[Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Tue Mar 19 14:23:44 UTC 2013


On 19/03/2013 14:04, David Fisher wrote:
> Hi Shaun,
> 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.)
> 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.

No entry signs don't (necessarily) mean a street is one way: they mean 
you cannot drive/cycle between the pair of No Entry signs (unless you 
are one of the stated exceptions, in this case an "overnight" cyclist). 
A street is one-way if it has the white-on-blue One Way sign (including 
cyclists, unless there is an contraflow lane explicitly painted on the 
road).

The reason they use No Entry sings in this slightly ambiguous way is 
because motorists don't or won't respect No Motor Vehicles signs. The 
rules used to disallow "except cyclists" under No Entry signs, which 
meant they had to have a cycle bypass with an island to carry the 
left-hand No Entry sign, for which there often wasn't space, an endless 
source of frustration for cyclists. But the rules were relaxed a couple 
of years ago.

David





More information about the Talk-GB mailing list