Cycling contraflows along one way streets

[CotterPin]

That's where my ambivalence lies.

I want to have equal rights and respect when I am cycling on the road but I don't necessarily want to have to ride all the way around a complicated one way system which might involve crossing numerous lanes of very fast traffic when I could have got to my destination so much quicker, easier and safer if there were a contraflow facility. There could also be an argument that most of the traffic management schemes are designed to ease motor traffic congestion and bicycles were never really considered in them.

 

[StuartG]

The real problem is parking on both sides of the road reducing many urban streets to single lane (for cars) which one-waying reduces the inevitable congestion when two larger vehicles meet. This combined with using one-way systems to cut rat running and others to facilitate gyratory systems makes cycle contra-flowing a rather bad sticking plaster solution.

However when real basic solutions are not politically acceptable - its all we have got. Like cycle lanes - you DON'T have to use them if you think they are too dangerous.

 

[Riding in Circles]

That's where my ambivalence lies.

I want to have equal rights and respect when I am cycling on the road but I don't necessarily want to have to ride all the way around a complicated one way system which might involve crossing numerous lanes of very fast traffic when I could have got to my destination so much quicker, easier and safer if there were a contraflow facility. There could also be an argument that most of the traffic management schemes are designed to ease motor traffic congestion and bicycles were never really considered in them.

I understand where you are coming from, what really concerns me however about these bicycle only contraflows is that the motorists have to understand what is going on and that is a bridge too far for most IMHO.

 

[Dan B]

There could also be an argument that most of the traffic management schemes are designed to ease motor traffic congestion and bicycles were never really considered in them.

This. If there are to be "basic rules for all road users" they should relate to safety (e.g. ride on the left, signal before maneouvring, cede priority as appropriate), not to penalising one class of road user for problems caused by another class.

As others have suggested, I would proceed with caution as drivers may not expect contraflow bicycles, and ideally I would prefer that most roads are returned to two-way working, but if you say that bicycles should be required to go around big gyratories on no better grounds than that's what the cars do, you may as well say also that they should be fitted with internal combustion engines because that's what the cars have. Horses for courses.

 

[Riding in Circles]

This. If there are to be "basic rules for all road users" they should relate to safety (e.g. ride on the left, signal before maneouvring, cede priority as appropriate), not to penalising one class of road user for problems caused by another class.

As others have suggested, I would proceed with caution as drivers may not expect contraflow bicycles, and ideally I would prefer that most roads are returned to two-way working, but if you say that bicycles should be required to go around big gyratories on no better grounds than that's what the cars do, you may as well say also that they should be fitted with internal combustion engines because that's what the cars have. Horses for courses.

Maybe you should have read my later post as well.

 

[Dan B]

Maybe you should have read my later post as well.

I did. It added no insight to the question of what the basic rules for all road users should be.

If you'd rather avoid the contraflows, fine, nobody's telling you to use them. If they're dangerous, so would I. But it's a long way from that to your insinuation that cycle campaigners are being hypocritical in asking for them

 

[Riding in Circles]

I did. It added no insight to the question of what the basic rules for all road users should be.

If you'd rather avoid the contraflows, fine, nobody's telling you to use them. If they're dangerous, so would I. But it's a long way from that to your insinuation that cycle campaigners are being hypocritical in asking for them

But it does not change the fact that they are being hypocritical.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

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.

I can't help thinking that if cyclists had equal rights, they would never have been forced to go round gyratories or follow one-way streets in the first place. None of these traffic flow ''solutions'' have been introduced because of any danger caused by cyclists to other road users, cyclists were simply co-opted into them because of dangers and problems caused by bigger, wider, more dangerous road users. Subordinating cyclists into this group of bigger, wider, more dangerous road users - and subjecting them to increased dangers in some cases, and scaring others off their bikes entirely in other cases - really doesn't fit into my conception of equal rights.

 

[Dan B]

But it does not change the fact that they are being hypocritical.

Yes dear

 

[Riding in Circles]

I think they ill thought out, putting cyclists in danger, round here the rat runs have been dealt with by gating them but with suitable points for cycles to get through, road priorities stay the same so motorists are not faced with bicycles traveling in the "wrong" direction on one way streets. That is a much better solution that cycle only contraflows.

 

[Dan B]

It's just as hypocritical though. If cycles can go through the gates, why shouldn't cars be able to as well?

 

[Riding in Circles]

It is just as hypocritical but it is also a lot safer.

 

[marinyork]

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.

Yes, we do. Contraflow is a reasonably well established (there could be greater awareness) idea, plenty of other things like buses have them. There are a lot more contraflows than people generally believe. The biggest problem is people parking in them. For bicycles they are specially selected on a case by case scenario. I lobbied and got a contraflow here on a road that the council decided to make one way (a bad idea). I'd have rather it stayed two way but was never going to get that. For cyclists it would have meant the most horrific re-routing in terms of distance and dumping on more busy roads. It also went against the careful planning put in for one of their own cycle routes. On another one we lost and it sent cyclists on a crazy 3/4 of a mile loop just because we hadn't been considered as users.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Yes, we do. Contraflow is a reasonably well established (there could be greater awareness) idea, plenty of other things like buses have them. There are a lot more contraflows than people generally believe. The biggest problem is people parking in them. For bicycles they are specially selected on a case by case scenario. I lobbied and got a contraflow here on a road that the council decided to make one way (a bad idea). I'd have rather it stayed two way but was never going to get that. For cyclists it would have meant the most horrific re-routing in terms of distance and dumping on more busy roads. It also went against the careful planning put in for one of their own cycle routes. On another one we lost and it sent cyclists on a crazy 3/4 of a mile loop just because we hadn't been considered as users.

You would have been better off campaigning to have one end gated.

 

[marinyork]

You would have been better off campaigning to have one end gated.

Not really. It's not practical. Our road network is not really like other cities like London or Leeds. Our roads are a weird shape (jagged and irregular). Gating one end would lead to crazy re-routing of cars and a sharp right turn into the road off a very major road (dangerous). If this option was not used there would be something like a 1.something mile re-route for cars. Gating the other end would be more practical but you'd just lead to identical problems of parking which the road was famous for (didn't really see the need for the council to get rid of it). If you ran a traffic optimisation then it would work out better in terms of bottlenecks and options. Gating half way along would have been the most realistic gating option and not impacted on bicycles. There were other options but not politically acceptable.