- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist warned by police for riding wrong way down one-way system in Salisbury (Salisbury Police)“Grow up”: Police criticised for targeting “incredibly dangerous” cyclists riding against one-way system
Cyclists in Salisbury have been warned that they could face fines for riding against a new one-way system, after police in the cathedral city say they “almost instantly” stopped a commuter flouting the traffic regulation during a targeted operation earlier this week, while branding the behaviour of both delivery cyclists and the general public “incredibly dangerous”.
However, the crackdown has been criticised by cyclists in Salisbury, with many questioning the police’s claim that using an alternative route would add “less than a minute” to journey times, while one social media user told the officers to “grow up” and questioned whether “cyclists are the most obvious issue” currently facing travel in the city.
Fisherton Street, a key route into Salisbury city centre, was transformed earlier this year into a temporary one-way system, as part of improvement works on Fisherton Gateway that will last until next summer and, Wiltshire Council says, “enhance the public realm and improve pedestrian areas”, making it “easier, safer, and more convenient to travel by foot into the city centre”.
However, Salisbury Police took to social media earlier this week to announce that, despite the ongoing roadworks, people on bikes “are still cycling against the one-way system leaving the city centre” and that an operation was carried out to crack down on such riding.
“This is both delivery cyclists and the general public,” the police said. “This is incredibly dangerous.
“Officers today visited Fisherton Street and almost instantly stopped a commuter cycling the wrong way. If this issue continues, fixed penalty notes will be given out to prevent this practice.
“Cyclists can use Crane Bridge Road; this only adding less than a minute to leave the city.”
While the police’s post and threat of fines was applauded by most Facebook users – with many claiming that cyclists “don’t think the rules of the road apply to them” – others were critical of the force’s actions.
“Yeah, because cyclists are the most obvious current issue facing travel in Salisbury,” one commenter said. “Grow up. There are real crimes unsolved and unpunished.”
“I agree with parts of this post,” another said. “But suggesting that the diversion only adds one minute to a journey is farcical.”
“All the multiple road works make Salisbury impossible, and I don’t actually blame people for wanting to cycle the wrong way! Sometimes I feel like driving the wrong way,” a motorist added, while another claimed that while “rules are rules”, the lack of a cycle lane towards the city centre has made life difficult for people commuting on bikes.
> 'Vulnerable Road User' operation sees police fine cyclists for jumping red lights
This type of police operation, targeting rule-breaking cyclists and usually accompanied by a social media post, is of course nothing new.
In September, Police in Scotland carried out a ‘Vulnerable Road User’ initiative which saw four cyclists fined in Edinburgh for riding through red lights.
The operation, which also saw cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers “spoken to and given advice” appeared to take place at a pedestrian crossing in the Scottish capital, with Roads Policing Scotland explaining that four cyclists and one driver were fined for going through red lights.
And in February 2022, police in Hackney said they had caught 18 cyclists jumping red lights in 90 minutes, each getting a £50 fine and a road safety lecture.
A week later questions were asked after another force, this time in Manchester, was keen to highlight its crackdown on people using bicycles riding through reds. Like the action in Salisbury this week, the Manchester post attracted a significant number of responses questioning why the force is “prioritising” less dangerous offences, while others called for a more effective use of police resources.
A campaign group dedicated to making the A56 in the north-west of England safer for all road users also suggested there are “far more serious” dangers on the road that police should be looking to target.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- LookAhead 1 sec ago
Do the ingredients for your homemade goods not come in packaging? That'll be consumer-sized packaging too, much less efficient on a litter-per-unit...
- Cugel 24 min 18 sec ago
Many seem to feel that its a priviledge to be run over, hooted at or otherwise belittled by an up-class drivist in a shiny tin machine with a user...
- Beatnik69 28 min 44 sec ago
I have a funny feeling that Translink don't allow bikes on trains before 9am, which is ridiculous. They ned to bring back the guard van that used...
- Daveyraveygravey 37 min 11 sec ago
+1 for my Proviz jacket. It's a proper one although I think I got it half price for £50....
- brooksby 48 min 21 sec ago
Maybe. I think I'm just different because I didn't pass my test until I was in my early thirties - my wife expecting our son was the final (er...)...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 1 min ago
Much better than what I was trying to concoct.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 18 min ago
Was it you that stole my bike?...
- brooksby 2 hours 1 min ago
Add new comment
56 comments
There is generally "some research" to prove most things. Meanwhile abiding by the rules of midst unlikely to see you issued with a fixed penalty notice.
There's blatantly space for a contraflow cycle lane, since the carriageway is around 7m wide. I'm afraid I put this down to car-brain, and alternative modes not being given equal consideration, in the Highway Authority.
It's all about values and priorities which don't exist in the HA.
AFAICS, even one of the footways meets the specification for a shared path ie ~3m wide, which is way beyond the width of many shared paths in this country. The one dorectly next to my local 25k AADT bypass is 1.2-1.5m wide for about 2 miles.
Even on the police photo:
I suspect it may not remain so wide - yes obviously from that picture there's plenty of space for a contraflow and were it to remain like that they should definitely implement one, but the cones and fences look as if they've been put there ready to commence works when presumably much more of the carriageway will be taken away.
Despite the photo, the pavement for much/most of the effected part of the street is hardly wide enough for the number of pedestrians, so no room for shared use pavement.
Services are being identified, updated/replaced for the new road layout, so the barriers are being moved as work progresses, and at times form a chicane. Work vehicles also park there.
Note that Salisbury centre has many one-way streets, so the alternative route isn't always a simple option. Also note that the high street is open to cycles!
The real issue is that the works are taking far too long (along with those in the Central Carpark).
I didn't say it was squire, I think you're replying to the wrong person!
It is not dangerous on most roads. The roads are one way because there is not enough space for two cars to pass.
Very often One-Way-Systems are implemented to augment on-street car parking capacity.
Roads like these are extremely off-putting for cyclists.
It would not be dangerous if a contraflow cycle lane were established and that should be done everywhere possible. I would disagree that it is not dangerous to cycle the wrong way up a one-way street where it is not permitted, if drivers and pedestrians are not expecting cyclists to be coming in that direction it seems perfectly obvious to me that will increase the possibility of incidents.
There is a one way road in town with herringbone parking and I still see cyclists going the wrong way along it. Even saw a dad with his young lad go the wrong way ! No way can you see people coming the wrong way, no matter how careful you are.
Not really convinced about ignoring the restrictions however safe it might appear.
On my commute to work, there is a one way street I cycle the wrong way down, it is wide enough for cars (or delivery vans) to park down one side and leave enough room for me to cycle one way and a vehicle pass the other with no risk of collision (unless one of us isn't paying attention). At the time I travel, I almost never pass a vehicle travelling the opposite way, despite it being in Central London.
To travel the legfal way would see me turning right across a main road, which is basically impossible on a bike unless traffic lights further down the road stop traffic. You're then riding on a really busy road with no cycle lane and for about 200 metres before turning right back to the quiet streets.
Despite outrage from people online claiming that my riding down the one way street is always more dangerous, I can categorically say without any doubt in my mind that it is not.
Allowing contraflow cycling is one of the traffic law changes that I think would improve safety and encourage cycling. Personally, I'll cycle the wrong way up one-way roads if I think it's quicker/easier and has enough room. What's annoying is on roads where it isn't allowed, you sometimes get drivers trying to squeeze you off the road as they don't like cyclists interpeting the law.
.
If only we had you in charge, to decide which laws we could break and which we had to follow. Things would be SO MUCH better then.
.
Yeah?
.
It would definitely be better as many laws are poorly implemented and designed to further the status quo and protect the land-owners.
As global communication has become easier, we can now easily compare our traffic laws with those in other countries and decide which ones are more suited for the stated aims of reducing short car trips and promoting cycling. Also we have much better access to data and are able to evaluate the impact (or hopefully less impacts) of changing traffic laws. Certainly, I think that our current traffic laws are very much designed with a focus on travelling by car and our road networks are extremely focussed on motor traffic. Traffic lights are another example where we're now starting to experiment with allowing cyclists to get across junctions before the motor traffic so that there's less RTCs and less cyclist deaths.
When following laws, good citizens should evaluate who the law serves and whether the law is protecting people or protecting corporations/institutions. Sometimes the greater good is served by not obeying certain laws - there are plenty of historical examples of immoral laws and the UK's recent law to prevent protests is an example of a dubious law.
I get that pretty often on roads where it IS allowed.
I have read elsewhere (can't recall) the "it's actually fine safety- wise" argument. I'm not sure in general it "encourages cycling" - I don't always enjoy those interactions and others are more cautious than me!
I think of this a "temporary, occasional hack" for a few locations where it's currently too difficult to fix or where a short "unpleasant" section makes an entire route much better or even possible. And best where motor traffic is minimal anyway and ideally very slow.
I note in NL they tend to "fix" these over time eg. over the decades the one in article below was one way, parking both sides -> one way for cars with cycling both directions (one contraflow) -> no cars
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2023/11/29/extra-post-this-utrecht-st...
I pretty much agree.
2 way cycling on one way 20mph streets seems very reasonable for a start, and via a physically protected 2 way track on one way Classified Roads with higher speed limits.
It will take time, however.
Whats next, e-scooters, motorbikes, mobility buggies, as long as they keep a slow speed? One of the fundamental aspects of being a road user in any form is to be predicatble and if this road isnt designted for flow in the other direction (temporarily or permanently) it makes life harder and a little more dangerous for everyone.
It probably makes sense for e-scooters as they have very similar properties to cyclists - limited speed and weight whilst being very maneouvrable so as to pull in when there's not enough room to pass. Mobility buggies would suffer from not having that option, so there's less roads that would be suitable for them to contraflow. I don't think it's suitable for full size motorbikes, though I've certainly seen pizza delivery scooters going the wrong way.
Well a major issue with our road systems is that *any* change is "bad" due to humans operating on them through memory / autopilot. Plus humans are in general easily overwhelmed. Outside of early childhood / once in a lifetime for the driving test there is no "road training" (for those not driving professionally).
That's why all road systems - especially the best - aim for predictability via simplicity, regularity and clarity.
So I agree it's not a great idea. However it may have a (very small, ideally temporary) role in making change *possible*. And IIRC there is some evidence this hasn't caused carnage where deployed so far.
This is a 2 way road reduced to one way for roadworks.
What has not been done is to consider different modes of travel separately, and how appropriately to allow for them during the road work period.
AKA car brain.
On your other, it seems like a bit of a generic kneejerk. Mobility buggies have 2 way movement here on the footway. Motorbikes are motor vehicles are considered as such.
E-scooters need to be properly regulated, but that will not happened whilst Short Term Rishi and the Shysters are concerned only with saving their cowardly political arses.
I understand the situation which is why 'temporary' is in the wording, I have read the article. As I noted elsewhere in the comments I believe the system could work well as I've seen it in use before. But right now it isnt.
Should it be? That could depend on how long the works will actually be up which seems to be "Summer 2024" (so likely Autumn earliest) so it would make sense with such a timescale.
Incidentally the work seem to be pavement widening, street lighting, among other things but the primary goal apears to be pedrestian focused with no specific cycle infra noted other than additional cycling bike racks (source: invest in Salisbury).
They could just permit contraflow cycling on this (temporary) one-way street.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145752200330X?utm_...
Why is this considered dangerous on a high street where all traffic is likely travelling at 20mph or less, with good visibility, yet perfectly acceptable when on a country lane, with limited visibility, less space, and drivers potentially barelling along at twice the speed?
TBFit's rather more than a high street - it looks urban arterial to me.
It's not even the high street. It's inside the ringroad, so not for through traffic. Probably most used for access to the Central Carpark.
With two zebra crossings, parked cars & stopped buses, cyclists tend to get held up by motor traffic, rather than the other way round.
cyclists tend to get held up by motor traffic
This happens all the time here- the MGIF nutter overtakes and is then immediately stopped behind parked cars because of obvious oncoming traffic whereas I could have just kept going. However, I can illegally by-pass the blockage on the pavement if I can get past the cars right across the pavement outside the school
Pages