Hi Shaun, I take it you're referring to Ipswich? In which case, I can sort of see the logic. It's not "one-way", it's "no entry", so when the excepting conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way. In Croydon's case there's that "no motor vehicles" sign at one end, with a "no entry" sign at the other with no excepting conditions -- so presumably the intention is for the street to be one-way even for cyclists. (which is odd, given that there's nowhere else obvious to go coming southbound on a cycle.)
I'm now in contact with the local cycling advocacy group, so will see if I can get a (more) official position on Croydon in the same way as you have for Ipswich. Thanks, David. On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun McDonald <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 31 Oct 2012, at 16:02, David Earl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 31/10/2012 15:29, Andy Robinson wrote: > >> Shaun McDonald [mailto:[email protected]] wrote: > >>> Sent: 31 October 2012 15:21 > >>> To: Matt Williams > >>> Cc: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign > >>> > >>> > >>> On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Matt Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> The pedestrianised main shopping street in Croydon has a sign with > >>>>> the following wording: "Pedestrian Zone. No vehicles except cycles > >>>>> and for loading 6pm-10am." > >>>>> How would you interpret that? I see at least 3 possibilities: > >>>>> > >>>>> (a) Cycles permitted at any time; loading only permitted 6pm-10am > >>>>> (this is what I guess is the correct one) > >>>>> (b) Cycles and loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this would also make > >>>>> sense; i.e. cycling only outside shopping hours) > >>>>> (c) Restrictions apply 6pm-10am (clearly ludicrous!) > >>>>> (d) Something else? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm guessing it's meant to be (a), but just thought I'd canvas > >>>>> opinion before tagging. > >>>> > >>>> I think I agree with (a). I would find it a little strange to disallow > >>>> cycling just during the day (why not just ban it entirely?). > >>> > >>> The centre pedestrianised bit of Ipswich has cycling banned from > 10:30am - > >>> 4:30pm. It does get pretty busy during that time. > >>> http://goo.gl/maps/ouha1 > >>> > >> > >> I'm not sure that's correct? Is it not just banning cyclists from > cycling > >> against the traffic flow during this period? The sign at the other end > >> suggests its open to cyclists at all times in the direction of normal > flow. > > > > (from your corrected link http://goo.gl/maps/SM2y9 ) > > > > The key thing here is the sign it is underneath. The reference to > cyclists in the text is superfluous (and presumably not authorised by the > DfT) because the 'low flying motorbike' sign means "no MOTOR vehicles", and > a bike isn't a motor vehicle. That's not just pedantry: there is a separate > sign for banning ALL vehicles, a simple red roundel with nothing inside it. > There is no restriction on bikes at any time according to that sign. > > > > Their traffic engineer needs sending back to sign school. > > > > So some more info on this situation. > > The intention was to allow cycling in both directions between the hours of > 4:30pm and 10:30 am. With vehicles for loading and service access in one > direction only during those hours. However it's more recently turned out > that it's not possible to legally sign a road like that. > > Unfortunately there are a few cyclists who are spoiling it for everyone > else, by cycling dangerously during the busy period, thus the probable plan > is to not allow cycling all the time in terms of signage. (The police are > happy to allow sensible cycling even if not allowed). > > Shaun > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
