“An absolute mess” – Cycling UK slams confusing law on parking in cycle lanes

ktache - I might have misunderstood your point, but that's exactly the issue. At present, pavement parking outside London is not against the law and so cannot be penalised, even though it's self evident that a law must have been broken in order to get the car onto the pavement. DfT is recommending a change to that. It used to be the case that it was illegal for a vehicle to "use" a cycle lane, but in 2016 DfT downgraded this to "drive in", so the same situation now applies as with pavement parking - if nobody sees you actually drive it there, you can't be penalised.     

Outside London, parking on the pavement is not against the law.  Driving on the pavement is however illegal, how do the manage to get those vehicles onto the pavement without driving onto an on it?

The reporting hasn't been as clear as it should, it suggested that something had happened recently rather than over 3 years later, someone noticed something.

Although I'm not sure parking meets the exemptions of Part 7, Section 12 (3) to (5)

What I don't follow is the delineation of offences between different years. It's still the same markings.
Are there any other supposed anomalies in these 2 rather large documents?

Thanks, spotted that this morning - it postdates our speculation above, but seems to confirm what I guessed. Extract:

"the wording of the relevant law in TSRGD (remember that bible of traffic signs?) had changed. The 2002 version had said that the solid white line denoted a prohibition against mandatory cycle lanes being “used” by other vehicles during their hours of operation. The 2016 revision of TSRGD had replaced the word “used” with “driven, or ridden”... Absurdly, DfT initially tried to claim that using a mandatory cycle lane didn’t include parking in it – so nothing had changed. "  

Late to the party, but here's an in depth explanation by CyclingUK:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory...

spen - I suspect we're the only two people who care, but I think a cycle track is separate from the road, and a cycle lane is part of the road, and that they are treated differently:

The definition of cycle track in The Highways Act is actually as follows, in s.329: “cycle track” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles [F3(other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of [F4the Road Traffic Act 1988]] with or without a right of way on foot."

It's worth noting that "highway" in this context includes but it not limited to roads, because "cycle tracks", "carriageways", "footways" and "bridleways" are all defined in the same way, so they can all be considered forms or parts of a highway.

Rather than defining a cycle track, I think the section you've quoted basically clarifies that a highway authority can build a cycle track (as defined above) alongside a road without having to comply with certain requirements which would apply were it not alongside a road - it doesn't mean a cycle track is always on or alongside a road.

The TSRGD meanwhile distinguish between cycle tracks (as defined above) and cycle lanes, which are "part of a carriageway of a road". Rules 62 and 63 of The Highway Code (admittedly only guidance, not legislation) bears this out - it suggests that cycle tracks are "normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements" while cycle lanes are along the carriageway (i.e. road). In practice I expect this means a cycle track is physically separated from the road, e.g. by a kerb, while a cycle lane is part of the road. 

So my interpretation is that while you are right that s.21 RTA prohibits driving or parking on cycle tracks, it is not relevant to cycle lanes (which are part of the carriageway), but the TSRGD prohibit riding or driving (but not parking) a motor vehicle in a cycle lane. 

It's still a mess though.  

Quiff - the definition of a cycle track used in the RTA is from the Highways Act and dfines a cycle track as being "in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense"

I had a look at the TSRGD yesterday and compared the 2008 and 2019 versions and I couldn't see a change.  The TSRGD also only lays out what signs and road markings are to be used, not what can and cannot be done on the roads.

The online version of  section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the bit which governs parking in cycle lanes, shows no changes and no pending changes.

Can any one point to a link for the change? 

The only reasonable way out of this mess is to do away with the blunt instrument of solid lines versus dashed lines, and to introduce solid lines=no entry, no parking, and Morse-coded lines, or perhaps even Braille since so many drivers are obviously blind, specifying the times and conditions under which they may enter or park in the bike lane.

Maybe it’s like how it’s illegal to drive on a pavement, but if you park on it that’s fine, we won’t ask how you got there.

But what 2016 update ?

2016 No. 362
ROAD TRAFFIC
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

Mandatory with flow cycle lanes
12.—(1) This paragraph applies to the road marking provided for at item 7 of the sign table in Part 6—
(a) when that marking is being used to separate a cycle lane from another part of the carriageway; and
(b) where the direction of travel along the cycle lane and the part of the carriageway from which it is separated is the same.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5), the marking conveys the requirement that a vehicle, other than a pedal cycle, must not be driven, or ridden, in the cycle
lane during the cycle lane’s hours of operation (which may be all the time).
 

Can you provide a link to the SI that gives this new effect ?

How does this square with rule 243:
"Rule 243
DO NOT stop or park:
...
where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities

except when forced to do so by stationary traffic."