Cycling contraflows along one way streets

[middleagecyclist]

A recent policy paper from the Department for Transport (DfT) - Signing the Way (Oct 2011) - has some useful and interesting changes for cycling. I've written in more detail on my blog, but the main change I think should be known by all cyclists is the relaxation of the hoops local councils go through in order to allow legal cycling along one way streets, against the traffic flow. This is widespead elsewhere and has been used successfully on a limited basis in the UK.

Councils are under no obligation to make the changes though. So, if you feel there is a one way street near you that would make a good official short cut, why not drop an email to your local council cycling officer/forum and start making the case?

 

[summerdays]

I'm surprised that 87% understood the No Motor Vehicles / No Vehicles sign - especially when it goes on to suggest that the number of people driving through a no-entry was significantly less than those driving through a No Motor Vehicles sign (a 75% drop in contraventions).

Good to see them getting rid of the idea that you have to enter the ASL via the proper marked lane. In fact the photo of the one without an feeder lane is the ASL by Templemeads Station.

And there is a zebra crossing that cyclists almost have to use as it is right beside the Bristol to Bath cycle path and its the bit with a dropped kerb to rejoin the road. So I'm glad that will become legal by the looks although most motorists seem stop for cyclists there anyway.

 

[gaz]

I might just have to throw such a request at my local council.

 

[marinyork]

Yes, we knew this was coming, I've written about it before and spoken to my council about it. My council are pretty keen on doing it anyway. Just hope it happens elsewhere.

 

[xpc316e]

I regularly deliver a presentation to drivers and non-drivers that contains a slide showing the No Motor Vehicles sign, and nowhere near 87% of people know what it means. As for the No Vehicles sign, I reckon that 87% would NOT know its meaning. There is already a street in my town where cycling against the one-way car flow is permitted, and I wouldn't dream of doing it.

 

[summerdays]

There is already a street in my town where cycling against the one-way car flow is permitted, and I wouldn't dream of doing it.

Why?
There are a number around here - some are bus lanes, others marked with a solid line, and I'm sure there are hardly any markings at all on St Marks Road. That is not to say that I wouldn't mind more.

 

[Bromptonaut]

There is already a street in my town where cycling against the one-way car flow is permitted, and I wouldn't dream of doing it.

I'm very cautious of them as it's by no means clear to powered vehicles that I'm doing something legally rather than taking a chance.

There are an increasing number in London including recently Montague Place. Where there was previously a segregated two way cycle lane westbound riders now go 'wrong way' on road against a tide of foreign buses serving the British Museum. I think I'd rather take my chances in the normal traffic on Woburn place and turn west for Gordon St/Cardington St a block further north.

 

[mumbo jumbo]

I hate cycle contra-flow lanes. Some of my scariest near misses have been when drivers pull out onto a "one way" road and only look for regular flow traffic, not contra-flowing cyclists.

Someone posted a UK map with details of all car, m-cycle, cycle and ped fatalities and serious / minor injuries recently. I checked my main route and the only serious injuries to cyclists occurred on the one short stretch of official contra-flow on one of my main routes into town.

 

[jonesy]

Generally the preferred approach should be to revert the street to two-way for all traffic, thereby reducing traffic speed and providing better permeability for bus services.

 

[summerdays]

Generally the preferred approach should be to revert the street to two-way for all traffic, thereby reducing traffic speed and providing better permeability for bus services.

Thinking of some of the examples here I think the streets have been made one way to stop rat runs in some cases or due to the width of the street.

Since this thread started I've found another one ... that has only just been created (by White Tree Roundabout), I'd been through when they were doing the digging but hadn't realised what they were doing.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Why?
There are a number around here - some are bus lanes, others marked with a solid line, and I'm sure there are hardly any markings at all on St Marks Road. That is not to say that I wouldn't mind more.

Because car drivers are a hazard to cyclists in normal everyday situations, confuse them with an unexpected contraflow and you find yourself with a potentially lethal combination of ignorance and ineptitude.

 

[GrasB]

From my experience one way contraflows where the road is wide enough with a well marked cycle lane & signs works well (eg no let turn except cycles). Contraflows on narrow streets with no road marking &/or signage is something I'd avoid going down.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Round here they cycle on the wrong side of the road anyway, I frequently find myself facing a numpty that is riding the wrong way on the side of the carriageway.

 

[CotterPin]

I am ambivalent about this. In one respect anything that makes it easier for cyclists to avoid having to go round the houses to get to their destination is good. On the other hand schemes like these can put cyclists in a position on the road where other road-users might not expect them to be which puts them a risk.

A friend of mine was knocked off his bicycle a couple of years ago riding a contraflow lane when the driver failed to look in his direction - the driver looked where the bulk of the traffic would be coming from. There were signs letting roadusers know about the contraflow bike lane and the driver actually lived in the road he was pulling out from, something he had numerous times before. Presumably so few cyclists use that particular bike lane and he is not a cyclist so would never have needed to use it himself meaning that it just never registered on the driver's mind.

I guess we are living in a chicken and egg age. Schemes like these could be useful but only if a lot of people use them. There are not sufficient cyclists at the moment so it increases the risks of such facilities. Which I guess is where the CTC's "safety in numbers" campaign kicks in. And why I personally feel that engineering solutions are not necessarily the way forward. I would spend the money on encouraging people to ride bikes and train them to do so well.

Stephen

 

[Riding in Circles]

Do the same people who campaign for equal rights on carriageway use also advocate these different rules for cycles? There should be some basic rules for all road vehicles and these should include one way streets amongst other things.