citywomble wrote:Actually, having investigated this in more depth, I believe that a painted bike symbol may well make it a bike lane. Apart from the qualifier you have mentioned, the 'definitions' are essential reading.
What is very relevant is that the definition of a SIGN includes road markings. So a road marking is a lawful 'sign' and bike lanes indicated by the bike road marking should, therefore, be a legal bike lane.
Yes I am aware of your thoughts on that aspect, however Regulation 3 states:
bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane —
(a) beginning at a “bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane; and
(b) ending at the nearest of the following:
(i) an “end bicycle lane” sign applying to the lane;
(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken
side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);
(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end — the end of the carriageway;
Note There are a number of other permitted versions of the “bicycle lane” sign, and another permitted version of the “end bicycle lane” sign.
The bicycle lane signs or symbols if you prefer as given in the Regulations contain the word "lane" with I assume the intention of clearly communicating the existence of lane. I would assume that bicycle lane road markings would have to do the same so that a user can clearly determine that is in fact a bicycle lane and not a shallow or shoulder. Interesting the only bicycle lanes I am aware of all signed as per the examples in the regulations.
I haven't yet found any information on the other "permitted versions" but would assume that they again would have to clearly communicate that a lane is in fact a bicycle lane as defined.
BTW maybe being pedantic but the bicycle lane definition specifically refers to a bicycle lane sign not a road sign .... that may be a critical distinction more so given the way the phrase "road sign" is used in the regulations.
Andrew