On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
>news:W8xak.75338$GF6.53509@newsfe27.ams2...
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to see just the opposite - get rid of all special treatment for 
>>> cyclists such as green cycle lanes on roads so cyclists are not 
>>> encouraged to overtake on the left where drivers will not be able to see 
>>> them. In short, I think the HC should say "if a car isn't allowed to do 
>>> it, neither should a bike be allowed to".
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand why you think that, but it's not
>> going to happen. The cycle lanes are to encourage car
>> drivers to give cyclists some space. Works OK until some
>> tosser parks his car in the cycle lane.
>>
>> Stockport has stopped making them green - the green
>> stuff is too expensive, apparently!
>>
>But unless there's parking restrictions I assume that it's not illegal to 
>park. 
>
A bad mistake. There is no right to park and police can deal with any
vehicle "causing an obstruction"; in most cases this means that your
car might be hoisted round the corner (without being ticketed) if
something happening at short notice requires the road to be cleared
but some local authorities and police forces have in the past applied
the law strictly to vehicles which have not moved for over 24 hours
and are "causing an obstruction" by towing them away to the local
pound (albeit still "free" in some of those cases).

>After all you can't park in the middle of the road!
>Well ok you can, but I think the police would say something about it. 
>

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:inpl641kmfthprihpkcjpk12mqregnscil@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
>>news:W8xak.75338$GF6.53509@newsfe27.ams2...
>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see just the opposite - get rid of all special treatment 
>>>> for
>>>> cyclists such as green cycle lanes on roads so cyclists are not
>>>> encouraged to overtake on the left where drivers will not be able to 
>>>> see
>>>> them. In short, I think the HC should say "if a car isn't allowed to do
>>>> it, neither should a bike be allowed to".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really understand why you think that, but it's not
>>> going to happen. The cycle lanes are to encourage car
>>> drivers to give cyclists some space. Works OK until some
>>> tosser parks his car in the cycle lane.
>>>
>>> Stockport has stopped making them green - the green
>>> stuff is too expensive, apparently!
>>>
>>But unless there's parking restrictions I assume that it's not illegal to
>>park.
>>
> A bad mistake. There is no right to park and police can deal with any
> vehicle "causing an obstruction"; in most cases this means that your
> car might be hoisted round the corner (without being ticketed) if
> something happening at short notice requires the road to be cleared
> but some local authorities and police forces have in the past applied
> the law strictly to vehicles which have not moved for over 24 hours
> and are "causing an obstruction" by towing them away to the local
> pound (albeit still "free" in some of those cases).
>
Maybe so but the parking still isn't illegal. If you had to visit a property 
on that road you're not going to leave your vehicle clear of the cycle lane 
as then it would be in the middle of the road.

There's a cycle lane round here that the cyclists are demanding action to be 
taken. In the first instance they caused such a stink that the cycle lane 
was painted on the road. Now they say its not legally wide enough and 
vehicles encroach into it. The problem is that the road is so narrow that to 
pass a vehicle coming the other way you have no choice but to encroach into 
the cycle lane. Buses and lorry's have to travel encroached into the cycle 
lane for the whole length. Now they know why it was being refused before 
they kicked up a stink and it shouldn't have been provided in the first 
place as not enough room.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:55:03 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:inpl641kmfthprihpkcjpk12mqregnscil@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0100, "Stephen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
>>>news:W8xak.75338$GF6.53509@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see just the opposite - get rid of all special treatment 
>>>>> for
>>>>> cyclists such as green cycle lanes on roads so cyclists are not
>>>>> encouraged to overtake on the left where drivers will not be able to 
>>>>> see
>>>>> them. In short, I think the HC should say "if a car isn't allowed to do
>>>>> it, neither should a bike be allowed to".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't really understand why you think that, but it's not
>>>> going to happen. The cycle lanes are to encourage car
>>>> drivers to give cyclists some space. Works OK until some
>>>> tosser parks his car in the cycle lane.
>>>>
>>>> Stockport has stopped making them green - the green
>>>> stuff is too expensive, apparently!
>>>>
>>>But unless there's parking restrictions I assume that it's not illegal to
>>>park.
>>>
>> A bad mistake. There is no right to park and police can deal with any
>> vehicle "causing an obstruction"; in most cases this means that your
>> car might be hoisted round the corner (without being ticketed) if
>> something happening at short notice requires the road to be cleared
>> but some local authorities and police forces have in the past applied
>> the law strictly to vehicles which have not moved for over 24 hours
>> and are "causing an obstruction" by towing them away to the local
>> pound (albeit still "free" in some of those cases).
>>
>Maybe so but the parking still isn't illegal.
>
OTOH it is not "lawful" in the sense that there is no associated right
to do it and anything left on the road can be deemed to be an
"obstruction" which can be removed.

>If you had to visit a property 
>on that road you're not going to leave your vehicle clear of the cycle lane 
>as then it would be in the middle of the road.
>
The fact that a marked cycle lane exists should raise the question in
a motorist's mind of the possibility of an unnecessary obstruction
being caused by parking there as do other things (not requiring
specific signage) such as e.g. proximity to a junction, entrance,
pedestrian refuge, etc. where being ticketed/towed away is a
possibility.

>There's a cycle lane round here that the cyclists are demanding action to be 
>taken. In the first instance they caused such a stink that the cycle lane 
>was painted on the road. Now they say its not legally wide enough and 
>vehicles encroach into it. The problem is that the road is so narrow that to 
>pass a vehicle coming the other way you have no choice but to encroach into 
>the cycle lane. Buses and lorry's have to travel encroached into the cycle 
>lane for the whole length. Now they know why it was being refused before 
>they kicked up a stink and it shouldn't have been provided in the first 
>place as not enough room. 
>
A cycle lane does not necessarily involve prohibition of other traffic
using it by legal necessity/permission. IME cycle lanes as described
are only provided where they go against the flow (Camden/Hampstead) in
what is otherwise a one-way street with the onus being on other
traffic not to intrude (legally) into the cycle lane until it is
clear.

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:52in64lp1v2ko5t3ltgd2lj5sfbo6eihas@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:55:03 +0100, "Stephen" 
> wrote:
>
>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>>news:inpl641kmfthprihpkcjpk12mqregnscil@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
>>>>news:W8xak.75338$GF6.53509@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to see just the opposite - get rid of all special treatment
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> cyclists such as green cycle lanes on roads so cyclists are not
>>>>>> encouraged to overtake on the left where drivers will not be able to
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> them. In short, I think the HC should say "if a car isn't allowed to 
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> it, neither should a bike be allowed to".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really understand why you think that, but it's not
>>>>> going to happen. The cycle lanes are to encourage car
>>>>> drivers to give cyclists some space. Works OK until some
>>>>> tosser parks his car in the cycle lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stockport has stopped making them green - the green
>>>>> stuff is too expensive, apparently!
>>>>>
>>>>But unless there's parking restrictions I assume that it's not illegal 
>>>>to
>>>>park.
>>>>
>>> A bad mistake. There is no right to park and police can deal with any
>>> vehicle "causing an obstruction"; in most cases this means that your
>>> car might be hoisted round the corner (without being ticketed) if
>>> something happening at short notice requires the road to be cleared
>>> but some local authorities and police forces have in the past applied
>>> the law strictly to vehicles which have not moved for over 24 hours
>>> and are "causing an obstruction" by towing them away to the local
>>> pound (albeit still "free" in some of those cases).
>>>
>>Maybe so but the parking still isn't illegal.
>>
> OTOH it is not "lawful" in the sense that there is no associated right
> to do it and anything left on the road can be deemed to be an
> "obstruction" which can be removed.
>
In that case lets all go around with a pair of bolt cutters, cut off the 
padlocks and remove all the bicycles parked on the pavement deeming them to 
be causing an obstruction.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:49:20 +0100, "Stephen" 
wrote:

>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:52in64lp1v2ko5t3ltgd2lj5sfbo6eihas@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:55:03 +0100, "Stephen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message
>>>news:inpl641kmfthprihpkcjpk12mqregnscil@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0100, "Stephen" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:W8xak.75338$GF6.53509@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>>>> Mortimer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to see just the opposite - get rid of all special treatment
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> cyclists such as green cycle lanes on roads so cyclists are not
>>>>>>> encouraged to overtake on the left where drivers will not be able to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> them. In short, I think the HC should say "if a car isn't allowed to 
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> it, neither should a bike be allowed to".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really understand why you think that, but it's not
>>>>>> going to happen. The cycle lanes are to encourage car
>>>>>> drivers to give cyclists some space. Works OK until some
>>>>>> tosser parks his car in the cycle lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stockport has stopped making them green - the green
>>>>>> stuff is too expensive, apparently!
>>>>>>
>>>>>But unless there's parking restrictions I assume that it's not illegal 
>>>>>to
>>>>>park.
>>>>>
>>>> A bad mistake. There is no right to park and police can deal with any
>>>> vehicle "causing an obstruction"; in most cases this means that your
>>>> car might be hoisted round the corner (without being ticketed) if
>>>> something happening at short notice requires the road to be cleared
>>>> but some local authorities and police forces have in the past applied
>>>> the law strictly to vehicles which have not moved for over 24 hours
>>>> and are "causing an obstruction" by towing them away to the local
>>>> pound (albeit still "free" in some of those cases).
>>>>
>>>Maybe so but the parking still isn't illegal.
>>>
>> OTOH it is not "lawful" in the sense that there is no associated right
>> to do it and anything left on the road can be deemed to be an
>> "obstruction" which can be removed.
>>
>In that case lets all go around with a pair of bolt cutters, cut off the 
>padlocks and remove all the bicycles parked on the pavement deeming them to 
>be causing an obstruction. 
>
ITYF Westminster and other councils (in their role as Highway
Authority) have been doing that for a long time. If "we" do it "we"
can expect to be nicked.