[Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

[David Earl]

On 24/09/2008 09:56, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>>
>>> whether you can just cycle the wrong way down
>>> the road avoiding any on coming cars.
>> I _think_ that is illegal in the UK anyway isn't it?  Cycles generally have
>> to follow the normal rules of the road unless there is a sign explicitly
>> making some exception (I've never seen a "one-way for everyone except
>> cycles" sign in the UK).
> 
> 
> They were experimenting with it in Kensington & Chelsea:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/article4061323.ece

Yes, but the point is that these are "false" one-way streets. They are 
either signed with No Entry with a cycle bypass or with No Motor 
Vehicles signs (the "low flying motorcycles") one.

In the first case, only the short section past the island is one-way. 
The rest of the street is two way. In practice this often makes little 
difference (though there are streets where it is clear traffic needs to 
be able to go both ways), and in theory a motor vehicle can turn around.
I've generally mapped these like this
     | (a)
     +-\
     |  +------(c)
     +-/
     | (b)
where (a) is a cycleway, (b) is a one way street (both very short) and 
(c) is an ordinary street which is the false one way street.

The second case has much the same effect, but it is less well respected. 
As there is no island, I am not sure how to map these. Tis is a current 
issue ion Cambridge where there have recently been half a dozen streets 
changed to have this arrangement (there always were one or two).

There are also true contraflows, which have an entrance like the first 
case above, but also a cycle lane marked with a SOLID line. The rest of 
the street is then genuinely one way, and cycleway_opposite does the job.

See
  http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/onewaystreets/signs/

David