On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists"
The Government won't allow such signs.
Hang on - so how *should* such a situation be signed? For example, what
does Lloyd Baker Street look like from the Farringdon Road (or King's
Cross Road, there) end? That's a one-way street which feeds into
Farringdon Road, but which has a contraflow cycle lane up it (which is
mostly or entirely physically segregated, if that matters).
Okay, i had a look last night, and what it's got is a no entry sign on
each side, an island to the left (as i go in) and the cycle lane to the
left of that; the lane is segregated, there being a non-segregated conflow
lane on the other side (which is probably solid-lined, although the road
surface is in such a state that it's not clear). However, there isn't any
sort of sign indicating that bikes can go in.
Don't know that street but the general rule is No Entry signs for cars
with an island to the left and a cycle lane to the left of the island
with cycle lane signs.
Almost perfect! You get a B+
.
This bit of cycle lane is quite new, so it's possible that the council
haven't got round to signing it fully yet - i'd certainly hope for some
sort of bike sign. The next road down, which is one-way the other way, has
a bike lane and an LCN route sign (or whatever it is - blue thing saying
'Angel 1/2'); i suspect the plan is to essentially use the new lane to
replace that one, which would include moving the signs, so they'll
probably finish off the cycle signing then.
tom
--
The revolving disc of plagues is particularly fun. -- greengolux