• Safer Cycling

Reader views (24)

 Add your view

Dark residential roads in the middle of winter when it's raining and the street lights are dim and you want to allow a bike to go the wrong way down a one way street heading towards a car. Another stupid idea, obviously the people that are making these decisions do not drive.

As a motorist I don't care whether cyclists drive forwards backwards sideways or upside down. What I do care about is that THEY PUT LIGHTS ON THEIR BIKES so that I can see them.

- Mr S. Port, London

The signs used need to be clear and used sparingly. The current sign 619 - looks like a flying motor bike over a car which few people understand.
A new simple sign adapted from the existing no entry would be far clear and therefore safer. Sign 616 with the 'except cycles' sign 954.4.

- Alison Lucy, Surrey

Be careful ! There's going to be a lot of 'staged' accidents and claims on the motorists' insurance. The cyclist is always right.

- Bob, London

Hey Hey, it's open season on cyclists! Are they still worth one point each if going the wrong way?

- Martin H. Watson, Teddington

Shoot all cyclists and force everybody to drive 4x4s. That seems to be the opinion of some on this discussion. Some very reactionary comments here, clearly made by people who have probably never ridden a bike. Car drivers need to remember that we were here long before they were.

- Michael Cooper, London

I used to cycle all the time in London before I moved to Copenhagen. Cycle facilities in London are poor compared with Copenhagen. In Copenhagen there is a bike path on every major road ( Bike paths are on both sides of the road separate cars, bikes and pedestrians).

On residential roads and also shopping streets bikes alone can go down a one way street. The fatality rates are very low and there is acceptance from pedestrians and drivers.

It really is about time that London got better cycle facilities. A major difference is that in London both cyclists and drivers are a lot more aggressive.

- Dicky Pimms, Copenhagen Denmark

Many of the one way roads in Kensington and Chelsea have cars parked on both sides of the streets. This makes it too narrow for cyclists and vehicles to pass each other at a safe distance. So who has right of way ? Cyclists don't forget to use your headlight at night because there's a great number of you that don't.

- Neil, London UK.

Very sensible idea from K & C. The DfT regulations allow what they are intending to implement (which happens in many parts of continental Europe). Most drivers are quite good at seeing what is in front of them and so this shouldn't be a safety issue. There are often higher risks attached with using the longer one way system (which, normally, is implemented to stop motor traffic 'rat running' rather than stopping cyclists.

I guess the people who don't realise why some local authorities are trying to promote sustainable modes of transport like cycling (legal and considerate cycling) should try reading about CO2, climate change and the danger of over dependence on motorised transport (not to mention the obesity issue).

- Roger Stocker, London, UK

We've been doing this at Ealing for years, when funding and local opinion permit. I'm happy to say that the cyclist collision rate on existing schemes is too low too measure. This is not surprising: it's safe enough when done illegally, so it's even safer with signs to alert everyone. What's dangerous is the alternative route if there is no cycle exemption. As a general rule you go further, on busier roads, passing more junctions. Most cycle collisions happen at junctions.

What we really need, though, is London-wide cycle exemption from one-ways unless signs say otherwise.

This is a totally different issue from pavement cycling and traffic light jumping, and NOT the start of a slippery slope towards allowing cyclists to do those as well.

- Colin Mckenzie, Ealing

Safety on the roads and the pavements is a matter of concern to all users. It is also a matter of responsibility of all users.

To say as Counsellor Daniel Moylan states that "We are recognising that cyclists take the shortest route through quieter streets. The alternative is having a policeman standing on the road to catch cyclists breaking the rules, this would be foolish and unworkable." This means that it is irrelevant that the Highway Code is being broken by cyclists as is the danger to those pedestrians and drivers attempting to use the pavements/roads carefully. It also beggars belief that he thinks that it is the "quieter" streets where the Highway Code is flagantly abused by cyclists. I suggest he take a tarip around London. I certainly have seen pedestrians hit by cyclists going the wrong way. And who pays? The pedestrian.

The cycle lobby is obviously very strong. Perhaps they should insist upon some discipline and road/pavement safety. Otherwise the result of the 31st May 2008 events spring to mind.

- Mary, London

This is a complete cave in to the demands of cyclists and a potentially dangerous decision made by the councillors of Kensington and Chelsea. The only excuse given for this trial seems to be that "Cyclists prefer to take the shortest route"
If just one cyclist is killed as a result of this hair brained trial I hope these councillors will abandon any further ideas of expanding the scheme.
Mr Moylan of K&C states "cyclists are offered very little in terms of safety", surely then, by encouraging cyclists to go up a one way street the wrong way cannot be the best way of making the roads safer for cyclists or any other road users.
By appeasing the cyclists in this way Mr Moylan will be bringing, in my opinion, yet more danger and confusion to the streets of London and he may well soon discover that it will not only be the cyclists who "prefer to take the shortest routes".

- Andrew Protheroe, London,UK

Very common in Germany. Late again GB.

- Kit Reed, London England

If cyclists get their law-breaking "reality" recognised by this scheme, why not people who litter, or fare-dodge? Hey, they're doing it anyway, so why not make it lawful? The worst part of this scheme is that the cyclists won't stop doing it at the boundaries of the borough. Every single one-way street in London just got twice as dangerous for pedestrians.

- Freya, London

What an absolute disgrace !! Bike riders are road users and should obey the present road rules, which mean that a one way street is just that One way! Many already disobey the rules such as riding through red lights etc and the poor car driver has to have eyes at the back of his head to keep track of them ...this will only serve to strengthen the idiots who think that the law does not apply to them. Again Disgraceful!!

- London Driver, Ealing UK

A recipe for disaster as London's roads are already overcrowded.

- John, London

I have lived in Chelsea all my life and this happens all the time so nothing new here. Cyclists are never challenged as you never see any police walking about so I don't think this is a "Radical Measure" just everyday life in Chelsea!

- Linda Cliff, London

Has this been done by a Tory Council, purely to appease its friends Boris Johnson and David Cameron?

- Gary, London, UK

Changing the law because so many people have been flouting it has to be a very dangerous precedent.

- Paul, London

Did these council people think about the pedestrian. What happens when the person crossing the road knowing it's a one-way street gets knocked down by a cyclist coming in the opposite direction, you can't hear a cyclist coming, but you can hear a car or motorcycle. So if there are no road markings indicating a cycle lane in either direction and there are going to be no change to road markings to tell motorists that cycles are coming the wrong way there are going to be many more accidents.

- Belinda Kendal, London UK

This is the daftest thing I have heard for ages. And is any motorist who might hit a cyclist who is hurtling down the road the wrong way, on either side of the road according to your article, to be prosecuted? Let's just ban cars and pedestrians so cyclists can do whatever they like wherever they like with no other road users to get in their way.

- Nigel, London

The safest and most sensible conceptualization must be for all users of the road to act within the same set of rules so everyone understands what everyone else is at least supposed to be doing. Maverick cyclists flying about the place is, as has been proved, a recipe for very nasty accidents. There are pedestrians or traffic and nothing in between.

- Chris Naylor-Smith, Brighton United Kingdom

I am a London cyclist, but I do not believe this to be good idea unless the streets are clearly marked that traffic can expect oncoming cyclists. There are already many one-way streets that have marked - but not necessarily segregated - cycle lanes, and this could be extended to all those deemed necessary.

- Patrick Griffin, Dalston

Sounds great - we have had these near where I live in North London for a while now, and they seem to work fine. Everyone just gets on with going about their business.

It makes no sense to force cyclists to go all round the houses because a quiet road was made one-way to cut down on rat running by car drivers.

- Richard, Hackney, London

As a cyclist, I welcome any measure to free myself and fellow riders from rules that are not designed or suited to us. However allowing cyclists to navigate their own paths is very likely to lead to conflict and possibly collisions. Where motorists are expecting a flow of traffic in one direction, it would only be reasonable to let them know where to expect cyclists to be travelling in the opposite direction, even if its only in ghost lanes.

- Andrew Rodgers, Peterborough, UK

Add your comment