On May 13, 10:06 pm, Colin McKenzie wrote:
> TimB wrote:
>
> I expect you know it's illegal.
Actually, it did have me second guessing myself. Of course, it's
illegal to go the wrong way down a one way street, but does that mean
the one-way restriction extends to the pavement?
> It's not especially dangerous, if you
> do it on the road. But to many cyclists it seems less illegal, or at
> least safer, to use the pavement. It isn't, despite some drivers
> intimidating illegal on-road contraflow cyclists.
>
> But before condemning too much, consider
> - the one-way was introduced without any consideration of its effects
> on cyclists, and very possibly despite objections by local cyclists
For the record, this is the location (watch for wrapping).
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=53.027168~-2.175057&style=r&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7613498&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
The one way street in question is Marsh Street North leading to York
Street - this is treated as a single road. The officers rode along
this before turning left onto Trinity Street and rejoining normal
traffic flow.
The 'alternative' route would be along Hope Street and Foundry Street,
which is both legal and considerably safer. The part of Trinity Street
at the end of Foundry Street is incorrectly marked on the map as one
way - it is in fact a two way street. Yes, it is about 50 yards or so
longer, but it's also legal - a point I would have expected to have
been quite high on the list of priorities for the police when choosing
a route.
> - the alternative route is almost certain to be longer and contain
> more junctions, which make it more dangerous
There is one more junction on the legal route, controlled by traffic
lights. It also has a shared cycleway/footpath with cycle crossing
areas if you'd prefer that (although that takes you onto Stafford
Street and adds another 50 yards or so to your journey)
> - the alternative route may be a fast gyratory or dual carriageway,
> which many cyclists will not cycle on, because they're frightening and
> may be dangerous.
The route they took was a fast dual carriageway. The legal route was
considerably safer.
> 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.
As utopian as your idea sounds, the fact is that roads are primarily
built for cars - the 'equal road user' stance only holds up until you
find yourself playing chicken with a bus.
|