On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Roland Perry wrote:

In message ,
at 19:22:38 on Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Nowadays the DfT resists firmly any No Entry signs with exceptions other
than for buses.

...and Peterborough.

On *very* wide roads, presumably.

No, the one I have in mind is on a fairly narrow one.

Hmm. Peterborough must be quite a lot narrower than i'd thought, then.



tom

--
So the moon is approximately 24 toasters from S****horpe.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.

The Government won't allow such signs. Cambridge City Council would
dearly like to have some but we have been refused repeatedly. At least
one of our cycle contra flow arrangements is regarded as frowned upon by
the Government regional office.

Hang on - so how *should* such a situation be signed? For example, what
does Lloyd Baker Street look like from the Farringdon Road (or King's
Cross Road, there) end? That's a one-way street which feeds into
Farringdon Road, but which has a contraflow cycle lane up it (which is
mostly or entirely physically segregated, if that matters).

Since i've ridden up it more times than i've had hot dinners, i really
ought to know, but i tend not to pay too much attention to all that street
sign malarkey.

tom

--
So the moon is approximately 24 toasters from S****horpe.

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message
, at
00:50:00 on Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.

The Government won't allow such signs. Cambridge City Council would
dearly like to have some but we have been refused repeatedly. At least
one of our cycle contra flow arrangements is regarded as frowned upon
by the Government regional office.

So why didn't they refuse Peterborough - or did they just put the sign
up anyway?

I don't know any more than why London is different. In Peterborough's case
I have my suspicions.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise
one-way street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that
someone would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't
in the book.

The Government won't allow such signs. Cambridge City Council would
dearly like to have some but we have been refused repeatedly. At least
one of our cycle contra flow arrangements is regarded as frowned upon
by the Government regional office.

Hang on - so how *should* such a situation be signed? For example, what
does Lloyd Baker Street look like from the Farringdon Road (or King's
Cross Road, there) end? That's a one-way street which feeds into
Farringdon Road, but which has a contraflow cycle lane up it (which is
mostly or entirely physically segregated, if that matters).

Since i've ridden up it more times than i've had hot dinners, i really
ought to know, but i tend not to pay too much attention to all that
street sign malarkey.

Don't know that street but the general rule is No Entry signs for cars
with an island to the left and a cycle lane to the left of the island with
cycle lane signs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

(Colin Rosenstiel) writes:

You believe wrong. Road signs are controlled by domestic legislation and
not standardised across the EU.

Their appearance is somewhat standardized with the Vienna convention,
but their use, precise meaning and so on aren't.

In message ,
at 12:10:30 on Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Hang on - so how *should* such a situation be signed? For example, what
does Lloyd Baker Street look like from the Farringdon Road (or King's
Cross Road, there) end? That's a one-way street which feeds into
Farringdon Road, but which has a contraflow cycle lane up it (which is
mostly or entirely physically segregated, if that matters).

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be an appropriate legal sign.
--
Roland Perry

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in a traffic island 1
metre from the kerb, and have No Entry signs on the large entrance, and
Cycle Only signs on the small entrance.

May I introduce you to some junctions in my ward which lack the odd spare
metre you seem to be thinking of?

Botolph Lane?

You don't have to have a contraflow cycle lane, and you can use 'no
motor vehicles' instead of 'no entry'. See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 06/98.

With this signing you can also have a contraflow lane without the
splitter island. But I'm convinced the way ahead is to persuade the
DfT to modify it's view about no entry except cycles.

Colin Mckenzie

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in
a traffic island 1 metre from the kerb, and have No
Entry signs on the large entrance, and
Cycle Only signs on the small entrance.

May I introduce you to some junctions in my ward which lack the odd spare
metre you seem to be thinking of?

If there isn't enough width for a traffic lane and a cycle lane, then
perhaps putting a contraflow cycle lane up it isn't a great idea!

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article ,
(O-V R:nen) wrote:

(Colin Rosenstiel) writes:

You believe wrong. Road signs are controlled by domestic legislation
and not standardised across the EU.

Their appearance is somewhat standardized with the Vienna convention,
but their use, precise meaning and so on aren't.

FSVO "somewhat". I never cease to be amazed on overseas visits just how
different they are in other countries.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in a traffic island 1
metre from the kerb, and have No Entry signs on the large entrance,
and Cycle Only signs on the small entrance.

May I introduce you to some junctions in my ward which lack the odd
spare metre you seem to be thinking of?

Botolph Lane?

No. Downing Street and Malcolm Street. Botolph Lane is two way for all
traffic. A one-way proposal in the early 1970s was rejected by Council
officers on the grounds that it was too narrow (no kidding!).

You don't have to have a contraflow cycle lane, and you can use 'no
motor vehicles' instead of 'no entry'. See Traffic Advisory Leaflet
06/98.

Indeed. But car drivers are notoriously bad at obeying "low flying
motorcycles" signs. See Bene't St.

With this signing you can also have a contraflow lane without the
splitter island. But I'm convinced the way ahead is to persuade the
DfT to modify it's view about no entry except cycles.

Agree but if Britain's premier cycling city can't persuade the DfT, who
can?

--
Colin Rosenstiel