John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way
system, even though when all of the roads in and out
of the square are one-way, an anti-clockwise one-way
system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better
view of vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Why would traffic already on the square need to have a view of
traffic joining it, over whom they have prority?

To avoid collisions? (Priorities are not always observed.) I was merely
pointing out that the very marginal disadvantage from clockwise
circulation was offset by an equally marginal advantage.

Many squares, such as St James, have roads
which are wide enough to be two-way,
and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around
for no reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide,
but it does allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking
a parking space, to be overtaken.

I can't think of any non-square which has been made one-way just to
aid overtaking of parking cars.

It's one of the main advantages of a one-way street that a very slow or
stationary vehicle can be overtaken without waiting for oncoming traffic
to clear. The improvement in traffic flow is the main reason why
one-way streets were introduced. If two-way traffic was introduced as
you suggest, I suspect that you would lose more time from disrupted
traffic flow than you would gain from shorter journeys.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)