Cyclists in York are petitioning the council to allow them to ride both ways on a number of one-way streets.
The petition’s creator, Lars Kramm – a former Green Party councillor for Micklegate – says allowing cyclists to ride both ways on some one-way streets would make cycling in York and its villages more appealing and convenient as it would open up the street network and provide short-cuts.
He feels the move would make cycling safer by offering alternatives to busy roads and would also prevent many people from riding on the pavement.
Some one-way streets in York already make exceptions for cyclists, but on the majority of such roads they either have to take a detour, get off their bike and push, or ride illegally.
"Illegal cycling cannot be condoned,” Kramm told the York Press. "However, many ordinary people who live on or near these streets choose to cycle in the contraflow direction because it forms a natural desire line for them.
"Cyclists need direct and convenient routes. A great deal of evidence has accumulated that two-way cycling in one-way streets can be safely accommodated."
Cycling UK’s position on contra-flow cycling is that one-way systems put cyclists at a disadvantage, making their journeys longer and more stressful.
“Restoring two-way cycling on one-way streets can significantly improve the safety, convenience and attractiveness of cycling,” it says.
The charity argues that contra-flow works perfectly safely in many other European countries, where it is already widespread and, as it gives cycling an advantage over driving, also helps encourage a shift from cars to bikes for short local journeys.
It believes all local authorities should review their one-way streets with the aim of progressively converting them to two-way use or permitting contra-flow cycling unless it can be demonstrated that there are overriding hazards.
A trial to allow cyclists to ride down High Petergate in York when the road is closed to other traffic during the day was given the green light earlier this year.
Add new comment
15 comments
According to most of the mongs on Yorkpress.co.uk, cyclists already do this by ignoring all laws etc., etc.
really, do you have to use that archaic and offensive descriptive, this isn't the 1970s anymore!
Shut it Joey.
you're quite the lad aren't you, using offensive terms isn't clever, grow up ffs!
The system has been in widespread use over here for at least 10 years, it works well (only applies to city/town centers). Drivers adapt their speed. The only time when it causes problems is in narrow streets when a truck or more likely a bus approaches. We have a system of objective liability where the driver of a motor vehicle is always held liable for damages except in cases of gross negligence (medical costs, property damages are only paid if the other party is formally at fault) incurred by a cyclist or pedestrian.
Right turn on red for cyclists exists but has to be explicitly signposted and it only allows passing the signal in the way indicated, the cyclist has no priority.
The only reason one way streets exist is to accomodate motor vehicles in close urban environment where theres no room for two vehicles to pass.
It has never made logical sense that the rule applys to cyclists as well. One way streets really disadvantage cycling and often force people onto busier roads, so lets make it a default for cycling on two way streets.
this is one of several contraflow cycle lanes in Ipswich town centre, https://goo.gl/maps/9wv1CXhAQJt5yWn57 how a cyclist hasnt been hurt or killed riding it yet I can only assume is because no-one is that insane enough to use it.
and there have been several collisions with pedestrians stepping off pavements on the other contraflow route, I avoid them as most cyclists do in the town so what benefit do they provide ?
maybe if they were protected with a kerb to stop people treating it as extra road space and driving into them, and pedestrians werent just looking out for motorised traffic going the other way, they might work, but frankly theyd be better just turned into 2way cycling only routes.
There's a one way street in my town which is associated with shared pathways but some cyclists think it is clever to ride the wrong way despite the echelon parking.
Then there is the high st that some twats and deliveroo riders think it is really clever to ride the wrong way.
I think I am a no except in fairly tightly defined circumstances.
I think the left hand turn is ok as described by HP.
Where a street is wide enough to include a marked contra-cycle-lane, fine, but otherwise I am against them as a general rule. A large number of roads here in Stavanger were recently changed like this with no marked lane, and many of the roads are really unsuited to even acar and bike meeting, and when adelivery truck comes there simply is not space.
Seconded. If a road isn't wide enough for a parked delivery truck, a contraflow cycle lane, AND a lane of inflow traffic, then a contraflow lane is not a good idea there.
There are roads narrower than that where it works well, ones where there isn't room for both a parked motor vehicle and one lane of traffic. They don't allow parking, of course.
I can just imagine the collective explosion of apoplectic purple faced heads in the LTA and other such august bodies of 'professional ' drivers at your second suggestion, HP.
It works well in the U.S. (though over there it's right-on-red), so maybe it could be applied to motor vehicles too if the roads are wide enough.
And not just when turning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
I think there should be a national law change to allow contraflow cycling. Just make it so that cyclists have to give way to traffic coming the other direction and I can't see it being a probem.
Also, turning left on red lights should be allowed (again, giving way to pedestrians and other traffic as necessary).