In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

"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!

There's room for a traffic lane and a cycle lane alright. What there isn't
room for is a traffic island as well, hence my reference to "a spare
metre".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 10 Sep 2004:

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.

But at least they are the same sort of shape and size, and you know
roughly what they mean - in the USA, they are so utterly different that
driving there was a real problem until we got to know them.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

In message , at
22:12:09 on Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:

you can use 'no motor vehicles' instead of 'no entry'.

Except these are always interpreted by motorists as having an invisible
"except for access", presumably because most do have a visible one.

What's the sign at the west end of Benet St?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:46:35 on Fri,
10 Sep 2004, John Rowland
remarked:
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!

The thing there isn't room for is the island between the traffic lane
and the cycle lane on which to put a traffic sign. But yes, some of
these contraflow lanes are in quite narrow streets where the slightest
obstruction causes cars to encroach on the lane. But as the lesser of
two evils (the greater being no lane, but cyclists using the road
contraflow anyway) perhaps it's safer.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

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"

The Government won't allow such signs.

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).

Okay, i had a look last night, and what it's got is a no entry sign on
each side, an island to the left (as i go in) and the cycle lane to the
left of that; the lane is segregated, there being a non-segregated conflow
lane on the other side (which is probably solid-lined, although the road
surface is in such a state that it's not clear). However, there isn't any
sort of sign indicating that bikes can go in.

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.

Almost perfect! You get a B+ .

This bit of cycle lane is quite new, so it's possible that the council
haven't got round to signing it fully yet - i'd certainly hope for some
sort of bike sign. The next road down, which is one-way the other way, has
a bike lane and an LCN route sign (or whatever it is - blue thing saying
'Angel 1/2'); i suspect the plan is to essentially use the new lane to
replace that one, which would include moving the signs, so they'll
probably finish off the cycle signing then.

tom

--
The revolving disc of plagues is particularly fun. -- greengolux

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, 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?

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.

Do they say why they don't like that possibility? Perhaps they believe
it's not safe to have such a lane.

tom

--
The revolving disc of plagues is particularly fun. -- greengolux

In message , at
11:01:46 on Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
But I'm convinced the way ahead is to persuade the DfT
to modify it's view about no entry except cycles.

Do they say why they don't like that possibility? Perhaps they believe
it's not safe to have such a lane.

All we have to go on is the regulation, which is a bit short on
"explanation" (of the things they do allow, let alone the things they
don't). You'd have to do some real digging to see if the consultation
processes leading up to the formation of the regulation contained any
discussion of the various perms and combs of sign and plate.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
11:00:37 on Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Okay, i had a look last night, and what it's got is a no entry sign on
each side, an island to the left (as i go in) and the cycle lane to the
left of that; the lane is segregated, there being a non-segregated conflow
lane on the other side (which is probably solid-lined, although the road
surface is in such a state that it's not clear). However, there isn't any
sort of sign indicating that bikes can go in.

But the lefthand no-entry sign is on the island?

I'm beginning to think that tptb think that any road with a contraflow
cycle lane should have one of those islands, and hence no need to
qualify the "No Entry" signs as they don't encompass the cycle lane.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Annabel Smyth) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 10 Sep 2004:

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.

But at least they are the same sort of shape and size, and you know
roughly what they mean - in the USA, they are so utterly different that
driving there was a real problem until we got to know them.

Not really in my experience. perhaps having seen Brazilian signs first
helped. They are more of a American/European hybrid.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, 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?

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.

Do they say why they don't like that possibility? Perhaps they believe
it's not safe to have such a lane.

Roland half refers to the reason. "No entry" signs are better respected
than "No motor vehicles" signs because so many of the latter have
exception plates that too many motorists assume the exceptions include
them. Why bus exceptions are OK and cycles not, you'll have to ask the
DfT.

--
Colin Rosenstiel