In article ,
(John Ray) wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

Anyway, Queen Square is all clockwise except for the southeast
corner, which is two way... now *that's* confusing.

Russell Square now has a Northbound bus lane on the East side, so that
that side is 2-way. However, if I remember correctly, there is a
physical barrier (kerbstones or similar) between the two lanes.

And a weird new cycle contraflow lane on the West side which appears to
continue into the South side which has no such lane. Anyone understand it?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way system, even
though when all of the roads in and out of the square are one-way, an
anti-clockwise one-way system is superior

Very unlucky to go round anything widdershins tho'. :-)


*Keith*

John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way system, even
though when all of the roads in and out of the square are one-way,
an anti-clockwise one-way system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better view of
vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Many squares, such as St James, have roads which are wide enough
to be two-way, and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around for no
reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide, but it does
allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking a parking space, to be
overtaken. Two-way traffic would make that hazardous, and would also
lead to lots more conflicting movements at junctions. Forcing you to go
the long way round is a well-known technique for discouraging through
traffic from a residential area that is not a main traffic artery.

Belgrave Square in particular has a phenomenal width of tarmac for
no reason, leading cars to speed up noticeably as they circuit the
square, when making the grassed area a lot larger would lead to a
safer and more pleasant environment while only adding a few seconds
to car journeys.

I think the wide road is a deliberate design feature intended to
impress. I'm not sure whose environment you are trying to improve here.
Drivers are presumably happy. The "grassed area" that you want to make
larger is already 4.5 acres and contains not just grass but "large plane
trees... pergolas with wisteria, roses and passion flowers. There is a
quiet garden, a play area for children, a tennis court and a collecttion
of statuary reflecting the international nature of the square."*
Extending this historic garden just to snarl up the traffic seems
pointless.

*from advance publicity for Open Gardens Square Weekend, 11/12 June 2005
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/london.ga...res/index.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way
system, even though when all of the roads in and out
of the square are one-way, an anti-clockwise one-way
system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better
view of vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Why would traffic already on the square need to have a view of traffic
joining it, over whom they have prority?

Many squares, such as St James, have roads
which are wide enough to be two-way,
and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around
for no reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide,
but it does allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking
a parking space, to be overtaken.

I can't think of any non-square which has been made one-way just to aid
overtaking of parking cars.

--
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

John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way
system, even though when all of the roads in and out
of the square are one-way, an anti-clockwise one-way
system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better
view of vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Why would traffic already on the square need to have a view of
traffic joining it, over whom they have prority?

To avoid collisions? (Priorities are not always observed.) I was merely
pointing out that the very marginal disadvantage from clockwise
circulation was offset by an equally marginal advantage.

Many squares, such as St James, have roads
which are wide enough to be two-way,
and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around
for no reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide,
but it does allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking
a parking space, to be overtaken.

I can't think of any non-square which has been made one-way just to
aid overtaking of parking cars.

It's one of the main advantages of a one-way street that a very slow or
stationary vehicle can be overtaken without waiting for oncoming traffic
to clear. The improvement in traffic flow is the main reason why
one-way streets were introduced. If two-way traffic was introduced as
you suggest, I suspect that you would lose more time from disrupted
traffic flow than you would gain from shorter journeys.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

an anti-clockwise
one-way system is superior (because drivers have better visibility when
curving to the left).

There might be better visibility once in the square, curving to the left, but
surely with traffic going clockwise, entry TO the roundabout, square or
whatever is much easier than if the traffic were coming from the left, since
visibility is better to the entering driver, sitting on the right, if traffic
is also coming from the right.

That same logic is why, presumably, in countries where traffic drives on the
right, roundabouts etc. are anti-clockwise.

In sharp contradistinction to this, have you witnesses the complicated traffic
signalling etc. needed where there ARE anti-clockwise roundabouts in the U.K.?
I am thinking particularly of Hammersmith (and now Vauxhall) Bus Stations. The
Hammersmith entry/exits are particularly tortuous, and several people have been
knocked down (I think one may have died) when trying to walk across the
Southern entry/exit lanes on Hammersmith Broadway (i.e. parallel to the
flyover) because of the odd direction of those lanes, which are opposite to the
way you would expect traffic to travel.

Marc.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
an anti-clockwise
one-way system is superior (because drivers have better visibility when
curving to the left).

There might be better visibility once in the square, curving to the left,
but
surely with traffic going clockwise, entry TO the roundabout, square or
whatever is much easier than if the traffic were coming from the left,
since
visibility is better to the entering driver, sitting on the right, if
traffic
is also coming from the right.

This is exactly right. Having driven my UK car(s) extensively
in Europe for the last three years, by far the hardest thing to do
in such a car is filtering right out of a minor road into a major
one. It's OK if you come to a stop at 90 degrees, but if the road
is wide enough so that you stop at a 60 degree angle your visability
of the traffic already on the road is close to zero without turning
your head into very akward position. Such a road design would
not last very long before it were changed back IMHO.

tim

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
an anti-clockwise
one-way system is superior (because drivers have better visibility when
curving to the left).

There might be better visibility once in the square, curving to the left,
but
surely with traffic going clockwise, entry TO the roundabout, square or
whatever is much easier than if the traffic were coming from the left,
since
visibility is better to the entering driver, sitting on the right, if
traffic
is also coming from the right.

If London squares are configured as clockwise roundabouts, it allows the
normal "give way to traffic on your right that's already on the roundabout"
rule to be used; otherwise a contrdictory, counter-intuitive rule would have
to be used in those circumstances: hence there woudl be the need at every
junction to think "Is this a clockwise roundabout or an anticlockwise one?
Do I give way to traffic on my right or on my left in this specific case".
Better to have one rule for all situations.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

If London squares are configured as clockwise roundabouts,
it allows the normal "give way to traffic on your right that's
already on the roundabout" rule to be used;
otherwise a contrdictory, counter-intuitive rule
would have to be used in those circumstances:
hence there woudl be the need at every junction
to think "Is this a clockwise roundabout or an
anticlockwise one? Do I give way to traffic on
my right or on my left in this specific case".
Better to have one rule for all situations.

A square is not a roundabout. When you are entering a square, it doesn't
look like a roundabout. It looks like a T-junction between three one-way
roads, like the other million T-junctions between three one-way roads in
central London. A quick glance at a map suggests that, excluding the
squares, these junctions are split 50:50 between those where you must turn
right and those where you must turn left.

--
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

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

There might be better visibility once in the square,
curving to the left, but surely with traffic going clockwise,
entry TO the roundabout, square or whatever
is much easier than if the traffic were coming from the left,
since visibility is better to the entering driver,
sitting on the right, if traffic is also coming from the right.

That same logic is why, presumably, in countries where
traffic drives on the right, roundabouts etc. are anti-clockwise.

Not at all: it is because, when the roads are two-way, this removes
conflicting motions between cars entering and leaving at the same side road.

--
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