Britain's forgotten cycleways

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Yes, the CTC didn't want to be banned from the road by the provision of bikepaths.

[Martin]

Yes, the CTC didn't want to be banned from the road by the provision of bikepaths.

fair enough but did they actually cause the demise of these or was it increased motor / reduced cycle traffic / WW2 / Labour / Brexit etc?

I always get shot down over this but when I took my motorcycle test I used a 1974 copy of the Highway Code which clearly had a blue bike sign denoted "Cycle Lane" (compulsory)

to me that means bikes have to use it as the code was blue=compulsion red=prohibition. All reference to compulsion has been removed since then but my impression of the very few that existed in the 70s were that they were compulsory for not only cycles but also motorcycles under 50cc (no idea where horses were supposed to go!)

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

That's when I took my driving test.  I don't recall blue signs denoting compulsion in that way. 

There was a cycle track near us that was never used and I remember being told that cyclists had opposed such segregation.

The current code says that a blue sign means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'!

[tatanab]

I always get shot down over this but when I took my motorcycle test I used a 1974 copy of the Highway Code which clearly had a blue bike sign denoted "Cycle Lane" (compulsory)

Sadly that was true.  I have a paper copy of a Highway Code from 1972 which clearly shows a blue round sign as a compulsory cycle and moped route.  I do not know when the compulsion was removed, especially since the round blue sign still indicates compulsion on the continent.

[Jakob W]

Coincidentally I came across a 1968 copy of the Highway Code today, which also has the compulsory sign. Were these always used for cycleways then?

[drossall]

Isn't this like mandatory and advisory lanes now? The point is that it's from the point of view of the motorist. A mandatory lane is one that cars must keep out of. An advisory lane is one that they should avoid if they can. It's nothing to do with whether bikes must use them.

If you think about it, it's hard to see what a compulsory route would be. Do you have to follow it even if it goes the wrong way? To compel bikes to use a path or route, you don't make the route compulsory; you ban them from the adjacent carriageway.

[Martin]

if the original cycle lanes were just for bikes but they could also use the road then the cycle lane would have the no vehicles sign (in case its width wasn't enough of a clue), no need for any cycle on it at all like every other road without provision

not sure why compulsory cycle lanes in the UK raises such hackles when that's exactly what the sign means on the continent so why would the UK make ambiguous ones? (and we've been having this exact same argument on various fora for about 15 years now) but that's exactly how they were described in apparently 3 editions of the HC, I'm not really interested in why but it's a fact

as in Blue = mostly compulsion Red = mostly prohibition and Green = mostly information which is how every page of signs was described,

[Cudzoziemiec]

The width certainly wasn't enough of a clue on its own, as you can tell from many of them now being used as access/frontage roads.

[Jakob W]

I think the reason the idea of compulsory lanes raises hackles is the fear that the provided cycle infrastructure would be to the same standard as presently, that is utter shite. If it meant having Dutch-standard infrastructure I'd take compulsion in a heartbeat.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

If the infrastructure standard is high enough, compulsion isn't necessary.

[Jakob W]

Well, quite.

[drossall]

if the original cycle lanes were just for bikes but they could also use the road then the cycle lane would have the no vehicles sign (in case its width wasn't enough of a clue), no need for any cycle on it at all like every other road without provision

not sure why compulsory cycle lanes in the UK raises such hackles when that's exactly what the sign means on the continent so why would the UK make ambiguous ones? (and we've been having this exact same argument on various fora for about 15 years now) but that's exactly how they were described in apparently 3 editions of the HC, I'm not really interested in why but it's a fact

as in Blue = mostly compulsion Red = mostly prohibition and Green = mostly information which is how every page of signs was described,

No vehicles means no bikes as well. You'd need no motor vehicles, which is a different sign.

[Martin]

if the original cycle lanes were just for bikes but they could also use the road then the cycle lane would have the no vehicles sign (in case its width wasn't enough of a clue), no need for any cycle on it at all like every other road without provision

not sure why compulsory cycle lanes in the UK raises such hackles when that's exactly what the sign means on the continent so why would the UK make ambiguous ones? (and we've been having this exact same argument on various fora for about 15 years now) but that's exactly how they were described in apparently 3 editions of the HC, I'm not really interested in why but it's a fact

as in Blue = mostly compulsion Red = mostly prohibition and Green = mostly information which is how every page of signs was described,

No vehicles means no bikes as well. You'd need no motor vehicles, which is a different sign.

The empty white circle with a red border one? Oh dear    one of my calendar events goes along a lane with a sign like that (with Except for Access below) does access to an info control count?

[drossall]

Do riders come back again, or just go all the way along? I think you're on sticky ground - but whether anyone would care is a different matter.

[drossall]

I always get shot down over this but when I took my motorcycle test I used a 1974 copy of the Highway Code which clearly had a blue bike sign denoted "Cycle Lane" (compulsory)

Sadly that was true.  I have a paper copy of a Highway Code from 1972 which clearly shows a blue round sign as a compulsory cycle and moped route.  I do not know when the compulsion was removed, especially since the round blue sign still indicates compulsion on the continent.

As a matter of interest, you can see both the 1968 and 1974 versions online. The sign of interest is on page 37.

Regarding whether compulsory then and mandatory now are different, of course the Highway Code is not the law. Occasionally, the Highway Code is actually wrong in law, for example rule 123, "The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with street lighting...", which has never been true. So, the definition could be an error. What we would be looking for is some change in legislation between 1974 and now. I certainly  have no recollection of any such change.