<div>Hi Shaun,</div><div> </div><div>I take it you're referring to Ipswich? In which case, I can sort of see the logic. It's not "one-way", it's "no entry", so when the excepting conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way. In Croydon's case there's that "no motor vehicles" sign at one end, with a "no entry" sign at the other with no excepting conditions -- so presumably the intention is for the street to be one-way even for cyclists. (which is odd, given that there's nowhere else obvious to go coming southbound on a cycle.)</div>
<div> </div><div>I'm now in contact with the local cycling advocacy group, so will see if I can get a (more) official position on Croydon in the same way as you have for Ipswich.</div><div> </div><div>Thanks,</div><div>
</div><div>David.</div><div><br><br> </div><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun McDonald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk" target="_blank">shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 31 Oct 2012, at 16:02, David Earl <<a href="mailto:david@frankieandshadow.com">david@frankieandshadow.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 31/10/2012 15:29, Andy Robinson wrote:<br>
>> Shaun McDonald [mailto:<a href="mailto:shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk">shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk</a>] wrote:<br>
>>> Sent: 31 October 2012 15:21<br>
>>> To: Matt Williams<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Matt Williams <<a href="mailto:lists@milliams.com">lists@milliams.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher <<a href="mailto:djfisher81@gmail.com">djfisher81@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> Hi all,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The pedestrianised main shopping street in Croydon has a sign with<br>
>>>>> the following wording: "Pedestrian Zone. No vehicles except cycles<br>
>>>>> and for loading 6pm-10am."<br>
>>>>> How would you interpret that? I see at least 3 possibilities:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (a) Cycles permitted at any time; loading only permitted 6pm-10am<br>
>>>>> (this is what I guess is the correct one)<br>
>>>>> (b) Cycles and loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this would also make<br>
>>>>> sense; i.e. cycling only outside shopping hours)<br>
>>>>> (c) Restrictions apply 6pm-10am (clearly ludicrous!)<br>
>>>>> (d) Something else?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I'm guessing it's meant to be (a), but just thought I'd canvas<br>
>>>>> opinion before tagging.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think I agree with (a). I would find it a little strange to disallow<br>
>>>> cycling just during the day (why not just ban it entirely?).<br>
>>><br>
>>> The centre pedestrianised bit of Ipswich has cycling banned from 10:30am -<br>
>>> 4:30pm. It does get pretty busy during that time.<br>
>>> <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/ouha1" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/maps/ouha1</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> I'm not sure that's correct? Is it not just banning cyclists from cycling<br>
>> against the traffic flow during this period? The sign at the other end<br>
>> suggests its open to cyclists at all times in the direction of normal flow.<br>
><br>
> (from your corrected link <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/SM2y9" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/maps/SM2y9</a> )<br>
><br>
> The key thing here is the sign it is underneath. The reference to cyclists in the text is superfluous (and presumably not authorised by the DfT) because the 'low flying motorbike' sign means "no MOTOR vehicles", and a bike isn't a motor vehicle. That's not just pedantry: there is a separate sign for banning ALL vehicles, a simple red roundel with nothing inside it. There is no restriction on bikes at any time according to that sign.<br>
><br>
> Their traffic engineer needs sending back to sign school.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>So some more info on this situation.<br>
<br>
The intention was to allow cycling in both directions between the hours of 4:30pm and 10:30 am. With vehicles for loading and service access in one direction only during those hours. However it's more recently turned out that it's not possible to legally sign a road like that.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately there are a few cyclists who are spoiling it for everyone else, by cycling dangerously during the busy period, thus the probable plan is to not allow cycling all the time in terms of signage. (The police are happy to allow sensible cycling even if not allowed).<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Shaun<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>