Contra flow cycling:Kevin Mayne on Radio 4's Today Programme

[andwags]

Probably all the red tape involved, but now there are more of us so the pressure in on.

[eileithyia]

There's a cyclist contraflow that I've used somewhere in cheshire in the past, Sandbach I think though am willing to be corrected if that is wrong, seemed a bit strange at first but the opposing flow of traffic seemed to cope with it and understood how it worked more than I did.

[patmac]

So, a bike is not a wheeled vehicle, it's a Hybrid! What a topsy turvy world we live in when we can deny the evidence of our own eyes! I've just taken a look at my bike out on the patio. It's got a wheel at the front and a wheel at the back. Between each wheel there is a frame. The frame carries a saddle to sit on, handlebars to steer with, pedals to propel it forward and a drive chain to provide the power.. I'd say if it looks like a wheeled vehicle, and behaves like a wheeled vehicle,it is a wheeled vehicle! And I'm not being 'disengenuous', mearly accurate in my observation. I try to apply reason and rationality to my thinking, and add a dash of common sense, especially when I'm trying to deal seriously with a subject.
As for 'talking crap' I leave that to others to judge. What I do try to do is treat other's genuine opinions with respect, however much I might disagree with them. That is called 'debate' ( as opposed to 'rant' )!

[kwackers]

So, a bike is not a wheeled vehicle, it's a Hybrid! What a topsy turvy world we live in when we can deny the evidence of our own eyes! I've just taken a look at my bike out on the patio. It's got a wheel at the front and a wheel at the back. Between each wheel there is a frame. The frame carries a saddle to sit on, handlebars to steer with, pedals to propel it forward and a drive chain to provide the power.. I'd say if it looks like a wheeled vehicle, and behaves like a wheeled vehicle,it is a wheeled vehicle! And I'm not being 'disengenuous', mearly accurate in my observation. I try to apply reason and rationality to my thinking, and add a dash of common sense, especially when I'm trying to deal seriously with a subject.
As for 'talking crap' I leave that to others to judge. What I do try to do is treat other's genuine opinions with respect, however much I might disagree with them. That is called 'debate' ( as opposed to 'rant' )!

Denying evidence? Debate? I suggest a debate can only occur when things are taken in context.

To quote myself

Sorry I disagree, bikes are not cars - calling them wheeled vehicles is disingenuous, similarly they're not pedestrians, they're an hybrid and should be treated as such.

You'll notice that statement doesn't claim bike aren't 'wheeled vehicles' it simply makes the statement that the term 'wheeled vehicles' when used to compare a bicycle to a car is disingenuous - which I believe is true, the rules applied to bicycles need to reflect the fact they're not cars or pedestrians, which in fact I think you'll find that they already do (to an extent).
This is the stuff of debates, not taking a statement out of context and then making it out to be something it isn't.
If you truly believe bikes are cars - then I suggest you take your bicycle and occupy the road in the same manner as a car and in a variety of car like situations. If you don't get knocked off or verbally abused by car drivers I'll be amazed.

Obviously your offended by my use of the work 'crap' and for that I apologise - re-reading the offending paragraph I'm not convinced I've got across the point I was trying to make which is that we shouldn't be scared of trying new things, the current 'status quo' doesn't do bikes any favours.

I'm in favour of cycling up *some* one way streets against oncoming traffic (where conditions allow) and to be frank I've been doing it for years without any problems whatsoever. In fact the only times I've been in collision with a car is cycling past a junction (car pulled out), cycling round a traffic island (car cut across) and cycling with the flow in a bike lane (car pulled into lane). So from my perspective doing things the 'right' way is by far the most dangerous...

[adinigel]

....I'm in favour of cycling up *some* one way streets against oncoming traffic (where conditions allow) and to be frank I've been doing it for years without any problems whatsoever.....

Are these roads marked to allow contra-flow cycling or are you just cycling up a one-way street against the flow? I think it would be a good idea to allow cyclists to cycle against the flow in a one-way street, BUT only if markings make it clear that it is allowed so that other road users are aware it is going to happen. Cycling up a one-way street without those markings is, I believe, totally irresponsible.

If carte-blanche were to be given to cyclists to cycle against the flow on ALL one-way streets you could have cyclists on either side of the road or even down the middle - ie there would be the possibility of complete mayhem!

Nigel

[kwackers]

....I'm in favour of cycling up *some* one way streets against oncoming traffic (where conditions allow) and to be frank I've been doing it for years without any problems whatsoever.....

Are these roads marked to allow contra-flow cycling or are you just cycling up a one-way street against the flow? I think it would be a good idea to allow cyclists to cycle against the flow in a one-way street, BUT only if markings make it clear that it is allowed so that other road users are aware it is going to happen. Cycling up a one-way street without those markings is, I believe, totally irresponsible.

If carte-blanche were to be given to cyclists to cycle against the flow on ALL one-way streets you could have cyclists on either side of the road or even down the middle - ie there would be the possibility of complete mayhem!

Nigel

None of the roads around here that I'm aware of have road markings which actually allow a bike legally to ride up the wrong way.
However to set the scene, typically these are relatively short roads (designed to prevent rat runs), there are parking restrictions (no parked cars - which would force you into the road), no side roads for cars to come out of.
If I don't nip up one of these roads the wrong way on my way to work in a morning, it adds half a mile to my journey and forces me to navigate a 3 lane roundabout.
Given traffic rules exist to make the roads safer and I definitely don't feel safe navigating the island, I'd suggest cycling up that particular street can only be a good thing. Out of interest there's a police station fairly close and I often pass police cars coming the other way and they don't seem to give a ****.
Also, I've never had a problem with cars, they simply ignore me (whereas on the island I have problems with them all the time).

I believe 'mayhem' occurs when you do something irresponsibly and without due consideration, not when it's done in a considerate and responsible fashion. It's possible to cycle on pavements safely using consideration and responsibility (I have more problems jogging on pavements than at any other time). Interestingly a lot of cycle paths near me force you onto a pavement then don't tell you to dismount - does anyone know what the legal position of that is?

Perhaps the real solution is to leave the traffic rules as is - if a cyclist goes the wrong way up a one way street with care and attention then fine, otherwise the police would have a weapon at their disposal to prosecute.

[patmac]

Well,very fortunately we still live in a country which respects free speech, and long may it continue, which is why I'll stick to my contention that a bike is a wheeled vehicle, as is a car. I will also stick to my riding style which has served me so well for over twenty years, and has resulted in only one accident ( not my fault ) at a large local roundabout. I won't be riding up any one way streets against the traffic, even if it's signed for contra flow, and I won't be riding on any pavements.

[kwackers]

Well,very fortunately we still live in a country which respects free speech, and long may it continue, which is why I'll stick to my contention that a bike is a wheeled vehicle, as is a car. I will also stick to my riding style which has served me so well for over twenty years, and has resulted in only one accident ( not my fault ) at a large local roundabout. I won't be riding up any one way streets against the traffic, even if it's signed for contra flow, and I won't be riding on any pavements.

I just want to check something here, because I'm still not sure where you're coming from.

Are you against concessions for bicycles on the basis that 'roads are for wheeled vehicles and therefore bicycles being by definition wheeled vehicles should be on the roads?'

You see I think bicycles need concessions precisely because they're not cars and shouldn't be treated as such, just as I don't think they're pedestrians and shouldn't be treated as such.

We already have some concessions which make life safer for us - surely trying more out is a good thing?

As a final explanation as to why I think the whole wheeled vehicle thing is disingenuous and why trying to make the whole debate so black and white doesn't work, I think you should consider all the other human propelled vehicles that match your description of 'wheeled vehicles' but imo are much more bicycle like than car like.

Prams, wheelchairs, peddle cars, roller blades etc. Suddenly the whole 'wheeled vehicle' argument doesn't stand up. All flat asphalt surfaces are designed for wheeled vehicles. Most road regulations are designed for cars.

Am I claiming to know the answer? Not at all, in fact quite the contrary I'm actually unsure what the right answer is at all, but I do think changes are needed and if it's good for motorists it not necessarily good for cyclists. And this is based on over 45 years of cycling, walking/running, motorcycling and driving (all of which I still do).

[patmac]

Ah well, if you are going to abandon common sense, rationality, reason, and logic-'prams etc'- this discussion could go literally anywhere.In that case anything wheel shaped could be called a wheeled vehicle-the London Eye, the international space station, a jaffa cake! The point, of course, is that non of these is designed to transport persons or persons and goods ( for those who insist on touring! ) on the road, as a bike is.

I like clear thinking, black and white thinking if you will. I offer the following for your enlightenment:
'Vehicle: 1 any conveyance for transporting people, goods, etc., esp on land. Concise Oxford Dictionary 1993.
This could be, say, a bicycle, for instance.

[reohn2]

Ah well, if you are going to abandon common sense, rationality, reason, and logic-'prams etc'- this discussion could go literally anywhere.In that case anything wheel shaped could be called a wheeled vehicle-the London Eye, the international space station, a jaffa cake! The point, of course, is that non of these is designed to transport persons or persons and goods ( for those who insist on touring! ) on the road, as a bike is.

I like clear thinking, black and white thinking if you will. I offer the following for your enlightenment:
'Vehicle: 1 any conveyance for transporting people, goods, etc., esp on land. Concise Oxford Dictionary 1993.
This could be, say, a bicycle, for instance.

that wouldn't be prejudice thinking would it?

PS, I'm a shades of grey man myself

[Simon L6]

I'm entirely against cyclist contraflows (along with cycle lanes). Either the roadway is wide enough to allow two way traffic (and almost every road in the UK is wide enough) or it's not. Pedestrians have enought to watch out for without extra kerbs and cyclist appearing from where they're least expected. We'd be far better off campaigning for the removal of one way streets.

[kwackers]

Ah well, if you are going to abandon common sense, rationality, reason, and logic-'prams etc'- this discussion could go literally anywhere.In that case anything wheel shaped could be called a wheeled vehicle-the London Eye, the international space station, a jaffa cake! The point, of course, is that non of these is designed to transport persons or persons and goods ( for those who insist on touring! ) on the road, as a bike is.

I like clear thinking, black and white thinking if you will. I offer the following for your enlightenment:
'Vehicle: 1 any conveyance for transporting people, goods, etc., esp on land. Concise Oxford Dictionary 1993.
This could be, say, a bicycle, for instance.

Or a pram, or a wheelchair, or a...

I'm sorry but when your view of how things should work is based on a dictionary definition then I think there's no hope. (IMO this is what's wrong with this country, common sense no, definitions, technicalities and prior art yes.)

You say you want intelligent discussion but I've seen no evidence of it, in fact you simply state the definitions and stand by them. Ultimately all I've got from you is that a car and bike are equivalent and therefore should be treated the same which to be honest makes me wonder if you actually do any cycling at all. (Or perhaps you're simply lucky not to have to cycle along busy roads/town streets during the rush hour).

I'm reading this thread (and commenting) because I'm hoping someone has good well defined (and argued) ideas which may give me pause for thought. But I really find it difficult to take anyone who thinks bikes are cars seriously (especially when their only proof is a dictionary definition which as I've demonstrated can be applied to anything - and yes it was intended to be a stupid demonstration, I was hoping to show that claiming bikes are equivalent to cars because they have wheels as such too).

Me and you are poles apart so I suspect it's probably best to leave it there as we'll never agree.

P.S. Look up 'Car' in the Oxford English Dictionary - if it says "two wheeled manually propelled vehicle" then I take it all back and hold up my hands

All the best by the way - no malicious intent meant.

[adinigel]

Well,very fortunately we still live in a country which respects free speech, and long may it continue, which is why I'll stick to my contention that a bike is a wheeled vehicle, as is a car. I will also stick to my riding style which has served me so well for over twenty years, and has resulted in only one accident ( not my fault ) at a large local roundabout. I won't be riding up any one way streets against the traffic, even if it's signed for contra flow, and I won't be riding on any pavements.

I can understand why you wont cycle on pavements. If caught you can end up with a fairly hefty fine!

Do you cycle in Bus lanes? I will use them if convenient and I would have no problem cycling along a contra-flow cycle or bus lane if it suited me.

Nigel

[john4703]

I use a short length of contaflow cycle lane on my night time rides home. I find it safe and convenient. It is green lane with a white line separating me from the traffic. I think the most impressive thing is that the sensors for the traffic lights detect me and change the lights quickly.

[kwackers]

I use a short length of contaflow cycle lane on my night time rides home. I find it safe and convenient. It is green lane with a white line separating me from the traffic. I think the most impressive thing is that the sensors for the traffic lights detect me and change the lights quickly.

That sounds pretty cool actually - since a lot of one way streets were originally two way (and thus wide) it makes sense to narrow them to single lane and mark the other out for bicycles. Obviously this costs money and bicycles don't have big enough political clout (yet) for this to happen on any scale. But hopefully....

In my view the main points are:

1. Cyclists are people and people will always take the shortest route (human nature).

2. In safety terms cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets are right at the bottom of the pile - so (public outcry permitting) police aren't interested.

3. Does the street in question allow cyclists to minimise time spent on busy through roads (thereby increasing safety)?

4. Does it make sense to legalise it? Would it be better to turn a blind eye and just prosecute if necessary. Or should we divert police resources into a zero tolerance approach - back to point 3.


I think if point 3 is met then there should be no question that the road should be made two way for cyclists. Other than that I think I'm edging towards the 'blind eye but prosecute if necessary' approach.


Some final observations. Pedestrians - I've never seen a pedestrian yet that checked for cars in only one direction, regardless of whether the street was one way or not. They either look both ways or none.
There are some that rely on ears - and step out in front of you without looking, but when the great electric car revolution happens they'll be rapidly removed from the gene pool.

I spend a lot of time running along country lanes (no pavements) against the flow of traffic and to be honest I don't see why that's less dangerous than cycling against them either (you're the same width). Seems to me it's all in the motorists perception - someone running towards me, fine. Cyclist on the wrong side of the road - MANIAC! beep beeep.

I also think how we behave depends a lot on our bike. I use a mountain bike to ride work and it's slow so I find I tend to stay out of the traffic's way. The bike paths join up with the footpaths and definitely give the impression that for some of the route at least it's ok to cycle on them - occasionally they actually split the path but that just means the pedestrians occupy both 'lanes'.
However when I use my road bike I'm more assertive and occupy my 'space' on the road, I no longer use the cycle paths preferring to stay on the roads - I suspect because I'm much faster and the roads are smoother. Consequently I then behave much more like a car and ride more to the letter of the law...