Wrong way up a one way street.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Jon Lucas
Posts: 364
Joined: 6 Mar 2009, 6:02pm
Location: Bath

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by Jon Lucas »

I suspect the reason why many people in the UK (especially but not only motorists) don't like cyclists using one-way streets in both directions, whether legally or not, may be due to the difference in how one-way streets are provided in the UK compared to Continental Europe.

In the UK, they are put in fairly randomly, wherever either a highway engineer or councillors/lobby groups think they are needed. The usual reasons being:

a) a perception that it will help traffic flow (usually by creating a gyratory system)
b) where a road is too narrow (or more usually is made too narrow by parking provision) for two cars to pass each other without one of them having to pull into a space between parked cars, if one exists.

In many cities in Continental Europe one-way streets are the norm for many roads, especially main roads, regardless of width of road.

As such, the provision of a contra-flow facility for cyclists there becomes more accepted, whereas in the UK the public and highway engineers tend to feel subliminally that a one-way street has a 'reason' for having been installed, and therefore shouldn't be flouted.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by mjr »

I'm meeting council officers and other commenters about local CTC and CN campaigners' request for some one-way streets to become one-way-except-cycles in King's Lynn town centre.

Most of the streets (Priory Lane, Nelson Street, St Margaret's Place) are in a 20mph zone and I think most are one-way and resident-access-only to reduce the risk of motor vehicle damage to the historic buildings on them - a reason Jon Lucas didn't mention. They are wide enough for even two average cars to pass (tight but possible at all except one point AFAICT). There are narrower streets which are 30mph two-way unrestricted nearby in the town, which I guess supports Jon's comment about UK one-way streets being random and on-request.

The other street we're asking for (South Quay) is very wide (10m or so) and I think it's one-way so that it creates a gyratory with a narrow traffic-sewer street (Queen Street) as the opposing direction, plus has space for lots more car parking and a wide promenade along one side. Making this one-way-except-cycles could help get cycle routes away from the pedestrianised High Street and the shop service roads used by Lorries.

The alternative routes (involving Church Street, St James Street, Millfleet) all have recent reported cycle collisions on them. It'll be surprising if the one-way-except-cycles is any less safe than that.

The objections I've heard about are a mix of the usual factually-incorrect (it's too narrow, blind or close to parked cars) and off-topic (there'll be bike races! They already ride the wrong way here! Get off and walk!) ones, mostly from residents of the streets involved. I'd love any tips you have for how to win over objectors, or at least defuse the objections, based on what's worked elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Norfolk is about ten years behind on this.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by drossall »

I don't see "Except cycles" as a solution to incomprehension of signs.

My understanding is that No Entry means No Entry, and No Vehicles means No Vehicles. These are different things. No Motor Vehicles is just a variation of No Vehicles that only, obviously, affects motor vehicles.

No Entry belongs in a place where, beyond the sign, there is typically free movement in multiple directions, and no particular restriction on vehicle types, but access is not allowed at that point, for example:

  • car parks, preventing people coming in the out or out the in, so to speak
  • two-way streets, as mentioned above, which have restrictions on access at one end - there's one round here which is a normal two-way residential street, from which you can turn out at the busy end, but turning in there isn't allowed, probably because it would be used as a short cut and cause traffic problems

Using No Entry with "Except cycles" in place of No Motor Vehicles would be wrong because, when I pass No Motor Vehicles on my bike, I should know that I'm not going to encounter cars coming the other way, at least for a bit. When I pass No Entry (Except cycles), I should expect the immediate possibility of meeting cars coming from other directions.

Using No Vehicles with "Except cycles" in place of No Motor Vehicles would be pointless, because I believe that No Motor Vehicles is better understood than No Vehicles anyway.

And both would be wrong because the alternatives have different consequences for horse-drawn carriages and so on.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by Bicycler »

Mostly agree. Two points:
- One of if not the most common use of a no entry sign is to sign one end of a one-way street. They are also often used to create "false" one-way streets of normal bi-directional roads; through traffic is effectively prohibited from travelling the length of the street in one direction

-Horse drawn vehicles are vehicles and covered by the "no vehicles" sign
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by drossall »

Fair (and obvious) point on the "wrong" end of one-way streets. It's getting late... However, putting No (Motor) Vehicles there would not be an option. That would be a sensible place for No Entry (Except cycles) if there were a cyclist contra-flow - but then my point that No Entry warns the excepted cyclist to expect to encounter vehicles immediately would apply.

I was trying to say that you can't swap "No Motor Vehicles" for "No Entry (Cyclists excepted)" because the first allows horse-drawn vehicles and the second doesn't. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously, if the sign were "No Vehicles", then neither cars nor bikes nor horse-drawn carts could enter.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by thirdcrank »

The flying motorbike (no motor vehicles) wouldn't be appropriate anyway, since it would be notification of a TRO banning motor vehicles on that road, which would apply in both directions, unless it were to be made a one-way street, which takes us back to where we started. The concept of a so-called false one-way street seems to be widely used and recognised in traffic calming schemes. What we are discussing is that arrangement, but with an exception for cyclists. So a No Entry sign, with an exception plate for cyclists is appropriate. Creating an exemption for cyclists to ride lawfully contraflow in a one-way street, either with a cycle lane or without one, is a related issue but not so widely accepted by the authorities, although they seem to be getting there. There's a set of signs prescribed for this arrangement to warn everybody what's what, and that also includes NO ENTRY signs with exeption plates for cyclists.
blackbike
Posts: 2492
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 3:21pm

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

Post by blackbike »

There's a narrow, parked car clogged street near me which is not one way but has a no entry sign at one end. At the no entry end it has a special little bike lane to bypass the no entry sign.

I've lost count of the number of irate motorists who've told me its a one way street as I block their way as I go the 'wrong' way and wait for them to back up to get off my side of the road.

Especially amusing are the ones who tell me to read the Highway Code.
Post Reply