Form two lanes when cycle lane is not in use

[YahudaMoon]

This popped up last week after the A57 Hyde Rd Manchester decided to add a cycle lanes. Great !

But whats going on here with this sign ?. Its clearly instructing motorist to form two lanes. Also as you can see from the picture the road goes to the right so there could be cyclist there ? Also when is the cycle lane not in use ?
Or to put it another way when is the road not in use ? This sign has really annoyed me. Do I have a case to have it removed ?

[greenmeansgo]

Yes, do write to the council about this. It's bloody ridiculous. The A57 isn't the nicest of roads to cycle along as it is, and with this sign there might as well not be a cycle lane.

I'm not generally a big fan of cycle lanes, but the bits on that road are actually not bad, and it's pointless to have a cycle lane with a sign that says to drive in it if you can't see a cyclist. As you said, are cars going to all pull into one lane as a cyclist approaches? Not without blue flashing lights I shouldn't imagine.

[clarion]

Unless there are times of operation for that lane, then that is a ridiculous sign.

[YahudaMoon]

@ clarion. No times of operation as far as I know ? Its one of those cycle lanes that goes dot dash dot. Same on the other side of the road. I've not seen this sign on the other side of the road, I'm going to check and see if theres more stupid signs before my complaint.

@ greenmeensgo. Exactly ! pointless in having a cycle lane in the first place.

[numbnuts]

If they removed all the traffic signs, bus stops and the pedestrians they could have three lanes 

[Si_Co]

@ clarion. No times of operation as far as I know ? Its one of those cycle lanes that goes dot dash dot. Same on the other side of the road. I've not seen this sign on the other side of the road, I'm going to check and see if theres more stupid signs before my complaint.

@ greenmeensgo. Exactly ! pointless in having a cycle lane in the first place.

There did used to be operation times but I think the signs have been removed

[Regulator]

@ clarion. No times of operation as far as I know ? Its one of those cycle lanes that goes dot dash dot. Same on the other side of the road.

Then it is not a mandatory cycle lane (i.e. it is not mandatory for motorists to keep out of it if there are no cyclists using it).  I think the sign is perhaps acknowledgement (albeit it unintentional) that most motorists have little understanding of the Highway Code and roads law...

[YahudaMoon]

I wanna set it on fire.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

Then it is not a mandatory cycle lane (i.e. it is not mandatory for motorists to keep out of it if there are no cyclists using it).  I think the sign is perhaps acknowledgement (albeit it unintentional) that most motorists have little understanding of the Highway Code and roads law...

I agree with you there Regulator.
As someone who got a driving licence (errr... ahem) years ago, I doubt that I have ever formally been taught about:
*) zig-zags around pedestrian crossings
*) advanced stop lines for cyclists
*) different markings for cycle lanes
*) I'll throw in my own bugbear here - the rule about giving way to people crossign the road when you turn into a minor road


Back in the day there were Public Information Films which updated your knowledge on these things - indeed if I'm not wrong there was one on the zig-zag lines. These days Public Information Films none - and you would think with the advent of YouTube then you could combine both broadcast and internet information films.

However, another point if I may. Today's road environment in cities is extraordanarily cluttered with road markings and signs.
I doubt if there is a single stretch of major road near me in London which has a continuous stretch of single white lines.
You have bus lanes, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, one way systems, left turn only lanes - the list goes on.
I genuinely do think this makes driving a lot more difficult.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying bus lanes are a bad idea, jsut that there is a huge amount of visual clutter.
I find it is a lot easier to drive along (say) the Embankment which is a route I know well - so I know when to bear right or left to get in the correct lane.
On unknows roads in London I'm a lot more anxious.


I don't have the answer, but the point I'm trying to get across is - do we really need all this white paint, and don't get me started on the blue paitn of cycle superhighways.


ps. the new CS route on the Embankment going past Millbank has wide blue lanes - with solid white lines.
How many drivers know that this is a mandatory lane and they must not drive there? How many would honour it even if they know?

[clarion]

The only drivers I've spoken to who had heard of mandatory cycle lanes thought that it was mandatory for cyclists to use them

[Regulator]

The only drivers I've spoken to who had heard of mandatory cycle lanes thought that it was mandatory for cyclists to use them

Yep - just proves how few motons know anything about the law.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The only drivers I've spoken to who had heard of mandatory cycle lanes thought that it was mandatory for cyclists to use them

To be fair to them (aw, do we have to?) that is what the name suggests. That's no excuse for not knowing the law, but as SOTR has pointed out, many of these things are new inventions since people learnt to drive and there is a distinct lack of public information. Perhaps an (other) argument here for limited-term driving licences? But until we get those, and even after, it would help if things were given simple, self-explanatory names, and generally uncluttered. Is there even a need for non-mandatory cycle lanes? I'm sure (I haven't checked) that the legislation allows for motor vehicles to enter mandatory cycle lanes "where unavoidable" so why not make them all mandatory, and just call them "cycle lanes" or "cycle-only lanes"? It would at least be simpler.

[Honest John]

The only drivers I've spoken to who had heard of mandatory cycle lanes thought that it was mandatory for cyclists to use them

Yep - just proves how few motons know anything about the law.

Most motorists know f*ck all about traffic law. And don't want to. It goes with using the term "road fund disc".

[teethgrinder]

It's easy to find out what all the changes are and new road markings. Just buy the latest edition of the Highway Code and you'll be up to date. Of course, nobody is obliged to keep up to date with the current HC once they get a driving licence and I expect that most never knew all of the HC when they did get their licence all those years ago and have forgotten half of what they did know way back then, while other bits have been interpreted the way they like.

We wouldn't need painted cycle lanes in the gutter of roads in the first place if people drove their cars the way they are supposed to.
Motorists have no choice but to drive in the (very wide) non mandatory cycle lanes outside Ambleside Youth Hostel. The bit in the middle of the road which isn't a cyclepath is too narrow for two cars to pass. I think they should do that on all roads, it seems to work in getting motorists to overtake how they should do in the first place.

[rogerzilla]

So...drivers are supposed to keep switching lanes as they come across cyclists?  Idiotic.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

Teethgrinder makes a good point. I talked to a council highway engineer at an exhibition where they put forward plans to alter a local road - wide, quite ordinary road. You know the treatments - raised entrance tables, pinch points, central 'refuge' islands. Tellingly, the plan also had hatched markings in the centre of the road. Highway chappie admitted they have no legal meaning - but they serve to introduce uncertainty into drivers minds. I believe highway engineers like much white paint for that reason, and as far as I'm concerned many cycle lanes are put in as Teethgrinder says as effectively road narrowing schemes - not to benefit cyclists.

[mattc]

Not reading the HC is a poor excuse for driving in a MCL;
it's a solid white line, a pretty standard convention for showing where you shouldn't be driving!

[Regulator]

Not reading the HC is a poor excuse for driving in a MCL;
it's a solid white line, a pretty standard convention for showing where you shouldn't be driving!

Except that you can drive in a MCL outside its hours of operation...

Rule 140 of the Highway Code:


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.

...but how many councils actually put up the proper hours of operation signage?

[Fab Foodie]

The only drivers I've spoken to who had heard of mandatory cycle lanes thought that it was mandatory for cyclists to use them

Sadly, I didn't know this .... 

[mattc]

Not reading the HC is a poor excuse for driving in a MCL;
it's a solid white line, a pretty standard convention for showing where you shouldn't be driving!

Except that you can drive in a MCL outside its hours of operation...

OK Greg, you can have a Smug Pedantry Point!

But as a driver would need to know the rule to know that he could cross the line at specific times, I don't think the main thrust of my post is in any way undermined. So there!

[ScumOfTheRoad]

Again sorry to be London centric, but look at the mandatory cycle lane running south across Waterloo Bridge. Useless as a chocolate teapot.
It is within a bus lane - so during the day you contend with buses on the starboard side.
During the evening the cycle lane is outwith hours of operation and parking is allowed - which results in a line of cars parked whilst owners walk down the stairs to the National Theatre etc.

[gordon taylor]

We wouldn't need painted cycle lanes in the gutter of roads in the first place if people drove their cars the way they are supposed to.
Motorists have no choice but to drive in the (very wide) non mandatory cycle lanes outside Ambleside Youth Hostel. The bit in the middle of the road which isn't a cyclepath is too narrow for two cars to pass. I think they should do that on all roads, it seems to work in getting motorists to overtake how they should do in the first place.

Standard road markings in the countryside in the Netherlands look like this:



The effect is dramatic.

[Feline]

We wouldn't need painted cycle lanes in the gutter of roads in the first place if people drove their cars the way they are supposed to.
Motorists have no choice but to drive in the (very wide) non mandatory cycle lanes outside Ambleside Youth Hostel. The bit in the middle of the road which isn't a cyclepath is too narrow for two cars to pass. I think they should do that on all roads, it seems to work in getting motorists to overtake how they should do in the first place.

Standard road markings in the countryside in the Netherlands look like this:



The effect is dramatic.

Don't you tend to get more punctures though since the car tyres don't clear debris off side of the road?

[gordon taylor]

Not that I've noticed - cars have to use the cycle lanes quite a lot (because the centre lane is nowhere near wide enough for two cars to pass) the difference is that they have to slow down and filter behind any cyclists or pedestrians that are already there. Roads like that make a dramatic statement about equality.

Many British drivers would have apoplexy, but it just makes perfect sense in the Netherlands.

[Cudzoziemiec]

What happens with side roads in the Dutch system? Do the markings continue in a straight line past the junction, or is there any break?