to react to it.


----------



## fruitbat (17 Mar 2010)

mike.pembo said:


> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=IHf5I4vDehXToKkZ4AaObw&cbp=12,86.42,,0,24.72
> 
> The same car is parked there every day. Really irritates me as there is plenty of room on the driveways
> 
> And this one slightly gets my goat: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...jPmx61oJIF0bv0vLwkUC1w&cbp=12,168.31,,0,24.22



I was going to say I don't like cars parked in cycle lanes but it's legal. Just as well I looked at streetview first. For your first example the car is both parked on the pavement and in a *mandatory* cycle lane. It might be worth trying to get something done about that, although I suspect the local council and the police will pass the buck, to each other.

The second example you'll just have to get over. The alternative to parking over the pavement is for the cars to be parked completely over the cycle lane and into the main carriageway, which would be legal. I don't like it, but its something they can do, just like drivers might wish us to use cycle lanes but we don't have to.


----------



## fruitbat (17 Mar 2010)

redjedi said:


> I don't see the problem with that one. It lets cyclists enter a two way street which is no enter for motor vehicles. I have a similar one near me. Although I still haven't worked out the cycle lanes getting to and from it  I just end up pulling into the right hand lane and then into the little cycle bays.



There's some like that near me. The problem is that the cycle lane is far too narrow - no chance of fitting a bike trailer through that. Fortunately for me the ones I normally encounter only have a small length of kerb installed so cycling in the car section (wrong way!) is not a problem in practice, albeit technically illegal. Had the cycle lane been 1.5m as recommended it wouldn't be a problem at all.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Mar 2010)

bauldbairn said:


> WTF!!!!! What a spectacular waste of money all those signs are.
> 
> Still you have to laugh!!!!!!



Especially as those signs would be ignored anyway.


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2010)

manalog said:


> LOL  Hey, At least its nice and clean.



Aye, the council are good at washing away the blood.


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

fruitbat said:


> I was going to say I don't like cars parked in cycle lanes but it's legal. Just as well I looked at streetview first. For your first example the car is both parked on the pavement and in a *mandatory* cycle lane.


I have never understood this about solid lined cycle lanes. The London Waterloo Bridge southbound solid laned cyclelane is always blocked by parked cars precisely at 7pm end to end making it very dangerous for a late rush hour commute.

There is a sign to say the bus lane is 7am to 7pm but no sign AFAIR about the cycle lane. This is complicated by a single yellow that suggests it is OK after 7pm. So is that parking legal or illegal?

I guess the real solution would be to make the protective bus lane 24/7. Many lesser bus routes are 24/7 so I can't see why this one is not.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (17 Mar 2010)

biking_fox said:


> very short stretches of dualway cyclelane on btis of pavement on both sides of a roundabout. Each cyclelane is less wide than the width of the bike, and barely as long as a bike. No I've never seen anyone even attempt to use them.



I did try as a new cyclist.


----------



## marinyork (17 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> I have never understood this about solid lined cycle lanes. The London Waterloo Bridge southbound solid laned cyclelane is always blocked by parked cars precisely at 7pm end to end making it very dangerous for a late rush hour commute.
> 
> There is a sign to say the bus lane is 7am to 7pm but no sign AFAIR about the cycle lane. This is complicated by a single yellow that suggests it is OK after 7pm. So is that parking legal or illegal?



It's illegal. You won't get anywhere from parking enforcement though as they don't care about that sort of thing .


----------



## SavageHoutkop (17 Mar 2010)

In response to the OP, I present my entry in the same vein.
My most pointless is currently this one though (although the streetview doesn't give it justice).


----------



## summerdays (17 Mar 2010)

I give you one of Bristol's finest... starts off too narrow...






and then it gets narrower.... and if you look you can see how it ends.





The road is too narrow for the cycle lane really and uphill.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> I have never understood this about solid lined cycle lanes. The London Waterloo Bridge southbound solid laned cyclelane is always blocked by parked cars precisely at 7pm end to end making it very dangerous for a late rush hour commute.
> 
> There is a sign to say the bus lane is 7am to 7pm but no sign AFAIR about the cycle lane. This is complicated by a single yellow that suggests it is OK after 7pm. So is that parking legal or illegal?
> 
> I guess the real solution would be to make the protective bus lane 24/7. Many lesser bus routes are 24/7 so I can't see why this one is not.



That is one firking awfully thought out bridge.Probably because it was built a million uears ago.OTOH.

Why is it different for that Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge?...where Blackfriars Bridge has more space.


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> That is one firking awfully thought out bridge.Probably because it was built a million uears ago.OTOH..


Opened 1945. Only 4 years older than me, though I like to think I'm in better shape - at least not having my guts ripped out ATM!


----------



## manalog (17 Mar 2010)

summerdays said:


> I give you one of Bristol's finest... starts off too narrow...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you sure this is a Cycle Lane, looks like someone has got the hump and painted lines near the kerb!  Oh and they forgot the Bike symbols...


----------



## summerdays (17 Mar 2010)

Here is the start just back down the road... I do use the off road cycle lane up till that point as I'm very slow up hills. And at the start there is enough room to paint the bike sign... I expect they couldn't fit it in at the other end of the lane.






Luckily I don't have to do that route very often.


----------



## palinurus (17 Mar 2010)

This one near me is pretty dumb. It's really short, and it expects you to give way if you want to overtake cars in the parking bay.


----------



## palinurus (17 Mar 2010)

I haven't got a ****ing clue what the arrow's for.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> Opened 1945. Only 4 years older than me, though I like to think I'm in better shape - at least not having my guts ripped out ATM!




Yeah that's a pain but needed.Depending on what they are doing to it.


----------



## palinurus (17 Mar 2010)

Streetview is handy for sharing images of bad cycle lanes.

Another great use for Streetview: I used to take photographs of potholes to put up on Fill That Hole. Not any more.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (17 Mar 2010)

I think it's trying to warn you that you're about to be t-juntioned into the main traffic flow


----------



## summerdays (17 Mar 2010)

palinurus said:


> This one near me is pretty dumb. It's really short, and it expects you to give way if you want to overtake cars in the parking bay.



I would be completely confused by that one - what with the arrow pointing one direction and the give way looking as if you were going to cycle across the road.


----------



## Tubbs (17 Mar 2010)

palinurus - I thought I'd seen some funny/daft/stupid cycle "lanes" but that one really takes the biscuit. What the hell...???


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2010)

I'm not sure what to make of this needless red stripe!


----------



## gaz (17 Mar 2010)

palinurus said:


> Streetview is handy for sharing images of bad cycle lanes.
> 
> Another great use for Streetview: I used to take photographs of potholes to put up on Fill That Hole. Not any more.



haha, but how old are the images on street view?


----------



## danrees (17 Mar 2010)

Part of my cycle route

One bollard just isn't enough...


----------



## goo_mason (17 Mar 2010)

A useless waste of space of a lane along beside Ocean Terminal in Leith:






which ends where you see it here:


----------



## Telemark (17 Mar 2010)

goo_mason said:


> A useless waste of space of a lane along beside Ocean Terminal in Leith:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A classic - I remember coming across this one shortly after Ocean Terminal was opened ... was looking at the new buildings and just spotted the wee obstacle in time


----------



## palinurus (17 Mar 2010)

danrees said:


> Part of my cycle route
> 
> One bollard just isn't enough...



Christ! There's 13 of 'em.

Whoever did that took a bung from the bollard supplier.


----------



## threshold (17 Mar 2010)

Hows this, sent to me by a friend, only wish I knew exactly where it is--- Not that I would use it!!


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2010)

threshold said:


> Hows this, sent to me by a friend, only wish I knew exactly where it is--- Not that I would use it!!


I woundn't mind a trip to Volendam, I don't think I'd use it either ;-)


----------



## HJ (17 Mar 2010)

How about this one, I have never under stood the point of the cycle lane leading into Lady Lawson Street, note the cars are legally parked (if you follow Streetview they disappear, but you can see where the cycle lane ends)...


----------



## HJ (17 Mar 2010)

Actually you can see it better from this angle, note this is a one way street.


----------



## on the road (17 Mar 2010)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...2&ll=53.409361,-2.98573&spn=0,359.997624&z=19

This road is one-way going in the opposite direction, and the road at the end is one-way going right. This is in the middle of town, the roads of often busy so leaving the cycle lane you're going to be riding the wrong way down a one-way street.

edit - that's not my bike by the way


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> How about this one, I have never under stood the point of the cycle lane leading into Lady Lawson Street, note the cars are legally parked (if you follow Streetview they disappear, but you can see where the cycle lane ends)...


Is it supposed to be a contraflow, cars can only go down the street but bikes can go up it 

Edit: I had a look at the bottom of the street if it is its not clear


----------



## HJ (17 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> Is it supposed to be a contraflow, cars can only go down the street but bikes can go up it
> 
> Edit: I had a look at the bottom of the street if it is its not clear



No the cycle lane is only about 15m at the top of the street, there is no space for a contraflow in the rest of the street...


----------



## marinyork (17 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> No the cycle lane is only about 15m at the top of the street, there is no space for a contraflow in the rest of the street...



You don't have to have just a 'lane' to be contraflow, there are some examples of contraflow 'roads' where there is no lane and cycles go both ways and motorised traffic goes just one way. They aren't very common though.

Whatever that is supposed to be though, it's not very clear at all.


----------



## HLaB (17 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> You don't have to have just a 'lane' to be contraflow, there are some examples of contraflow 'roads' where there is no lane and cycles go both ways and motorised traffic goes just one way. They aren't very common though.
> 
> Whatever that is supposed to be though, it's not very clear at all.


One that springs to mind is this road but its clearer defined.


----------



## Crankarm (17 Mar 2010)

threshold said:


> Hows this, sent to me by a friend, only wish I knew exactly where it is--- Not that I would use it!!



Pic at #58 WTF! LAUGH OUT LOUD !


----------



## marinyork (17 Mar 2010)

It's not mad, mad, awful but this is one of my favourites that I come across regularly in rotherham

The really weird bit is they didn't do it to all bus stops on that road, just some of them... not very clever winding up motorists.

Hmmm, I wonder what cross hatching could mean .

Actually, nearly forgot, this one is really my favourite. How many cobbled contraflow cycle lanes are there in the world ? The really amusing thing was that before they did it it wasn't cobbled but some numpty decided to go for the cobbles and then red ones for the cycle lane, at huge cost.


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> No the cycle lane is only about 15m at the top of the street, there is no space for a contraflow in the rest of the street...





marinyork said:


> You don't have to have just a 'lane' to be contraflow, there are some examples of contraflow 'roads' where there is no lane and cycles go both ways and motorised traffic goes just one way. They aren't very common though.
> 
> Whatever that is supposed to be though, it's not very clear at all.



I see your point, but in this case there is no contraflow for cycles, it is just a one way street, with a totally pointless separated cycle lane at the start. Not only is there no need for the cycle lane, but it is frequently blocked by cars parking quite legally in the parking bay at the exit to the lane. In this case the car is parked tight to the kerb, but normally they are further out, which prevents cyclist from exiting...


----------



## HJ (18 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> Is it supposed to be a contraflow, cars can only go down the street but bikes can go up it
> 
> Edit: I had a look at the bottom of the street if it is its not clear




Would you want to cycle contraflow up this street?


----------



## automatic_jon (26 Mar 2010)

I'm currently staying with my parents (got to love uni holidays) and it's the first time I've brought my bike back with me. I spotted this wonderful use of East Cambs. District Council's resources on my way to the shops this morning.


----------



## mr_cellophane (26 Mar 2010)

This one a Dagenham, starts off being a good idea. But you have to weave round the peds who walk on the cycle half, despite it being green with cycles painted on it. Then it dumps you on the main road in the bus lane. Note that it finishes just after a bend in the road and hidden by bushes. It isn't too bad during the day as you can see the buses coming. After 19:00 cars can use the bus lane and they are hidden from cyclist by the bushes.


----------



## on the road (26 Mar 2010)

automatic_jon said:


> I'm currently staying with my parent (got to love uni holidays) and it's the first time I've brought my bike back with me. I spotted this wonderful use of East Cambs. District Council's resources on my way to the shops this morning.


lol


----------



## Telemark (26 Mar 2010)

automatic_jon said:


>


a classic ... it shouts "your place is in the gutter" !

T


----------



## potsy (6 Apr 2010)

Not quite in the same league as others on this thread but one I noticed whilst riding home today,separate lane for cyclists turning left but you are then forced to give way to get back on the road-what's the point of it being there?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...noid=55866CQrmI0bW5hVgwtDJA&cbp=12,60.42,,0,5


----------



## Armegatron (6 Apr 2010)

potsy: that one is pointless  I gather you stick with the road on that section? 

This is one near me makes me chuckle - I reckon it wants cyclists to be on the path for the short section where the traffic lights are, but to legally mount the pavement you'd have to run a red to get any advantage from it! 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...QXFXeB27nX8KgGMjPcPLSQ&cbp=12,283.61,,0,34.13


----------



## Bollo (6 Apr 2010)

Just to mix it up a bit, I pass this every day. Reject the pavement, I bring you the pedestrian farcility! 



This is fairly typical of this industrial park, where the car is most definitely king. Have a look up this road because you'll get to see some cracking NCN 23 farcilities as well.


----------



## Armegatron (6 Apr 2010)

Out of interest, a mandatory cycle lane should not be entered / parked in by vehicles - but what about ones that overlap a junction like this one:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFqV6dcQ44


There are a few around where I live that only become mandatory at a junction.


----------



## dodgy (6 Apr 2010)

goo_mason said:


> A useless waste of space of a lane along beside Ocean Terminal in Leith:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The painted bike in the lane above, is that one of those bikes that can go forwards or backwards?


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

mike.pembo said:


> Out of interest, a mandatory cycle lane should not be entered / parked in by vehicles - but what about ones that overlap a junction like this one:
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFqV6dcQ44
> ...




There's no such thing as a "mandatory cycle lane". Broken lanes shouldn't be either, unfortunately there's pretty much no enforcement even if you have double yellows all the way along on top. That's just the way it goes in this country.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Apr 2010)

Yes there are mandatory cycle lanes - they aren't mandatory for cyclists to use, but they are mandatory for motor vehicles not to enter.


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yes there are mandatory cycle lanes - they aren't mandatory for cyclists to use, but they are mandatory for motor vehicles not to enter.



No, they are cycle lanes with solid lines. They would be 'mandatory' not to enter whether they were cycle lanes or not. It's very bad nomenclature as it suggests that the other ones motorists are free to do whatever they like.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Apr 2010)

Well, that's what they are called, whether or not you like it. I don't understand why anyone would worry, because there's no enforcement, and besides which they are largely useless for us cyclists. They mark only one of the most dangerous places on the road to ride in.


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Well, that's what they are called, whether or not you like it. I don't understand why anyone would worry, because there's no enforcement, and besides which they are largely useless for us cyclists. They mark only one of the most dangerous places on the road to ride in.



Actually they are very rarely referred to as that. There is no enforcement of any cycle lane but there you go. It's not really for me to join in the 'they're sh*t' debate but some people may want to use them.

There are some very silly ones built around the land though.


----------



## Norm (6 Apr 2010)

marinyork said:


> No, they are cycle lanes with solid lines.


Whilst not strictly part of this discussion, I get riled with the solid lines thing because I encounter very few people who know what they are for.

[rant]
Solid lines should not be crossed.

It's quite easy, solid lines should not be crossed.

They don't mean "no overtaking" as you can sometimes overtake without crossing them. 

They don't mean "stay in this lane unless that lane is moving faster", as most people take them to mean when joining motorways. 

They don't mean dodge into and out of a bus lane depending on whether you've caught sight of your friend on the opposite pavement.

And, they don't mean "free parking".
[/rant]



Bollo said:


> Just to mix it up a bit, I pass this every day. Reject the pavement, I bring you the pedestrian farcility!


Bollo, do you work for De La Rue?


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

Absolutely Norm. But it's quite telling that even those, LAs are so unconfident about a part of the law that they still have to enforce them with double yellows/clearways!! Then there's the logistics of enforcing them, I know one where the traffic wardens take half an hour to get up to the area and people know this so happily park up right in the rush hour .


----------



## BentMikey (6 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Solid lines should not be crossed.
> 
> It's quite easy, solid lines should not be crossed.



And what about cyclists inside the mandatory cycle lane? Or buses, cyclists, or taxis in bus lanes with solid white lines?


----------



## Norm (6 Apr 2010)

Passing stationary vehicles (or cyclists doing under 10mph) is allowed, for example, which is why I said "should" not "must".


----------



## Arch (6 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Passing stationary vehicles (or cyclists doing under 10mph) is allowed, for example, which is why I said "should" not "must".



I don't think you're talking about the same thing. BM is asking about cycle lanes marked by a solid white line, you seem to be talking about solid white lines down the middle of the road....

The point being, motor vehicles should not enter a cycle lane marked with a solid line (unless they really have to, or there's a y in the day), but a cyclist is at liberty to enter and exit it as they need to, I think.

oh, hang on, are you talking about a cyclist overtaking a car parked in a lane? I think a cyclist is allowed to cross a solid bike lane line at any time, not just to overtake....

I'll have to check now.


----------



## Arch (6 Apr 2010)

from rule 63 (my bold)

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane *when practicable*. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. *Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory* and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. 

That suggests to me that a cyclist may move in and out of the lane at will (albeit with care, of course).

Ah, this should be our mantra....

140

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Although 'unless it is unavoidable' seems to offer a huge big get out. But occifer, it was unavoidable, or I'd have had to walk 10 yards to the chip shop...'


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (6 Apr 2010)

This one is a great one

http://bit.ly/da66ID

It's off the road. It's smooth. Grass either side, quiet - ideal, and it heads off alongside the river Sheaf, looking to cut out a busy junction.

Then it reaches a steel fence. No turn off, no way around (the footpath is the same!)

I suppose it's nice for a little 100 metre tootle there and back again?


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

Just to stand up for Norm, he was on about solid white lines and these mean something quite specific in the United Kingdom, they are one of the most important line markings on the road. His point was that they aren't obeyed and I agree with him. We shouldn't really see them as just cycle lanes but solid white lines.


----------



## marinyork (6 Apr 2010)

^^ The above one is hilarious . When it hits the small problem of a river though, there is a point to it, supposedly they will build a bridge one day! I thought this sounded far fetched but they are spending something like a million smackeroons building one in town that I thought was someone pulling someone's leg.


----------



## Norm (6 Apr 2010)

Arch said:


> I don't think you're talking about the same thing. BM is asking about cycle lanes marked by a solid white line, you seem to be talking about solid white lines down the middle of the road....


Unintentionally perfectly making my point, Arch (with thanks to MY also). 

A solid white line is a solid white line. It marks a boundary between two lanes (or the edge of the road!) which should only be crossed under certain circumstances. My understanding is that a solid white line down the middle of the road and a solid white line between a cycle lane and the main carriageway have the same status.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2010)

So you're saying that once a bicycle enters a cycle lane or bus lane, you can't leave it until there's an opening in the white line, or until forced to by something like parked vehicles?

I'm not convinced that bus lane lines are the same, btw, as they are a different thickness to normal white lines.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Unintentionally perfectly making my point, Arch (with thanks to MY also).
> 
> A solid white line is a solid white line. It marks a boundary between two lanes (or the edge of the road!) which should only be crossed under certain circumstances. My understanding is that a solid white line down the middle of the road and a solid white line between a cycle lane and the main carriageway have the same status.



An unbroken line delineating a mandatory cycle lane can be crossed by cyclists as can an unbroken line marking a bus lane (it's different for cycle tracks though). AFAIK, it prohibits certain vehicle types entering, but does not preclude cyclists from leaving the mandatory lane. However, in the case of a collision when you moved out of the cycle lane (signal your intention), you would have to justify your road positioning, even though cycle lane usage is not compulsory. 

To be honest, I'd never really thought about it.


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2010)

on the road said:


> I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.



Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

on the road said:


> I know it's been said before but I'll say it again: there's no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane.



There is, it's just not mandatory for cyclists to use it - it's mandatory for vehicles to keep out of it. That said, I agree that the nomenclature is open to misinterpretation and I dislike the term.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.



Beat me to it...


----------



## Klaus (7 Apr 2010)

bauldbairn said:


> WTF!!!!! What a spectacular waste of money all those signs are.
> 
> Still you have to laugh!!!!!!



Sad thing is that probably councils receive some grant money from a "cycling pot" somewhere, but nobody actually certifies that it complies with the regulations, or even makes sense ..........


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Yes there is - it's mandatory for drivers not to use it, but not mandatory for cyclists to use it.


That's what you call it, but "mandatory cycle lane" is not in the highway code. A "mandatory cycle lane" would suggest that it's compulsory for cyclists to use it. In reality it's just called a cycle lane where drivers arn't allowed to enter unless they are getting to a property. You never hear of bus lanes being called mandatory bus lanes.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2010)

That's only because there are no advisory bus lanes, whilst there are advisory cycle lanes with dashed lines.


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

I think you need to brush up on the highway code.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

on the road said:


> I think you need to brush up on the highway code.



The HC does not make the distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes - this is true, but that does not mean that there is not a difference between the two types of cycle lanes. The HC is a code afer all and does not go into chapter and verse - check the DfT for more detail.

As others have said, the real issue is the lack of repsect that many people have for unbroken white lines...


----------



## Piemaster (7 Apr 2010)

A fairly new junction, with an ASL and a cycle lane leading into it. Quite nice.
But what is going on with the bit on the pavement? here


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

Origamist said:


> The HC does not make the distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes - this is true, but that does not mean that there is not a difference between the two types of cycle lanes. The HC is a code afer all and does not go into chapter and verse - check the DfT for more detail.
> 
> As others have said, the real issue is the lack of repsect that many people have for unbroken white lines...


No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.

People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2010)

If it's not now an official term, it has been in the past. These words didn't come out of thin air you know. It may not come from the HC either, might be direct from the relevant law. I don't care enough to look it up though.


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

Well we'll agree to dissagree


----------



## HLaB (7 Apr 2010)

on the road said:


> No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.
> 
> People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.


There's plenty of documented literature on them calling them 'mandatory' folk are not just making things up.

PS check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'


----------



## marinyork (7 Apr 2010)

HLaB said:


> There's plenty of documented literature on them calling them 'mandatory' folk are not just making things up.



Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

on the road said:


> No one is saying there is a difference, and there's no mention of "mandatory cycle lanes" on the DfT website.



Please read *Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5: Road Markings*
See pp.95-7
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5.pdf

It makes it quite clear that there is a difference between advisory and mandatory cycle lanes. If you look at this document you will see other markings/signs that are not explained/detailed in the HC. 



on the road said:


> People on here are just interpreting the meaning of a solid line on a cycle lane to mean "mandatory cycle lane", that's their interpretation of it but it's not an official phrase, not for on the road anyway.



You are wrong. Here's the relevant info from the above DfT document



> Cycle lanes may be mandatory, where other vehicles are excluded for at least part of the day (see paras 16.4 to 16.8), or advisory, where other
> vehicles may enter if necessary and when it is safe to do so (see paras 16.9 and 16.10). ​


They have diagrams, if you can't follow what I'm writing.


----------



## HLaB (7 Apr 2010)

marinyork said:


> Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.


A lot is also by folk who know what they are talking about too, eminent professors, etc and they're also referenced in standards, check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

marinyork said:


> Actually a lot of the literature is by people who don't know what they are talking about and just repeating what other people say. It's really bad nomenclature and really should be phased out.



Agreed.


----------



## marinyork (7 Apr 2010)

HLaB said:


> A lot is also by folk who know what they are talking about too, eminent professors, etc and they're also referenced in standards, check out section 7.2 of the DfT Cycling Infrastructure design Guidelines LTN 2/08 'Mandatory cycle lanes'



Erm, yes, as a cycle campaigner I have read documents like this. There isn't actually anything 'new' or hard to understand in the section you quote, infact I've said many of the things mentioned in there to other people. Those things are already in the highway code  or applying the principles of them. It's also quite amusing where councils make the odd mistake on them.


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

marinyork said:


> Erm, yes, as a cycle campaigner I have read documents like this. There isn't actually anything 'new' or hard to understand in the section you quote, infact I've said many of the things mentioned in there to other people. Those things are already in the highway code  or applying the principles of them. It's also quite amusing where councils make the odd mistake on them.



Marin, I recently came across this - apologies if you're already _au fait_ with it: 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingenglan...ds/2010/02/good_practice_common_in_europe.pdf


----------



## marinyork (7 Apr 2010)

Pages 3,4 and 5 are particularly applicable to many of the problems I see .


----------



## marinyork (7 Apr 2010)

Haven't they got a newer version of that, I'm sure someone was talking about it about 18 months ago (not that the stuff goes out of date)? It's really good that the 20mph section on that is lacking newer information , things are moving along nicely.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Apr 2010)

on the road, perhaps you could find something more useful and productive to debate than this?


----------



## marinyork (7 Apr 2010)

Getting back on topic, this is still my favourite local one, a cobbled contra-flow cycle lane. The cobbles not being there before, someone was actually stupid enough to build them, then demand red cobbles.


----------



## HLaB (7 Apr 2010)

marinyork said:


> Getting back on topic, this is still my favourite local one, a cobbled contra-flow cycle lane. The cobbles not being there before, someone was actually stupid enough to build them, then demand red cobbles.


Looks nice, till it rains! I guess nobody thought that far


----------



## just jim (7 Apr 2010)

I can see why this would appeal to those not willing or able to negotiate this section of Old Dalkeith Rd. in Edinburgh but it is a palaver to use, ending shortly thereafter. It seldom gets used from what I know of it.


----------



## on the road (7 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> on the road, perhaps you could find something more useful and productive to debate than this?


Why are you having a dig at me? I'm not the one who started this debate, and as they say it takes two to tango, so you need to have a close look at yourself before having a dig at me.


----------



## RedBike (8 Apr 2010)

Just rode the NCR5 cycle path. There were some rare examples of just how good a cycle path could be mixed in with some really stupid, pointless, if not dangerous lanes. 

The main thing that struck me was how much longer it takes to get anywhere using these paths. Never ending motorcycle barriers, jumping on and off kerbs and having to keep the speed down as I was ride along pavements. Thats before we get into the fact some paths seemed to take deliberatly take the long way around!


----------



## Brains (8 Apr 2010)

RedBike said:


> Just rode the NCR5 cycle path. There were some rare examples of just how good a cycle path could be mixed in with some really stupid, pointless, if not dangerous lanes.
> 
> The main thing that struck me was how much longer it takes to get anywhere using these paths. Never ending motorcycle barriers, jumping on and off kerbs and having to keep the speed down as I was ride along pavements. Thats before we get into the fact some paths seemed to take deliberatly take the long way around!




To be fair to Sustrans they go to great lengths to avoid every single meter of main road if they can, and if that means going an extra 100m to avoid 10m of main road they will do it.

I have a wife, who despite having ridden across half of Europe on a bike will not ride on main roads, she would rather walk. 

In Europe we can cross entire countries without the need to do more than cross the odd main road. In the UK this is impossible, however by following the Sustrans routes we have managed to travel some pretty impressive distances in the UK, but as you say, some of the routes do appear to be convoluted, until you see the other option


----------



## mikeitup (8 Apr 2010)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?utm_c...p-emea-uk-gm&utm_medium=mapshpp&utm_term=tourSorry tried to post googlemap links but whatever way I try it ends up being st georges road Stockport!!

So I gave up


----------



## Tinuts (8 Apr 2010)

This is a particular favourite of mine:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...oid=GFPoRsoVhB7-Vxl5SV1lgg&cbp=12,313.15,,0,5

Some genius at Barclays decided to install a cashpoint machine on the left. The result: the cycle lane is always full of cars parked by those using it.


----------



## potsy (8 Apr 2010)

mikeitup said:


> Sorry tried to post googlemap links but whatever way I try it ends up being st georges road Stockport!!
> 
> So I gave up


ha ha I did wonder,thought it was me being dim turns out it was you


----------



## NigC (28 Apr 2010)

Always one to drag up old threads: Here's a local cycle lane for me

Hersham Road, Walton

You can see the whole of it in the one frame. Actually, to be fair, it does extend from beyond a couple of mini-roundabouts to the left, but why bother with this little bit?

And another one nearby - this is just stupid and there's a few of them like this along this road...

Oatlands Drive, Weybridge

A particularly good shot - note the lorry!


----------



## NigC (28 Apr 2010)

Oh, and while my insomnia is in full swing, I was reminded of a spot along the Portsmouth Road, just outside Kingston. Nice drawings of bicycles guys, but..... where's the cycle lane? Ooooh, I get it - it's too narrow to acually draw it!


----------



## on the road (28 Apr 2010)

They expect you to ride in the gutter here.


----------



## mcshroom (28 Apr 2010)

Carlisle seem to have decided that we can cycle through lamp posts - link


----------



## on the road (28 Apr 2010)

Something went wrong with that last link


----------



## mcshroom (28 Apr 2010)

Try Again - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=o-g8cwPKnLxxOVydnAN9Yw&cbp=12,302.8,,0,9.46


----------



## redjedi (28 Apr 2010)

Tinuts said:


> This is a particular favourite of mine:
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...oid=GFPoRsoVhB7-Vxl5SV1lgg&cbp=12,313.15,,0,5
> 
> Some genius at Barclays decided to install a cashpoint machine on the left. The result: the cycle lane is always full of cars parked by those using it.



 That is opposite where I work

Here

What bike do you ride and I'll keep an eye out.


----------



## dondare (28 Apr 2010)

mcshroom said:


> Try Again - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...d=o-g8cwPKnLxxOVydnAN9Yw&cbp=12,302.8,,0,9.46



They don't expect you to ride through the lamppost; there's a diversion sign showing you which way to go in order to avoid it.


----------



## Armegatron (29 Apr 2010)

I think this is meant to be a cycle lane 
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...ljoYda8ONqRTQKjqc7yVJg&cbp=12,321.11,,0,32.44


----------



## BenM (29 Apr 2010)

In a similar way to Carlisle, the Weymouth& Portland Borough council got the lampposts replaced.... right into the middle of the long established cycle lane... their response? paint pretty diamonds around their bases....linkie


----------



## siadwell (29 Apr 2010)

mike.pembo said:


> I think this is meant to be a cycle lane
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...ljoYda8ONqRTQKjqc7yVJg&cbp=12,321.11,,0,32.44



That one's an absolute corker!


----------



## mcshroom (29 Apr 2010)

dondare said:


> They don't expect you to ride through the lamppost; there's a diversion sign showing you which way to go in order to avoid it.



I should have seen that one coming 

Actually I missed a better one on the East side of the bridge. What do you do when you need to put up 2 signs and a lampost? - you do this


----------



## CotterPin (29 Apr 2010)

BenM said:


> In a similar way to Carlisle, the Weymouth& Portland Borough council got the lampposts replaced.... right into the middle of the long established cycle lane... their response? paint pretty diamonds around their bases....linkie



I know that one, Ben!! On the other hand I think cycling is now permitted along parts of the esplanade next to the Preston Beach Road? Although I think it does that classic cycle lane thing of just stopping, almost as if the traffic engineers were suddenly exhausted and couldn't be bothered to do any more.


----------

