One way streets

On 17 Sep, 21:03, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message

And are they going to post warning signs all along the affected roads
so that motorists don't get caught out by this? *Sounds like a really
dumb idea to me.

One would hope that there would be some signage to warn drivers that there
may be cyclists approaching them. Will they, for example, paint a cycle lane
for that contra-flowing cycle traffic (as has been done for years and years
and years along Downing Street in Cambridge)?

Please not this.

I have to agree the proposal of cyclists going against the flow of
motor traffic sounds like an epicly stupid and dangerous idea to me in
any case, but if magic paint is used to section off a lane for
cyclists, in many cases that lane will necessarily be much too narrow
for safety, and motorists will feel permitted to bully cyclists into
it.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090919005327.1aaaece0@bluemoon...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:00:02 +0100
"David Lloyd" wrote:

Contraflow cycle lanes are nothing new and, IMHO, nothing to get
worked up about. The problem may arise if the council try to do
things on the cheap and forget about painting in the cycle lane.

That was how it sounded to me - stick an "Except cycles" panel under the
no entry and one way signs and then just leave them to it.


Hmmmm.... roadkill alley.

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 17 Sep, 21:03, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message

And are they going to post warning signs all along the affected roads
so that motorists don't get caught out by this? Sounds like a really
dumb idea to me.
One would hope that there would be some signage to warn drivers that there
may be cyclists approaching them. Will they, for example, paint a cycle lane
for that contra-flowing cycle traffic (as has been done for years and years
and years along Downing Street in Cambridge)?

Please not this.

I have to agree the proposal of cyclists going against the flow of
motor traffic sounds like an epicly stupid and dangerous idea to me in
any case, but if magic paint is used to section off a lane for
cyclists, in many cases that lane will necessarily be much too narrow
for safety, and motorists will feel permitted to bully cyclists into
it.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

Tell me why you should not use the marked lane?

--

Tony Dragon

In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote:
On 17 Sep, 21:03, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message

And are they going to post warning signs all along the affected roads
so that motorists don't get caught out by this? =A0Sounds like a really
dumb idea to me.

One would hope that there would be some signage to warn drivers that ther=
e
may be cyclists approaching them. Will they, for example, paint a cycle l=
ane
for that contra-flowing cycle traffic (as has been done for years and yea=
rs
and years along Downing Street in Cambridge)?

Please not this.

I have to agree the proposal of cyclists going against the flow of
motor traffic sounds like an epicly stupid and dangerous idea to me in
any case, but if magic paint is used to section off a lane for
cyclists, in many cases that lane will necessarily be much too narrow
for safety, and motorists will feel permitted to bully cyclists into
it.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

I haven't measured the lane, but it is probably 75-100 cm, including
the gutter, immediately adjacent to a busy pavement from which
pedestrians often step off. I generally avoided it, and dropped to
jogging speed and even stopped for adjacent pedestrians and motor
traffic when I did use it.

Luckily, Downing Street is in the centre of the city, where few
vehicles exceed 20 MPH, and the road is wide enough for a decent
lane except in one section (which is actually in Pembroke Street).
Incidents are common, but I haven't seen anyone seriously injured
there yet.

There are MUCH worse places for contra-flow lanes in Cambridge,
some of which have already been perpetrated.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Tony Dragon wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Please not this.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

Tell me why you should not use the marked lane?

If a pedestrian steps off the narrow pavement too close in front
of me, I will (NOT may) be knocked off onto the road in front of
the oncoming motor traffic. Will that do?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote:
In article ,
Tony Dragon wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
Please not this.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.
Tell me why you should not use the marked lane?

If a pedestrian steps off the narrow pavement too close in front
of me, I will (NOT may) be knocked off onto the road in front of
the oncoming motor traffic. Will that do?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

So don't use that road then.

--

Tony Dragon

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:36:57 +0100 (BST), wrote:

In article ,
Tony Dragon wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Please not this.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

Tell me why you should not use the marked lane?

If a pedestrian steps off the narrow pavement too close in front
of me, I will (NOT may) be knocked off onto the road in front of
the oncoming motor traffic. Will that do?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


One of the risks of cycling in urban streets - I've told you it's
dangerous.

Live with it (or otherwise)

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

In article ,
Tony Dragon wrote:
In article ,
Tony Dragon wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
Please not this.

Welcome to the killing zone, again.

Tell me why you should not use the marked lane?

If a pedestrian steps off the narrow pavement too close in front
of me, I will (NOT may) be knocked off onto the road in front of
the oncoming motor traffic. Will that do?

So don't use that road then.

I didn't. You, however, asked a naive question, and I was informing
you as to one reason.

As I have posted elsewhere, the problem is that the Highways Authorities
may make the alternative road routes too dangerous for many or most
cyclists, and respond to complaints by saying "If you aren't confident
enough to use the road, you can use the alternative cycle facility."
Where the latter is a narrow contra-flow lane sandwiched between a
busy pavement and a busy all-vehicle lane.

Given that situation, there is often only one rational solution, and
that is to follow the recommendations of the ineffable Clarkson,
Smith et al. God help us all.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

According to the free arsewipe this evening, Chelsington will be
trialling an "except cyclists" exemption to be signed under No Entry
and One Way signs, as a pilot for allowing cyclists to ride against
the flow in one-way streets.

It seems like an idiotic idea to me, unless I have misunderstood some
basic idea about it. Every pedestrian crossing the road is likely to be
looking for traffic in one direction only, just for a start.

Daniele

D.M. Procida wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

According to the free arsewipe this evening, Chelsington will be
trialling an "except cyclists" exemption to be signed under No Entry
and One Way signs, as a pilot for allowing cyclists to ride against
the flow in one-way streets.

It seems like an idiotic idea to me, unless I have misunderstood some
basic idea about it. Every pedestrian crossing the road is likely to
be looking for traffic in one direction only, just for a start.

Unless things have changed significantly in that area over recent years,
there are many two way roads and so pedestrians will be perfectly used to
looking both ways for approaching traffic. There is a similar facility in
Piccadilly that allows specific classes of road user to travel against the
standard "one way" flow and if there had been any significant problems with
that I'm sure it would have been publicised.