[Talk-GB] Oneway assumes cars?

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Ed Loach <ed at loach.me.uk> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
>> Actually they aren't - what they are doing is making one end of
>> the
>> road no access to motorised vehicles. So the road itself is no
>> longer
>> technically oneway, so it shouldn't need cycleway=opposite...
>
> So motorised vehicles can come in from the other end of the road,
> approach the bit where they wouldn't normally be allowed to enter in
> the opposite direction, then do a U-turn and leave the way they
> came?

Legally, it appears so, and is certainly the case in I think Hackney
where they've been doing it already. It makes sense, because the
onewayness was never to control the behaviour of the cars within the
street, only to prevent cars from entering the street from the wrong
end (and therefore control the flow patterns on the wider-area street
network). Most onewayness in these areas are anti-rat-run measures,
which is why they are increasingly becoming seen as inappropriate for
cyclists to also be prevented from going down them.

Cheers,
Andy