When Not To Double Up....

[G-Zero]

Missus G-Zero got back earlier from taking one of the kids to her club swimming in Durham City, complaining about bloody cyclists !!

The road down to the pool is one way, single file, downhill and goes through a sharp right hand bend, as it passes under Milburngate Bridge. As motorists travel down the hill, there is a contraflow cycle lane to their right, allowing cyclists to safely travel up the hill, without a big detour. This cycle lane is fairly narrow, just wide enough to accomodate a single cycle; and forms part of the main carriageway, being separated by only a solid painted line.

As Missus G-Zero entered the bend tonight, she was met by a cyclist in the middle of her lane, alongside his mate, who was correctly in the cycle lane.
She had to swerve to avoid him and could hear him shouting abuse as she passed.

Fortunately for this male, Missus G-Zero, who is a very formidable lady and reknowned for her lack of compassion to the lack of driving/riding abilities of the lesser sex (IHOOOC), decided that having child on board, it was better to continue on her journey.

If you are on here mate, do yourself (and my ears) a favour and stay in your lane

 

[Red Light]

I assume you mean here which is an interesting cycle lane since it doesn't actually start till some way round the corner.

 

[G-Zero]

That's the one

Never thought about it before, but you're correct.. to reach the cycle lane on your bike would mean contravening no entries and a one way system, or dismounting and pushing along the footpaths.

 

[Norm]

As we have already had a very similar discussion a few days ago (91 pages and before it got locked), can I suggest that anyone who feel they have a contribution should have a little read of that thread and ponders on whether they have something original to add, lest this one gets locked too.

What a dreadful cycle lane, though. I can't see any way of legitimately entering or leaving it without dismounting.

 

[Spinney]

As we have already had a very similar discussion a few days ago (91 pages and before it got locked), can I suggest that anyone who feel they have a contribution should have a little read of that thread and ponders on whether they have something original to add, lest this one gets locked too.

What a dreadful cycle lane, though. I can't see any way of legitimately entering or leaving it without dismounting.

Isn't the point here, though, that by going outside the marked lane, the 2nd cyclist was effectively cycling the wrong way up a one way street? Not quite the same as doubling up going the same way as the rest of the traffic.

 

[Norm]

Isn't the point here, though, that by going outside the marked lane, the 2nd cyclist was effectively cycling the wrong way up a one way street? Not quite the same as doubling up going the same way as the rest of the traffic.

Yes.

 

[Bman]

Isn't the point here, though, that by going outside the marked lane, the 2nd cyclist was effectively cycling the wrong way up a one way street? Not quite the same as doubling up going the same way as the rest of the traffic.

I also agree

 

[Red Light]

Isn't the point here, though, that by going outside the marked lane, the 2nd cyclist was effectively cycling the wrong way up a one way street? Not quite the same as doubling up going the same way as the rest of the traffic.

No. The solid white line only serves to make it illegal to drive in the cycle lane; it is perfectly legal to cycle outside it as the road, not just the lane, is legal for two way cycling. There are many instances now where they don't even bother to mark a cycle lane in those situations just putting up the famous flying motorbike signs or the new No Entry Except Cyclists signs at the far end instead.

I haven't chased Streetview all the way back to the entries to the road to see if the signing does or does not make it a two way road for cyclists along its length. I assume it must do and that the cycle lane marking is to protect contraflow cyclists from drivers cutting the corner on the bend and hill. Otherwise what is the cycle lane doing there with no legal means of access other than walking?

 

[Spinney]

No. The solid white line only serves to make it illegal to drive in the cycle lane; it is perfectly legal to cycle outside it as the road, not just the lane, is legal for two way cycling.

I stand corrected. I knew this was the case for 'normal' cycle lanes, but had assumed it might be different when the cyclists were going against the flow of traffic.

However if I were to be cycling up one of these I think I would do my best to stay within the line, as many motorists (as is obvious from comments on these boards) would not appreciate the fact that cyclists are allowed outside the line and would not be expecting them to be coming 'the wrong way' up a one way street.

 

[Garz]

A touchy subject filled with lots of ignorance or assumptions on the rules I would think. I would hold my hands up to not knowing the rules completely, but what chance have you got if the road markings are so inconsistent or painted over it is ridiculous!

 

[Mugshot]

However if I were to be cycling up one of these I think I would do my best to stay within the line, as many motorists (as is obvious from comments on these boards) would not appreciate the fact that cyclists are allowed outside the line and would not be expecting them to be coming 'the wrong way' up a one way street.

I agree with this, whether you're allowed to or not seems a bit dim to me to be cycling into oncoming traffic, but I guess you're doing that whether you're inside the line or not, not sure how much protection a painted white line would give me, in conclusion, the whole set up doesn't seem very well thought out.

 

[G-Zero]

No. The solid white line only serves to make it illegal to drive in the cycle lane; it is perfectly legal to cycle outside it as the road, not just the lane, is legal for two way cycling. There are many instances now where they don't even bother to mark a cycle lane in those situations just putting up the famous flying motorbike signs or the new No Entry Except Cyclists signs at the far end instead.

I haven't chased Streetview all the way back to the entries to the road to see if the signing does or does not make it a two way road for cyclists along its length. I assume it must do and that the cycle lane marking is to protect contraflow cyclists from drivers cutting the corner on the bend and hill. Otherwise what is the cycle lane doing there with no legal means of access other than walking?

I disagree (in this case), as the road is "One Way" for all vehicular traffic and the approach to the contraflow cycle lane is defined by mandatory "No Entry" signs with no exception plates for cyclists.
I've never noticed it before, as I only ever walk that route into the City, but there is a "Cyclists Dismount" plate under one of the "No Entry" signs, so it looks as if walking is the only legal and safe option, until you reach the cycle lane.

 

[gaz]

I disagree (in this case), as the road is "One Way" for all vehicular traffic and the approach to the contraflow cycle lane is defined by mandatory "No Entry" signs with no exception plates for cyclists.
I've never noticed it before, as I only ever walk that route into the City, but there is a "Cyclists Dismount" plate under one of the "No Entry" signs, so it looks as if walking is the only legal and safe option, until you reach the cycle lane.

See here
The cyclist dismount sign has no actual legal bounding and as there is nothing that suggests that cyclists could previously cycle on the pavement, the sign is just suggesting that cyclists should push their bicycle along the road. Would it be ok for a motorist to push their vehicle the wrong way down a one way street?

 

[G-Zero]

See here
The cyclist dismount sign has no actual legal bounding and as there is nothing that suggests that cyclists could previously cycle on the pavement, the sign is just suggesting that cyclists should push their bicycle along the road. Would it be ok for a motorist to push their vehicle the wrong way down a one way street?

The road up to that point is 2 way traffic and there is a cycle route 'bridge crossing' which enters that road from the footpath only a few feet away.
The "No Entry" signs still apply and to continue riding into that particular one way street is careless cycling.
There are coach unloading bays further along, which narrow the street down further and that leaves no room for cyclists at all, other than pushing their bikes along the footpaths.

 

[Red Light]

You'd need to look at it detail to know what the true situation is. Some one way streets are created by a TRO which may or may not allow contraflow cycling (there is no requirement to mark out contraflow lanes for contraflow cycling though). Others are controlled by putting No Entry signs at the end. Recently the Government has authorised the addition of Except Cyclists signs to these making them into two way streets for cyclists, usually again without lane markings. Prior to that they either had to use the confusing flying motorbike over car signs (no entry to motor vehicles) or they had a bypass to the No Entry sign only wide enough for bicycles that allowed them to legally enter the street past the No Entry signs.

Without digging into exactly what the situation is here, its impossible to say what is and isn't legal for cyclists along there.