Is Bellenden Rd not one-way for cyclists?

[SCSB79]

minkturtle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's ok to cycle through red lights and the wrong

> way down one-ways

Quite simply, no it's not.

[Pearson]

SCSB79 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> minkturtle Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's ok to cycle through red lights and the

> wrong

> > way down one-ways

>

> Quite simply, no it's not.

___________________________________________________

To be honest, i don't think it's as black and white as that.

"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."

"The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

[ianr]

I think a more complex answer [ed: to the contravening red lights/one-way signs question] would be that if you do so, you do it at your own risk. And the risk is not just of injury to yourself, but of some personal responsibility for any injury or damage caused by an accident, however unforeseen or unforeseeable, however inculpable you otherwise were, to which your unexpected presence in an area of the road turned out to have been a contributory factor.

[felt-tip]

Yes I noticed that the little bike signs were painted there too so I've been continuing to cycle down the one-way.

Cycle-bashers - jog on.

[The Lane SNT]

This stretch of road is still a "one way street" for both vehicles and cycles despite the road markings. Until such time as the relevant signs go up it will remain this way.

To that end, cyclists should NOT ride against the flow. It was only the other day that we ended up "helping" a cyclist from a spill and they had a very nice ride to Kings College Hospital courtesy of the London Ambulance Service!!

Wait for the signs to appear before you use it....

[DJKillaQueen]

Tbank you for clearing that up SNT, but what kind of stupid idea was it to paint road markings before putting up signs? And how long will the wait be for the signs?

[The Lane SNT]

Road markings idea.... I have no idea!!

As for the sign's, I will make a call and get back to you.

[woofmarkthedog]

felt-tip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I noticed that the little bike signs were

> painted there too so I've been continuing to cycle

> down the one-way.

>

> Cycle-bashers - jog on.

________

-------------------------------

Tee hee

That's cheered me up no end

W**F

[cate]

I was really startled the other day driving down Copleston from Grove Vale and a cyclist zoomed around the corner from the first turning on the right. Really was not expecting that.

[SCSB79]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ok, these stats are from a 2005 report for the

> London Road Safety Unit (TfL) which recorded red

> light violations at twelve ASL sites in London and

> two non ASL sites (the 'control' sites). Of all

> the cyclists that passed through the

> light-controlled junctions, on average 17%

> violated red lights. There is no comparable figure

> (or I can't find it) for other traffic - I just

> wanted to point out that it's not as many as

> people think!

>

> However, of *all* the traffic violations that were

> made by *all* road users, cyclists made up 51% of

> offenders at the ASL sites and 40% at the control

> sites - averaging out at 48.8% of all the vehicles

> violating red lights at all sites. OTHER road

> users (either car, goods vehicle, bus/coach

> drivers or motorcyclists) made up the rest - yes

> OVER HALF of offenders.

>

> This is bundling all 'other road users' together,

> but even if we just take cycles vs cars, cars made

> up the majority violaters at 5 of the 12 sites

> (admittedly not as much as cyclists who were the

> majority at the other 7). Versus *all* road users,

> cyclists made up the majority of offenders at only

> half of the sites.

>

> Also the authors pointed out:

>

> "Across the ASL sites generally, the main

> violation offenders were cars, (including taxis)

> (34%) and bicycles (51%). Cyclists essentially

> have more opportunity to violate as more can

> proceed through the junction at any one time. The

> high percentage of red light violations by

> cyclists may partially be a result of the

> composition of traffic. "

>

> Tried to attach report but the file is too large,

> can be downloaded here:

> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&v

> ed=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tfl.gov.uk%2Fass

> ets%2Fdownloads%2FBehaviour-at-cycle-advanced-stop

> -lines.pdf&rct=j&q=Behaviour-at-cycle-advanced-sto

> p-lines%5B1%5D.pdf&ei=DiK2TPjxK4-T4gba8MSgDQ&usg=A

> FQjCNFxOMp5KgsCxThLtG4sVfRdmnxjjA&sig2=XtLuc0WJ6fO

> H8rX9bhZs1w&cad=rja

But we all know that the cyclists caught jumping the red light in these instances will more than likely jump EVERY red light and the motorists will not.

I'd wager my house that if you followed a cyclist around that had jumped one light, they'd jump almost every other one but if you followed a car, they'd not jump another.

[tomchance]

The Lane SNT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This stretch of road is still a "one way street"

> for both vehicles and cycles despite the road

> markings. Until such time as the relevant signs go

> up it will remain this way.

>

> To that end, cyclists should NOT ride against the

> flow.

Interesting, I didn't know those road markings have no legal force. It's the same situation on Bermondsey Street oop north, but no cyclists (myself included) seem to realise that we need the signs as well as the street markings.

[DJKillaQueen]

I asked about this at the CC Transport Sub-Committee meeting tonight. It seems the signs haven't gone up because there's some problem with the contraflow but no-one knew exactly what. I do now have the contact details for who would know and have emailed him and shall post the reply when I get it.

But that seems to confirm that the contraflow is not in official use yet.

I did point out that cyclists do not and can't know that and depending on the problem it might be useful to sort it out quickly.

[ianr]

The first road markings, right at the beginning of the stretch, are a no-entry sign _and_ No Entry painted on the road, so it would be a bit difficult to claim total ignorance or certainty. But the sooner it's made consistent, the better.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes and no, because those signs have always been there as part of the one way traffic directions. A cycle contraflow ignores those. There are cycle route markings painted on the road indicating the contraflow already. The signs on posts would inform drivers there is a contraflow in operation for cyclists as much as confirming that for cyclists themselves. Hence the confusion. But we'll know soon enough what the problem is.

[binary_star]

Ha, thanks DJKQ but now you've confused the hell out of me! I've been using it since the contraflow signs went up - these are only visibly to oncoming cars (no 'except cycles' signs at the entrance yet). These signs as well as the road markings made me think it was officially in use. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to start using the pavement again on that stretch ;D

[ianr]

>Yes and no, because those signs have always been there as part of the one way traffic directions. A cycle contraflow ignores those.

Only if there are additional prescribed signs indicating that. Without them, there simply is no legal contraflow.

Where the road usage is slow and light, and they can have a cycle contraflow without using a cycle lane, one of the advisory signs used, NP 960.2, requires departmental approval. See for example Cycling England file a06_contra-flow_cycling.pdf at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094607/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/engineering-planning/design-checklist/. That might be what's causing the hold -up.

Addendum 21 March 2013 (after having noticed the forum's Spurling road contra flow cycle route thread): Cycling England ceased to be a public body on 1 April 2011 and their web pages have been removed from the DfT site, so I've changed the link to point to the corresponding page of the Cycling England archive now in the National Archive, snapshot made 7 April 2011.

[DJKillaQueen]

You might be right on that.....

[ianr]

The three bike signs have now been close to erased. I don't know what that signifies, but I think it at least removes any worry that Southwark might find themselves having to pay a million or two in damages to an injured cyclist.