The right way is the wrong way
Kensington & Chelsea Borough Council has just introduced a measure to allow cyclists to travel the wrong way down selected residential streets in the borough. Given that the Department for Transport made provision for boroughs to do this, subject to its approval of each case, back in 1995, it’s surprising that it’s not better used throughout London where so many cycle-friendly directives fall into the all-mouth-no-trousers category.
I rarely go to K&C: geographically and demographically it’s several removes from Hackney, but I’ve taken it upon myself to adopt the practice in the areas I do travel through – regardless of whether it’s been legalised or not. This works particularly well on my way home to Clapton. Heading down towards Chatsworth Road from Lower Clapton Road, the tangle of leafy streets has been subjected to the most ham-fisted traffic direction with one-way designations handed out seemingly at random. Turning down Blurton Road allows me to take the path of least resistance to the bottom of the hill.
The approaching cars are slowed by speed bumps and have ample time to see me; the road is wide enough to accommodate us all and I get down the hill quick sticks. It might not be entirely legal, but it’s a harmless perk of being
a cyclist. Fiona McAuslan
Route rating
Miles 5.9 (Tottenham Court Rd to Chatsworth Rd)
Average cycle time 45 mins
Calories burned 446 (most of a cheese-and-ham sandwich)
Wrong ways taken 1
Feature continues
|
|
The best of London in your inbox
|
|
6 comments
'Why adhere to a law that endangers me?' (re illegal pavement cycling) The same stupid selfish comment could possibly be made about knife-carrying. Get off the pavement, you selfish git - even if people say nothing to you don't take it as tacit acceptance, it's probably because they're frightened. Read letters in the local press and reports of local community and police meetings - it's you and others like you who are making the pavements in London a no-go area for old, disabled and vulnerable people. What a stupid and irresponsible article for Time Out to endorse - I will not be purchasing it again.
I was with a cyclist who was catapulted off her bike in an accident last week. She landed on her head and shoulder. Result: Helmet severely dented, concussion, face had a nasty case of road rash, broken collar bone. Without a helmet I think it could have been much worse.
Re: amazing statistics - the trouble with accident statistics is it is impossible to measure all the accidents that don't happen...
Did the writer really mean;
'Anarchic behaviour under the guise of protest is selfish and self-defeating.'
Or perhaps;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of protest is self-defeating.
Or maybe;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of anarchy is self-defeating.
Clean up on the stereotypes mate.
I ride through that road system most days and, as I've found generally with cycling in London at all times of day and night, if you ride with your wits about you, it isn't a problem. A cycle lane past Central St. Martin's would be safer and there's loads of pavement but in the mean time the author should grow a pair and use the road.
LB 's Southwark and Lewisham provide free Adult Cycle Training for all those who live, work or study in the borough. Available via www.cyclinginstructor.com. Online Booking!
Statistics show that amazingly cyclists who wear helmets have more accidents than cyclists who don't. This is because, the study says, drivers of cars and other vehicles tend to take it "slightly easy" when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet as opposed to when a cyclist is unprotected. A model Catch-22 situation innit?