Cyclists to ride against the traffic

Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted
--
geomannie

"geomannie" wrote in message
...
Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the
City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the wrong
way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking
traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and then being
hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see benefits
to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted

Agreed that the more widely adopted it becomes, the more pedestrians
'should' learn to check both ways, but it is a real problem.
Cyclists will have to ride on those roads with an expectation that
pedestrians may well step out into their path

It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent'
electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge
whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get
one!.

geomannie wrote:
Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"


I hope its implemented better than in Ipswich - there are some back
streets in the roads between the main shopping area/St Matthews Street
and Princes Street towards the station and they are lethal.

Cars parked down 1 side, single lane for road traffic (mostly buses)
then an against the flow bike lane on what are narrow streets with
fairly tight corners.

I'll walk that bit thanks.

OG wrote:
"geomannie" wrote in message
...
Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the
City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs



It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent'
electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge
whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get
one!.



Yes but we would need to ring them all the time. Anyone make lightweight
cow-bells ?



--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:04 +0000, geomannie
wrote:

Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted


Well - if you had not snipped the word "illegally" out of the AA
quote - then it would have made different sense.

So the quote - was in fact - not a quote - well done - typical urc
behaviour.





judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:04 +0000, geomannie
wrote:

Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted


Well - if you had not snipped the word "illegally" out of the AA
quote - then it would have made different sense.

So the quote - was in fact - not a quote - well done - typical urc
behaviour.


Yes, but he also snipped the word 'nearly' from the AA quote; as in
'nearly being hit ...'. Does this mean you are selective in your
objections to misquotation?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:51:36 +0000, OG
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:28:04 +0000, geomannie
wrote:

Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted


Well - if you had not snipped the word "illegally" out of the AA
quote - then it would have made different sense.

So the quote - was in fact - not a quote - well done - typical urc
behaviour.


Yes, but he also snipped the word 'nearly' from the AA quote; as in
'nearly being hit ...'. Does this mean you are selective in your
objections to misquotation?

What the AA are actually quoted as saying:
"On a number of one-way streets we have witnessed problems with
pedestrians checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out on to
the road, and then nearly being hit by cyclists riding illegally the
wrong way."


Thanks - No - just that I didn't notice that omission - he is
obviously more devious than I thought.

geomannie wrote:
Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted


I don't know if you have noticed but your cut & paste is wrong, it
should be
"we have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the
one-direction, stepping out on to the road, and then nearly being hit by
cyclists riding *illegally* the wrong way."

--
Tony the Dragon

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in the
City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

....
...
...
Agreed that the more widely adopted it becomes, the more pedestrians
'should' learn to check both ways, but it is a real problem.
Cyclists will have to ride on those roads with an expectation that
pedestrians may well step out into their path

It's just like the way that pedestrians step out in front of 'silent'
electric cars because they sometimes just use auditory clues to judge
whether there is a car behind them. Bells needed - thinks I must get
one!.

Pedestrians on my London commute (and probably most other places) often step
out without looking, particularly when it's raining or windy. Happens about
once every month or three.

I ride on the correct side of the road in the correct direction.

They are relying on their hearing so step out if they don't hear any
motorised vehicles. They usually seem very surprised as I go past them.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:33:34 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

geomannie wrote:
Headline

"Cyclists will be allowed to ride the wrong way up one-way streets in
the City in a new scheme to encourage more people to ride to work in the
Square Mile"

Source the Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/dcnuqs

Seems a very good idea but poorly reported by the Standard. If cyclists
are allowed to ride in both directions then they are not going "the
wrong way". The AA completely fail to recognise this point and went all
curmudgeonly. Quote- "We have witnessed problems with pedestrians
checking traffic in the one-direction, stepping out into the road, and
then being hit by cyclists riding the wrong way".

Except it will now be "the right way". As long as it obvious to
pedestrians that the road has two-way traffic then I can only see
benefits to over-all traffic flow.

I hope that this is more widely adopted


I don't know if you have noticed but your cut & paste is wrong, it
should be
"we have witnessed problems with pedestrians checking traffic in the
one-direction, stepping out on to the road, and then nearly being hit by
cyclists riding *illegally* the wrong way."

And as someone else has pointed out the cut and paste "lost" the word
"nearly" as well

It is very unusual for a cut and past to make these sort of mistakes.

I must admit I don't understand how it happened - unless he went to
the Chapman school of ****wittery.