One way road, with a twist.

[souper]

Are there many roads like this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5334505,-0.23293... in London, its a one way with just enough room for car/vans as cars parked on either side, the twist is that its not unusual to see cycles also have road use on the left but also on the right heading towards you, its a very narrow space to have a cycle heading towards you as most would not expect to see a cyclist on most one-ways.

Also the cycle scheme ends further on on the same road apart from the road name changes at the first junction here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5337702,-0.22580...

Edited by souper on Monday 3rd October 20:41

[TooMany2cvs]

souper said:

...as most would not expect to see a cyclist on most one-ways.

Even resisting the comments that many won't hold back, it's not as if they're sneaking up on you, is it?

[GuinnessMK]

It's the council using cyclists as a traffic calming measure. One way streets tend to have higher average speeds than two way streets.

Simple way to slow cars down is to throw a load of cyclists head on into the on coming traffic. Cyclists are free, but speed humps cost money and no-one likes them

My local council have just completed this scheme;

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9925326,-1.60515...

This is supposed to be a shining example of what our council are planning to roll out across the city.

[Red Devil]

Contraflow cycle lanes in one-way London streets have been around for some time - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/1...
Boris was very keen on expanding their provision - https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/safety/road-...
The example in the OP's link is what is described here as a false one-way street - http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc...

Edited by Red Devil on Monday 3rd October 23:50

[Mandat]

souper said:

Are there many roads like this https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5334505,-0.23293... in London, its a one way with just enough room for car/vans as cars parked on either side, the twist is that its not unusual to see cycles also have road use on the left but also on the right heading towards you, its a very narrow space to have a cycle heading towards you as most would not expect to see a cyclist on most one-ways.

Also the cycle scheme ends further on on the same road apart from the road name changes at the first junction here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5337702,-0.22580...

Edited by souper on Monday 3rd October 20:41

Apart from the entry and exit points, which are signed as one way, the rest of that road is two way, hence the potential for oncoming cyclists.

[souper]

Red Devil said:

Contraflow cycle lanes in one-way London streets have been around for some time - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/1...
Boris was very keen on expanding their provision - https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/safety/road-...
The example in the OP's link is what is described here as a false one-way street - http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc...

Edited by Red Devil on Monday 3rd October 23:50

Thanks Red Devil for link to false one-way street, never heard of them before.

[jith]

GuinnessMK said:

It's the council using cyclists as a traffic calming measure. One way streets tend to have higher average speeds than two way streets.

Simple way to slow cars down is to throw a load of cyclists head on into the on coming traffic. Cyclists are free, but speed humps cost money and no-one likes them

My local council have just completed this scheme;

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9925326,-1.60515...

This is supposed to be a shining example of what our council are planning to roll out across the city.

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all, to cycle the wrong way up a one way street, but also actually encourage it as some part of an insane cost saving exercise in so-called "traffic calming?" And furthermore, they are doing this in very narrow streets with traffic parked on both sides, i.e. it doesn't get any more dangerous than this??

Please, please tell me I'm wrong!!!!

J

[TooMany2cvs]

jith said:

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all, to cycle the wrong way up a one way street, but also actually encourage it as some part of an insane cost saving exercise in so-called "traffic calming?" And furthermore, they are doing this in very narrow streets with traffic parked on both sides, i.e. it doesn't get any more dangerous than this??

Please, please tell me I'm wrong!!!!

It's only dangerous if some raging fknugget fails to see a person on a bicycle heading straight towards them.

If that happens, do you think the blame lies with the council?

[jith]

TooMany2cvs said:

jith said:

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all, to cycle the wrong way up a one way street, but also actually encourage it as some part of an insane cost saving exercise in so-called "traffic calming?" And furthermore, they are doing this in very narrow streets with traffic parked on both sides, i.e. it doesn't get any more dangerous than this??

Please, please tell me I'm wrong!!!!

It's only dangerous if some raging fknugget fails to see a person on a bicycle heading straight towards them.

If that happens, do you think the blame lies with the council?

I really don't know what to say to you. Your response is so totally and utterly stupid I can't comment on it.

J

[popeyewhite]

TooMany2cvs said:

It's only dangerous if some raging fknugget fails to see a person on a bicycle heading straight towards them.

It's an increase in danger in any situation to have two vehicles moving directly towards each other on a narrow road. When one's a 1.5 tonne metal box and the other a flimsy human on an aluminium frame you'd have to wonder at the brains behind the scheme.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

jith said:

Please, please tell me I'm wrong!!!!

You're not wrong!

Good innit.

[TooMany2cvs]

popeyewhite said:

TooMany2cvs said:

It's only dangerous if some raging fknugget fails to see a person on a bicycle heading straight towards them.

It's an increase in danger in any situation to have two vehicles moving directly towards each other on a narrow road. When one's a 1.5 tonne metal box and the other a flimsy human on an aluminium frame you'd have to wonder at the brains behind the scheme.

You don't get out of town much, do you?

[esxste]

popeyewhite said:

It's an increase in danger in any situation to have two vehicles moving directly towards each other on a narrow road. When one's a 1.5 tonne metal box and the other a flimsy human on an aluminium frame you'd have to wonder at the brains behind the scheme.

Maybe they assume that most people aren't psychopaths looking to murder the flimsy human on an aluminium frame with their 1.5 tonne metal box, and that both will try to avoid such an occurrence happening.

[heebeegeetee]

jith said:

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all,
J

The Highway Code says pedestrians are most vulnerable.

[speedking31]

Don't see why the confusion?

[popeyewhite]

esxste said:

popeyewhite said:

It's an increase in danger in any situation to have two vehicles moving directly towards each other on a narrow road. When one's a 1.5 tonne metal box and the other a flimsy human on an aluminium frame you'd have to wonder at the brains behind the scheme.

Maybe they assume that most people aren't psychopaths looking to murder the flimsy human on an aluminium frame with their 1.5 tonne metal box, and that both will try to avoid such an occurrence happening.

All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds eh?

So you're suggesting they're using bikes as traffic calming, as a previous poster has suggested? Or are you saying that deliberately sending two-way traffic down a single road is no more dangerous than a two-lane road?

[LocoCoco]

heebeegeetee said:

jith said:

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all,
J

The Highway Code says pedestrians are most vulnerable.

"The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders."

is what it says.

[Type R Tom]

One way except cycling aren't new, they usually have have an entry and exit point along road signs that made drivers aware of cyclists coming "contraflow". They are usual on back streets where you would expect speeds to be low (around 20mph) and open up routes to cyclists.

Installed properly they can work well but recent changes to the TSRGD makes them easier to install (which can be a good thing) but also reduces the quality and suitability of sites.

The cheap traffic calming comment is utter bullst!

[Hol]

jith said:

GuinnessMK said:

It's the council using cyclists as a traffic calming measure. One way streets tend to have higher average speeds than two way streets.

Simple way to slow cars down is to throw a load of cyclists head on into the on coming traffic. Cyclists are free, but speed humps cost money and no-one likes them

My local council have just completed this scheme;

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9925326,-1.60515...

This is supposed to be a shining example of what our council are planning to roll out across the city.

I'm sorry, but I'm having real trouble believing what I'm reading here.

Would you confirm that the council not only make it legal for a cyclist, the most vulnerable road user of all, to cycle the wrong way up a one way street, but also actually encourage it as some part of an insane cost saving exercise in so-called "traffic calming?" And furthermore, they are doing this in very narrow streets with traffic parked on both sides, i.e. it doesn't get any more dangerous than this??

Please, please tell me I'm wrong!!!!

J

If you also want a spooky coincidence, Google a road called Narrow Street, near a pub called the Narrow in Limehouse.

[Psycho Warren]

More annoying is when councils put a one way on a "rat run" to prevent use of the short cut, but every taxi and scumbag ignores it driving the wrong way down the one way street, then expects me to get out their way.

There may be room for me to move to allow them to continue their illegal journey but why should I? they are in the wrong so they can turn around. I had to sit there and read a paper to make the point to one taxi driver last week. He was beeping me like I'm in the wrong.