[Closed] anti anti-cycling petition petition

I always thought that time trialers were bonkers riding down dual carriageways. Sure, they can, but why the hell would you want to?

Drivers should still respect them, and pass in the other lane. Though I did see a Range Rover pass a scooter in the same lane, with about 2 feet of space, on a dual carriageway the other day, so what hope do aerodynamic weirdos on tron bikes have, doing 48mph under the speed limit?

No I'm signing the first one. Bloody stupid, Inconsiderate and irrisponsible to be riding or racing a bike on a dual carriageway, no doubt in peak times like the morons do on the A3.

Depends on the dual carriage way surely, I used to ride a section past Clitheroe and it felt safer than riding through town, lots of space, good visibility, drivers passed you quickly.

They're petitioning the wrong authority as the A41, like most dual carriageways, is maintained by Highways England.

Event organizers have a responsibility to consider the safety of their participants including the race route and marshaling, etc.

Likewise, the traffic authorities have some responsibility to consider safety and apply vehicle restrictions where appropriate, I am a bit surprised that relatively few dual carriageways are restricted to motor vehicles above 50cc, it probably has something to do with the required signage being a bit silly.

[img] [/img]

Sorry but so long as there are viable alternatives available or provided I actually think cyclists should be banned from nsl dual carriageways too. In point of fact cycling on a motorway hard shoulder is a safer activity and we accept being banned from motorways which have the same speed limit.

The thing is [b]motor[/b]ways were built for cars and other motorised vehicles, and so are restricted to them. Dual [b]carriage[/b]ways are for carriages which may or may not be motorised. In law a bike is a carriage, so you can ride on a dual carriageway legally. It has nothing to do with sensibleness or speed limit.

As above I am pretty sure some dual carriageways do have bans on cyclists and how's about a bit of pragmatism rather than talking about out dated modes of transport and rights to the road - would you advocate taking a horse and cart onto an nsl dual carriageway?

I_did_dab - Member
The thing is motorways were built for cars and other motorised vehicles, and so are restricted to them. Dual carriageways are for carriages which may or may not be motorised.

I'm pretty sure the big section of dual carriageway near my house was built for motors, i mean it was originally plotted for Roman legions to march up and down, but you know, when they turned it into a DC about 30 years ago, I'm pretty confident "cars" were the intended traffic.

would you advocate taking a horse and cart onto an nsl dual carriageway?

I've seen some folks "travelling" with horse and cart on the A33 at rush hour on a weekday morning. Traffic carnage. So no I wouldn't advocate it but it doesn't stop people doing it.

Perhaps the simplest sign to put up is the standard "don't be a dick" which covers the actions of anyone using the road on any form of transport.

Also can't think of a single Nsl dual carriageway that was built to ease the congestion caused by all those non motorised carriages - got any examples?

The section of A41 dual carriageway in question is the Aston Clinton bypass so pretty much built for cars and lorries. Sadly a woman cyclist was also killed using the old road a few years back 🙁

A couple of years ago I had to go down to Cambridge with work. I went there and back via the A1. What was peculiar was that at some point on the way back there's a sign "No bicycles beyond this point". I wouldn't have ridden any of it on a bike, it was risky enough in a car.

There's also the old style dual carriageways with the kerb right next to the solid white line and the newer ones where there's a 50cm or so gap and you've a bit of room.

Unless there's really no alternative I avoid riding on dual carriageways, the speed differential is too great and drivers don't allow for that. Plus there's the usual contingent who think that time behind the wheel can be spent chatting on the phone, putting on makeup, etc.

It's a bit like cars overtaking bikes at unsafe points, like blind bends and summits, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think I'd sign a "no bikes on DC" petition if it also included "and no vehicles bigger than [large Transit van] on urban roads between 06:00-10:00 and 16:00-20:00"

rather than talking about out dated modes of transport and rights to the road -

Nobody hates cyclists like cyclists.

The problem is that quite often there was a perfectly usable country road, but then there were too many cars using it so they 'upgraded' it to a dual carriageway. And as said above

when they turned it into a DC about 30 years ago, I'm pretty confident "cars" were the intended traffic.

Wow! Some amazing comments about this considering this is meant to be a 'cycling' forum!

you can't ban cycling on all dual carriageways. Some of them are the only way of getting from place a to place b (unlike motorways), and others are urban, low speed, and completely safe for cycling.

I'd never advocate cycling on a massive, fast dual carriageway. Not sure I'd ban it, but I see no value in leaving it allowed. If there are sensible, parallel routes, I see no problem in restricting all non-motorway traffic from a section of route

Problem is, if you ban cycling on dual carriageways because someone unfortunately died, where do you stop? Large A roads? Any narrow busy road? Any road where a cyclist has had an accident? **** it, just ban cycling, then there be no more cycling deaths. Happy now?

just ban cycling, then there be no more cycling deaths. Happy now

I imagine a few on here would be!

the A41, like most dual carriageways, is maintained by Highways England

The responsible authorities are Bucks and Herts County Councils. In reality common sense keeps cyclists off it even though there is a cycle lane, the exception being people using it for time trials who in my experience have very little common sense (yes, even if you are trying see how fast you can pedal a bicycle you're still supposed to give way at roundabouts).

Christ [s]on a bike[/s] in a car. Soon there'll be no way of riding to Stockholm to attend the club AGM.

Still, probably for the best, eh?

Or maybe petition for all newly constructed (and resurfaced?) 60mph or NSL DCs to have a 1.5m bike lane in each direction separated from traffic by at least a big rumble strip

Ladders - Member
Wow! Some amazing comments about this considering this is meant to be a 'cycling' forum!

Cyclist can also be critical thinkers. As as cyclist I am against racing on dual carriage away. It's nothing short of criminal IMO.

Actually, it gives cycling and cyclists a bad name.

That old boy has changed my opinion of racing on dual carriageways a little. That was a great way to go.

So I won't be signing any petitions to ban it. Nor will I be signing any counter-petitions. If you die racing on dual carriageways it shouldn't come as a surprise.

There's a difference between cyclists using DCs for access and 60+ riders set off at 30s intervals effectively closing one lane of the road.

As as cyclist I am against racing on dual carriage away. It's nothing short of criminal IMO.

If it's the speed differential that worries you then what do we do about NSL rural roads that are muddy, hedged and narrow ?

*(assuming even moderately attentive drivers - which is the pricipal problem IMO/E on DCs)

I imagine a club will be done for manslaughter eventually. It's amazing it hasn't happened already.

I imagine a club will be done for manslaughter eventually. It's amazing it hasn't happened already.

Might have interesting consequences

you can't ban cycling on all dual carriageways. Some of them are the only way of getting from place a to place b (unlike motorways), and others are urban, low speed, and completely safe for cycling.

This ^

It still surprises me when I see cyclists using the A34 (the nearest thing to a motorway without actually being a motorway)!

assuming even moderately attentive drivers - which is the pricipal problem IMO/E on DCs

On that particular road the problems are the roundabouts which are used as part of the race track (see above) and the oncoming junctions where the cycle lane expects you to cross the slip road at right-angles giving way to traffic but the time trialists go down the main carriageway leaving them between two lanes of 70mph traffic trying to merge. Not the same as a muddy NSL road at all.

would require a "legal" acknowledgement that drivers routinely aren't attentive, wouldn't it?
Might have interesting consequences

Having lived in tring and aylesbury most of my life i've have cycled down the stretch of the A41 in question ONCE before due to it being the most direct route and being very short on time.
By the time i got to the other side 4 miles away my nerves were totally shredded and i hated every minute of it. The side bit past the whote line was covered in debris making it almost unrideable without puncturing forcing you pretty much into the road. cars where oblivious and flew past inches away.
Never again for me, i considered doing the time trial but found other routes nearby on less intense roads

I wouldn't do it or encourage it, but banning bikes from dual carriageways could be the thin end of the wedge so I'm against ban.

If there was a temporary speed limit of 50 around them, then I'd be happier with doing it myself.

The only two people I know killed cycling were TTing on dual carriageways.

@Rio, This is the A41, right ?

I've had a streetview "drive" along parts of it and can't see a bike lane at all. Which bit are we talking about ?
What I can see is that (at least on the bits I tried) sightlines are clear and there'd be very little excuse for joining traffic not to have seen a slower moving road user on the road to their right. Would it be safer in your view for a bike to try to cross the slipper at right angles, from a standing start, if traffic comes along there at 70mph?

Do we know how & where this TTer was killed ? (was he flouting rules at a roundabout or killed by joining traffic or simply hit from behind on the carriageway?)

I know of one death on a DC near Brighton soemwhere when a cyclist was hit "across" a slip road but not specifically aware of any others

Why not simply ban motors from the nearside lane and install some physical delineation to segregate non-motorised users? Would likely no longer be suitable for time-trialling, but otherwise I can see no drawbacks 🙂

If you organised a race venue that had vehicles entering the circuit and doing 70mph during the event do you think your risk assessment would deem that OK?

How do you feel about cyclists on roads with 60 limits where traffic can be a foot or two away from the cyclist, coming in the opposite direction with a closing speed of maybe 80?

... what about roads with 50 limits; 40; 30 ?

On the other hand, if your entrants were going to be doing something that they are at liberty to do at any time, but you now deem it dangerous, what does that say for all other times and wouldn't it be incumbent on the authorities to manage that situation better ?

So be careful what you ask for.

How do you feel about cyclists on roads with 60 limits where traffic can be a foot or two away from the cyclist, coming in the opposite direction with a closing speed of maybe 80?

All of this is about personal risk. That's fine.

As soon as you organise events you are taking on the risk assessment. Public opinion, even amongst cyclists, is that riding on dual carriageways in unacceptably dangerous. The organisers are putting themselves in a perilous situation.

It's a lesser risk

Surely bikes are just one of the slow moving or stationary things that people could crash their cars into on a dual carriageway.

So if you're going to ban bikes, don't you need to ban all the other slow moving things (tractors, scooters etc..) and also provide a hard shoulder so they have somewhere to pull into should they break down?

can you demonstrate/quantify that ?

I wonder if any stats exist on cyclists using dual carriageways? It must close to zero.

You can tell from this thread many serious cyclists think riding on dual carriageways is not something they would do. I would imagine pretty much all non-cyslists think it's a dumb thing to do. So the *sensible solution* to "manage that situation better" is to ban bikes from dual carriageways.

No.

The sensible solution is to provide a safe and effective alternative.

Most people think cycling on the road at all is something they don't want to do, but the sensible solution is not (unless you're an intergalactic doglobber) to ban all cycling, it's to provide infrastructure where people feel willing and able to cycle.

Broadly speaking it's worked for walking. We didn't ban walking once motor traffic became popular, because that wasn't the "sensible solution". We invented pavements, which most people find satisfactory, and that means people still walk. Even though it's still legal to walk in the carriageway. (Something which remains a necessity in rural areas.)

The sensible solution is to provide a safe and effective alternative.

But we're talking TTs here. Is the state really responsible for providing race tracks?

But we're talking TTs here.

The original petition was titled

"Stop cyclists using the counties dual carriageways"

But we're talking TTs here. Is the state really responsible for providing race tracks?

No, you said that banning cycling, not TTs specifically, was a "sensible solution":

You can tell from this thread many serious cyclists think riding on dual carriageways is not something they would do. I would imagine pretty much all non-cyslists think it's a dumb thing to do. So the *sensible solution* to "manage that situation better" is to ban bikes from dual carriageways.

Is the state really responsible for providing race tracks

They built the dual carriageway didn't they 😉

But it's not that there's a Dutch style, wide, smooth, safe, direct route and the TTers are ignoring it because they don't want to be held up by kids. There is zero provision, for any type of cyclist, on most roads and virtually all dual carriageways. It's not about TTing, it's about only thinking about and building for people in cars.

No, you said that banning cycling, not TTs specifically, was a sensible solution.

With lovely cycle lanes TTists would still use dual carriageways as the cycle lanes would be full of normal people pottering along at low speeds.

The old main road that the A41 bypasses for most of its length seems like a more sensible option than insisting on the right to cycle on the nsl dual carriageway.

Edit: cross-posted

Actually I said be careful what you ask for as that would be seen as a sensible solution. Like most cyclists I don't want to see any ban.

Oh, I see. Sorry, somehow missed the subsequent paragraph. I don't think the randomly changing typography on here helps make things easy to follow :$

There's a difference between cyclists using DCs for access and 60+ riders set off at 30s intervals effectively closing one lane of the road.

Yes, you'd think with the warning signs, marshalls and presence of lots of cyclists the TT riders should be much safer than a non-racing cyclist who's unlucky enough to need to use the DC just because there's no alternative.

If cyclists are banned on dual carriageways then the government is closing a right of way, does this mean they would be obliged to build pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders their own road that ran in parallel?

Sorry but so long as there are viable alternatives available or provided I actually think cyclists should be banned from nsl dual carriageways too

I'd actually be happy to be banned from using an NSL dual carriageway if there was a viable alternative provided but I'm not aware of *ANY* parallel infra the UK that's good enough. Segregated, direct, well maintained so smooth and fast. Priority over side roads and entrances etc etc.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/cycling-along-a-new-highways-agency-scheme/

is what's just been put in alongside just 2.5miles of the A23 as part of a hugely expensive scheme and it's still crap.

I'm a time triallist and race on dual carriageways. Not all dual carriageways are equal. Some are fine and there are others that I wouldn't choose to race on again (Etwall).

I actually prefer spocos to drag strips and wouldn't mind if racing moved away from DCs (that said the only race I've done where there has been an accident was on a single carriageway course). But while the DCs are there some of our club championships involve riding on them, as do any club record attempts which you're not going to get close to on a sporting course. So I do race on them more than I'd like.

Actually, ban racing on DCs tomorrow, as I currently hold the 10 and 25 records 😉

I usually feel safer in a race because of the other riders and signs. I'm unlikely to be the first cyclist a driver sees. And it will have been risk assessed unlike my training routes. Scariest race I've done was as last rider off on V718 with no one behind me (plus I'd forgotten to pick up my rear light that day 8O). I should add that I was only last because the rider behind me DNSed, not through a good seeding!

For non-racing I try to avoid dual carriageways out of town although there are some in built up areas which I will happily use. But as above sometimes there is no alternative provision so there's no choice.

I think that even if there was effective alternative infra, so effeactive that norms would actually use it, the TTers would still use the dual carriageway because they'd soon get sick of families and kids and dogs and RC cars and the like. I don't think there is an answer that would please everyone, (some) drivers have a bad attitude, roads are crap, the country is getting cosy, cyclists are an easy target.

Can't they just do the TTs on Zwift 😉

With lovely cycle lanes TTists would still use dual carriageways as the cycle lanes would be full of normal people pottering along at low speeds.

They would use the road regardless, see it all the time. We have a lovely cycle track that barely gets used because the road warriors are more concerned about exercising their rights. The A77 is another classic example (got upgraded to M77 so the old 4 lane carriageway became 2 lane with a decent sized cycle track). Answers above too.

We have a lovely cycle track that barely gets used

Got a Google Maps/Streetview link?

A77 - thought i'd have a quick look

https://goo.gl/maps/a2gikXDqXXJ2

Shows a road cyclist using it in both directions (if you turn around). Still too narrow - I'd guess 2m https://goo.gl/maps/XuwfTVBeBC42

Not entirely clear priorities at side roads and the kerb protection shouldn't be that wide open. https://goo.gl/maps/RBSEqFxUu8Q2. Why not coloured tarmac right across?

I wonder how they've handled roundabout and big junctions? Oh no surprise - just give up.
https://goo.gl/maps/YiTfxLHieMT2

Quite a few cyclists shown as you pan along, all using the off road lane.

Can't help myself.

So it's marked as shared use. That makes sense - Dutch do it - few people walk alongside a cross country A road so build it for cycling and allow walking. But they haven't. They've really built a footpath and allowed cycling on it.

At the recycling centre - massive splays, cycle track gives way to traffic accessing site.
https://goo.gl/maps/EfccyYaWaxk

They've just not bothered with the junctions - you have to stop, cross the road at 90 degrees, restart.

https://goo.gl/maps/XeTcY2tLrPE2

and then when you've crossed the bridge, cross again and then use the narrow painted gutter lane
https://goo.gl/maps/6WqXZ73W1FG2

I'm sure I'd use it - I bet the A77 is really unpleasant - but while it's better than most UK infra it's not a 'lovely track' and since it fizzles out to on road before it gets anywhere the only people using it are going to have to be happy riding on the A77 anyway.

The responsible authorities are Bucks and Herts County Councils.

Quite right, the A41 Aston Clinton bypass was indeed detrunked, my mistake.

Someone has to give way, to expect otherwise is just deluded, you're not going to get grade seperated junctions out in the sticks.

Maybe my definition of lovely is lacking (not the track I was referring to anyway) but I'd certainly count something with a vastly superior surface to the road as lovely. Riding with 28's it's still white finger waiting to happen...

You can tell from this thread many serious cyclists think riding on dual carriageways is not something they would do. I would imagine pretty much all non-cyslists think it's a dumb thing to do. So the *sensible solution* to "manage that situation better" is to ban bikes from dual carriageways.

Someone has to give way, to expect otherwise is just deluded, you're not going to get grade seperated junctions out in the sticks.

It depends whether you're serious about the bike as a means of transport. There's no excuse for the track not having priority over side roads and the like.

https://twitter.com/ri15888634/status/889062013606952960

Even for grade separaton at roundabouts and major junctions the cost is incremental cost is negligible relative to the amount the road costs.
> https://twitter.com/ri15888634/status/889062013606952960 <

I'm not signing any petition for or against cycling, but this I agree with..

andeh - Member
I always thought that time trialers were bonkers riding down dual carriageways. Sure, they can, but why the hell would you want to?

bails - Member
But it's not that there's a Dutch style, wide, smooth, safe, direct route and the TTers are ignoring it because they don't want to be held up by kids..

I think you'll find ( according to my Dutch Mates) that it's illegal to hold races on Dutch Cycle Paths.

Someone has to give way, to expect otherwise is just deluded, you're not going to get grade seperated junctions out in the sticks.

Round my bit of sticks they spent the best part of half a billion quid to grade-separate a mile or so of road from some interesting plants.

Round my bit of sticks they spent the best part of half a billion quid to grade-separate a mile or so of road from some interesting plants

Shouldn't be there in the first place. Plants don't even pay road tax!

I would've thought that several cyclists at 30s intervals would give ample opportunity for any motorist to see them and act appropriately. What do they do if there's a convoy of trucks at 50? If someone breaks down? If a (possibly big) animal jumps into the road?

Even on a motorway you should be able to avoid anything in the carriageway with just a tiny bit of care - and believe me, I like to drive like a complete tit sometimes, but wouldn't put myself in a position not to be able to avoid something like this. Why not ban cars from the dual carriageways? It'd encourage safer and more environmentally friendly travel, and the TTers could use the outside lane whilst the bimblers used the inside?

Why not ban cars from the dual carriageways? It'd encourage safer and more environmentally friendly travel, and the TTers could use the outside lane whilst the bimblers used the inside?

Because the draft of the cars gives a quicker time 🙂

[quote=squirrelking ]The A77 is another classic example

Another classic example of somewhere I'd choose to ride on the road rather than the cycle track (based on the links simon gave). Not because I want to piss off drivers, but because infrastructure like that is horrible and inconvenient, and at least some of the links simon gave are examples of stuff which is more dangerous than riding on the road.

Give me a proper Dutch style bike path I'll use it, until then you can whistle for it.

Not that I'd choose to ride on some of the roads mentioned, but I have TTed on DCs several times and not felt at all in danger - but then the most recent (still not that recent!) were early start Sunday morning TTs with not much traffic on the roads, so not quite what most people here are probably imagining. Sure you might get mown down by a dangerous driver, but I can't see why that is any more likely than on a single carriageway NSL road where cars are only going ~10mph slower - if anything, given easy overtaking by moving to the outside lane and good sightlines most of the time it ought to be safer. The local clubs did used to run evening TTs on one of the local DCs, but that stopped maybe 20 years ago because traffic got too much.

Where do people stand on dual carriageways with a painted cycle lane in the gutter? Is that legal, under the plans to ban DC use?

I tend to avoid even standing on the painted cycle lane.

Inevitable dadjoke is inevitable.

Where do people stand on dual carriageways with a painted cycle lane in the gutter? Is that legal, under the plans to ban DC use?

There are no plans to ban DC use.

The law is an ass on this. Every time someone gets found cycling on the hard shoulder of a motorway theres a big press/web/police hoo-ha. If you break down on the hard shoulder you're told to leave your car and sit on the other side of the crash barriers because it's so dangerous yet we have DC A roads with narrow painted lanes alongside or roads like the A3 and A12 where there are laughable little bits of infra that appear at junctions with you being expected to be in-lane the rest of the time.

Narrow country A-roads with vehicles travelling at over 60mph are what scare me most on a bike yet it's hard to go far in the UK countryside without having to deal with one. Many of them don't even have pavements.

Remove the danger not the victims. Build safe infra and make bikes a viable form of transport.

[quote=simons_nicolai-uk ]Remove the danger not the victims. Build safe infra and make bikes a viable form of transport.

But it's so, so much easier to remove the victims, because they're an out group, and we couldn't possibly interfere with the right of people to drive.