Reader views (79)

 Add your view

When was the cyclist made king of our roads and pavements so that all must bow down before them. One way streets ignored legally. The law against cycling on pavements flouted with total impunity a thousand times a day. All in the name of being green and good for the environment. Well walking is the greenest way to get from a –z. you don’t buy a metal frame on wheels that has to be manufactured from scarce resources and made by exploiting cheap labour in the third world. So when do those of us that are continually being harassed and even hit by illegal cyclist on pavements get a say. When will it ever be our turn for this regal treatment.

I am blind with a guide dog and have been hit three times now by illegal cyclists on pavements who weave in and out at speed without regard for anyone else. Where is the minister for us. Where can we go to unite in protest… when can we claim back our pavements. lets start our own revolution. "PAVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIANS ONLY".

- Terri, East London

So rickshaws will be able (legally, this time) go up one way streets as well because in the eyes of the law (great!) they are cycles too!

- Dorking, Essex

Ah, does their mum not let them cycle on the road then?

- Bob Ulhat, London

Hmmm I wonder how many people on here drive and have never exceeded the speed limit, never gone through a red light, never crossed a solid white line in the middle of the road, never parked on a red or yellow line, never used their mobiles when driving, never failed to indicate when turning, never used their horns other than within the prescribed hours? Complaining about cyclists' bad behaviour? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone......

- Dave, London

I really don't see what the problem is. Most streets that are one-way were at one time two-way. Usually made one-way because parked cars don't easily allow for two directional car traffic.

On most one-way streets there is ample room for a cyclist to pass a car, so if it's possible and made legal what's the problem?

As a pedestrian it's always advisable to look both ways when crossing a street, after all cars and lorries are legally allowed to reverse in a one-way street, so even if it's one-way there will always be two-way traffic...

- Richard, London

I cycle 125 miles, I am pleased to see rapid growth of cycling in this city but unfortunately there hasn't been rapid decline of drivers either rather an increase, for that reason I think it is a bad idea.
For people ranting about cyclists, I understand your concerns however, don't take it out on rule abiding cyclist just going about their business. Road tax, for cyclists is misnomer. You pay vehicle tax not road tax, as we the public all pay road tax through our council tax, insurance we can do and have done, to protect myself from the greater possibility of coming off worse from drivers who may not be paying attention.

- Jo, London

I predict an increase in accidents involving children: both those who are pedestrians who have just learned to read road signs and don't realise they don't apply to cyclists, and those on bikes who can't differentiate between roads they can cycle down the wrong way and those they can't.

Worse still, this is just going to make cyclists more careless as it is pretty much carte blanche to cycle wherever they like without even thinking about it. Factor in the encouragement to speed up their journeys and the result could be pretty scary for pedestrians. Perhaps it would be sensible to copy the Swiss and make every bicycle have a license plate and every cyclist have insurance: hitting your head on the curb is just as catastrophic whether you are knocked over by a bike or clipped by car - but you cannot get compensation for disability from a cyclist!

- Roz, France

there is one of these in oxford, it has been there for at least the last 6 years. I have had several near missed with pedestrians, but you simply adjust your riding accordingly. I've had more issues being driven off the road by car drivers on it than from pedestrians to be fair though.

I'd love to see how the drivers and pedestrians reacted if all cyclists did start jumping red lights with abandon and cycling on the pavements exclusively, that would cause chaos.

What it ultimately comes down to though is that no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions, if everyone behaved with a little bit of common decency towards everyone else then there is absolutely no reason why all travelers cannot get along regardless of their mode of transport.

- Thomas Chapman, Oxford

Thank heaven I no longer live in my native London.
What about those pedestrians who will be concentrating on traffic coming one way as they cross the road, only to be mown down by cyclists coming the other? Especially at night. Who will be legally responsible?
Cyclists get away with too much as it is, without any encouragement.

- Sarah Sanders, Melbourne, Australia

Surely the little sign exempting cyclists from complying with the "no entry" sign (for that is the offence, not travelling in the wrong direction) should be at the start of the one way street (for other road users) so that they can expect oncoming traffic? Presumably they will put little disclaimer notices under all the "one way street", "turn left" and "no right turn" as well as the signs making it clear to other road users that cyclists will not be complying with said signs. Better yet just stencil some small print onto EVERY road sign. I can see it now ""Give Way (except cyclists)", "comply with roundabout (except cyclists)" or even "no cycles" (except cycles)"!

- Lescm19, Essex

Cyclists are the biggest hazards on central London streets. They are making life unbearble for those of us who walk... The police have turned a blind eye to all their illegal antics.

- Terry Cantor, london

"There is no need whatsoever for anyone to cycle in central London. Public transport is cheap and frequent"

What have you been smoking? My journey from North London to Docklands requires three trains taking around 75 minutes and costs over £1200 a year. My bike gets me to work in under 55 minutes despite covering a longer distance - London transport is expensive, dirty and crowded.

Bad drivers are far more dangerous than bad cyclists and some drivers purposely swerve at cyclists or shout at them to try and make them fall off - that's why cyclists are on pavements or jumping red lights to keep away from dangerous and psychotic drivers.

I was doing 25 on my bike the other day when a car overtook me then immediately turned left in front of me causing me to have to slam on the brakes - had I not reacted quick enough I'd probably have broken bones just because an idiot driver couldn't wait five seconds for me to go past their turning. The day before a driver on their mobile phone pulled out across me as if I wasn't there - again having to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision.

Given the choice cyclists would not be on busy roads - they just want to get to their destination safely. It's a convenient method of transport and it's not their fault our whole infrastructure is road-based and no thought was given to cyclists by the planners.

- Dan, London

Good luck. The standard of driving in UK will probably result in a visit to hospital, very soon.
I tried cycling in London years ago. Really, you are taking your life in your hands. Watch out for those big red buses.

- Ray Jarvis, marlborough USA

Absolute rubbish idea. That's it give cyclists the right to "ignore" no entry signs and they will take that to "ignore" all the other road rules (which they do now anyway). They should be prosecuted for running red lights, riding on pavements and riding the wrong way on roads. This will give rise to even more accidents and fatalities. Just LOOK at comments made by cyclists - they think it is a BAD IDEA.....

- Barbara, Sydney Australia

Many cyclists are a danger to other road users and to themselves. This proposal will increase that danger and, if it goes ahead, cyclists should be required to have insurance so that anyone injured by them could claim compensation, and to have registration plates on their cycles.

- Pat, London, London, UK

Rich P, London: "I've taken to walking with a big golf umberella all year round, if it happens to clip the spokes of a passing pavement cyclist I tut and ask them why the was on the pavement in the first place - I do sometimes offer to help the up of the floor, and often recommend the get their cuts seen to. "

Many pavements in London are shared pavements where cyclists are allowed to cycle.

- Prj45, London

Reading this article makes me mighty glad that I no longer live in London. It's bad enough cyclists riding on pavements (as they do equally here in King's Lynn) which is dangerous enough, but to have them coming at you from the opposite direction of the rest of the traffic will be confusing - and just in case readers are wondering if I'm in my dotage, no I am not. Some cyclists move very fast and I can see accidents occurring with pedestrians. Unfortunately some cyclists see themselves as 'above the law' when it comes to road use in that they think they can cycle anywhere and these people are the most dangerous of the lot.

- Judith, KIng's Lynn, Norfolk, UK

Who has gone crazy here. Cyclists already go down one way streets the wrong way A large no of cyclists beleive they are above the Law anyway. Rideing on pavements at speed jumping red lights , no lights in the dark and abuse motorists and pedestrians alike and no action is taken by the police. If an accident occurs itl be the motorist that gets the blame.
Of course some motorits are just as irresponsible and a lot of cyclists are blameless but the mavericks will see this as a further liscence to do as they like. And for the authoritys to use this freedom to encourage people to cycle is beyond sanity, But then of course our rulers are beyond help anyway!

- Peter French, Orihuela Costa Spain

Excellent - nothing I like more than the freedom of the open road, other of course than the freedom of a busy and congested road full of pedestrians to play chick with - watch out, hair em scare em Dave Spart is coming through at speed what what hey hey

- Dave Spart, London

I've taken to walking with a big golf umberella all year round, if it happens to clip the spokes of a passing pavement cyclist I tut and ask them why the was on the pavement in the first place - I do sometimes offer to help the up of the floor, and often recommend the get their cuts seen to.
Allowing them to go the wrong way down a one way street is legalising what most already do. The day will come when one will get killed and the driver coming the other way will get convicted...

- Rich P, London

People who hate cyclists are not much different from racists.

- Austen, London

Yet another appalling idea that will endanger the lives of pedestrians still further. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to cycle in central London. Public transport is cheap and frequent, and if the pavements and pedestrian crossings were safer places, a lot more people would be able to walk, which is the greenest way of travelling of them all. I have been forced back onto the bus because my route to work, which used to be a pleasant and healthy 30 minute walk, is now so full of lawless cyclescum thundering along the footpaths and ignoring all the rules of the road on those rare occasions they are actually on it. And yet they seem to think they can do whatever they please because *they* are saving the planet. Here's my advice: Grow up and buy an Oyster card, like normal people.

- Freya, London

"What London really needs is REAL cycle lanes that are separate from the road and the pavement, but only for key arterial routes in and out of the city - i.e. the A5 or the A4020."

Danny, there simply isn't room in this city with its medieval street patter to create lanes for every type of road user. What is needed is tolerance from everyone.

The majority of cyclists, the majority of drivers and the majority of pedestrians can happily work out how to use the roads properly (although London pedestrians do seem to have a particular knack of not looking correctly before stepping off the pavement). Allowing cyclists who are only 2 ft wide to negotiate one way streets the wrong way in order to save half a mile of diversions isn't rocket science.

And as we both know, pedestrians will be more likely to step off the pavement, so to avoid conflict we'll take it extra careful on these roads and return to full speed on the main road.

- George, London

Im a cyclist,

I ride where I want when I want. If I need to jump a red, I will, if I need to mount the pavement I will. I cut through the roads like there are no cars, no buses, no people. I am like water, the wind. I am untouchable and it will always be so

- Fixie Hipster Foundry Boy, London

Reading the postings of those who actually support this idea, I would like to say words fail me but they don't.

I address a few points:-

1. A collision hurts a pedestrian as much if not more than a cyclist.

2. When cyclists have ridden the wrong way up Chancery Lane, my mind has been - correctly in my view - on the traffic that I know to be coming - this suggestion simply makes things worse. How anyone can even begin to say this change will reduce accidents beggars belief!

3. The impression is that cyclists don't have many accidents. Well, it was this newspaper some years ago that reported that on average 6 pedestrians are kiiled by bicycles each year, quite apart from injuries. So far as I am aware anyone so injured won't get compensation, unless as recently there was a prosecution probably to enable the victim or their estate to apply for Criminal Injuries Compensation. Not many deaths, yes, but tell that to their friends and family. This proposed change is ill-thought-out and deserves to be condemned to the wastepaper bin.

4. For those who would like short-cuts for bikes - hard lines. The way most of the cyclists have written flags-up that they feel oppressed by car drivers. Let me tell them that although I have seen the odd car go through a red light, I see cyclists do it literally every day.The red light is there for a reason so bloody well use it!

- Captain Black Of The Mysterons, London, England

I cycle 50 - 100 miles a week, mostly in London, but this strikes me as bad idea. A minority of thuggish cyclists give the rest of us a bad name and this will make things worse.

What London really needs is REAL cycle lanes that are separate from the road and the pavement, but only for key arterial routes in and out of the city - i.e. the A5 or the A4020.

The quid pro quo for such investment - if it ever came - would need to be more rigorous enforcement of traffic laws on all cyclists, and zero tolerance for "lycra louts". Most cyclists obey the law, those who dont make it harder for the rest of us.

- Danny, London

Motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians are three very different sets of road/path users and none of them mix together very happily or safely. On balance, I believe it would be safer for all if cyclists used pavements, so long as they went slowly and carefully, ie - a bike colliding with a pedestrian is less likely to cause serious injury than a motor vehicle hitting a bike.

It is true that, in Holland, drivers are automatically liable if they collide with a cyclist BUT there are much better, segregated lanes for cyclists than is the case here.

- Adam, London, UK

Nobby, roads are financed from council tax and central government, not road tax. And I'm pretty sure Kensington & Chelsea is not Labour controlled.

Seems like a good scheme as long as the contraflow scheme is clearly marked for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

- David, Streatham

Earls Court Road, like many main routes in the borough, is one way. It is so busy I for one would never risk cycling along it the 'wrong way'. The best way, as it should be for every cycle path, is to physically separate the cyclist from pedestrians and motorised traffic

- Brian, Hounslow, UK

..and to all those comments from people that assume 'road tax' gives them a greater right to the road - 'road tax' pays for motorways (a no go for cyclists) a combination of several other taxes and your council tax pays for the roads in London or wherever you live - unless all the cyclists are homeless they have pretty much paid for their right to cycle.

- Simon, London

These cyclist are a self-righteous bunch of hypocrites. It was only a few months ago that cyclists were lobbying against motorbikes sharing bus lanes, on the basis it would be far too dangerous for them.
Now they want to be able to cycle head-on into traffic.

What's the point debating it, just let them. With their cavalier use of the road and footpaths they don't believe the Highway Code applies to them anyway.

- Mark Myword, London

how utterly UTTERLY ridiculous !

- Anticyclist, London

If you're driving in a one-way street, you don't expect to see vehicles coming towards you, and to have to do an emergency stop. And if you're a pedestrian, the temptation on one-way streets, rightly or wrongly, is to only look the way that the traffic is coming before you cross. These habits are ingrained and will be hard to alter. Cyclists often turn corners very fast and hurtle along, while cars often speed. If either the cyclist or the driver is travelling too fast, the potential for accidents will be increased. It seeks reckless in the extreme to compromise safety on our streets just so more people can be encouraged to cycle. It's nothing more than a cheap way of avoiding doing what really needs to be done - building a proper network of cycle lanes separated from both cars and pedestrians.

- Lindsay, London

It does seem a bit crazy. As a cyclist I have to rely on other road users who are generally annoyed with cyclists not running me over on a daily basis - now I would have to rely on the same road users not trying to run me down because they are annoyed I am allowed to tarvel in the opposite direction to them. If there was a channel cut for cyclists separated off from the rest of theroad by a kerb then brillaint! If not what a rubbish idea!

- Simon, London

Er, since Dan Moylan is Deputy Chair (and thus in reality in charge) of TfL, surely Boris should have an opinion on this rather than his boroughs and the DfT cooking things up between them?

Anyway, it's a perfectly good idea, although I, as an inveterate pedestrian, would kindly ask cyclists who choose to jump red lights to expect me to walk out in front of them occasionally. Ta!

"So who will be to blame in the inevitable accidents? "

Whoever's at fault, just as in a two-way street. There's no hard and fast rule, it's on the merits of the case, assuming both vehicles are there legally, which would be the case if there's an actual legal exemption in place.

- Tom, London, UK

The pavement-riding, red light running Boris Jognson will be really pleased at what he will soon be able to get away with

- Keith Price, Luton England

Just another road sign to add to the thousands already in use. Ridiculous at the amounts of road signs we have to endure - it's painful!

- Tracy Verga, London

So then, whats the difference-One way streets, traffic lights, pavements-all treated with contempt.

- Stuart Milligan, Formby, Lancs

They already go down one ways and ignore the highway code so what's all the fuss about? Me and my two year old son and 8 month old baby were almost run down by a cyclist yesterday who was cycling on the pavement. They're a law unto themselves.

- Tracy Verga, London

If they are going allow cyclists to go the wrong way down one-way streets, they should also allow motorcyclists who take up a similarly small amount of road space.

- St, London

Speaking as a cyclist, this is a daft idea. A key part of road safety is anticipation of hazards - its partly why younger drivers are more often involved in accidents - they havent the experience to anticipate hazards.

Setting aside the problem that many cyclists face with aggressive or careless drivers (and most of the problems are the latter, despite James Martin's foolish comments, this idea will essentially reduce all drivers to 'novice' level as years of driving down one way streets has suddenly had a rule change and presented the unexpected hazard of a cyclist coming the other way.

In a collision between a bike and a car, the cyclist will always come off worse.

- Paddy, London

So people who use shanks' pony to get where they want are once again not considered in this frankly stupid turn of events. I walk pretty much everywhere I can (within reason) as I have a small child and therefore a very public transport unfriendly pram. Not all cyclists, but some, make the pavements dangerous, and make crossing at a zebra crossing or traffic light dangerous. And now, they're being given more ways to flout safety. No doubt when the first pedestrian is knocked over by a cyclist in a new 'only one way for motorists, not cyclists' road, it will of course be the pedestrian's fault.

- Kw, London

Andy, if there are signs saying that cyclists are are allowed to ride the "wrong" way in what is otherwise a one-way street, then I suspect that the motorist will be judged to be at fault in the event of a collision.
I can foresee insurance premiums going through the roof if this is allowed to stand.
It seems a stupid idea to me, but what would I know, I drive in London and just KNOW that if I did something wrong one of the gazillion cameras would take a photo of my number plate and drop it in my mail box along with an invitation to pay a fine.
Make cyclists wear a number plate and be subject to the same rules, then see if they would be so keen to break the law en masse.

- Frank Neal, London UK

This is the craziest scheme ever ! I live in Thackeray Streeet and accidents happen nearly every day - there are no "No Entry" signs now from Kensington Square so on top of bikes going the wrong way more often than not cars do as well.

Traffic wardens cannot ticket cars parked facing the wrong way - I am told by the Council that the police will increase their presence, I am yet to see this !!

- Tim, London

I declare my hand. I loath cyclists in London, in suburban pedestrian only precincts and in country lanes.

One obvious danger for this ridiculous plan is when motorists join a one way street from a side road or access. They will watch for pedestrians and traffic from the correct direction. They are unlikely to see a nutter on a bike with no lights attempting to exceed the speed limit.

- Bj, London

Let them do what they like,just confiscate their bikes if the ride on the pavement.

- Jimfred, London Uk

Well this is good news for car drivers. They already have to put up with cyclists undertaking at traffic lights and turning left from a side street in front of them without looking. I've seen cyclists happily cycling along with cars about to overtake and then the cyclist just decides to turn right. No indication, no looking behind them. Car screeches to a stop while the cyclist just meanders on their merry way.
Now imagine being confronted by a load of cyclists going the wrong way down a one way street with the attitude that everyone else must look out for them.
Oh yeah - In case you are wondering...I DO ride a bike as well as drive.

- Mark H, London, England

I can quite understand cyclists breaking rules of a system that is designed to control congestion for a large number of motor vehicles, but has features that make it pretty inconvenient for them.

However, there are a significant number of inconsiderate cyclists who don't adjust their riding to the circumstances. Thaking this example, I don't see much problem with someone cycling at a conservative speed against the direction of a one way street, but at fast commuting pace this is a different matter. Same goes for motorists though - 20mph limit would be a good idea for residential streets.

- Mike, London

Cycle the wrong way down one way streets? Now would that be on the road or on the pavement, where most of them ride now?
What a crazy idea. These people already think that they are above the law, but because of their "holier than thou" attitude they think that they are saving the planet, so must not be questioned.

- Ronnie, Billericay England

"Who will be liable if there is an increase in accidents as a result of this idea"


Probably the car drivers. They're the ones driving a ton or two of metal with, essentially, 50-100 times the kinetic energy, and thus the greatest responsibility to others.

As it has been proven to work on the Continent, and there hasn't been the predicted carnage, where's the beef?

If you drivers can't cope with the traffic, hang up your keys, and stop driving. After all the Continentals can manage it, even if you can't.

Remember, all roads used to be two-way once upon a time. Its only when cars started to take over that one-way systems were introduced, and at which point bicycles were forced to take the same oddball routes that cars had to.

A cyclists is little more than a mechanised pedestrian with just as much protection as pedestrians, hence they don't rely on a metal cage to protect themselves and take a lot more care not to get involved in a collision.

Anyway, its going to happen, so get used to it.

The next step will be to do what the Dutch and Belgians do which is, for insurance purposes, to automatically treat the driver as culpable in pedestrian and bicycle collisions with a car. As soon as that happens, perhaps drivers will take a lot more care rather than speeding everywhere. Oh, and yes, ALL drivers break the speed limit, so banging on about cyclists running red lights is like throwing stones in glass houses....

- George, London

So, if a car and a cyclist that is travelling the wrong way along a signposted street visible to drivers as one way, who is to blame for any damage to a car if there is a collision if the driver is turning into that street or the cyclist is turning into that street.

Clearly the cyclist will demand they have every right to be there, as will the driver clearly indicate that one way means one way, otherwise it is not a one way street, is it. !

Another point who has the right of way, the cyclist travelling the wrong way or the driver driving as signposted the other way, correctly ?

Because accidents are bound to increase, directly caused in the main by cyclists driving at cars, it is now time for all cyclists to have and identification number, take a test and be fully insured, if this type of madness is to prevail above the Highway Code rules.

If a cyclist drives into my car I shall make a citizens arrest until the police can extract confirmed identification so that I may pursue a claim for damages to my property or my person if they enter the windscreen, a great reason for a cyclist to have insurance.

- James, City of London

''Perhaps we should apply Mr Moylan's rationale to breaking the speed limit''

Well, no, because nobody has ever been killed by a cyclist on a one-way street, but speeding drivers kill 1200 people a year. Simples!

- Steve Cascarino, Bow

Dear Sir,
Cyclists are already a total menace with scant disregard
for anyone else. Do you want someone to be killed. I think they should have to pay road tax, have comprehensive insurance and take a DRIVING TEST!

- Len, London

Glad to see the uniformed out in force again. Firstly I am a cyclist. Yes some cyclists do jump red lights etc, so do some car drivers. Would you rather be hit by a cyclist at 12 mph or 2 tons of metal at 25mph? Cyclist contraflows have been in use on Stamford Hill for a few years and they work very well. Just face it the use of cars in cities is a concept that has long since had its day unless of course you have no legs or the mental capacity to make your legs move you from a to b. Metal cage dwellers are the biggest danger to all, only their ignorance and arrogance keeps them in their silly little polluters.

- Nelly, East London

Why are we helping to reduce journey times only for cyclists? Motorists not only use the roads, but pay for them too. And what about pedestrians?

Typical Labour scheme: ill-thought out, headline grabbing and ultimately pointless

- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one

It's no bid deal, anything that encourages cycling is a good thing. Cyclists have a natural aversion to colliding with anything, remember, it hurts! The more cyclists there are the safer the roads become. Despite yesterday's horrible fatality (at a junction where TFL removed the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists, genius!) cycling is getting safer. An 83% rise in cycling in London and a halving of casualties. The more cyclists there are the more drivers get used to them, and the more drivers themselves realise that cycling is easily the cheapest, safest and fastest way to commute.

Just ammend the signs, like the ones they have for bus lanes, making it clear cycling is allowed, so that, rather than the misleading headline, cyclists will be obeying signs, not 'ignoring' them!

- Steve Cascarino, Bow

Cyclists already have enough problems with motorists thinking we should notbe on the road. This idea will only make matters worse. Cyclists should adhere to the Highway Code and then we may all get along easier.

- Julia - Ilford, Ilford England

will motorists look both ways when pulling out into a one way street?

- Andy, elephant & castle

Thank god I don't go into K&C...I've never heard such a stupid and dangerous idea. The Highway Code was devised for a reason - the safety of road users and pedestrians. Who will be liable if there is an increase in accidents as a result of this idea - I suspect there is an argument that the council could be sued!

- Andy, london

So who will be to blame in the inevitable accidents? The driver of the car going the right way, or the cyclist going the wrong way?

- Andy, London

Guess what Mr Moylan, I'm a motorcyclist and I prefer to take the shortest route through quieter streets too!

Does that make it alright for me to drive the wrong way down a one way street too?

Even if I see everybody else doing it??

Perhaps we should apply Mr Moylan's rationale to breaking the speed limit, i.e. if there are hundreds of motorists breaking the speed limit on a particular section of road every day then we should automatically raise (or remove) the speed limits throughout the whole area??



I'd risk a bet that the money for the fitting of all the new 'except cyclists' signs was coming from the all the taxes taken from the motorists too, it can't possibly be from the cyclists!


No doubt this will end in tears, encourage cyclists to flaunt the traffic laws even more and further increase the mutual hatred and lack of understanding between the cycling/motoring lobbies but who cares as long as the cyclists have little or no legal obligations and responsibilities and the motorist can be held responsible for the actions of every other road user the cyclists have nothing else to worry about do they....


Until they die because of their own arrogance and stupidity of course.

- Andi-M, London

As a pedestrian only, I think this suggestion is completely ridiculous - it will increase the possibilities for an accident.

When I cross Chancery Lane at least once each day, I look in the direction of the on-coming traffic as it is a one-way street. Under this regime I'd have to look both ways - not much of an effort, you might think, but once a street is designated one-way it will be very easy, especially for the young, elderly or disabled to remember this.As it is some cyclists already ride the opposite way along Chancery Lane, so it look almost like a decision based onn "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

I agree entirely with both Bob and Patrick.

- Captain Black Of The Mysterons, London, England

We have one street like that where i live,Royal College Street in Camden Town, and although i am a carefull driver, i nearly scooped up a cyclist by mistake.
Had the shock of my life,
not a good idea, this new scheme

- Mario Kempe, london

If you want to encourage cycling, then they must stop the current trial under which motorbikes and mopeds may use bus lanes, bike lanes and the bike box areas at traffic lights! Motorbikeists + mopedistas are a danger to cyclists becaue they don't know what it's like to be on something not powered by an engine. Get them out of the bike lanes and you'll have many more people cycling.

- Peter, London

nothing will stop the animosity towards cyclists. I've given up doing 'the right thing'. I just end up in more dangerous situations waiting alongside angry motorists who still shout at you because the other day they saw a 'cyslist' doing something wrong.

I just do what i like now, thanks mostly to all the anti-cyclist comments on here. nuts to everyone else, i get shouted at and abused on the roads whatever i do.

- Cyclist, london

In the event of a head on collision, who would have the right of way?

- Loki, Roskilde, DK

Cyclist do what they want anyway. I know there must be some responsible ones but quite frankly I am sick of them. I live in Barnes but walk to Hammersmith Bus Garage every day and take my life in my hands ! they race along the pavements, go through red lights and even cycle over the walkway over Hammersmith Bridge which is very narrow and you are surposed to walk your bike over makes no differnce to them and dare you say anything to them you get verbal abuse !Quite frankly cant stand them !

- Linda Cliff, London

I think its sensible. There used to be an unused cut-through from Shaftsbury Avenue to Upper Regent St which was probably only 100 yards long. Westminster Council in their infinite wisdom have made this one-way only and if cyclists are to obey the law, instead of using an unused cut through, now have to divert half a mile down, and back up, the Haymarket and Lower Rent St 4 lane Scalextrix, (or use the footpath for 100 yards). The obvious solution is to use the road the wrong way which avoids conflict with pedestrians.

Similarly, the whole of Mayfair is a virtual one-way designed to control car congestion. It is cars that cause congestion, not bicycles, so why are bicycles required to adhere to systems designed to control the problems caused by cars?

In practice, cyclists are only going to use contraflows where it saves them time, so will generally stick to the normal roads for the majority of the journey and only use one-way cut throughs at either end of the journey. No cyclist is going to put themselves in danger: it is just a perception of drivers and pedestrians that we go around mutilating babies for breakfast, where the truth is that we have the lowest 'at fault' accident rate for the simple reason that riding a bike leaves all your senses unimpaired and one is very manouverable.

Its an eminently sensible suggestion. It is not going to cause carnage, and may even encourage more people to use the best method of travel in London.

- George, London

Many cyclists appear to already ignore the law; riding at speed on busy pavements, using a mobile phone, riding through red lights etc etc.

Cycling and provision of facilities for it is certainly to be encouraged, but not to the extent that cyclists can ignore the law and be a danger to other road users. The miscreant minority should be prosecuted and punished.

- John C, Leatherhead, UK

Patrick.Dalston. You my friend are one of the very few cyclists who are a credit to cyclists.If only there were more like you i would not feel such utter hatred for the blind, dogmatic self richeous, aggressive fashion victims law breaking free loaders that have high jacked and perverted the name of cyclists.

- Kev, London-UK

Why bother with the sign changes? They ignore them anyway.

- Roy, England

If cyclist are allowed to cycle down it it's not a one way street any more is it?

- Prj45, London

What happens if I drive into them? Will I be covered by my insurance? Will I be sued by the cyclist? It sounds a little bit silly and dangerous.

- Rod, Epping, UK

Just a thought for all the cycle haters: it has been proven, in many studies, that cyclists who break the traffic rules have less accidents than those who obey them. So you may well get upset about a cyclist running that red-light, but reality is, they're making the roads safer and smoother running for you too.

If by disobeying the rules the roads become safer, then it is not rocket science to see the rules themselves are erroneous.

- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark

I am not against this in principal and in all honesty most already do this. The problem is that the majority now ignore the Highway Code and shoot red lights, ride on and off pavements, regard pedestrians on pelican and zebra crossings as a salom course, etc. Dangerous cycling needs to be stamped on! Only recently I was speaking to someone whose daughter nearly lost her baby after a cyclist crashed into her on a crossing.

- Michael, London

If you walk around London you would have thought this law was already passed, along with the "use the pavement" law, "drive through red lights" law and "being an utter twat doing what we like" law.

- Bazza, London

It is in Italy against the law to go the wrong way down
a street,cyclists have been killed and injured,what a stupid thing to allow.

- David Nigel Braham, Milan Italy

I am sorry I do not agree. I am a regular cyclist and I believe this will even further increase the animosity felt towards cyclists by other road users. One of the frequent dangers to cyclists on busy streets is pedestrians stepping out in front of you. On a one way street they will fail to see the cycle coming the 'wrong' way. The best way to get cyclists accepted is for TfL and CTC to encourage cyclists not to break the law - stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings etc.

- Patrick, Dalston

As a cyclist myself I think this a stupid idea, there are already enough idiots (on 2 and 4 wheels) on the road without giving each different rules.

- Bob, Cheam

Add your comment