Wrong way up one way streets to become legal!

[Wendy]

I must admit I'm not sure it's a good idea, but let's see!

[Regulator]

It works in other places because drivers are tolerant of cyclists and because they have to prove their innocence when an interface between the two occur. We need that law.

Most drivers are tolerant of cyclists.  We need to make the sizeable minority who aren't more tolerant.  Unfortunately, this won't happen voluntarily or easily - respect for other road users will need to be drummed into them.

However, I see this as a positive step towards that.  It's about elevating cycling from being something in the margins to a mode fo transport which has privileges in its own right. 

[nuttycyclist]

Am I alone in thinking that this is a terminally craptacular idea, then?

No, you are not alone.  As soon as I saw the thread I winced and groaned.


I do believe there are some situations where a contraflow lane might be a good idea (although I really dislike them too thanks to the fact that drivers people may not be aware and so only look in the direction of motorised traffic flow before crossing the lane). 

I also think there are places where a false one way can work, for example where a rat run is closed simply by putting a no-entry sign on the junction, but allowing cyclists to pass that sign.  The entire road is two way, but motorised traffic can't enter the road from one end.   Again though, unfortunately, I've had instances where the motorist reversed off their drive into me having only looked in the direction that motorised vehicles would come from.

Yes I admit that both of the above examples could be resolved through educating drivers, but if we had that we wouldn't need a lot of the dedicated infrastructure  (even though dedicated cycling infrastructure can make the situation more dangerous ).


However, the worst thing about this, as I see it, is that it's only going to be allowed in one borough of London.  As a semi-regular visitor to London I only know I'm in "London", I never know which borough I'm in.  Therefore how do I know when I have to obey the highway code, and when the highway code no longer applies?   Similarly, how many people will see this news and then start illegally riding the wrong way up one way streets thinking they're in the right?

[Regulator]

[However, the worst thing about this, as I see it, is that it's only going to be allowed in one borough of London.  As a semi-regular visitor to London I only know I'm in "London", I never know which borough I'm in.  Therefore how do I know when I have to obey the highway code, and when the highway code no longer applies?   Similarly, how many people will see this news and then start illegally riding the wrong way up one way streets thinking they're in the right?

'Cos signs similar to those above will be clearly displayed where you can use a one way contraflow...

Easy-peasy to tell whether you can do it or not!

[Jaded]

Captain Gatso is the utter tool who insists on wearing a balaclava to interviews.  When challenged about ignoring speed limits he replied with 'it's just a number'.  Complete tosser.

And he gets a voice in The Times!

Yes, and we should be thankful for that.

The vast majority of ordinary people will see him for what he is. What cyclists didn't need is the anti side being represented by someone quite normal.

To be honest though, I think that Captain Gatso was outdone by Jon Snow and his statement that you pong too much if you cycle over 15 minutes.

[matthew]

The only new bit is the lack of white paint to mark out the lane.

Birmingham has some bits like this on Hill street, Hurst street and Inge street and has had for years map - here.

And if Tiff wants to block this on the basis of RLJers can we block every new road and road widening on the basis of speeders?

Matthew

[gonzo]

'Cos signs similar to those above will be clearly displayed where you can use a one way contraflow...

I wonder how much it'll cost to roll out the sign posting across the country based on the £1400 laptop thread?

[Butterfly]

I think the lack of a marked contraflow is a good idea - you won't have to pogo over the delivery vans to stay legal. It needs to become a wide spread thing as fast as possible, so that drivers are conditioned to expect it.

[MSeries]

If they did this in the city in which I live it wouldn't make a great deal of difference to me. I can't think of any one way streets I'd want to ride up the other way. The city centre has reasonably good bus/bike/taxi lanes that take the direct routes, bike paths that act as cut throughs to get to where one really wants to be without having to use the busy one way sections in either direction. There are some roads where it definitely wouldn't happen, just too busy. I can imagine scenarios where cyclist would prefer a direct contra-fow route but we all can't have everything.

[andygates]

Hm, I ain't convinced - but it might work.  One way to find out.

[MSeries]

Hm, I ain't convinced - but it might work.  One way to find out.

It'll work, eventually. But I worry about the number of SMIDSY incidents that will happen first. Cyclist and motorcyclists don't get seen because drivers don't look properly, they don't expect anything to be there because usually there isn't, it's instinctive. Now we are talking about allowing cyclist to be in places where there formerly were not.

[Seineseeker]

Like MSeries says it will take time for people to accept it. I think its a good idea in the long run, if not the short term!

I'd also like to be able to turn right (left in the UK) through red lights where it is safe to do so. You can do this in the US I think.

[токамак]

In Sydney it's permissible for cars to turn left at a junction on red lights. It led to much confusion (for me) for the first couple of months I was there, but once acclimatised it seemed like a pretty good system.

[tatanab]

"Daniel Moylan, deputy leader of the Conservative-controlled council, was persuaded of the need to make the change after noticing that hundreds of cyclists a day were ignoring no-entry signs on a street near his home.   He told The Times: “If this is what bicyclists want to do and they can do it safely, then we see it as our responsibility to adapt the legal position to allow them to do it legally. "

So you can get a law changed just by ignoring it!  Music to the ears of speeding motorists etc.

A sad day for cycling if this comes about.

[Jakob]

I'm not sure why this is such a huge step when it's legal on some streets already.  With appropriate signposting it works fine.

Because in those streets, as I understand it, you aren't  technically going the wrong way as a contraflow lane has been created (usually by the application of green or white paint).  Here, no such lanes will be created.  You will simply have the right to travel against traffic.

Not all of them. Soho St (Between Oxford St & Soho Square) has an initial bike lane for a few meters and then nothing else.

[Pete]

There are several existing such arrangements in Brighton already: signed and painted contra cycle lanes.

I tend to avoid them.  Put me down as one of the 'anti's - or at least, one of the 'hesitants'.  I feel happier going with the flow.

[Regulator]

I'm not sure why this is such a huge step when it's legal on some streets already.  With appropriate signposting it works fine.

Because in those streets, as I understand it, you aren't  technically going the wrong way as a contraflow lane has been created (usually by the application of green or white paint).  Here, no such lanes will be created.  You will simply have the right to travel against traffic.

Not all of them. Soho St (Between Oxford St & Soho Square) has an initial bike lane for a few meters and then nothing else.

But the proposed scheme is different in that there will not be initial bike lines.  It will simply be the right to ride against the flow.  This may sound minor, but I believe it is a significant move forward.  It's not about providing 'facilities' but about providing additional rights for cyclists.

[Charlotte]

Exactly, Regulator.

For once, the powers that be are listening.  We don't need white lines or special lanes.  Just the legal framework to ride quickly and safely.

Put me down as one of the 'anti's - or at least, one of the 'hesitants'.  I feel happier going with the flow.

Fine, you do that.  But don't stand in the way of a scheme that's going to safely make the traffic flow faster in places where it needs to.

[Martin]

Am I alone in thinking that this is a terminally craptacular idea, then?

no; unless they are going to paint the traditional 50cm green stripe down the LHS of the road with  bike on and do something to educate drivers that said green stripe does not mean "please park here". Remember we are dealing with motorists here; who think that cyclists who don't ride on the "compulsory" pavement with a bike painted on deserve to be shouted  / hooted at or passed with 2cm clearance.

You can argue all you like about cyclists' right to share the road etc etc but I Choose Life

[JJ]

There are a couple of streets like this in Cambridge.  It's fine if there's nothing coming the other way, but woe betide you if you come face to face with a bus or taxi in a narrow section.  Perhaps if it becomes generally expected then there may be a little more give and take, but I'm not holding my breath.  TBH the streets with marked contraflow lanes are not much better.  I've had people drive in and block them to tell me I'm going the wrong way.

Personally I'd settle for being treated as traffic with a right to be on the carriageway and obeying the same rules as the rest, and never mind cycle lanes, cycle paths, contraflows and the rest. 

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that either.

[Seak]

We've had these in Stoke Newington / Hackney for some while now. Not seen any problems yet.

It's a thoroughly sensible way to use one-way systems to cut down on rat running while improving the quiet road network for cyclists.

[nuttycyclist]

....  This may sound minor, but I believe it is a significant move forward.  It's not about providing 'facilities' but about providing additional rights for cyclists.

Exactly, Regulator.

For once, the powers that be are listening.  We don't need white lines or special lanes.  Just the legal framework to ride quickly and safely.

...

I too agree that it is excellent news that the "framework" is becoming separated (can I say segregated?) from white paint and solid infrastructure, but I am hesitant about the potential next step of cyclists travelling "anywhere" - especially outside of the expected rules.

Of course, as a cyclist I would love to be able to ride "quickly and safely" down the centre of Southend (or any other) pedestrianised high street, or to follow the Cornish Coast Path along the top of the cliffs whenever I'm down that way visiting relatives, or to dive off along pavements to avoid a red light (or to jump them altogether if the road is clear) or cut through from one cul-de-sac to another.   I also know that, in the main, this does work "abroad" where they are more lenient and relaxed.

However, one only has to look at the letters pages of the local rags to see the conflict there is between pedestrians and the "two wheeled menace" to see that it's going to be a long long time before we get to that state of urban utopia.  Even where we are allowed to ride, shared use or segregated paths, we still don't get pleasure due to pedestrians (with priority) walking in front of us.  The irresponsible few perpetuate this image of cyclists, and we all suffer for it.  Amending the law so that we can ride in these locations won't achieve anything, we'd still have the irresponsible few, now joined by the ignorant, riding dangerously through these areas and putting people at risk.

Off road, those irresponsible few will churn the ground up and ruin it for everybody.  I had this locally where horse riders on a footpath made it impassible from Autumn to early Summer.  Badly ridden MTBs give the same surface damage, whereas gentle riding can cause less damage than walking.

Yes the relaxing of the rules of a one way street to enable cyclists to travel both ways might be seen as a way forward, but until the culture behind road use is tackled we're not going to see any increase in safety, IMHO.  Just last night I was on a two way road but with the opposite carriageway blocked by parked cars, therefore I should have had priority over oncoming traffic.  Instead I had an oncoming car with the driver shouting and ranting loudly as I was in his way.  How much worse would that be had it been a one way street and the driver not fully aware that cyclists are allowed to go both ways?

[Frenchie]

Am I alone in thinking that this is a terminally craptacular idea, then?

No.

[Notsototalnewbie]

It's good in theory. One way streets often mess up my route planning when I've plotted a route on a map. I currently go round a narrowish one way bit on my commute just before Hyde Park (so it is in K&C), sometimes with a car up my jacksy revving to get past and trying to do unsafe overtakes. Such cars would no longer be 'inconvenienced' by me if I was able to use the one way bit in the opposite direction; we'd probably both get to the (inevitably red!) traffic lights a bit quicker.

But in practice I'd just be worried about being mown down by motorists coming the other way who have no idea about this new rule. Because obviously it is the Law that you must go as fast as you can round a one way bit, as you won't meet anything coming the other way. 

[iakobski]

First-off, we need to be careful with the newspaper-speak: this is not a measure to allow cyclists to legally go the wrong way up one way streets. These will be two-way streets but motor vehicles will only be allowed to go one way.

It's an important distinction.

In the past I've regularly used two such streets, they are not new. In Peterborough they have several of the ones with contraflow lanes, but one is like the proposed ones in the article. There is a narrow signed cycle path into it, separated from main part of the road which has no entry signs. There are no "one way" signs, and where side roads join it there are "turn right, except cycles" signs. Despite this, most drivers are convinced it is a one-way street. I have regularly come into conflict with drivers who have driven towards me on the right hand side of the road. They then swear and shout that it's a one way street. One driver, when I had showed him the signs and the path, conceded that it may not be one way, but "if you keep  on riding like that you will get yourself killed" 

The other one I know is slightly different, in Covent Garden. At one end there's a no entry sign, at the other there's a no motor vehicle sign. I was stopped by a PC down there who told me it was pedestrianised, and still insisted I walk after being shown the "no motor vehicles" sign.

Maybe if these become common-place then motorists will be able to work out the difference between a one way street and a street which is one way for motor vehicles only. Maybe.

One bizarre comment in the article was that drivers would be confused by the "no motor vehicles" sign, and so a new sign should be invented! Really, if drivers don't recognise a standard road sign they shouldn't be driving at all.