“Grow up”: Police criticised for targeting “incredibly dangerous” cyclists riding against one-way system

There is generally "some research" to prove most things. Meanwhile abiding by the rules of midst unlikely to see you issued with a fixed penalty notice.

There's blatantly space for a contraflow cycle lane, since the carriageway is around 7m wide. I'm afraid I put this down to car-brain, and alternative modes not being given equal consideration, in the Highway Authority.

It's all about values and priorities which don't exist in the HA.

AFAICS, even one of the footways meets the specification for a shared path ie ~3m wide, which is way beyond the width of many shared paths in this country. The one dorectly next to my local 25k AADT bypass is 1.2-1.5m wide for about 2 miles.

Even on the police photo:

I suspect it may not remain so wide - yes obviously from that picture there's plenty of space for a contraflow and were it to remain like that they should definitely implement one, but the cones and fences look as if they've been put there ready to commence works when presumably much more of the carriageway will be taken away.

Despite the photo, the pavement for much/most of the effected part of the street is hardly wide enough for the number of pedestrians, so no room for shared use pavement.

Services are being identified, updated/replaced for the new road layout, so the barriers are being moved as work progresses, and at times form a chicane. Work vehicles also park there.

Note that Salisbury centre has many one-way streets, so the alternative route isn't always a simple option. Also note that the high street is open to cycles!

The real issue is that the works are taking far too long (along with those in the Central Carpark).

I love my bike wrote:

Despite the photo, the pavement for much/most of the effected part of the street is hardly wide enough for the number of pedestrians, so no room for shared use pavement.

I didn't say it was squire, I think you're replying to the wrong person!

It is not dangerous on most roads. The roads are one way because there is not enough space for two cars to pass.

Very often One-Way-Systems are implemented to augment on-street car parking capacity.
Roads like these are extremely off-putting for cyclists.

neilmck wrote:

It is not dangerous on most roads. The roads are one way because there is not enough space for two cars to pass.

It would not be dangerous if a contraflow cycle lane were established and that should be done everywhere possible. I would disagree that it is not dangerous to cycle the wrong way up a one-way street where it is not permitted, if drivers and pedestrians are not expecting cyclists to be coming in that direction it seems perfectly obvious to me that will increase the possibility of incidents.

There is a one way road in town with herringbone parking and I still see cyclists going the wrong way along it. Even saw a dad with his young lad go the wrong way ! No way can you see people coming the wrong way, no matter how careful you are.
Not really convinced about ignoring the restrictions however safe it might appear.

On my commute to work, there is a one way street I cycle the wrong way down, it is wide enough for cars (or delivery vans) to park down one side and leave enough room for me to cycle one way and a vehicle pass the other with no risk of collision (unless one of us isn't paying attention). At the time I travel, I almost never pass a vehicle travelling the opposite way, despite it being in Central London. 

To travel the legfal way would see me turning right across a main road, which is basically impossible on a bike unless traffic lights further down the road stop traffic. You're then riding on a really busy road with no cycle lane and for about 200 metres before turning right back to the quiet streets. 

Despite outrage from people online claiming that my riding down the one way street is always more dangerous, I can categorically say without any doubt in my mind that it is not. 

.

If only we had you in charge, to decide which laws we could break and which we had to follow. Things would be SO MUCH better then.

.

Yeah?

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

If only we had you in charge, to decide which laws we could break and which we had to follow. Things would be SO MUCH better then.

Yeah?

It would definitely be better as many laws are poorly implemented and designed to further the status quo and protect the land-owners.

As global communication has become easier, we can now easily compare our traffic laws with those in other countries and decide which ones are more suited for the stated aims of reducing short car trips and promoting cycling. Also we have much better access to data and are able to evaluate the impact (or hopefully less impacts) of changing traffic laws. Certainly, I think that our current traffic laws are very much designed with a focus on travelling by car and our road networks are extremely focussed on motor traffic. Traffic lights are another example where we're now starting to experiment with allowing cyclists to get across junctions before the motor traffic so that there's less RTCs and less cyclist deaths.

When following laws, good citizens should evaluate who the law serves and whether the law is protecting people or protecting corporations/institutions. Sometimes the greater good is served by not obeying certain laws - there are plenty of historical examples of immoral laws and the UK's recent law to prevent protests is an example of a dubious law.

I get that pretty often on roads where it IS allowed.

I have read elsewhere (can't recall) the "it's actually fine safety- wise" argument. I'm not sure in general it "encourages cycling" - I don't always enjoy those interactions and others are more cautious than me!

I think of this a "temporary, occasional hack" for a few locations where it's currently too difficult to fix or where a short "unpleasant" section makes an entire route much better or even possible. And best where motor traffic is minimal anyway and ideally very slow.

I note in NL they tend to "fix" these over time eg. over the decades the one in article below was one way, parking both sides -> one way for cars with cycling both directions (one contraflow) -> no cars

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2023/11/29/extra-post-this-utrecht-st...

I pretty much agree.

2 way cycling on one way 20mph streets seems very reasonable for a start, and via a physically protected 2 way track on one way Classified Roads with higher speed limits.

It will take time, however.

Whats next, e-scooters, motorbikes, mobility buggies, as long as they keep a slow speed? One of the fundamental aspects of being a road user in any form is to be predicatble and if this road isnt designted for flow in the other direction (temporarily or permanently) it makes life harder and a little more  dangerous for everyone.

argiebarge wrote:

Whats next, e-scooters, motorbikes, mobility buggies, as long as they keep a slow speed? One of the fundamental aspects of being a road user in any form is to be predicatble and if this road isnt designted for flow in the other direction (temporarily or permanently) it makes life harder and a little more  dangerous for everyone.

It probably makes sense for e-scooters as they have very similar properties to cyclists - limited speed and weight whilst being very maneouvrable so as to pull in when there's not enough room to pass. Mobility buggies would suffer from not having that option, so there's less roads that would be suitable for them to contraflow. I don't think it's suitable for full size motorbikes, though I've certainly seen pizza delivery scooters going the wrong way.

Well a major issue with our road systems is that *any* change is "bad" due to humans operating on them through memory / autopilot. Plus humans are in general easily overwhelmed. Outside of early childhood / once in a lifetime for the driving test there is no "road training" (for those not driving professionally).

That's why all road systems - especially the best - aim for predictability via simplicity, regularity and clarity.

So I agree it's not a great idea. However it may have a (very small, ideally temporary) role in making change *possible*. And IIRC there is some evidence this hasn't caused carnage where deployed so far.

This is a 2 way road reduced to one way for roadworks.

What has not been done is to consider different modes of travel separately, and how appropriately to allow for them during the road work period.

AKA car brain.

On your other, it seems like a bit of a generic kneejerk. Mobility buggies have 2 way movement here on the footway. Motorbikes are motor vehicles are considered as such.

E-scooters need to be properly regulated, but that will not happened whilst Short Term Rishi and the Shysters are concerned only with saving their cowardly political arses.

I understand the situation which is why 'temporary' is in the wording, I have read the article. As I noted elsewhere in the comments I believe the system could work well as I've seen it in use before. But right now it isnt.

Should it be? That could depend on how long the works will actually be up which seems to be "Summer 2024" (so likely Autumn earliest) so it would make sense with such a timescale.

Incidentally the work seem to be pavement widening, street lighting, among other things but the primary goal apears to be pedrestian focused with no specific cycle infra noted other than additional cycling bike racks (source: invest in Salisbury).

TBFit's rather more than a high street - it looks urban arterial to me.

It's not even the high street. It's inside the ringroad, so not for through traffic. Probably most used for access to the Central Carpark.

With two zebra crossings, parked cars & stopped buses, cyclists tend to get held up by motor traffic, rather than the other way round.

cyclists tend to get held up by motor traffic

This happens all the time here- the MGIF nutter overtakes and is then immediately stopped behind parked cars because of obvious oncoming traffic whereas I could have just kept going. However, I can illegally by-pass the blockage on the pavement if I can get past the cars right across the pavement outside the school