Cycling wrong way up one way street

[JNugent]

Cynic wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

[on the topic of cycling - or, for that matter, driving - the wrong way
along a one-way street]

>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.

> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.

Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
others, collisions are more, not less, likely.

> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:

> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).

If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
without hard shoulders.

That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
really mean it).

> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

He can do that *anyway*.

> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?

> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

So I see.

It takes all sorts.

PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:49 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>others, collisions are more, not less, likely.

If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.

>> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>
>> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
>> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
>> rearview mirrors).

>If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
>the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
>without hard shoulders.

Yes. Far more sensible *especially* where the speed differential is
extremely high.

>That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
>really mean it).

Not only that, but I have seen it in operation and so know that it
works.

>> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

>He can do that *anyway*.

But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

>> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
>> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

>Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?

I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
normal use on public roads.

>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

>So I see.

>It takes all sorts.

Don't knock it till you've tried it. What side of a road that does
not have a pavement do you believe is the safest for a pedestrian to
walk?

>PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.

It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

--
Cynic

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:09:49 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:49 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>
> >He can do that *anyway*.
>
> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
defer to everyone else.

Some news for you:

Cyclists are traffic.

Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).

> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Steve Firth]

Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:49:53 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
> >to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>
> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).
> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
>
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>
> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
wrong side of the road for the same reason.

 

[JNugent]

Cynic wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>>>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.

>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.

>> Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>> others, collisions are more, not less, likely.

> If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
> the expectations of other road users.

But it isn't, so it is.

>>> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>>> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
>>> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
>>> rearview mirrors).

>> If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
>> the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
>> without hard shoulders.

> Yes. Far more sensible *especially* where the speed differential is
> extremely high.

>> That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
>> really mean it).

> Not only that, but I have seen it in operation and so know that it
> works.

>>> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>>> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

>> He can do that *anyway*.

> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

Perhaps he should be. That would solve that problem.

>>> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
>>> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.

>> Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?

> I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
> normal use on public roads.

That's you saying that, not I.

>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.

>> So I see.
>> It takes all sorts.

> Don't knock it till you've tried it. What side of a road that does
> not have a pavement do you believe is the safest for a pedestrian to
> walk?

You mean a pedestrian travelling (typically) at less than three miles an
hour and able to stop and/or change direction immediately?

Or some other sort of pedestrian?

>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.

> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

Citation, please?

And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?

 

[_]

On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

> Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
> roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).
>

Drivers of motor vehicles have no right at all. They have a licence, which
is a very different thing. Cyclists need nothing - their right to use the
roads exists ab initio. Drivers must fufill a number of conditions, pay
fees, etctera.

 

[Francis Burton]

In article <[email protected]>,
Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>>
>>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>>others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
>
>If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
>the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
>motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
>difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
>is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
>cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.

I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends:

"If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road
so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care
and

* be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads
or in poor light
* keep close to the side of the road

It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand
bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you.
Cross back after the bend."

Francis

 

[TimB]

On May 14, 5:09 pm, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?
Tim

 

[Francis Burton]

In article <1igxxgq.ai0xequdugykN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
>Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
>wrong side of the road for the same reason.

You're right - there's only one reason for anything being done,
which applies in all situations.

Francis

 

[Cynic]

On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.

>> >He can do that *anyway*.

>> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.

>So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
>cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
>regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
>defer to everyone else.

Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users.

>Some news for you:
>Cyclists are traffic.

Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and
not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting
out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so.
I have the same attitude toward any slow-moving vehicle - tractors for
example.

>Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
>roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).

And are just as obliged to treat other users with respect (some would
argue they have a greater obligation).

>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

>As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?

You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be. I can't say I'm a big fan
of apartheid, no. But it would appear to be better than the
alternative has repeatedly proven to be.

Sauce for the goose may well be sauce for the gander, but not
necessarily the best sauce for a duck. If you have never eaten duck,
you may of course be completely ignorant of that fact.

--
Cynic

 

[JNugent]

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>>> Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>>> others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
>> If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
>> the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
>> motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
>> difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
>> is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
>> cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.
>
> I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends:
>
> "If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road
> so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care
> and
>
> * be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads
> or in poor light
> * keep close to the side of the road
>
> It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand
> bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you.
> Cross back after the bend."

It gives that guidance to pedestrians.

Not to cyclists.

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:19 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

>Citation, please?

>And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?

My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
years ago?

--
Cynic

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:41:15 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> >> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>
> >> >He can do that *anyway*.
>
> >> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
>
> >So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
> >cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
> >regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
> >defer to everyone else.
>
> Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users.

They generally have a lower unconstrained top speed, yes.

Are you saying any vehicle should get out of the way of a following
vehicle, if the following vehicle has a potentially greater speed?
That would be a very silly (and completely unworkable) traffic law,
in my opinion.

Over most of my commute, I travel faster than the cars on the same
stretch of road. You presumably propose that they pull off the road
as I approach?

> >Some news for you:
> >Cyclists are traffic.
>
> Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and
> not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting
> out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so.

No, it does not mean that (unless you are adopting a meaning of
'whenever practical' that includes 'at no inconvenience or detriment
to the cyclist', but I doubt that you are).

_Do_ you think the cars should pull off the road as I approach on my
commute?

> >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
> >As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?
>
> You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
> place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be.

No, I will not.

> I can't say I'm a big fan of apartheid, no. But it would appear to
> be better than the alternative has repeatedly proven to be.

You appear to be saying that you believe apartheid South Africa was
better than current South Africa. Is that so?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:20:09 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>>
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
>Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
>wrong side of the road for the same reason.

Well, in most countries that's exactly what they do!

--
Cynic

 

[Jon]

On 14 May, 14:59, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ivan wrote:
> > Neil Williams wrote:
> > actually being lectured the by a cop for
> > 'pushing' a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street as a shortcut,
> > I've never been absolutely certain, but was that, is that illegal?
>
> Only in the ultimate nit-picking sense (in the same way as it might be
> unlawful to push a pram the wrong way down a one-way street

A pram in law is a 'natural accompaniment of a pedestrian' not a
carriage and so can be taken on footways and footpaths.

The point at issue is that the footway is as much a part of the road
as is the carriageway (hence people raising the 'no road tax = should
not be on road' stuff are talking nonsense when they reply to the
point that peds pay no so-called 'road tax' by saying they do not use
the road, they use the pavement).
Theoretically, taking a carriage onto the footway cannot therefore
justify doing anything which cannot be done on that road, as it is
still in the road.

(However in practice someone walking with a cycle is to all intents &
purpose a pedestrian, and could probably win an arguement that they
were so, perhaps by comparing themselves with a person pushing a
faulty or semi-dismantled cycle along - they are clearly a ped.).

Jon

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT), TimB <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

>In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
>cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?

IIRC most cyclists were either black or under the age of 18. Car
drivers were about 50/50 black & white, and most HGV drivers were
black.

--
Cynic

 

[Francis Burton]

In article <[email protected]>,
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.
>>
>> I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends:
>>
>>[snip]
>
>It gives that guidance to pedestrians.
>
>Not to cyclists.

I was specifically addressing the mention of pedestrians.
However, I think the same principle could reasonably be
applied to cyclists too (as long as they didn't take up
much space in the lane, by sticking to single file).

Francis

 

[Francis Burton]

In article <ec397bcb-8278-4f50-bd00-28a311259e9d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
TimB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
>In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
>cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?

So would it have been safer for black pedestrians to walk with
their backs to the passing cars?

Francis

 

[Jon]

On 14 May, 16:28, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:

> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
should "get out of the way" of other traffic. In fact the law is the
opposite: peds. should walk on the right of roads without footways,
but oncoming vehicles should move over out of their way.

What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn
vehicles? Where do they go?

Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless
road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two?

What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds
down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the
norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the
'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams,
reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very
complex task observing all of the streams.

Jon

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.

You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.

>What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn
>vehicles? Where do they go?

I have no idea. I was too young to drive a motor vehicle, and did not
encounter either horses or animal drawn vehicles on the highways.

>Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless
>road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two?

The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
cyclist in this country. The difference being that (1) it is less
likely that a cyclist will fail to see a pedestrian than a car driver
will fail to see a cyclist and (2) the consequence of a collision
betweeen a cyclist and a pedestrian is usually less serious than a
collision between a car and a cyclist.

>What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds
>down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the
>norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the
>'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams,
>reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very
>complex task observing all of the streams.

My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
alternating directions.

--
Cynic