Parking in Cycle Lane

DoaM

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Does it matter if the cycle lane is with solid or broken lines on the outside? There;s one in bexhill which has broken lines and the public park over it.

HC code already covers this as posted earlier ... solid lines = MUST NOT.

Car_54

DoaM wrote: »

Define "necessary".

Police: Was it necessary?
Driver: Yes, so I could get to work.

Is that necessary? Maybe not ... but what's the definition?

In the absence of a legal definition, a judge would normally consult a dictionary. "Necessary" normally implies essential or unavoidable.

That argument would be supported by the HC's stipluation that parking should only be when "unavoidable", which is an even higher hurdle.

mark1959

Can't you just park somewhere else?

Jackmydad

mark1959 wrote: »

Can't you just park somewhere else?

Is what I thought.
I really wouldn't want to fund a legal case to prove I was within my rights to do something I didn't need to do in the first place.

AdrianC

butbutbut... parking somewhere else means walking further...

Aylesbury_Duck

AdrianC wrote: »

butbutbut... parking somewhere else means walking further...

Or park further away and cycle in...

...oh, yeah, the road's blocked.

facade

Personally, I can't see why councils don't automatically paint double red lines along the kerb inside cycle lanes, what is the point of trying to seperate cyclists from the traffic when some selfish numpty can just park in the middle of it and force them back out into the traffic to go round?

I wish I were 30 years younger, and could do all those cycle tricks you see on youtube, I'd just jump it onto the bonnet/roof and ride over the top of the car

Aylesbury_Duck

facade wrote: »

I wish I were 30 years younger, and could do all those cycle tricks you see on youtube, I'd just jump it onto the bonnet/roof and ride over the top of the car

Nowadays it's trampolines doing those tricks, especially on Dacias.

Aretnap

Car_54 wrote: »

Really? I quoted the relevant law in post #5. There is no mention of inconvenience. The only question to be decided is whether the obstruction was necessary.

It's from case law, I believe. All parking on the road causes some degree of obstruction, and it's almost never "necessary" in the sense that you can always find a car park if you're willing to walk far enough - so a strict reading would make practically all on street parking illegal. To avoid that the courts have applied the de minimis principle and ruled that to constitute an offence you have to be causing something more than a trivial obstruction - which generally means that there has to be at least the possibility of it causing inconvenience. Parking in a cycle lane (even an advisory one) on a busy road probably meets that test - parking in a residential street where there's sufficient space for traffic to get by safely and with minimal delay probably doesn't.

Warwick_Hunt

Aretnap wrote: »

It's from case law, I believe. All parking on the road causes some degree of obstruction, and it's almost never "necessary" in the sense that you can always find a car park if you're willing to walk far enough - so a strict reading would make practically all on street parking illegal. To avoid that the courts have applied the de minimis principle and ruled that to constitute an offence you have to be causing something more than a trivial obstruction - which generally means that there has to be at least the possibility of it causing inconvenience. Parking in a cycle lane (even an advisory one) on a busy road probably meets that test - parking in a residential street where there's sufficient space for traffic to get by safely and with minimal delay probably doesn't.

It probably does as if you’re unable to pass safely it’s more than trivial.