Hills Road

[ewx]

Contrary to my previous understanding of the planned disruption in at least two ways, Hills Road is now one way southbound to motor traffic from OLEM all the way to Station Road (using the usually-northbound side of the road). There are also barriers placed to create a lane for northbound cycles.

• Press release
• Cambridge News article

Comments

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

The Road Traffic Act 1988 allows Construction and Use regulations for pedal cycles only in respect of brakes and bells (section 81 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1988/52/section/81)) and lights and reflectors (section 41(4)(b) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1988/52/section/41/4/b)). Only the latter apply to cycle trailers. Thus, while it's illegal to tow a trailer more than 1.5m wide behind a motorcycle, there's no such restriction on trailers drawn by a pedal cycle.

[gerald_duck]

So… if there's no maximum width for a bicycle (or cycle rickshaw, or whatever) how do they know how wide the contraflow lane has to be? And what happens if someone gets stuck?

It seems like a foolish omission. A motor vehicle is considered "abnormal" if it's wider than 2.9 metres, so presumably that's the minimum width they have to leave anywhere that doesn't have width limit signs. Shouldn't they have some similar reference point for bikes?

Hmm!

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

I think your presumption in incorrect: there's a general rule that the right to use a highway only extends to vehicles small enough to fit along it, so there's no need for a statutory width or height limit on narrow carriageways (but having one conveniently makes it an offence to exceed the limit).

For street works, there's a rule (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1991/22/section/66) that undertakers must not obstruct the street "to a greater extent or for a longer period than is reasonably necessary", which suggests the existence of a general right to cause reasonably necessary obstructions. In this case, blocking all motor vehicles is apparently considered reasonable, and I don't think that blocking cycles over some width is likely to be any worse.

[gerald_duck]

Sure, they can close the road completely in both directions for everyone if they need to. But presumably there is a requirement rather than just a convention that they indicate to road users in some way that they've done this, rather than just letting them fall into the hole they've dug?

Are they realy allowed to announce on signs that the road is still open for cyclicsts, only to trap cyclists in an impassable chicane a hundred yards later?

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

That requirement comes from the previous section (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1991/22/section/65), which requires that (inter alia) "such traffic signs are placed and maintained, and where necessary operated, as are reasonably required for the guidance or direction of persons using the street". There are also requirements to follow the instructions of the traffic authority and any guidance (http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/street-works-safety/) issued by the government.

In this case, I think the reasonableness requirement is enough -- it's reasonable to let the owners of abnormally-wide (say >1.5m wide) cycles fend for themselves, but if the lane is non-obviously narrow then the undertaker ought to place signs to indicate this.