One/way street with cycle lane

[dangie]

A hypothetical question concerning one/way street with cycle lane. I hope this makes sense.

A street near to me is a one-way street. It has a cycle lane at the side. Cyclists going in the same direction as traffic use the main carriageway. Cyclists may ride the opposite direction by using the cycle lane as indicated by arrows on the cycle lane.

My question is: As is the case the cycle lane is often blocked by parked cars making the cycle lane totally unusable for cyclists. If a cyclist therefore cycled the ‘wrong way’ on the main carriageway could they in theory be breaking the law and maybe prosecuted? Would they have a good defence saying ‘I wanted to cycle on the cycle lane but couldn’t, it’s the owners of the parked cars who are really at fault?’

Note: This is not a cyclists vs motorists post, just a question.

 

[Crithylum]

I am no expert, but my feeling on this is that it is similar to if you have to go to the wrong side of a 2 way road to go past a parked car. Also depends if the cycle lane is marked by a solid or broken line. Although in the case of the former it may be dependent on the exact signage used to prohibit non-cycles in one direction. But don’t take this as legal advice

However, your local authority has done a terrible job by putting in a cycle lane, but making it unusable. Either do it properly, or don’t pretend to do it. Is it unenforced double yellow lines or did some designer think it was a good idea to make a contraflow cycle lane that may result in a head on collision?

As someone who cycles regularly, I would rather have no cycling specific infrastructure than pretend infrastructure

 

[AndrewE]

I think when we cycled in Belgium a couple of decades ago it was almost universal to see "No Entry" signs with a plate underneath saying "Except cycles" - but no other infrastructure at all! You just followed the rule of the road.
Interestingly now they seem to have a special sign saying "One way which applies to bikes too!" See https://www.google.com/maps/@50.842...47DJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
so I suspect that over there bikes are probably able to use most one-way streets in the "wrong" direction as a default.

 

[stuu]

No. You would double white lines separating the contraflow cycle lane and the opposite direction in order for it to be an actual offence, and I would bet very good money that the road doesn't have those

 

[AndrewE]

No. You would double white lines separating the contraflow cycle lane and the opposite direction in order for it to be an actual offence, and I would bet very good money that the road doesn't have those

even double white lines don't seem to have the importance that they used to: you can cross them nowadays to overtake a slow vehicle (e.g. a bike.) I don't know whether the prohibition on parking is still respected, or whether the use of a blue badge confers immunity here too?

 

[stuu]

even double white lines don't seem to have the importance that they used to: you can cross them nowadays to overtake a slow vehicle (e.g. a bike.) I don't know whether the prohibition on parking is still respected, or whether the use of a blue badge confers immunity here too?

Oh yes of course, so there's basically no way it could ever be considered an offence

 

[dangie]

No. You would double white lines separating the contraflow cycle lane and the opposite direction in order for it to be an actual offence, and I would bet very good money that the road doesn't have those

It has a single dashed line separating the carriageway from the cycle lane.

 

[E27007]

It has a single dashed line separating the carriageway from the cycle lane.

The cycle lane is marked by a broken (dash) line it is an advisory cycle lane, an ACL, If the lane is marked by a solid line it is a mandatory cycle.lane (MCL). It is an offence to drive a motor vehicle in an MCL,,however some jiggery pokery is in place, if the cycle lane was created post 2016, it is not necessarily an offence to park or drive a motor vehicle in an MCL!

 

[biko]

Interestingly now they seem to have a special sign saying "One way which applies to bikes too!" See https://www.google.com/maps/@50.842...47DJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

This isn't a sign showing one way which also applies to bikes (and it's in the Netherlands, not in Belgium). This is just a local thing in Maastricht as far as I know. I haven't seen it anywhere else. What they do is that they put signs underneath showing it's only applicable to motorised vehicles instead of excepting cyclists.

More on a more general note, on the continent, it just means cyclists can use the road in both directions and need to follow regular traffic rules. In the described situation, a cyclist would need to overtake the parked car and need to give priority on the oncoming cars as the obstacle is on its side of the road.

 

[dangie]

I’ve just the opportunity to discuss this with a recently retired police officer.
He says, yes they would be braking the law riding the wrong way on a one-way street, no matter what the reason i.e. parked cars.

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

 

[Falcon1200]

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

Hopefully he would also take action against the drivers of the parked cars who caused the situation in the first place.

 

[stuu]

I’ve just the opportunity to discuss this with a recently retired police officer.
He says, yes they would be braking the law riding the wrong way on a one-way street, no matter what the reason i.e. parked cars.

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

I don't see how, I think he's mistaken, or misunderstood that there was a signed contraflow cycle lane. I'm assuming the cycle lane is only separated from oncoming traffic by either a solid or dashed line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve just the opportunity to discuss this with a recently retired police officer.
He says, yes they would be braking the law riding the wrong way on a one-way street, no matter what the reason i.e. parked cars.

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

Yet another anti-cyclist copper that doesn't know the law. Quelle surprise.

The legal basis behind these as someone else said is that at that end there'll be a "no entry except cyclists" sign and an associated Traffic Regulation Order. The marked lanes are just to assist people - marked lanes don't generally (there are exceptions but not this context*) have any legal force in the UK.

* i.e. under no circumstances are cyclists required to ride in a cycle lane - it is there for their convenience. This isn't true in some other countries.

 

[E27007]

I’ve just the opportunity to discuss this with a recently retired police officer.
He says, yes they would be braking the law riding the wrong way on a one-way street, no matter what the reason i.e. parked cars.

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

The retired Police Officer may not have the expert knowledge in Traffic offences, he may notknow or understand cycle lane regulations (Advisory or Mandatory) with regard to motor vehicles driving or parking in them.

 

[dangie]

So are we saying a cyclist can legally cycle the 'wrong way' down a one way street?

 

[stuu]

So are we saying a cyclist can legally cycle the 'wrong way' down a one way street?

No, but signed contraflow lanes are legally recognised design, so if the lane is blocked then you can leave your lane, if safe to do so, in exactly the same way as on any other road

 

[Crithylum]

So are we saying a cyclist can legally cycle the 'wrong way' down a one way street?

It isn’t a one way street (for cyclists) if the signage indicating it is a one way street exempts cyclists. Broken (dashed) lines are almost always advisory and have crossing them is not an offence in itself (however in certain circumstances it may be “driving without reasonable consideration of other road users” or the cycling equivalent if crossed dangerously)

 

[Lewisham2221]

So are we saying a cyclist can legally cycle the 'wrong way' down a one way street?

No, but signed contraflow lanes are legally recognised design, so if the lane is blocked then you can leave your lane, if safe to do so, in exactly the same way as on any other road

Erm, yes, actually. Here's an example:
Percy St

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Probably TRO dependant, but a contraflow bike lane would already have the necessary TRO. Note that the example above has no cycle lane marking at all.

 

[johncrossley]

Allowing cycling two ways in a one-way street is very common in the Netherlands and is an easy and cheap way to provide infrastructure. No need for markings, just put up a sign. It seems there is no law in the UK against it anyway, but if there was one it would be daft and would benefit nobody.

 

[yorkie]

I’ve just the opportunity to discuss this with a recently retired police officer.
He says, yes they would be braking the law riding the wrong way on a one-way street, no matter what the reason i.e. parked cars.

He then said that if it were he who’d observed it, he would have a word in the offenders ear and advise them it may be better for them to walk and not do it again.

He is talking nonsense!

If a retired police officer tried telling me that, I'd be having words in their ear!

(Did they also have a job on the gateline at Paddington, Euston or a London Overground station by any chance? Making up such nonsense, they'd fit right in!)

Unfortunately, some people who work in a position of authority don't understand the limits of their knowledge and, instead of doing research, make things up, presumably in the hope that people will not question them.

.... In the described situation, a cyclist would need to overtake the parked car and need to give priority on the oncoming cars as the obstacle is on its side of the road.

Is the right answer!

So are we saying a cyclist can legally cycle the 'wrong way' down a one way street?

It's not materially different to a car driving the 'wrong way' (if you want to call it that!) when their lane of a two-way street is blocked by a parked car.

 

[Crithylum]

(Did they also have a job on the gateline at Paddington, Euston or a London Overground station by any chance? Making up such nonsense, they'd fit right in!)

This gave me a good laugh

 

[stuu]

Erm, yes, actually. Here's an example:

No, because it's clearly signed. That's different to a blanket allowance for cyclists to go down one way streets, which is what the question was

 

[AndrewE]

No, because it's clearly signed. That's different to a blanket allowance for cyclists to go down one way streets, which is what the question was

No, the original question was "It has a cycle lane at the side. Cyclists going in the same direction as traffic use the main carriageway. Cyclists may ride the opposite direction by using the cycle lane as indicated by arrows on the cycle lane" which is nothing to do with a blanket allowance.

 

[Lewisham2221]

No, because it's clearly signed. That's different to a blanket allowance for cyclists to go down one way streets, which is what the question was

Apologies if my original post wasn't clear, it was a rather rushed post.

I wasn't trying to say it was a blanket allowance, I said it was probably dependent on the relevant TRO being in place, but there was no underlying requirement for a contraflow cycle lane.

In the example I linked to, whilst there is a signed exception to the "no entry" sign, there is nothing to indicate to road users approaching from the other direction (those travelling the "correct" way down the street) that they may legally encounter cyclists heading travelling the "wrong" way.

In the OP's example, as many others have already said, a cyclist using the contraflow cycle lane would have as much right to use the other side of road to overtake stationary/slower moving vehicles as a motor vehicle would have on a regular road.

 

[stuu]

No, the original question was "It has a cycle lane at the side. Cyclists going in the same direction as traffic use the main carriageway. Cyclists may ride the opposite direction by using the cycle lane as indicated by arrows on the cycle lane" which is nothing to do with a blanket allowance.

Fair point, original was the wrong word to use, the question I was replying about was the post at 1424 this afternoon