There were 76 replies to the consultation [pdf], 21 positive, 37 netural and 18 objections. Camden made a couple of tweaks to the plans, but otherwise decided to go ahead. Fairhazel Gardens has had such a system in place for more than 10 years, so one assumes that both the council and cycling lobby groups have sufficient data to make meaningful recommendations. Indeed, looking at a map of pedestrian and cyclist accidents in London from 2000-2010, there wasn't a single reported bike accident (or pedestrian accident) on Fairhazel Gardens during that period.
|Fairhazel Gardens has had contraflow cycling for years|
However, South Hampstead Residents' Association (appropriately, in this case, named CRASH) is not happy. At this late stage, it is appealing for people to write to Camden expressing their horror at this scheme. Their argument is that it is unsafe for cyclists and other road users (the scheme was initially proposed [pdf] by Camden Cyclists). Crash's argument includes this gem of a debating point (original emphasis):
"You will not only have to keep an eye on your rear mirror and side mirror for cyclists on your left, as usual, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, look forwards and in your right hand mirror for a cyclist on your right"Imagine having to look forward when driving!
In other words, drivers would have to behave as they would on a normal road - checking both side mirrors and their rear-view mirror, as well as keeping an eye on the road ahead. Or as they have been doing on one-way stretches of Fairhazel Gardens for many years already.
Is there a safety risk? Well, cars should be driving slowly anyway on these residential streets. It's also up to cyclists to ride responsibly and err on the side of caution (and use lights when it's dark). But to my mind it doesn't seem to be beyond the wit of man to accommdate such a thing, even if drivers do occasionally have to look in the direction they're going.