[Closed] Banning Cycling on A24 Dorking to Leatherhead?

Or lifetime bans from people not mentally stable enough to use the road network without getting in a rage at other road users/traffic.

Here here!

Or lifetime bans from people not mentally stable enough to use the road network without getting in a rage at other road users/traffic.

I'm a local and ride up that section on the MTB or road bike almost every week including yesterday evening (after a great MTB ride on Ranmore and Mickleham trails then three pints at the King William).

There are two things to consider in my mind. Is the cycle path Ok? and how dangerous is the road alternative?

So the cycle path as correctly describes (the western side, heading North to Leatherhead) is occasionally narrow and has one proper road crossing (at Westhumble) between Denbies and Leatherhead. However the road surface is mostly pretty good and it's complete segregated from the road and actually a very pleasant ride. It's also the only major cycle path in the surrey hills. That is why most cyclists use this side in both directions. Also the west side (heading south) is the easiest way to get to Boxhill if you are riding up from the south.

The road is dual carriageway and now 50mph all the way. Having lived here for 25yrs I've seen numberous accidents (mainly the Mickleham bends) and there have been fatalities. Its busy with cars and motorbikes (its a draw at Ryka's café). Why ride it when there is a pretty good cycle path. I've probably raced up the A24 more times than I've ridden it!

Actually the dangerous part is coming down from Westhumble or from Dorking and trying to go round the Burford Bridge / Ryka's roundabout to go to the Box.

Will I sign the petition - no. Will I use the A24 - no.

Do I prefer the MTB trails in the mole valley - yes! 😀

That would be the end of road cycling.

🙂

A lot of road riders don't do themselves any favours. But then years of repeated close passes, getting squeezed at traffic islands, overtakes followed by immediate left turns, getting knocked off through no fault of your own, feeling like your life is being constantly put at risk because a car driver can't possibly let their journey be delayed by a couple of seconds... that sort of thing can push you over the edge!

these motorists have driven safely on these roads at 70-80mph for decades and now the Nanny state has decreed its a 50mph for the simple fact that the A24 further towards Horsham has a poor record of deaths and they decided to tar this stretch of road with the same brush.

RTC injuries for the last 5 years on the stretch of road in question. That doesn't match any definition of 'driven safely' that I'd be happy with (and the 50mph limit has been in place for at least the last 5 years)

[img] [/img]

RTCs involving cyclists. Just throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideosness

[img] [/img]

(from http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search )

If cyclists aren't using a provided cycle lane, preferring to mix it up with traffic, then I'd assume there was some issue with the cycle lane

You would think so, and I'm all for cyclists being able to use the road if that's what they want to do but in some cases I can't understand why an individual would choose a road over a cycle path.
...
But people still frequently use the road and I just don't get why.
...
It's odd behavior if you ask me.

Sorry to pick on one post specifically, but this is a good example of a regularly trotted out theme.

All this does is show that [b]you[/b] don't know why people are using the road, it doesn't mean there isn't a reason, but it means you are ignorant of that reason.

Plenty of people on this thread have offered up explanations, and their own reasoning but fundamentally it comes down to the same thing every time.

- People want to travel from A to B.
- Their primary goal is normally getting there with the least amount of effort.

That is basic human nature, we always look for the easiest way to do something. For some people that means get in a car, some people either don't have cars or don't want to/can't use them, so they'll use a bus or a bike or walk, the point is that the choice of vehicle is irrelevant, their ultimate goal will be efficiency within the confines of their journey.

For some people efficiency will mean outright speed, for others it will be least amount of junctions/turnings/route changes, for some the 'effort' of dealing with traffic will mean that safety is paramount and the cycle path is actually their choice and they'll put up with the downsides, for others their priorities will mean the road is their choice.

Ultimately there will always be differing requirements and when there is only one option there will be conflict, even on a proper segregated cycle path the needs of the 'fastest route' people may get compromised by the 'safest route' people.

There are some cyclists who think that because they can legally ride somewhere, they should.

This is one of those internet facts, yes there [i]are [/i]some people like that, but they are vanishingly small in the numbers, 99.999% of bike rides choose to ride the route they do for $REASONS, and 'because I want to exercise my legal right to be there despite the hazards' is very very rarely one of them.

Whenever you see someone doing something you don't initially understand, like riding on a road you think is dangerous when there is a cycle path nearby, instead of jumping to the conclusion that 'they are idiots' ask yourself:

- why did they choose it?
- what is the knowledge [b]I [/b]lack that prevents me understnading this situation

In most cases there is a reason, a valid reason, you might make the same choice, but that doesn't make their choice wrong, it just makes their priorities different to yours.

Thing is, despite all the reasons people are coming up with to ride on the road, all they are doing is [b]making motorists angry[/b], which will at some point in time, have disastrous consequences for someone.

Comments like this are terrifying.

People using roads to go to places, how very dare they!

Most cyclists are also motorists (there is data to back this up) so its not making motorists angry, it's making a small subset of people driving cars angry. We should be dealing with that, the anger. Anger is not an appropriate or acceptable response to having to share the road with other legitimate users.

If you cant share the road without getting angry then is [b]you [/b]who should be removed from it.

Very interesting to look at the above maps. Where the cycle path is poor Dorking-Burford and there is the crossing at the Burford Bridge roundabout there are many cyclist RTA. North of that only one. There are plenty of road RTA on the whole stretch.

As for going faster on the road vs the cycle path? Really there is hardly any difference (in the past on training I've overtaken people riding the road while I was on the cycle path).

Where the cycle path is poor Dorking-Burford and there is the crossing at the Burford Bridge roundabout there are many cyclist RTA. North of that only one. There are plenty of road RTA on the whole stretch.

The problem with stats is that without a lot of additional information making sense of them is so difficult. I *suspect* there are vastly more cyclists on the stretch up to Burford Bridge in order to loop onto Box Hill - certainly I'd never have cause to ride the north section on a road ride. .

Commuting would be different

Comments like this are terrifying.

People using roads to go to places, how very dare they!

I think you're misunderstanding that post. I am a cyclist, albeit not a roadie and as such have to ride on roads to get to places. I have had close shaves with Vans and ****ts skimming past me on 30mph roads....so I speak as someone who is concerned for Cyclists, not trying to kill the buggers! (yes 'terrifying' is a good word for this) I always treat roadies with respect when driving, but they just don't do themselves any favours.

As for going faster on the road vs the cycle path? Really there is hardly any difference (in the past on training I've overtaken people riding the road while I was on the cycle path).

All that proves is that you were riding faster than them, you'd have overtaken if you were both ont he rad or both on the path, it's no indication of surface quality or fitness-for-use.

Ask yourself why they were on the road, it won't have been because they like playing with traffic, there will have been a reason, even if it's as trivial as 'I don't like riding up the kerbs to get on the path' which I've heard before and not something I'd considered previously, and you know what, it's a valid reason to some people, it's sometimes amazing how such tiny things can have an impact.

I think you're misunderstanding that post.

I don't think I was but apologies if it came over that way, I wasn't suggesting that those were your sentiments per-se, but that it highlighted a very real situation. People are getting angry, about something that they really shouldn't be, and instead of focusing on the bad bit (the anger) we are looking at removing the victim from the road!

but they just don't do themselves any favours.

Dammit, I was right with you up until that point. 🙁

How are they not doing themselves any favours? The only transgression they have committed against anyone is 'being there'

but they just don't do themselves any favours.

🙄

There's a half mile stretch of road between my house and my kids nursery. There's a shared use cycle path (it's the pavement!) along the route. If I'm towing the kids in the trailer I'll usually use it. However there are two staggered gates for no apparent reason that I can't get through with the trailer. I have no option but to take to the road for those (I'm sure annoying some motorists in the process who can't understand why I'm not on the cycle path.) There are numerous driveways to watch out for. There are about half a dozen junctions where the cycle path takes you into a dangerous crossing where you can't really see the traffic coming from behind you that might be turning into the junction. There's also frequently cars parked blocking the entire path (3 this morning) leaving no option but to go onto the road. Also it's fairly busy with pedestrians who don't pay any attention to the pavement markings. Takes ages and a lot of concentration to navigate all that, where if I just stay on the road it's an awful lot simpler, clearer, safer, and faster.

How are they not doing themselves any favours? The only transgression they have committed against anyone is 'being there'

Okay, you have to live round here to 'get it' probably....but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.

I'll leave it there, got work to do!

roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.

On the A24 ?

And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.

Sounds like bollox to me.

Okay, you have to live round here to 'get it' probably....but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules.

Hmm they are usually in lycra aboard a ~8kg of carbon and plastic with only their legs to power them. Motorist is in a couple of tonnes of metal box with about 100 horse power of engine to speed them along, usually going 3 or 4 times as fast. How does a cyclist could bully a motorist?

but suffice to say that the general local populace are hugely peed off with roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules

If that's true it sounds like a rubbish situation 'round there', but ponder this... how many of those abusive inconsiderate 'roadies' are motorists come 8:30 on a weekday morning?

Might I go out on a limb and suggest that if the above is true then the problem you have is with dickheads, not roadies...

I wonder how those same people behave towards other road users when driving?

Not to mention that most of the behaviours you mention there, while unacceptable, are normally responses to feeling threatened, people don't go thumping cars and hurling abuse when everyone shares nicely, it's a result of feeling threatened or endangered, again, not saying I condone it but that's the normal trigger. Also, excepting filtering in urban traffic, if a car is close enough to thump then it's too close, or are you saying that these groups of feral abusive roadies are riding up to cars and thumping them unprovoked?

On the A24 ?

And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.

Sounds like bollox to me.

FFS...no not on the A24 [s]Nobby[/s] Ernie.....AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.

Obviously not all, some ride as considerately as possible, but others don't!

[url= http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/great-mole-valley-cycling-debate-opinions-divided/story-27551430-detail/story.html ]A link for you[/url]

It's a shame they don't seem to have done one of those maps simon posted showing where the car drivers were killed by those cyclists bullying car drivers.

Nice that the top comment on that article actually spouts some sense

Unfortunately it's yet another instance of a minority of cyclists giving the rest of us a bad name. Remember that the vast majority of cyclists are also drivers and therefore well aware of both road uses. It would be useful if people would take a step back, ignore the extremes/minorities and give each other some consideration.

Its the age old problem of a minority of nobbers (in any activity) then becoming over-represented and over-focussed on as the norm when in fact they are not.

They should ban cars and make them use the M25 instead!

peekay - Member
Some silly sausage has started a petition for cycling to be banned on the dual carriageway section on the A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead...

The obvious answer is for another silly sausage to start a petition to drop the speed limit on the road because it's dangerous to cyclists.

Bet you'd get more signatures too. 🙂

The obvious answer is for another silly sausage to start a petition to drop the speed limit on the road because it's dangerous to cyclists.

From that map up there it looks pretty bloody dangerous to motorists too!

I've had plenty of punctures on that cycle lane. It's a lot worse in the winter with all the crap off the road and overhanging trees dropping on the cycle lane. I usually go up over whitedown to avoid it if I have to be on the road. I never use the s-bound one as the n-bound is bi-directional anyway.

I could also understand why people would use the road with the cycle lane having to stop to give way to every road joining on to the main road FFS. I'd like to see them try this with the main road.

For me though, this A-road is nuts and I tend to stick to the back roads wherever possible anyway, much more pleasant and not difficult to find quiet roads.

AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.

What on earth are you talking about? You make the place sound like a warzone.

It's a shame they don't seem to have done one of those maps simon posted showing where the car drivers were killed by those cyclists bullying car drivers.

What on earth are you talking about? You make the place sound like a warzone.

yep...

No it isn't. That hyperbole exceeds even the shit the NIMBYs spout.

Have now read that article, my favourite bit is:

The real problem is the small number of hooligan cyclists who behave so badly while they're practising the rest of the year on the Olympic route.

"There is a very small percentage of cyclists out there who are somewhat antisocial."

Disgruntled residents have already made their feelings clear during two cycle events in June and July, with police receiving reports of sharp objects left in the path of bikes.

Yeah, the problem is the hooligan cyclists, not the disgruntled residents.

My comments have been related mainly to that stretch on the A24 as it's (unfortunately) one of the better examples of a cycle path and yet people still are choosing to not use it for their own specific reasons.
Generally though, what is the answer?

Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.
The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.

So does that leave legislation as the only answer?

Generally though, what is the answer?

People not being self-centred ****s with a sense of entitlement? Cyclists and motorists.

^ what he said, can't we all just get along and share nicely?

People will choose the best route for them, if the cycle path is not the best route then people will not choose to use it, mandating that they do through bylaws is not the answer and only serves to legitimise the idea that cyclist shouldn't be on the 'car roads', and thus legitimise the anger.

I cycle commute on 6 miles of dual carriageway (3 miles in each direction) on the A38 in Bristol every day.

It is a 40mph limit road, but as this dual carriageway comes off Junction 16 of the M5, some motorists tend to use it as an extension of the motorway.

There is a shared use path on either side. I do not use it because:
1. It is bestrewn with loose gravel, broken glass, and dog excrement. Even my 28c Schwalbe Durano Smart Guards (i.e. max puncture protection tyres) and full-mudguards-even-in-summer commuter can only take that for so long.
2. I cannot cruise at ~25mph past pedestrians legitimately using the shared use path.
3. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path would add an extra 29 side road junctions where I do NOT have priority (I have NOT counted dwellings where the drive backs directly onto the main road). Junctions are the statistically the most likely place to have an incident.
4. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path includes 22 tight spots around bus shelters, bits that are barely wider than road bike bars, fencing, or places where the 'shared use' facility ceases to exist at all.
5. On the north-bound 3-mile section using the shared use path adds an extra 11 sets of traffic lights.

i.e. if you are trying to get somewhere at more than 5mph, it is a completely useless 'facility', created purely for a council box-ticking exercise.

On the other hand, using the dual carriageway:
1. It is technically a 40mph road. I find the speed differential between me and motorists is usually less than that experienced on single carriageway national speed limit A or B roads.
2. At rush hour I'm the only thing moving.
3. There are now wide nearside lanes installed, so motorists do not have to move into the right-hand lane to overtake me giving ~1m of space. I find 1m adequate at a speed differential of ~20mph. However, 90% of motorists appear to be unaware of the lane dimensions, and/or the dimensions of their vehicle, so they dither endlessly behind me for no reason. This enrages other motorists.
4. It is a wide and straight road, there is plenty of room for everyone, and sight-lines are good.
5. it is fast, smooth, direct and fairly well maintained.
6. 3 sets of traffic lights, otherwise traffic on the dual carriageway has priority over everything.

[quote=dknwhy ]Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.

Eh? Where on earth are you getting that from in this thread? The reason I wouldn't use it is one of the conditions you mention which isn't met, from what I've read from other people, their reasons for not using it are also one of those conditions. So if those were all met (as they are for bike paths in Holland) then we would all use it.

The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.
So does that leave legislation as the only answer?

Additional legislation? Because all the things making it dangerous are already illegal. Or were you suggesting legislation to force cyclists to use the bike path which doesn't meet any of those conditions above?

Of course if we did have bike paths like in Holland I wouldn't have any objection to legislation forcing cyclists to use them, because such legislation would have no affect on my behaviour.

Sorry to pick on one post specifically, but this is a good example of a regularly trotted out theme.
All this does is show that you don't know why people are using the road, it doesn't mean there isn't a reason, but it means you are ignorant of that reason.
Plenty of people on this thread have offered up explanations, and their own reasoning but fundamentally it comes down to the same thing every time.
- People want to travel from A to B.
- Their primary goal is normally getting there with the least amount of effort.

The path is effectively split into two section. One section with a quiet road intersecting it, then another section that's intersected by a dead end road. The sections are joined up at the roundabout bit I mentioned.

For both of these sections there is no difference between speed on the road and speed on the path. There is no logical explanation for choosing the road apart from wanting to.

For both of these sections there is no difference between speed on the road and speed on the path. There is no logical explanation that [b]I can see[/b] for choosing the road apart from wanting to. [b]Perhaps I should try and ask a few of the people I see on it what their reasons are[/b]

You might be bang on, it might be that 100% of the people you see who choose not to use the path are raving mad, have a deathwish, or simply want to assert their right to be there. Or it could be perhaps, they have a reason, just not one that's occurred to you.

Take my kerb example form earlier, I was a bit taken-aback by that one, but it came out of a discussion with a local lady who was just getting back into cycling after a 30 year gap.

When she first got back on a bike she had a bit of a spill when she hit a slightly raised/not dropped enough kerb in the wet at the wrong angle and it had her off, ever since then she's avoided most of the transition between paths as she is terrified of coming off again. It may not be rational to you but it is to her and it lead to about 6 months of her not using certain bits of cycle path on her route because she was too scared to join them, and didn;t feel comfortable slowing enough/stopping to join carefully due to cars behind her, so she just carried on on the road as she was more scared of falling off than the traffic.

aracer - Member
dknwhy » Based on what's been said, it's fair to assume that lane was 100% smooth, maintained, had right of way etc, people would still choose not to use it.
Eh? Where on earth are you getting that from in this thread? The reason I wouldn't use it is one of the conditions you mention which isn't met, from what I've read from other people, their reasons for not using it are also one of those conditions. So if those were all met (as they are for bike paths in Holland) then we would all use it.

The whole progress argument will never go away. People speed, jump queues etc to get that bit further ahead or to a destination quicker.
So does that leave legislation as the only answer?
Additional legislation? Because all the things making it dangerous are already illegal. Or were you suggesting legislation to force cyclists to use the bike path which doesn't meet any of those conditions above?

Of course if we did have bike paths like in Holland I wouldn't have any objection to legislation forcing cyclists to use them, because such legislation would have no affect on my behaviour.

I wasn't directing anything at you personally. More the general theme that "people have their reasons not to use it".
I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).
RE: additional legislation, I only think legislation would be fair if the cycle facilities were fit for purpose i.e well surfaced & maintained with right of way.

RE: additional legislation, I only think legislation would be fair if the cycle facilities were fit for purpose i.e well surfaced & maintained with right of way.

Even then I don't think additional legislation is appropriate

For one, if you made the facilities [i]that [/i]good, the number of people choosing not to use them would dwindle to almost nothing so the issue would be too minor to require legislating.

I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).

My point weas that what you think is a good facility, might not be. If it was a perfect path, even that lady would have joined it safely 😉

People choose to use the roads when the facilites are not the best choice. If the facilities are good enough that they are the best choice then that leaves only people who want to ride on the roads to prove a point, and if the facilities are really there and that good then what point are they trying to prove? I think what you would find is that those people either don't actually exist, or that there are only 3 of them.

BUT, more than that, legislating to take away a choice/right/privilege whatever you want to call it needs a reason, and the sole reason here appears to be 'to stop grumpypants drivers getting angry' and that in my book is not grounds for curtailing existing access rights for a group of users.

We really really are too quick to skip over the actual issue, the level of anger and vitriol, and lack of respect seen on our roads, and I think it's sadly telling that when faced with this scenario, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to actually address that.

This petition (and others) aren't started started for the safety of the riders, if it were [i]really [/i]about safety of the riders the petition would be to look at the source of the danger, about improving driving and infrastructure on that bit of road (or more widespread).

It was started because some people don't want to share, and instead of doing right thing and telling all parties they have to play nicely with everyone, we're actually thinking about appeasing them? madness!

I use the cycle lane on the bit from Pixham Lane to Box Hill. The Northbound side is better surfaced than the other as a link between those two points its fine. I think its ok up to the Leatherhead roundabout too but I've not cycled that bit. I certainly wouldn't use the road on that bit just through safety considerations although I can see why people do. Not in favour of bans but if the cycle lane was as good quality as the road more cyclists would use it I'm sure.

Perhaps I should try and ask a few of the people I see on it what their reasons are

I have, usual response is 'ah the cycle path, it's covered in glass, it's badly surfaced' etc.

But it isn't.

I could of course ask more people but I'm not bothered, it's up to them where they ride. I wouldn't do what they do but that's their choice.

But it isn't.

Hmm. Oh yes it is. (I use it).

I have, usual response is 'ah the cycle path, it's covered in glass, it's badly surfaced' etc.

But it isn't.

Right now? but maybe it was last time they used it, or has been on X out of Y times, so now they can't be bothered taking the risk so just ignore it.

There's an alleyway I avoid walking through locally at night now, cos it was often littered with dog eggs, I have no idea if it is right now or not, but next time I have to go to my friends house, I won't go via the alley, maybe I'm missing out on alleyway bliss, we'll never know though...

ernie_lynch - Member

"roadies riding with little consideration, using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars they consider to have broken their rules."

On the A24 ?

And I have never heard of cyclists bullying car drivers by ganging up on them in large numbers.

Sounds like bollox to me.

Rockape63 - Member

FFS...no not on the A24 Nobby Ernie.....AROUND HERE, where huge numbers of roadies descend on the lanes and Olympic routes, in groups and can cause big hold ups and don't give a ****! If any motorist dare try and overtake, they get the aforementioned treatment.

You think I'm a nob because I don't agree with you ? I (road) cycle a lot in what you call "AROUND HERE", usually at least once a week, I have never witnessed any cyclists in that part of the world [i]"using their numbers to bully car drivers and shouting abuse, spitting and thumping cars"[/i], despite having seen many thousands of road cyclists in that area over many years.

Now I'm not suggesting that because I have never personally witnessed it myself it has never occurred. What I am suggesting is that it is nonsense to claim, as you have done, that this is typical behaviour. It clearly isn't.

^^ this

Well to add from me except I'm off to cycle down to Dorking and a few laps of the Surrey hills and I'll be on the cycle path. No way would I use the A24!!

[quote=dknwhy ]I wasn't directing anything at you personally. More the general theme that "people have their reasons not to use it".

You disagree with that then, despite reasons being given?

I am sure that if we had perfect cycle paths, the majority of cyclists would use them but some still wouldn't (look at Amedias' recent response).

ISTM that perfect cycle paths (or even just Dutch ones) wouldn't have the sort of transition kerbs which put the lady in his example off using them. If they did, then they're not up to spec and that is still a valid reason.

You disagree with that then, despite reasons being given?

Ernie - I'm guessing don't get out as often as you state or you'd have seen first hand both on the A23 and the A3 the way "roadies" behave and react to motorists and indeed other cyclists who don't conform to "their standard"

I've done at least 50,000 miles of riding around the Surrey Hills and I've never seen cyclists 'bullying' motorists.

Ernie - I'm guessing don't get out as often as you state or you'd have seen first hand both on the A23 and the A3

Well you're guessing wrong. And whilst I ride on the A24 most weeks at least once I use the A23 even more - most road rides I go on require to me use the A23.

And no, cyclists bully car drivers, shouting abuse, spitting, and thumping cars, is not typical behaviour.

EDIT : I have no idea about the A3. Why would cyclists using the A3 be any different? And who wants to cycle on the A3?

Ernie - Every single week there's a group doing time trials circuits for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses.
It's beyond a joke

hammyuk - Member
Ernie - Every single week there's a group doing time trials circuits for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses...

Too many near misses?

I think your perspective may be a bit skewed unless the cyclists are the ones overtaking cars too closely.

From the sounds of all this discussion the speed limit is far too high on that stretch of the road and there's too many drivers with the attitude they are prepared to kill or maim someone to save a few seconds.

It's strange how car drivers rarely pass within inches of a tractor even though it's no faster than a cyclist.

Skewed?
Nope - I use that stretch (and the rest of it daily).
The speed there is perfectly acceptable.
It's a dual carriageway with good visibility and a national speed limit as is all of it until Kingston.
The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.
Doesn't matter how far ahead you are looking as a car driver or indeed bike rider - when cyclists decide to move out into the centre of a 70mph road without bothering to ensure its safe then it's time to stop it for theirs and everyone else safety.
It's got nothing to do with how near anyone is when overtaking - having to slam brakes on because of the above is dangerous for everyone. A tractor gets passed as it takes the entire lane.
Drivers are being forced to slow rapidly and often un-safely because of the cyclists moving out into the centre of the road without warning. You can "read the road" to the best possible level but far too often you are left with no choice and nowhere to go when the road is busy, with vehicles both behind and alongside you leaving everyone holding their breath.
As someone else posted - setting them off at one minute intervals is not enough to stop it happening every single week they are out on that road.

You think I'm a nob because I don't agree with you ?

Actually I don't think you're Nob Ernie, it was just a bit of a nobbish response, seeing as I said 'around here' and you inferred I was talking specifically about the A24. You may think it's bollox, but I live here and know what I know. I don't think in all my previous posts on various subjects, that anyone has ever accused me of lying.

Oh and whilst on the subject,(of the aforementioned stretch) this road has been there for such a long time and no one EVER cycled on it until recently....why would that be?

simons_nicolai-uk - Member

But it isn't.

Hmm. Oh yes it is. (I use it).

So where is it covered in glass and badly surfaced then? I've ridden it 9 times so far this week on a bike with 23mm tyres and didn't have any issues. There is a very small amount of glass on one bit that's easily avoided, unless you're blind, but that's it.

Nope - I use that stretch (and the rest of it daily).
The speed there is perfectly acceptable.
It's a dual carriageway with good visibility and a national speed limit as is all of it until Kingston.
The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.

If its a dual track road with good visability a competent car driver should be pulling out into the next lane in good time or (and this is the bit you seem to have difficulty with) slowing down! It also should not be hard to predict that a faster rider will catch a slower one and therefore predict when it will pull out. It just sounds like you are a crap driver to me.

Every single [s]week[/s] day there's [s]a group doing time trials circuits for[/s] millions of cars clogging up the roads for several hours causing major hassle, delays and far too many near misses - just because people are too ****ing lazy to walk/cycle a mile or 2
It's beyond a joke

fixed it! 🙂

I don't think in all my previous posts on various subjects, that anyone has ever accused me of lying.

Perhaps you have never before claimed that cyclists bullying car drivers, shouting abuse, spitting, and thumping cars, is the typical on the stretch of the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking?

And it's a bit over dramatic to claim that no one has ever accused you of lying. I could claim that you are accusing me of lying when I say it's not typical behaviour.

If people don't use the cycle path 99% of the time its because the cycle path is poorly designed.

It wouldnt be so bad if they paid road tax, lycra clad fools expecting to use the roads for free.

For those that use these routes regularly and notice glass and irregularities in surface, do you report them to the relevant authority to get them cleared?
I'm lucky enough to live close enough to walk to work. If I see something that needs fixing or cleaning I report it via the app of my local authority. One particular nuisance is dog crap in the alley I walk through (also a main route for kids going to the school). I don't like the thought of it being trod into the classrooms so I report it and the council are pretty good at responding and keeping on top of things.

This thread has definitely turned into "My anecdote is better / has more validity than your anecdote"

Maybe we should just see who can pee highest up a wall?

For those that use these routes regularly and notice glass and irregularities in surface, do you report them to the relevant authority to get them cleared?

Yes I do, and it's generally done the next week. But I usually stop and just move any bits of glass or debris into the side of the path anyway.

Maybe we should just see who can pee highest up a wall?

So where is it covered in glass and badly surfaced then? I've ridden it 9 times so far this week on a bike with 23mm tyres and didn't have any issues. There is a very small amount of glass on one bit that's easily avoided, unless you're blind, but that's it.

I have a funny feeling he hasn't read your original post properly and doesn't realise you're talking about the A77

Yeh that thought occurred to me too.

Drivers are being forced to slow rapidly and often un-safely because of the cyclists moving out into the centre of the road without warning. You can "read the road" to the best possible level but far too often you are left with no choice and nowhere to go when the road is busy, with vehicles both behind and alongside you leaving everyone holding their breath.

You (a motorist) are making an overtaking manoeuvre on other traffic (in this case, some cyclists).

It is incumbent on you, doing the overtaking, to make sure your overtaking manoeuvre is safe.

Just because you did not anticipate the actions of road users ahead of you soon enough, does not place those road users at fault.

Just because it is common practice amongst motorists to be unwilling to slow down, or leave sufficient space between vehicles, does not make this behaviour acceptable.

Cyclists do not have to grovel along in the gutter to 'make way' for motorists, in the same way that HGVs do not have to stick line-astern in the left-hand lane of a 3 lane motorway, only moving at the pace of the slowest vehicle.

Pull your head out of your conceited arrogant self-righteous backside.

I'm quite amazed that some on here managed to keep their licence for more than a handful of days.

#CameronsBritain *shakes head in disbelief*

hammyuk - Member
...The issue is the number of riders who quite often get bunched up and are then passing each other, causing havoc.
...
It's got nothing to do with how near anyone is when overtaking - having to slam brakes on because of the above is dangerous for everyone. A tractor gets passed as it takes the entire lane...

And yes, drivers should treat cyclists like tractors and not try to occupy the same lane. The consequences of a collision with a tractor are minor for the tractor and dire for the car driver, but it's the other way round when it's a bicycle. It behoves car drivers to drive safely both for themselves and for the safety of others. It is not an accident if you hit a cyclist from behind unless you are blind.

The sooner we get a presumption of liability in these cases, the sooner we'll see car drivers improve.

Selective use of the quote button by several posters again... as usual...

Perhaps you should drive that section.
On a wednseday evening..
Then decide if its acceptable that riders and organisers act and cycle in the manner they do.
It has nothing to do with the improvement of drivers but the complete unsuitability for this to take place where and when it does.
So what is a safe speed for a dual carriageway, national speed limit road then?

A road that sees HGV's at 56mph.
Cars at 70mph.
10? 20? 30mph?
Is it both acceptable and [b]SAFE[/b] for cyclists to be on that section of road?
At a peak time?
Competing in a time trial.
Or even on that section of road at all.
Police have been involved before now because of cyclists swerving out.
I love how its always the drivers fault here.
Of course the cyclists can't [i]possibly[/i] be wrong now can they... 🙄

Can't possibly be the one guilty of riding without due care and attention.
Guilty of poor lane discipline.
Guilty of failure to give way.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
And you want an automatic presumption of liability in these cases?

You can look a long way ahead, use good positioning and all the tricks you want to drive safely and considerately, overtaking safely, when safe to do so, etc but obviously certain riding gods think its perfectly ok to ride on a major A Road without consideration of the RTA1958, Highway Code and other road users but other road users should put them first.
Funny as it seems to be the ones that admit to RLJ and other stuff as fine when that pops its head up too thinking that this behaviour is ok.
As far as I'm concerned - the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users are the better.
What makes them exempt from having to obey the rules the same as everyone else?

anotherdeadhero - you don't know me so I'd suggest winding that neck in of yours unless you can speak from first hand experience of this particular road.
Can you?

In a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist where it can be shown that the cyclist did nothing wrong (as is usually the case), the driver should be automatically guilty of at least careless driving. None of this leaving it to a jury to decide that's actually a perfectly normal thing to do, no excuses about sun in eyes. I don't see what's fundamentally unjust about that - because a competent driver wouldn't run into a cyclist

As far as I'm concerned - the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users are the better.

You mean like the ones driving around lethal weapons who get a slap on the wrist for killing someone? Because even ignoring that drivers aren't held liable for their actions, there's a fundamental asymmetry here. You suggest cyclists are causing danger, yet if it was just cyclists on the road nobody would be killed. It's the big metal boxes travelling at speed which introduce the danger to the roads, hence it's incumbent on their drivers to actually avoid running into other road users whatever the other road users are doing.

I'm not disputing where it can definitively be shown aracer - regardless of who was on/in what fault is fault.
However - you can be the best driver in the world but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? Make that a national speed limit road.....
Unless you're proposing massively reducing the speed differential between all road users of all types then the other party should not be automatically at fault.
One rule for cyclists and one rule for everyone else? Is that what you're proposing?
"I'm a cyclist and just because I jumped off the cyclepath and into your lane, its your fault because the laws says so"

As for the "sun in my eyes" excuse - that doesn't wash with me either. The motorcyclist who the young girl killed a while back because despite not being able to see, not hearing the motorbike and not waiting until she could be sure it was clear .... was a friend of mine.
Motorcyclists come right at the bottom of the pile where blame is concerned and are automatically deemed to have been at fault. (reckless, speeding, riding dangerously, etc) even when proof is shown to the contrary.
Cyclists get off lightly in comparison.

[quote=hammyuk ]One rule for cyclists and one rule for everyone else? Is that what you're proposing?

To some extent yes. Because the fundamental asymmetry means that if a cyclist rides carelessly that's not going to result in another road user losing their leg. Hence the penalty for driving carelessly should be significantly different, as it should reflect the difference in potential consequences (and I'd argue that the penalty for driving carelessly should reflect the worst likely consequences - if it doesn't result in somebody losing a leg then that's lucky, rather than the driver who does destroy somebody's leg being unlucky).

We come back to the point that a lot of these regulations would be unnecessary with roads filled with cyclists (you mentioned traffic lights - there would be no need for them, they're simply needed to regulate motor traffic).

hammyuk - Member
...but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? ....

By not being in that lane when overtaking like most decent people do, and having slowed down to a sensible speed when there is the likelihood of causing injury or death to a vulnerable human.

Why should a car driver's journey be regarded as so much more important than the cyclist's that it is ok to risk injury to the cyclist?

Cyclists have an equal right to the road.

Just to pick up on this line, which shows one of the subtle little bits of ingrained entitlement that is part of the problem:

So what is a safe speed for a dual carriageway, national speed limit road then?

[i]roads[/i] don't have safe speeds, [i]conditions[/i] do.

The physical parameters of the road (width, bends, visibility, surface, camber etc.) are part of what makes up the conditions, hence classifications of road types and general [b]limits[/b] (note the emphasis) but there are other parts too, like weather, and erm... [b]other road users[/b]!

If there are a cyclists using the road, for whatever reason, commuting, TT or otherwise that changes the conditions, in the same way it would if there were a herd of cows on the road, or if it was tipping it down or snowing.

That doesn't mean the speed limit for the road is wrong, it is after all a maximum speed allowed under ideal conditions.

The point I'm trying to make is that observing that other users are there, vulnerable users in this case, possibly who might need to overtake other users, or swerve to avoid debris, potholes, or even getting caught by a gust of wind means that you drive accordingly, sometimes that means slowing down, or god forbid...waiting and NOT overtaking until it is safe.

...but if a cyclist decides they are going to swerve across a lane without warning how are you going to miss them? ....

As Epicyclo and others have said, by not passing so close that a small sideways movement means you hit them. Syclist's overtaking other cyclists will not swerve [b]into your lane[/b], they may move further out into[b] their lane [/b]to overtake another cyclist.

The only time they can come into conflict is if someone is trying to overtake them in the same lane, and that is pretty much by definition not a safe overtake.

If giving them the correct amount of room to overtake them, ie: over the line into the next lane then your scenario is nullified, or are you suggesting that TTers swerve completely out of lane 1, and into lane 2 while cars are trying to overtake them safely in lane 2?

the sooner cyclists are held liable for their actions when on the road in the same way all other road users[s] are [/s] should be the better

I absolutely 100% agree, but so far all you've given is examples of bad driving....

Whether or not you think it appropriate to run TTs or any other event, or even just letting people ride to work on those roads is irrelevant, the fact is it's happening, and so you have to drive safely around them, whether you think they should be there or not.

If the sole basis for banning cyclist on a road is 'because people cant drive safely enough around them' then I think that's a pretty poor argument.

amedias - Member
...If the sole basis for banning cyclist on a road is 'because people cant drive safely enough around them' then I think that's a pretty poor argument.

In fact it's a very good case for banning those people on the grounds they are not competent to be driving on a public road.

Cyclists have an equal right to the road

That's bullshit.

As a subject of her Royal Majesty you have the inalienable right to cycle on the queens highway, motorists are merely licenced which is a privilege the state may revoke at any time.

You have a right as a cyclist, the motorist doesn't.

As a subject of her Royal Majesty you have the inalienable right to cycle on the queens highway

So foreign aliens don't have an inalienable right to cycle on the Queen's highway.

How can you tell if they are one of Her Majesty's subjects if they don't look like this ?

[img] [/img]

Well an alien can be deported so that would remove any rights they had to use the highway.

anotherdeadhero - you don't know me so I'd suggest winding that neck in of yours unless you can speak from first hand experience of this particular road.
Can you?

Oh my neck is going stay pretty suck out ta. I happen to disagree with you. Suck it up buttercup.

I don't know that road no. I do know plenty of roads just like it, and I disagree with the notion that this road can be some kind of special case.

I spend quite a lot of time driving on roads just the same as the one you're on about, I spent a lot of my youth time trialling (unsuccessfully) on roads just like this one, I've done thousands of miles audaxing, road raced on open public roads, and now spend a lot of time doing competitive motorsport on open public roads.

I am not argueing that cyclists are somehow exempt from the rules of the road.

I am argueing that your line of reasoning is flawed. You have failed to demonstrate that cyclists are behaving irresponsibly, or are not observing any parts of the various road traffic acts (note plural) in force.

I am not argueing that cyclists are never to blame, I am argueing that the dangerous situations you report are brought about soley by the collective actions of motorists.