Morris Minor Owners Club

A customer told me this only this week. I Googled it and found that it is true . I don't want to turn this into an opportunity for the "I hate cyclists" brigade to get on their soap box but had I been out in the car on a one way street and found a cyclist riding towards me, I would have been surprised to say the least. This appears to explain why the ones I saw last month, riding the wrong way through Abergavenny town centre (Mostly juveniles on BMXs or clapped out budget mountain bikes), were all ignored by the Police. My views on this are shown below (The customer also thought it was a silly idea) but I thought I'd pass this on to those, who like me, knew nothing about this.

Absolute insanity !!

I speak as a keen cyclist of many years standing (Who has insurance cover to ride on the roads) and will never personally indulge in this foolish practice. I only heard about this recently, so clearly it has not been very well publicised (You would have thought that something like this would be put on News At Ten or public information films, so that other road users would be prepared for it).

It will do nothing for the image of cycling, which has always been looked down upon by the majority of other road users. It is clear that the rules have not been made by people who understand cycling. They have no conception that a fit cyclist can easily ride at 30mph and probably assume that all bikes are ridden at walking pace (Which probably reflects their own experience). A “Seated pedestrian” type cyclist, travelling at 5mph, the wrong way up a one way street (Where 30mph limit applies), represents a closing speed of only 35mph to oncoming traffic; not much greater than a stationery cyclist. On the other hand, a fit cyclist could be closing on them at 60mph.

I don’t think this has been thought through and I suspect has been done to save the Police having to enforce the law, which because so many people were breaking it, has been seen as the easy way out. It is still and offence to ride a bicycle without lights during the hours of darkness but because a lot of irresponsible people do it, will that too become legal? Will driving a motor vehicle, whilst using a hand held mobile phone, become legal for the same reason?

Very interesting. Is this a recent change.

I have to agree that it is a bit silly! Why should one road user be allowed to head the wrong way down a street? Motorists wont be expecting it, and I can see multiple accidents as a result!

The first Google I saw was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2073117 ... reets.html and the item is dated June 2008.

As you can see, I posted my comments against the item.

About 15 years ago I found a man unconscious on a dual carriageway. He had been involved in a collision but there was nothing else on the scene apart from his damaged bike. I was involved later as a witness but I was told by the investigating officer that the incident would'nt be logged as a RTA or Road Traffic Accident because there was no witness evidence of a vehicle being involved. As a result there was no reason to investigate and log it as such. I would have thought that any moving object that uses the highway constitutes 'traffic'. Perhaps that phrase should be renamed MVA. Motor Vehicle Accident. The worrying thing is that the person on the bike should be treated any differently that someone in a car. I use different methods to get to work in the morning. I should be entitled to the same protection from the law whichever way I travel.

Peetee wrote:About 15 years ..........I should be entitled to the same protection from the law whichever way I travel.

I agree entirely. I could quote many instances of people being injured or killed whilst cycling and the culpritts walk free. A serving police officer once said (Not entirely in jest) that the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to knock them off a bicycle.

Two years ago, a former customer and retired police inspector was knocked off his bike, when a car driver turned left into him. She reversed back over him and at some point in the process, he died. The woman in the car has not been charged with anything. On the one hand you could say the Police are treating all cyclists with equal contempt (It happened in his home area) but in practice, you'd think they'd look out for one of their former officers.

A year or two ago, some yobbs tried to open a car door into me whilst on the move. They hadn't allowed for the air pressure on the car door and they missed. It was around 7.30 am and I suspect they had been out all night. Some miles along the road I caught them and whilst I told the driver that if I saw him again, he could look out, I couldn't really hit him in front of the two policemen who had stopped them .

I explained what had happened but despite finding drugs in the car, the police took no action (It was my word against "No comment"). It seems the word of junkies is as valuable as my word (And I have a clean record....even though yes I would have smacked the little ***** given half a chance).

Several one way stretches in Southampton have cycle lanes which do allow cyclists to travel the other way to the traffic. but these are in seperate marked cycle lanes.

I also think it's a silly allowance - I got the firght of my life when I saw a guy on a bicycle coming at me down a one-way street, a coupe of years ago! I even honked my horn at him!
As regarding accidents involving cyclists, there is another alternative, which thankfully didn't get passed onto our statute books, which was going to be that in any accident involving a motor vehicel and a bicycle, the driver of the motor vehicle was always going to be considered at fault. Now, I know that cyclists are treated very badly by a lot of drivers (not all drivers!) but, and this is a big BUT - there are some cyclists who treat us drivers as if we're all like that and are all out to get them, or are all lazy sods or trying to destroy the environment just by having a car. I even had a strong argument with someone years ago in that he took the stance that cars should be abnned and everone should use either bicycles or public transport (I told him where to stick his socialist views!).
So yes, it's not always the driver's fault, and this law allowing cyclists to go the wrong way up one-way streets won't help at all.

Funny that cyclists are regarded as a totally different breed of road user (one who dosn't actually pay for the privelege), yet in real life I'd guess that most cylists are also car drivers. Its always the extreemist views that get heard in these 'them and us' discussions.
As a cyclist and a driver though, I've never heard of the 'wrong way up a one way street rule' and it woudl never have occured to me to try that. I'd be rather surpised and miffed as a driver to find someone doing it too. Very odd. As Blaketon says, a lot of cyling rules are obviously thought out by non cyclists. I've found plenty of cycle lanes that are unfit for purpose either by design or poor construction and maintenance. (A580 East Lancs Road being bumpy, badly surfaced and littered with road debris. Easier to do 25- 30mph on the dual carraigeway than 10 on the cycle path. Few years back now so may have improved....).

Few years back now so may have improved

Unlikely. The reason they were built badly was ignorance. The councils were under an obligation to provide cycle lanes (a percentage per road mile/year is I believe what it was based on). Inexperienced planners, set to to integrate cycle lanes into existing road schemes and the results are, in many cases wholey impractical and in some cases as safe as a square roundabout.
There is a section on the way to work that I chose not to use because it is less safe IMHO than the adjacent road. I have never had a close encounter on that road but the lane is invariably populated by pedestrians - many who pop out unexpectedly between the adjacent fence. It's punctuated by the legs of road signs and traffic light control boxes and one one end used fequently and illegally as an extension to a car showroom forecourt.

Most of our local "Cycleways" are a joke. Some are Mountain bike tracks, which because of non existent drainage, have become deeply rutted (The council calls it a cycle way). Near Abergavenny, the old A40 (Replaced by dual carriageway) has a white line painted about 2 or 3 (At most) feet from each kerb and that is the cycle lane. It forces cars towards the white line, in the middle of the road, which is hardly a good idea and does not allow sufficient room for vehicles to overtake the cyclists safely. In short its no good for anyone.

The simple fact is that if everyone obeys the Highway Code, we can all share the roads. Granted, just as mopeds are not allowed on Motorways, neither are bicycles (Can't quite see why dual carraigeways should be different, as they are often like motorways ).

One of the problems, so far as cycling is concerned, are the misconceptions of other road users. Because some people (Maybe a lot of people) are unfit and have never cycled at more than 5 or 10mph, they assume everyone is like that. Its a bit like the perception that all old cars are bangers. Because many people abuse and neglect their cars (Often in ignorance), many ten year old cars are getting a bit shabby. Based on this, I think many assume that a 40 year old Minor, for example, is shot to pieces. Therefore they don't want to be behind one on the roads. It isn't just with Minors that this assumption is seen. My 46000 mile MGB GT V8 is, even by todays standards, a pretty quick car, yet you still get people in Fiestas who assume otherwise .

a square roundabout.

Is that a squareabout?

The Cycleways in Brighton, as a rule, are pretty good! Granted they tend to be concentrated to the east side of town and the seafront but they are well maintained and I've never had cause to complain.....

What worries me about this is what happens when there is an accident ?
Both parties are in the right, but they've had a head on collision .

I suspect that if it went to court it would either be attributed as 50/50 or the motorist would be blamed for not attending to the needs of a vulnerable road user.

In the event that the cyclist is killed, then I suspect that the motorist would be let off with a slapped wrist - the judiciary simply do not seem to take death on the roads seriously

the motorist would be blamed for not attending to the needs of a vulnerable road user.

Much as I'd like this to be so, is there any evidence that such a presidence exists?

Peetee wrote:

the motorist would be blamed for not attending to the needs of a vulnerable road user.

Much as I'd like this to be so, is there any evidence that such a presidence exists?

I believe it does in France and Holland. In the Channel Islands, there are roads referred to as "Rue Tranquille", where cyclists have priority over motor vehicles. In the UK I think it only exists where the cyclist can afford a good solicitor .

Seriously though, equal consideration would be nice but maybe that exists only as an halucination.

I'm a cyclist (10 miles a day commute).
However, as I do not suffer from any form of mental retardation (afaik), I would NOT go the wrong way on a one-way street.

As wise folk have said for years.... "Just because you can - doesn't mean you should".

As a definitive answer, I think that sums it up very well