In message , at
19:20:46 on Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:
Er, Hello? Did the following message propagate at all?

Just because you've posted something once doesn't mean everyone will sit
up and take notice. As indeed hasn't happened here.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:21:19 on Mon, 6 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street).

Downing Street? I thought someone posted a while ago that
the "No Entry" signs were each side of the main 'one-way'
lane, and so the contraflow cycle lane is not "No Entry".

The street with the sign I describe is in Peterborough [1].

And the signs are on opposite pavements.

I think that is legitimate signing, and any vehicle which fits
in the contra-flow lane may travel the 'wrong' way.

That's another way to do it.

[1] East end of Geneva St, where it joins Park Rd. But signs to cyclists
are a bit academic in that bit of town. They seem to think Park St from
the Co-op north has a contraflow cycle lane, but it's just not there!
--
Roland Perry

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.shtml

means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'.

Next!

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
19:20:46 on Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:

Er, Hello? Did the following message propagate at all?
Just because you've posted something once doesn't mean everyone will sit
up and take notice. As indeed hasn't happened here.

That's all right then. Just keep arguing without the facts.

Colin McKenzie

In message , at 21:12:22 on Mon,
6 Sep 2004, Mike Bristow remarked:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.shtml

means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'.

Next!

Except I don't think that would apply to a full-blown road. You need a
"no entry" to stop the motorised traffic.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
23:45:52 on Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:
Er, Hello? Did the following message propagate at all?
Just because you've posted something once doesn't mean everyone will
sit up and take notice. As indeed hasn't happened here.

That's all right then. Just keep arguing without the facts.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. My postings, for example, are
based on the same facts as yours. What do you think I've got wrong?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.shtml

means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'.

Except I don't think that would apply to a full-blown road.
You need a "no entry" to stop the motorised traffic.

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in a traffic island 1 metre
from the kerb, and have No Entry signs on the large entrance, and Cycle Only
signs on the small entrance.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.shtml

means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'.

Next!

A route which is used used by all traffic, but access
at one place/direction is limited to cyclists only.

John Rowland wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign071.shtml
means 'Route to be used by pedal cycles only'.
Except I don't think that would apply to a full-blown road.
You need a "no entry" to stop the motorised traffic.

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in a traffic island 1 metre
from the kerb, and have No Entry signs on the large entrance, and Cycle Only
signs on the small entrance.

Which is indeed what is often done (though the cycle gap should be
1.5m wide). But the island is not always necessary for safety reasons.
If you want to do it without an island, you have to use the flying
motorbike (no motor vehicles) sign instead of 'no entry'. But No Entry
except cycles would be more logical, since motor vehicles are only
prohibited in one direction.

But, as aforementioned, no entry except cycles is not a permitted
combination.

Colin McKenzie

John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 7 Sep 2004:

Except I don't think that would apply to a full-blown road.
You need a "no entry" to stop the motorised traffic.

The safest way to achieve this would be to put in a traffic island 1 metre
from the kerb, and have No Entry signs on the large entrance, and Cycle Only
signs on the small entrance.

This is what they do outside my block of flats - the cyclists have their
own lane, blocked off by a narrow kerb. As I said earlier in the
thread, though, the "No Entry" sign is more honoured in the breach than
in the observance.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/