Passing a bike on a dual carriageway:-(

****s gonna ****. Hope you got the reg.

They’re everywhere unfortunately. I have nothing useful to add other than that. 

Straddle the lanes for a pass give the chap on the bike some protection. Give him the space he needs but make it clear there's no gap to undertake.

If I'm coming up to a known bad spot I'll often not overtake a cyclist.

As I’m doing about 65 mpg

Decent fuel economy...

I've been that person, while you're not actually breaking any laws, dicing with dickheads on thar sub-one mile DC section of an A-road where they all need to light the afterburners in case someone beats them to the next queue makes you feel like you must be...

Straddle the lanes for a pass give the chap on the bike some protection. Give him the space he needs but make it clear there’s no gap to undertake.

If I’m coming up to a known bad spot I’ll often not overtake a cyclist.

This is presumably the answer. But it’s giving less space than I should.

Some days I’m going faster. But I don’t think even a a touch over 70mph would have helped

I do have the registration but I can’t see I can do much with it.

Of close we drive up the rest of the A road and exactly the same speed

I do have the registration but I can’t see I can do much with it.

I guess you report it anyway. It may be the case that the driver has history of poor behaviour and it might generate a conversation with police.

To be fair, you're kinda crazy if you're on a dual carriageway with a bike unless you *have* to be.

I bet there are a lot of dead "correct" people.

Definitely report it. As mtbfix says, it might help build a picture if he's the type to drive like this regularly - either enough of these type of report could accumulate, or it could help flesh out a case which came from a single incident with a dashcam - helps to stop people being able to claim "it was a one off loss of calm your honour, I usually drive like an angel" etc

maybe the cyclist has a cam and your story will corroborate.

Log it.

Yeah why would you not?

I see bad driving, bad cycling and everything else on the roads these days, can't always blame drivers for all the wrongs, having had to go through the heart of Bristol yesterday i was a little shocked with how many cyclists really do put their life in the hands of car drivers with the way they were swerving across them, around them and so on, and of course seeing the amount of car drivers who are more interested in their facebook updates and text messages than driving, or doing daft stuff to try and get to work that little faster.

I was always taught to only change lane if you're not going to interfere with traffic in that lane.

For sure what the other driver did was wrong, but if you checked properly before moving would it have happened?

WTF? He wasn’t interfering with traffic. He was overtaking a vulnerable road user in the correct manner. The other car driver was exercising his right to be a massive dickhead

I see bad driving, bad cycling and everything else on the roads these days, can’t always blame drivers for all the wrongs, having had to go through the heart of Bristol yesterday i was a little shocked with how many cyclists really do put their life in the hands of car drivers with the way they were swerving across them, around them and so on, and of course seeing the amount of car drivers who are more interested in their facebook updates and text messages than driving, or doing daft stuff to try and get to work that little faster.

Fascinating stuff, what's it got to do with this thread!

No other traffic, give the cyclist the full lane.  Other traffic, I straddle both lanes and leave right indicator on, as although you are closer than you need to be, it reduces risk from the undertaking scenario.

On a practical note, it's not always possible to pass without (safely) impeding those doing 80mph quarter of a mile behind you.  You'd simply get trapped behind the cyclist and look like you can't read the road ahead in order to plan your pass!

WTF? He wasn’t interfering with traffic. He was overtaking a vulnerable road user in the correct manner. The other car driver was exercising his right to be a massive dickhead

What he's saying is saying is, did the OPs move into the right hand lane induce a manoeuvre from the dick driver? i.e. with the OP moving into their land were they presented with the choice of braking or undertaking? Like 5lab I was taught never to change lanes if that forced another road user to make a change in speed or lane to compensate. Partly manners, partly because it relies upon them being alert and partly it induces poor choices. If this was the case the OP could have elected to brake to the cyclist's pace until they could have moved into the faster lane without impact instead of pulling out when they did.

That's not to excuse the driving of the dick driver

These days I'd never want to be that cyclist. Back in the day when time trialling I'd actively seek out races on dual carriageways - Saturday afternoons on the A1 or A14 with lots of cars and lorries to be pushed and sucked along by, and ideally a bit damp made for some of the fastest times in the UK. Makes me shudder now thinking about it.

Like 5lab I was taught never to make a manoeuvre that forced another road user to make a change.

Blimey, you must just get in your car, mutter a bit and get back out again.

Fascinating stuff, what’s it got to do with this thread!<br /><br />

not much, just stating that this stuff isn’t unusual any more, roads are full of numpties all over

Blimey, you must just get in your car, mutter a bit and get back out again.

Well, it seems to work ok. I 'think' it was on the advanced drivers course or an equivalent thing (kind of) I did when still in the forces - can't remember. But yes, with anticipation, you can do it - emergencies not withstanding. It's harder in a slow old van and puny engined car mind.

I was always taught to only change lane if you’re not going to interfere with traffic in that lane.

For sure what the other driver did was wrong, but if you checked properly before moving would it have happened?

To be clear

I change lanes for the cyclist, into an empty lane

Whilst in that lane a car grows every larger in my mirror. I think actually it appears in the inside Lane. It was going much faster than me, 80 is a guess

As I understand it the driver behind should have slowed to my speed. Waited say 3 seconds for me to pull over. Instead they over took me on the inside. Squeezing between me and the cyclist

The cyclist was on a road I wouldn’t cycle on. But the road position and visibility of the cyclists were excellent

The road really isn’t that busy. Most days at that time we are all in the left lane 200 metres apart. We were also approaching a round about with a slip road coming up for joining traffic. Some times I pull across about there to let traffic join

Well, it seems to work ok

Does it? So if you pull onto an empty road get up to say the 30 limit and a car comes up behind, surely you have made it make a change?

Does it? So if you pull onto an empty road get up to say the 30 limit and a car comes up behind, surely you have made it make a change?

I edited my first post to be more clear but I think you quoted before I did...."Like 5lab I was taught never to change lanes if that forced another road user to make a change in speed or lane to compensate." HTH

I edited my first post to be more clear but I think you quoted before I did….”Like 5lab I was taught never to change lanes if that forced another road user to make a change in speed or lane to compensate.” HTH

I was within your rule

 

Years ago i was waiting to turn right on my bicycle in my village. Oncoming car (1) so waited for him to pass. Car (2) behind him decided he had to overtake (it was in a 30) and pulled out. Car 1 went by me on the right, car 2 on my left. Probably missed my by whisker

So the OP forced somebody who was traveling at an illegal speed to perform an illegal manoeuvre? Fascinating stuff. The other driver was in the wrong end of conversation really.

To be fair, you’re kinda crazy if you’re on a dual carriageway with a bike unless you *have* to be.

The normalisation of this line of thinking needs to stop. We cyclists are authorised to use these roads by right not licence. We need to reframe this thinking everytime it pops it's nasty little head up. We don't want the same traffic laws that are in force in USA and Australia where car is considered king. They aren't if we want to maintain a pleasant road environment.

The normalisation of this line of thinking needs to stop. We cyclists are authorised to use these roads by right not licence. We need to reframe this thinking everytime it pops it’s nasty little head up. We don’t want the same traffic laws that are in force in USA and Australia where car is considered king. They aren’t if we want to maintain a pleasant road environment.

So just to be clear......and as I said above this was once me........you feel the A1 should be a 'pleasant road environment' for a push bike?

I'm at the other end of the paradigm - let's make the dual carriageway as efficient a place to drive your car as possible....so all cars choose that option and stay there. And if that means it's a no bike zone then fair dos.

What he’s saying is saying is, did the OPs move into the right hand lane induce a manoeuvre from the dick driver? i.e. with the OP moving into their land were they presented with the choice of braking or undertaking?

The car in question was way back in the same lane as me. Yes they would have eventually had to brake. But that’s the nature of a dual carriageways. You can’t go faster than the vehicle in the right hand lane.

Are you now satisfied that we have 2 road users, me and the bike, meeting every legal requirement and a third car falling short of the expected standards of driving?

Are you now satisfied that we have 2 road users, me and the bike, meeting every legal requirement and a third car falling short of the expected standards of driving?

To be fair, I think we've moved on. Sorry.

When I pass a someone cycling along a dual carriage way I tend to straddle the two lanes and slow down a touch, better to not leave too much a gap, the recommended 1.5m is ideal IMO.

Personally I try not to cycle along a dual carriageway if I can, obviously we can all take a wrong turn but I'd be getting out of there asap.

I see cyclists daily riding along the A8 past Edinburgh airport, this is a 40mph dual carriage way and can be very busy. There is a cycle path that runs alongside it. It's not great for road type bikes as it's a bit rough but I'd rather use it than dice with heavy traffic. It's just a matter of time until someone cycling along the road is ran over. 

We all take risks every day but I'd try to limit my exposure to hazards and risks as much as I possibly can. 

You would not get me cycling on a dual carriageway or A road for any money, just because you can doesn’t make it a sensible idea . Closing speeds are much much higher, and it’s that that is dangerous. Sure if you can keep up with the traffic speed and pedal at 60mph then it becomes less dangerous.

Occasionally I see people on the A5 which is a mixture of dual carriageway or fast A road. I think the cyclists are nuts, especially when there are some beautiful quiet lanes just metres away.

In OP’s case yes other driver was an arse, but that’s just another reason not to cycle on a dual carriageway. There is no point being right if you are dead

You'd have to force me at gunpoint to cycle along a dual carriage way. I mean, I know we can, but **** knows why you'd want to.

I think cyclists are nuts/masochists for going on some of the fast and busy A-roads near me, when there are backroad alternatives. But the idea that they should be prevented from having a horrible ride if they want is worse.

OP did the right thing, and undertaker was a ****. Unfortunately, good drivers sometimes have to take positions which protect vulnerable road users from ****s, straddling the lane in this instance.

Certainty of safety riding along a dual carriage way would not make them any more of a pleasant place for me to ride my bike. They're very dreary places. I ride alongside one every day there's thick hedge in places, a strip of brush in others. The noise and fumes still prominent in the experience.  Have seen cyclist riding along the dual carriage way in the rain in the dark... no thank you!

I've seen this on the A50, NSL. Overtook several cyclists taking part in a TT, moved back to L1 for a couple of minutes then back to L2 with everyone else for another gaggle. Everyone except one driver!
This is a road where it wasn't an isolated cyclist that was difficult to see but a field of 120(?) that we'd been overtaking for a couple of minutes, all with flashing rear lamps.
The cyclists weren't causing a problem and traffic wasn't too heavy. They should have been perfectly safe because by their number their presence was easily anticipated and the reason for other drivers moving should have been clear, but there was nothing really that you could do that wouldn't make matters worse when one amongst us decided to dive down the nearside. Some drivers shouldn't be allowed out, fortunately no collisions occurred
Arguably more cyclists on dual carriageways would make them safer for cyclists, but there's an understandable psychological block on this and I can think of far more picturesque places to cycle than a NSL dual carriageway

Wow the self entitlement of some drivers on here is mind boggling. Why should cyclists not be able to ride on an A road? If I wasn’t allowed to ride on an A road I’d struggle to get places. I’m often on the A86 it’s a nice quiet road. I also quite like a cycle over the Lecht on the A939 and the A93 over Glenshee is another favourite of mine. Next you’ll be telling me I don’t pay Road tax.

Dual carriageways aren’t all the same. I obviously wouldn’t cycle on the A9 or A96 dual carriageway sections but there are some dual carriageways in Inverness and Aberdeen with a 30mph limit.

As for the OP sounds like he did the right thing it’s the dangerous undertaking driver at fault. Hard to predict when you’re going to encounter one of these idiots.

So just to be clear……and as I said above this was once me……..you feel the A1 should be a ‘pleasant road environment’ for a push bike?

Yes it should. I've ridden down Spanish dual carrigeways without a qualm, it is a source  of shame that our driving culture is so bad that is not regarded as possible here.

EDIT - "Efficient for cars" is just newspeak for lawless driving attitudes.

Dual carriageways aren’t all the same.

Yes, I think the ones people are probably saying they would not ride on are the 60mph ones, the same as the 60mph A roads.

I cycle on 60mph A rods for very short stretches and it is not an enjoyable experience. As I am riding for enjoyment then I don't want my ride to be on roads that are really not enjoyable.

Wow the self entitlement of some drivers on here is mind boggling.

Its nothing about self entitlement its about self preservation. If I am going on a motorway journey I will take our 'big' car because its more powerful and robust, its easier to keep up with the traffic and would be safer if involved in a crash.

I apply the same principle to cycling if the risk is high I stay well away. Yes I could ride on a dual carriageway but IMO to even consider it is just plain stupid and too high risk as I cannot pedal at anything like the same speed as the other road users.

EDIT – “Efficient for cars” is just newspeak for lawless driving attitudes.

No it's not - or if it is - it's in your head.

Wow the self entitlement of some drivers on here is mind boggling.

You come across as a sneerer. And then later in your text your describe the nuance of the situation. And then even a "I obviously wouldn’t cycle on the A9 or A96 dual carriageway sections"....very much exactly like the people you criticise.

Does life confuse you, so you just have to lash out with sweeping statements?

Wow the self entitlement of some drivers on here is mind boggling. Why should cyclists not be able to ride on an A road? If I wasn’t allowed to ride on an A road I’d struggle to get places. I’m often on the A86 it’s a nice quiet road. I also quite like a cycle over the Lecht on the A939 and the A93 over Glenshee is another favourite of mine. Next you’ll be telling me I don’t pay Road tax.

Don't think i've read anywhere on this thread anyone saying cyclists shouldn't ride dual carriageway, they're saying they personally wouldn't, as it's just too problematic. I'm in that camp as well, but again, it's down to what the 'dual carriageway' is, if it's a dual lane dual carriageway with national speed limit i'm avoiding it like the plague, most of those have pathways next to them anyway around here anyway, if it's a dual carriageway with cycle lane, like we have in several areas here, then it's fine, most of these were dual lane until being redone and are single lane with cycle and walkways now, same with dual carriageways that are 30s or 40s, although they can be painful it's they're short as you have the overtakers dying to get past everyone, as someone else said, to get to the next queue of traffic!

Although there isn't an official minimum speed limit on most motorways, travelling too slowly can be considered dangerous and you might attract the attention of the police. In this case, you'd usually be let off with a verbal warning, but you could be prosecuted for careless driving.

Driving too slowly can also impede the safety of other drivers. When on the roads, we all have a duty to try to anticipate the movement of others. Driving particularly slowly can cause a hazard to other motorists, who may not have correctly assessed their speed. It can force harsh braking, increasing the risk of a pile-up. It also encourages actions like tailgating or unsafe overtaking, particularly if a queue builds up behind the slow driver, and there is peer pressure involved.

So whilst you can legally ride your bike on a dual carriageway, that doesnt make it a sensible thing to do

It hinges on your definition of a dual carriageway; plenty are 30/40mph with cycling accommodated, often the ones in towns & cities. The more rural or ring-road style 60/70mph roads are somewhere I personally wouldn't ride, granted.

It hinges on your definition of a dual carriageway; plenty are 30/40mph with cycling accommodated, often the ones in towns & cities.

Yup. Some are fine but its the ones which are basically two lane motorways which I stay the hell away from when cycling.
Just plain unpleasant to ride aside from the risk.

I think cyclists are nuts/masochists for going on some of the fast and busy A-roads near me, when there are backroad alternatives. But the idea that they should be prevented from having a horrible ride if they want is worse.

My old commute along the A4 towards Reading from Newbury had a section of NSL DC, directly after a 50 limit. The detour to avoid that and get home would have cost me a good 20 mins+, but that one section always scared the crap out of me, all of a sudden it went from relatively sedate to wacky races. It's less than a mile, but those who've paid for more horsepower are itching to bully their way by, those in less pokey vehicles are also still trying to accelerate as hard as they can, there's no shoulder, no real run off or place to escape. The moves people would pull to be one extra car ahead for the inevitable queue at the roundabout a couple of miles later were often staggering, and I got to witness it first hand, minus a crumple zone...

The thing is I wasn't being a 'masochist' or looking for the stress, danger and road rage I just wanted to cycle to/from work along roads that I had every right to, and that was the most efficient route.

What the OP described was very familiar, some ****stick "Driving God" perceives there to be a Gap that he can squeeze his 5 series through with a 20 mph speed difference to a car on the right and a 60 mph difference to the bicycle on the left, and the possibility that he might wipe someone out just doesn't occur. "Progress makers" seem to forget it's a public road, and sometimes just accepting that they need to wait a few more seconds isn't actually the worst thing.

Interestingly the opposite side of that DC stretch (westbound) was repainted as a single carriageway with lots of hatching and space to ride, well out of the way of maniacs, I'm still not clear why WBCC didn't do the same.on the eastbound side, a bit of paint and repositioning a few cat-eyes and the safety of that section of road would be massively increased...

It's not about preventing a 'horrible ride' it's about preventing deaths or serious injury,

Google maps link if you're really interested... probably seems totally innocuous to most people who live in their cars...

Google maps link if you’re really interested… probably seems totally innocuous to most people who live in their cars…

Is that the correct area, as the A4 you've pointed to is single carriageway?

Yep, turn on satellite view or street view, east bound goes from 50 SC to NSL DC just after the junction with Back Lane, westbound is SC...

Wow the self entitlement of some drivers on here is mind boggling.

I know right, Imagine the audacity of not wanting to cycle on roads that are likely to get me knocked off even faster than on any other road, shocking behaviour.

know right, Imagine the audacity of not wanting to cycle on roads that are likely to get me knocked off

First they came for the..... And we let them. Then they came for the....

Before we know it we are like certains states in America and the Middle East where the only space you'll be doing any riding is on closed circuits.

The thread was veering towards cyclists should not be allowed on dual carriageways and A roads for example ‘  let’s make the dual carriageway as efficient a place to drive your car as possible….so all cars choose that option and stay there. And if that means it’s a no bike zone then fair dos.“ 

I agree with the self preservation idea that we as cyclists should minimise risk but let’s not fall into the “cyclists should not be allowed on these roads” mindset. You know how that argument plays out.

Yes, I think the ones people are probably saying they would not ride on are the 60mph ones, the same as the 60mph A roads.

Those 60mph ones you speak of are actually 70mph for most vehicles.
I think it’s nuts that people choose to cycle on the dual carriageway near me, but they can if they want, it just seems so unpleasant. I think it’s done as a time trial section, sometimes organised by a club - at least in that instance they put warning signs up which probably helps.

When I pass a someone cycling along a dual carriage way I tend to straddle the two lanes and slow down a touch, better to not leave too much a gap, the recommended 1.5m is ideal IMO.

I assume we’re thinking about different dual carriageways as I’d rather you gave me more space than 1.5m if you’re travelling close to 70mph. (Not that I’d ever be likely to be there).

and A roads for example

Would you care to show me where I said that?

How do you feel about mopeds not being allowed on motorways? Sensible or big brother banned them in a nanny state or car/lorry centric mindset? I'm assuming you see it as a travesty or can you see the logic for it? Do you think the vespa owners club thought it the thin end of the wedge 40,50 odd years ago when it came in?

How do you feel about mopeds not being allowed on motorways?

Banned from a road with a "minimum" speed limit ? Seems fair. Motorways do run in tandem with Alternate routes.

The dual carridgeways you often see cyclists on are often their only route or are safer than the alternate single track roads with the rat runners/wannabe rally drivers

Banned from a road with a “minimum” speed limit ? Seems fair.

And if it were to turn out there was no such thing as a minimum speed limit on a motorway but they are not allowed anyway, would that make you feel different about a bicycle ban on say the dual carriageway 70mph sections of A1 too?

To be clear I'm not advocating a ban, and I appreciate there are many different types of dual carriageway - I'm just saying that bits like the OP was on and the sections where I used to time trail would be no great loss if it were to happen. I'm not of the thin end of the wedge doom monger mindset.

The thing is I wasn’t being a ‘masochist’ or looking for the stress, danger and road rage I just wanted to cycle to/from work along roads that I had every right to, and that was the most efficient route.

Absolutely. You didn't have a viable alternative route. The ones around me plod along a very hilly section of the A65 getting overtaken extremely badly when the back-lanes are parallel, quieter and pretty much pan-flat in comparison. It's still their choice though, and they are no less deserving of a safe overtake.

And if it were to turn out there was no such thing as a minimum speed limit on a motorway but they are not allowed anyway, would that make you feel different about a bicycle ban on say the dual carriageway 70mph sections of A1 too?

Wouldn't make you feel better if I did ?

I used quote marks as although there's no in law minimum speed for a motorway. Try doing 17mph on an open motorway and see how long till your pulled over and at least given a verbal..... Or rear ended.

That's because we have been conditioned to not expect vehicles doing 17mph there.

The trickle down effect is evident even here on a cyclists forum where they don't expect to see cyclists on a dual carriage way. - even 10 years ago a Sunday 10-25-50-100miler was a common sight through the summer.

Our club has been forced to pull some of their rural A road time trial routes citing the danger- despite them being 20 years old routes in many cases.

As for the a1 I'd be quite happy if it was in its entirety nuked from orbit never mind cyclists banned from it.

Really not worth arguing this as if it's black and white.

The A78 section that @phil5556 was talking about is built to 3 lane motorway standard, has sight lines all day long and as far as I know never has any crashes on that section. I'd actually ride it before the single carriageway section between Skelmorlie and Seamill, even the 30mph bits in Fairlie. I rode that to and from work for years and never felt safe, there's a turbine blade part in Hunterston that was hung in commemoration of the poor guy that got killed riding on that road during an outage.

As for thin ends of wedges, the Edinburgh Shitty Bypass has been closed to non-motorised vehicles as long as I've ever known it which is getting on 30 years and it's not really catching on.

probably seems totally innocuous to most people who live in their cars…

Probably, but I used to commute along it on a motorbike, that was bad enough. I avoid it on my bike but then on leisure rides I have that choice

Would you care to show me where I said that?
It’s not just you on this thread convert. Quite a few folk suggesting it’s not a good idea for cyclists to use A roads. However as has been explained if that’s a personal choice then all good.

As for mopeds on motorways I think you’re on a tangent here. My argument is not all A roads are the same and not all dual carriageways are the same. As for motorways there are none north of latitude 56.4 degrees. I don’t often venture that far south on my bike.

Aside from legislation what's the difference between a dual carriageway A road and a motorway, practically speaking?

It’s not just you on this thread convert. Quite a few folk suggesting it’s not a good idea for cyclists to use A roads.

So what's your solution? Thoughts and prayers? Because that's about as useful as it gets.

Let's be honest, if we were making the rules afresh, today, with traffic volumes being what they are and cars being what they are there is no way on earth anyone would sign off on cyclists being allowed to mix with 50mph traffic never mind 70mph. Back in the days of bypasses and motorways being built a risk assessment came from a panda car and consisted of making sure you could touch your nose and not fall over whilst walking the length of yourself.

Legislation has not caught up and whilst cyclists have rightly demanded better infrastructure over the years there are still those that refuse to use it even when it's perfectly serviceable (see the A77 north of Fenwick) which just ends up stalling the whole exercise since "they" never use it anyway. We absolutely should have the means to travel but there is an element of responsibility to be bourne in that.

As I alluded to before I can’t go road cycling that far from home without resorting to using an A road. My solution is that drivers should give the cyclist the lane. Allowing a space of at least 1.5m as recommended by the Highway Code and waiting until it’s safe to pass is all I ask.

if drivers are unable to do this then the sooner we have autonomous self driving vehicles the better.

If it was down to me, unless someone had very persuasive arguments (better than the slippery slope argument) I'd very likely vote against cyclists being allowed on 70mph dual carriageways. I'd definitely vote in favour of cyclists retaining the right to  ride along 40mph dual carriage ways. In between 40 + 70 I'm not sure.

I just don't think drivers expect cyclists on the faster dual carriage ways and given the speeds allowed why should they?

Can see why that is wrong obviously, drivers need to be respondent to hazards on the road. It's been a long time since I  passed my driving test, and someone in the office just passed their theory. Can't remember what the scored on the hazard perception test but the pass mark is 44 out of 75 - we really need to raise the bar on that surely?

snip...ends up stalling the whole exercise since “they” never use it anyway. We absolutely should have the means to travel but there is an element of responsibility to be bourne in that.

My local cycle paths are covered in all manner of rubbish and broken glass for three seasons and ice and snow for the fourth. The maintenance needs for a cycle path are different to a motor vehicle carriageway. You've probably noticed that motorway hard shoulders are covered in snow while the carriageway is clear and this is because the vehicle movement turns the salt and snow into brine. The cycle paths are salted with the carriageway but they don't get the vehicle movement.

If you look at the hatched areas on entering a motorway you'll see that they're full of junk and again the carriageway is cleared by vehicle movement.

LAs don't understand this and don't maintain cycle paths.

LAs don’t understand this and don’t maintain cycle paths.

Some do, to be fair. And full credit to them for actively encouraging cycling and doing something that appears to be discouraged by the Government.

The a1 is a crowning show case of everything a road should not be for any road user.

I can see why your using it to try and skew the argument to any road ever....

Anyone that's used it ever knows this and it vastly undermines any point your trying to make

If it was down to me, unless someone had very persuasive arguments (better than the slippery slope argument) I’d very likely vote against cyclists being allowed on 70mph dual carriageways. I’d definitely vote in favour of cyclists retaining the right to ride along 40mph dual carriage ways. In between 40 + 70 I’m not sure.

I just don’t think drivers expect cyclists on the faster dual carriage ways and given the speeds allowed why should they?

Can see why that is wrong obviously, drivers need to be respondent to hazards on the road. It’s been a long time since I passed my driving test, and someone in the office just passed their theory. Can’t remember what the scored on the hazard perception test but the pass mark is 44 out of 75 – we really need to raise the bar on that surely?

So you're saying you are happy banning bicycle users from half the UK road network simply to absolve car users of their duty of care once speeds go up? You can claim it's for bicycle user's own safety but the interpretation will end up being that car culture wins and the motor is king. I find the idea frankly staggering.

As I alluded to before I can’t go road cycling that far from home without resorting to using an A road. My solution is that drivers should give the cyclist the lane. Allowing a space of at least 1.5m as recommended by the Highway Code and waiting until it’s safe to pass is all I ask.

And that shouldn't be a hard ask but driving standards are so poor it ends up being one, either people don't give room or you get a conga line of idiots passing without actually knowing what's approaching in the other direction, if they need to swerve there's only one loser.

I know what the ideal solution is, you know what it is but there's sod all chance of it happening.

You can claim it’s for bicycle user’s own safety but the interpretation will end up being that car culture wins and the motor is king. I find the idea frankly staggering.

I'd say that's your interpretation. Let's see your risk assessment for a 40mph+ speed differential between bikes and cars, convince us otherwise.

I’d say that’s your interpretation. Let’s see your risk assessment for a 40mph+ speed differential between bikes and cars, convince us otherwise.

I think it's a safe bet that on day one of your brave new world the clarksonites will be hanging out the windows of their cars screaming in victory at every Roady or commuter that are now effectively confined to towns, limit me to riding on 40 an below roads and I literally couldn't leave the town I live in, it's a ****ing stupid idea and you know it...

I’ve seen people driving cars on the (crazy and frankly terrifying) A1. Nobody should drive a car there. I would ban all cars from the A1 for safety. Am I doing this right?

Let’s see your risk assessment for a 40mph+ speed differential between bikes and cars, convince us otherwise.

Sounds like cars need to slow the **** down. Wales has the right idea.

TBH I'd settle for them just looking out the front window occasionally.

I’ve seen people driving cars on the (crazy and frankly terrifying) A1. Nobody should drive a car there. I would ban all cars from the A1 for safety. Am I doing this right?

Almost, apparently you need to ban people if they're not able to do 80 on an A road, otherwise the speed differential might muddle the brains of the poor lambs trying to operate 2 ton death boxes, despite them having been taught and.passed tests for that specific task...

Sounds like cars need to slow the **** down.

Steady on now, next you'll be suggesting texting and driving can't be combined...

We absolutely should have the means to travel but there is an element of responsibility to be bourne in that.

I certainly feel like I need some super-soldier reaction speeds riding on some of my local roads. 🙂

Cookea, I said I would vote against cyclists riding on 70mph dual carriage ways which are effectively treated as motorways regarding speeds. By your argument why aren't you arguing to allow cyclists on motorways? Not all A roads are dual carriage ways.

I appreciate however the slippery slope, why don't I argue for no cyclists on 60mph single lane roads? Because most of them you can't sustain that speed on.

Also why I mentioned what I think is a low bar for the hazard perception test.

I think it’s a safe bet that on day one of your brave new world the clarksonites will be hanging out the windows of their cars screaming in victory at every Roady or commuter that are now effectively confined to towns, limit me to riding on 40 an below roads and I literally couldn’t leave the town I live in, it’s a * stupid idea and you know it…

So what you're saying is you can't justify your position. As I said, we all know what NEEDS to happen but how we achieve that is anyones guess. But good luck on your hearts and minds campaign if just being a dick to who isn't stupid enough to blindly agree with you, I'm sure it will serve us well.

Sounds like cars need to slow the * down. Wales has the right idea.

Part Le first - yeah, I already alluded to that. How do you propose we achieve that?

Part Le second - you do know that limit only applies to 30mph roads which we aren't even talking about, right?

I do. But it's a start.

Car drivers and the gutter press claiming it's the thin end of their wedge.

Shame slowing down also fits in with goal zero and the transition to electric vehicles.

So what you’re saying is you can’t justify your position.

Why should I need to? You want to give away a right people on bicycles currently have, not because of anything they've done, but because people in cars apparently can't control their vehicles properly, and shouldn't be expected to?

Your suggestion is like banning people from going out in public because they might get randomly murdered, we've already made murder illegal...

By your argument why aren’t you arguing to allow cyclists on motorways? Not all A roads are dual carriage ways.

Clue is in the name really innit with "motorways" they're roads designated specifically for motorised vehicles which is fine. Want to exclude bicycles from a section of DC pop an 'M' on it, you know like the 'A1(M)' section of the A1 that some have been waffling on about.

Cookea, I said I would vote against cyclists riding on 70mph dual carriage ways which are effectively treated as motorways regarding speeds

Nah what you typed was:

I’d definitely vote in favour of cyclists retaining the right to ride along 40mph dual carriage ways. In between 40 + 70 I’m not sure.

Which read a lot like you only think it's safe for cars and bicycles to share road space upto 40mph and not above, if you're suggesting we can't share 50 mph DC but can share 50 or 60 SC then I missed those details (because you didn't type them) but also that makes zero sense, is it speed or the number of carriageways (or both) that melt driver's minds?

TBF you did sort of clarify:

I just don’t think drivers expect cyclists on the faster dual carriage ways and given the speeds allowed why should they?

They should because it's been a thing people on bicycles were allowed to do since before most of us were born, the hazards of "speed differential" isn't new, the shite attitudes, number of cars and extra (phone shaped) distractions are. Manage the things that actually exacerbate the risks before you start banning bicycle use...

Like I said there's already a designation for DC A roads that makes them car only, so no need to start inventing more illiberal little rules for the police to fail to enforce. Just lobby your LA if you really want them to make every DC above 40 an 'A?(M)' to keep the bikes away, good luck with your campaign 😉

Don't think i would ban or change anything at present, reality is that drivers and cyclists tend to work together on the roads 99.9% of the time, either side has their idiots, but most interact well on a daily basis, unfortunately we've all seen the 0.1% at some point as well, like the example in this post.