Cycling wrong way up one way street

John Wright

Doug wrote:
> On 13 May, 18:09, TimB <stokef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
>> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
>> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
>> way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
>> Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
>> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
>> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
>> would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
>> cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
>> from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
>> inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
>> position, it's unacceptable.
>>
>> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
>> caught doing this?
>
> Maybe a fine.
>
> Of course police are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and
> are rarely prosecuted, even when they kill someone.
>
> The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
> scared to ride on our very dangerous roads, where almost anyone is
> allowed to loose control of their lethal machine in a so-called
> 'accident'.

I've never yet seen a frightened policeman. Talking out of your arse
again I see.

--
John Wright

I feel like an insane person with the ability to mimic sanity

Ivan

Neil Williams wrote:
|| On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:31 +0100, Colin McKenzie
|| <news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
||
||| One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
||| returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
||| restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
||
|| There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
|| For cycles only. Seems a good idea.
||
|| Neil
||

I well remember 50 years ago actually being lectured the by a cop for
'pushing' a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street as a shortcut, I've
never been absolutely certain, but was that, is that illegal?

Steve Firth

John Wright <john@pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:


> They should be, but not always, especially in rural areas. There is one
> I can think of on the A43 which was hidden behind a direction sign. Then
> the government said "all cameras must be visible and painted yellow so
> people can see them" but this one seemingly was unaffected, it stayed
> grey and hidden. This is why people think they are just there for
> revenue raising. Also see lots of other posts in uk.transport about what
> are known as scamera vans or talivans - these pop up in all sorts of
> places often without any warning at all.

I can't think of any 'hidden' caneras on the A43. They're all signposted
with the applicable speed limit at a reasonable distance from the camera
with plenty of time to brake down to 70mph even if one is travelling at
Warp 9.


OTOH the cameras on the A41 are all deliberately hidden behind road
signs and in one instance the trees on the verge have been allowed to
grow over the camera, to obscure it, but the branches in front of the
lens have all been neatly trimmed away.

Conor

In article <68u92pF2sulcvU1@mid.individual.net>, OG says...

> Was it particuarly inconsiderate to anyone?
>
Irrelevent. Thr RTA applies to bicycles.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Jon

On 14 May, 07:21, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 13 May, 18:09, TimB <stokef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
> scared to ride on our very dangerous roads,

Nonsense. Lots of the pathetic pavement peddlers ride on the footways
of roads which are perfectly safe to cycle on properly, when there is
not a car in sight, and sometimes even where motor vehicles are
banned. I frequently see them doing it along roads where I have been
cycling for years and never had any alarming incidents or near-misses.

While I agree that there will be some who do it out of fear of the
rest of the traffic, most are doing this for other reasons, such as:
- sheer hooliganism - enjoying being a nusiance to pedestrians.
- being part of the car-culture and wanting to show support for its
fantasy that the
bicycle is not a real vehicle (and so does not belong on the
carriageway).
- a feeling that they are being big bad rebels by breaking a rule.
- refusal to grow up - adults ride on carriageways, little kids play
with toys on
the footway.

Jon

JNugent

Ivan wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> || On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:31 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> || <news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
> ||
> ||| One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
> ||| returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
> ||| restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
> ||
> || There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
> || For cycles only. Seems a good idea.
> ||
> || Neil
> ||
>
> I well remember 50 years ago actually being lectured the by a cop for
> 'pushing' a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street as a shortcut,
> I've never been absolutely certain, but was that, is that illegal?

Only in the ultimate nit-picking sense (in the same way as it might be
unlawful to push a pram the wrong way down a one-way street).

Bart

On May 13, 11:55*pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:
> > There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
> > for cycles only. *Seems a good idea.
>
> Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
> you to be there.

To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!

It might be an idea to keep on the driver's left, but on a single lane
one-way road, cyclists can of course be on either side.

Main problem is pedestrians looking the wrong way when crossing the
road.


--
Bartc

JNugent

Bart wrote:
> On May 13, 11:55 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
>> wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:
>>> There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
>>> for cycles only. Seems a good idea.
>> Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
>> you to be there.
>
> To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
> actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
> cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!

The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.

> It might be an idea to keep on the driver's left, but on a single lane
> one-way road, cyclists can of course be on either side.
>
> Main problem is pedestrians looking the wrong way when crossing the
> road.

You surely mean "pedestrians looking the right way, and therefore not
spotting cyclists coming from the wrong direction".

Daniel Barlow

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On May 13, 11:55Â*pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
>> wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:
>> > There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
>> > for cycles only. Â*Seems a good idea.
>>
>> Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
>> you to be there.
>
> To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
> actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
> cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!

To a driver pulling out of a T-junction and not bothering to check
both ways because he "knows" the road he's joining is one-way, it may
make a significant difference to the cyclist coming from the other
side. As for example

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...z=15&iwloc=addr

Last time I used that road (it may have changed since) there was a
contraflow cycle lane on the section between Swallow St and City Road.


-dan

Cynic

On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:49:53 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.

Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.

Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:

1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
rearview mirrors).
2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

Which I believe is a sensible rule.

--
Cynic

JNugent

Cynic wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

[on the topic of cycling - or, for that matter, driving - the wrong way
along a one-way street]

>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.

> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.

Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
others, collisions are more, not less, likely.

> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:

> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).

If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
without hard shoulders.

That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
really mean it).

> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

He can do that *anyway*.

> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?

> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

So I see.

It takes all sorts.

PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>

Cynic

On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:49 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:


>>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>others, collisions are more, not less, likely.

If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.

>> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>
>> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
>> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
>> rearview mirrors).

>If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
>the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
>without hard shoulders.

Yes. Far more sensible *especially* where the speed differential is
extremely high.

>That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
>really mean it).

Not only that, but I have seen it in operation and so know that it
works.

>> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

>He can do that *anyway*.

But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

>> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
>> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

>Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?

I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
normal use on public roads.

>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

>So I see.

>It takes all sorts.

Don't knock it till you've tried it. What side of a road that does
not have a pavement do you believe is the safest for a pedestrian to
walk?

>PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.

It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

--
Cynic

Ian Smith

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:09:49 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:49 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>
> >He can do that *anyway*.
>
> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
defer to everyone else.

Some news for you:

Cyclists are traffic.

Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).

> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Steve Firth

Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:49:53 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> >The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
> >to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>
> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).
> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
>
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>
> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
wrong side of the road for the same reason.