In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

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?

"No motor vehicles", at least until the paving gets sorted out to provide
a cycle entry lane.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

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.

That's their preference, certainly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Roland Perry wrote:

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?

No. It's on the pavement to the left of the cycle lane. I knew i should
have drawn a diagram! Seen from the other side of the Farringdon Road,
starting and ending on the pavement, it goes:

no entry sign - kerb down - cycle lane away - island - main lane towards -
cycle lane towards - kerb up - no entry sign

There's a pedestrian crossing across the mouth of the whole thing, but i
don't think that matters.

tom

--
I don't wanna know your name, i just want BANG BANG BANG!

In message ,
at 14:34:15 on Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Seen from the other side of the Farringdon Road,
starting and ending on the pavement, it goes:

no entry sign - kerb down - cycle lane away - island - main lane towards -
cycle lane towards - kerb up - no entry sign

So there's "No entry" to the cycle lane away. That's a bit inconvenient!
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 14:34:15 on Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Seen from the other side of the Farringdon Road,
starting and ending on the pavement, it goes:

no entry sign - kerb down - cycle lane away - island - main lane
towards - cycle lane towards - kerb up - no entry sign

So there's "No entry" to the cycle lane away. That's a bit inconvenient!

The sign may not be in accordance with the related Traffic Regulation
Order of course, like the mandatory left turn at the South end of St
Martin's Lane where a cycle lane is provided for cyclists to turn right
towards Trafalgar Square. Clearly there should be an "Except for cycles"
plate there.

They just can't get the staff you know. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin McKenzie wrote:
to modify it's view
----
Arrgh!!!
I can't believe I did that. Sorry, all.

Colin.

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Wherever a road is too narrow for vehicles to pass easily in opposite
directions, they slow down, one finds a wider place, and they get past
each other. This works fine with contraflow cycling too, as long as
drivers know the cyclist is there legally. The contraflow lane is
frankly a red herring.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

In message , at
00:31:40 on Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:
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.

Wherever a road is too narrow for vehicles to pass easily in opposite
directions, they slow down, one finds a wider place, and they get past
each other. This works fine with contraflow cycling too, as long as
drivers know the cyclist is there legally. The contraflow lane is
frankly a red herring.

But there's the additional problem that if you are the car, and you meet
an obstruction, you need to enter the mandatory contraflow lane in order
to get past. That's illegal (or, no-one has ever quoted a rule that
makes it legal, as far as I know).
--
Roland Perry