Cycle lane signs here and abroad

[Martin]

Although as discussed in the other thread there is confusion about if when or why the blue cycle sign ever meant compulsion to use them;

IMO there is a very common misconception in the UK among motorists that they are compulsory still and that we are flaunting the law by not using every single one. I observed this first hand last summer when a 1 mile section of pavement near a local primary school on my commute received a low budget upgrade with blue signs on bollards; mainly to facilitate children to use it to get from the town to the school. As soon as it opened I started to receive quite extreme abuse hoots and punishment passes from some motorists.

Now I'm not one to start a war with motorists over this as I am one, I do use facilities which are good but I also don't want to be bullied off the road by impatient drivers, and something needs to be done to stop this intimidation. I don't think the misconception is due to the fact that compulsion exists elsewhere in Europe, nor extensive knowledge of road sign convention (where blue usually does mean compulsion eg left turn only one way etc)

Stupid articles in the sewer press about what a waste of money and how underused the ones in eg London are don't help either

thoughts please?

[Kim]

Decades of British road safety policy have shown that education campaigns are ineffective; the average driver's knowledge of the highway code is patchy at best.

The thought occurs that some motorists might be aware that cycle facility use is not compulsory, but they think that as a user of a lesser vehicle you should value their convenience over your convenience (and possibly safety) and Stay Out Of Their Way.

The best way to solve this problem is to render it academic by only building cycle infrastructure that's good enough that cyclists want to use it.  As a side effect, that should increase the amount of cycling done by the motoring community, hopefully raising awareness.

There will always be entitled arseholes.  Some of them drive cars.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

Chris Juden*'s idea was that such Shared use paths should use the German signage for a non-compulsory shared path of a simple round blue pedestrians sign(ie like shared use sign 956 minus the cycle) with a 'Cycling permitted' text plate below: eg a bit like http://bicyclegermany.com/Images/Laws/OK%20to%20use%20ped%20path.jpg.
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69870#p600531
That also avoids confusing cycling visitors from countries were round Blue Cycle signs indicate compulsion...


*Former CTC Technical Officer

[Cudzoziemiec]

That would mean pedestrians would be prohibited from using the carriageway in that place. Except, presumably, to cross the road (in a permitted place?). Perhaps not a significant change in practical terms (except, of course, for the permitted crossing places) but in principle the same as banning cycling from the road that CTC was fighting against since the 1930s (or indeed since 1878).

[Martin]

I remember the Bike Frei white signs from last year; I think there were some where it was blue pedestrians and maybe a bike with a red diagonal line through it? (the cycle lane being part of the road)

I like the bit about the German willingness to accept rules (which seems to have spread around most of N Europe and I'm going to make any comments about bus queues)

reminds me of a quote from Lenin "The Germans wouldn't even storm a railway station without first purchasing a platform ticket"

I've thought of another blue sign which stipulates prohibition rather than compulsion, a bus lane - buses only need to use it they are in service on that route and cars are not allowed.

Nice to see some cycles only against No Entry signs appearing too, hey we've even got a little advance bike mini traffic light where I live, shame it directs riders into a bike lane with a 20cm high kerb almost as soon as they cross the road!  compare that to my trip to Netherlands a couple of months ago; riding back to the Stayokay through an industrial area even a private gated railway siding into a factory had a proper 3 aspect colour light setup where the minor cycle lane crossed it!

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

That would mean pedestrians would be prohibited from using the carriageway in that place....

Not in the UK (I don't (EDIT *)know how to fix the fact that that blue pedestrians sign doesn't indicate compulsion in the UK) but UK shared used signs don't seem to 'cause' UK motorists to believe pedestrians may only cross at official crossings so I presumed not a problem....

*The round pedestrian-only sign doesn't seem to exist in UK so instead a square/rectangular informational one could be created and show the same symbol, thus causing no confusion

[Cudzoziemiec]

If you're going to use a blue pedestrian circle to mean "only for pedestrians" (the UK sense of the sign – if it existed) rather than "pedestrians must use this" (the 'Continental' sense) with a "bikes allowed" plate, then you could just use the fairly common UK bike + pedestrian blue circle which has exactly that meaning.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

But that causes confusion and leads to on-road cyclists being hassled:
round signs normally being compulsory (the round blue cycle ones are in other countries) thus I suggested 
a square informational sign indicating a footway for pedestrians with a small plate underneath saying cycling permitted is more subtle, more obviously optional, the cycling plate should be less noticable from a motor vehicle and so less lightly to result in hassle to on-road cyclists.

Thats how I read what Chris Juden was similarly saying.

[Cudzoziemiec]

He mentions "...an adjacent compulsory bikepath, denoted in Germany by a round blue sign." UK is one of the very few (maybe the only?) country in Europe where that round bue sign means "this must only be used by bikes" rather than "bikes must use this". Then he says that where the German cyclepaths are substandard "...there's just a black & white sign, indicating that cycling is merely permitted on the sidepath." So it's a path for walking on which cyclists are allowed to use too, which in the UK is indicated by the round blue "bike and person" sign.

So the UK round blue sign has the same meaning as the German square black and white sign. In most countries the round blue sign would mean "cyclists and pedestrians have to use this" but it doesn't here. It might be more logical if we used a square blue sign with a person and a bike to mean "cyclists and pedestrians can use this but they don't have to, and no one else is allowed to"; along the lines of a square blue bus lane sign, which buses (and cycles and taxis and sometimes coaches and sometimes motorbikes) don't have to use but no one else is allowed to. But we don't.

As for drivers being confused by round blue cycle lane signs, maybe, but I don't think being confused is why they hassle you; they hassle you just cos they're driving. Also, round blue signs don't always mean "compulsory"; for instance, there are some left/right turn signs with plates underneath to say everyone has to turn except buses or taxis or even cycles.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

They didn't hassle me as much where there are no such signs,,,,or in the past when again, no such signs existed...
I think a small plate saying cycling permitted is less noticable from the road, and if read doesn't imply banning from road.

[Martin]

They didn't hassle me as much where there are no such signs,,,,or in the past when again, no such signs existed...
I think a small plate saying cycling permitted is less noticable from the road, and if read doesn't imply banning from road.

it needs to be big enough to be read by pedestrians so they don't get irate too!

[Kim]

it needs to be big enough to be read by pedestrians so they don't get irate too!

It's not so much the size, it's the frequency.  Pedestrians travel slowly and usually aren't paying attention, so if there isn't a sign (or bike symbol painted on the path to show which side is for bikes) within visual range when a cyclist appears and they wonder if it's a shared path, they won't know about it.

Cyclists know which side of the path to use because they're paying attention, and because the markings come up much more quickly for them.  It's easy to forget the pedestrians probably haven't seen them.


This is one of the reasons that it's better to construct cycle paths as separate dedicated paths that look like a small road, rather than painting a line on a pavement.

[SA_SA_SA_SA]

Yes, I don't think painted dividers  should be used at all on shared routes because pedestrians just ignore them/fail to notice them (while breaking no laws) whereas they constrict the cyclist who  shouldn't really cross the paint to avoid a pedestrian...
Also, it usually just makes the cycle part too narrow. ie only ever use the blue round sign with flying cyclist for shared routes with no kerb-like separation.
 
IMO if separation is desired (and both halves will be wide enough) a physical barrier like a kerb should be used. But then if built from scratch and wide probably better to have a separating gap as well or just very wide cycle part so that space can be easily  given when cycling past pedestrians who are walking  near kerb edge.