Jump to content

Cycle Lane past station

Recommended Posts

That's not quite correct:

 

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

 

In this case Rule 145 is a legal requirement as it is identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'.

In this case the annotations to this "...MUST NOT..." refer to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (34),

"(1)

Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—

(a)

on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b)on any road being a footpath or bridleway,

.

he is guilty of an offence.

 

Section (19) refers to the offence of HGVs illegally parked on paths,verges etc.

Edited by Annie Bynnol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a lot of talk of blame in this thread. I don't think that helps. The issue is the design of the bike lanes. You ride on some parts of the cycle lanes in central london and you can see how things should be done. The bikes lanes in sheffield are a joke and I don't really blame pedestrians for walking in them because its not really obvious that they aren't supposed to. personally I tend to stick to roads although I do use the cycle lanes when it allows me to circumnavigate a red light in an entirely legal fashion and in a way that is respectful to other pavement users.

Edited by TimmyR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this case Rule 145 is a legal requirement as it is identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'.

In this case the annotations to this "...MUST NOT..." refer to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (34),

"(1)

Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—

(a)

on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b)on any road being a footpath or bridleway,

.

he is guilty of an offence.

 

Section (19) refers to the offence of HGVs illegally parked on paths,verges etc.

 

Are bicycles classed as motor vehicles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer question, it's badly designed. But there's too much traffic on the road. Cyclists (who ride erractly much of time) should be banned from stretches of road & forced to have insurance / test like other road users. Absurd that they don't.

 

It's also confusing for pedestrians to have lanes of traffic coming either way. One way bike lanes & two way roads.

Edited by chakademus
Confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are bicycles classed as motor vehicles?

 

No, because bicycles do not have motors/large enough motors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, because bicycles do not have motors/large enough motors.

 

That's what I thought... So that bit of legislation isn't relevant to the cycles under discussion. Other legislation is though.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 09:31 ----------

 

To answer question, it's badly designed. But there's too much traffic on the road. Cyclists (who ride erractly much of time) should be banned from stretches of road & forced to have insurance / test like other road users. Absurd that they don't.

 

It's also confusing for pedestrians to have lanes of traffic coming either way. One way bike lanes & two way roads.

 

Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead.

 

Children are quite reasonably allowed to cycle, at what age do you propose that they require a license? How are they supposed to learn?

What requirements are there to hold a provisional license and to ride a moped?

 

Insurance exists because cars when misused cause huge amounts of damage. Cycles on the other hand rarely cause anything except trivial damage. There is simply no argument for compulsory insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Rule 145. You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

 

it is not that difficult to understand.

 

You are missing the obvious by a country mile. I’m riding in a cycle lane. The pedestrians are walking in the cycle lane. I’m taking care to weave around the pedestrians whilst remaining in the cycle lane.

 

There is clearly some part of that which you can’t understand. Could you explain which part it is please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ride with a bit more care as I weave through the pedestrians who are walking in both the cycle lane and the foot path. its not difficult.

 

The bit in bold could be read to say that you cycle on the footpath where it isn't a cycle lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[/color]

 

Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead.

 

 

Get insurance & an objectively measured road test then you can make demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get insurance & an objectively measured road test then you can make demands.

 

I have insurance and a full driving license. I'm not making any demands though, you are. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have insurance and a full driving license. I'm not making any demands though, you are. :roll:

 

To ride a bicycle you dont.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 10:21 ----------

 

"Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To ride a bicycle you dont. [have an objectively measured road test]

 

because you are very unlikely to kill anyone riding a bike. The same is not true of a car. You don't need a licence/test/insurance for any of the following for exactly the same reason:

 

mobility scooter

wheelchair

lawnmower

scooter

skateboard

roller skates

walking

running

unicycling

 

 

Stop being ridiculous.

Edited by TimmyR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.