Forum menu
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.
Looks like someone doesn't know the specifics of what makes a motorway a motorway. Hint: it's more than just slapping an M prefix or suffix on the road number.
Why should I need to?
Because I asked you a straight question. Instead of accusing everyone of whatever shite spills out from between your ears why not just answer it?
Okay I'll revise my position to that of someone taking part in a survey. The survey asked sirromj if he thought cyclists should be allowed to ride along dual carriage ways with a 70mph speed limit. Sirromj answered no. For 50 and 60 mph speed limited dual carriage ways, sirromj answered "I'm unsure". If cyclists should be allowed to ride their bicycles on 40mph speed limited dual carriage ways, sirromj answered yes.
I'm not actively seeking change. Expressing uncertainty was meant as an indication of openness to hearing other's views.
Would you agree that raising the passmark for the hazard perception test might improve future safety on the roads? I would hope that it would if the HP test is of any value at all. I would be okay with it causing difficulty for some people to pass the theory test. It would be a good driver for improved public transport and active travel infrastructure.
Also feel arguing about cyclists be allowed on dual carriage ways is short term view than long term. Long term would like to see reduced opportunity for individuals racing each other with no regard for energy expenditure or environmental impact just to shave seconds off their journey times.
I tell you what the carists can have the 70mph dual tracks if the rural b roads are all made 40mph if two lanes and 30mph if single-track. Deal?
Cyclists should be able to ride safely on any road. It's up to car drivers to drive sensibly. I tend to avoid dual carriage ways but its not always possible.
Take back the road.
What the hell is a carist, honestly, most of us own cars, drive around now and again and also ride bikes, as much as i'd love carless journeys, i understand that the road network was created for motorised vehicles, and cyclists enjoy using them as well, even getting purpose built cycle lanes, or paths added over the years since cycling became a more popular way of life.
You can cycle on any road you want, unless it's a motorway, and having had the misfortune to have 3 blowouts on the motorway in the last 5 years and changing tyres on the side of it, i couldn't even think of why anyone would want to be that close to a motorway! Weirdly, dual carriageways are a bit similar for me at national speed limit, but i never really think twice about riding on some A or B roads, it's all about the individual, around me there's one road i would never go on, and it's a 40mph, but mental traffic and pretty narrow, with a lot of nutters using it, when i see someone cycling along it i always feel nervous for them, would i ban cyclists (i avoid it by going via bridlepaths and backroads that go the full length of it), no, it's a 40mph, the road is fine, it's just the level of traffic and amount of numpties that make it a worry.
understand that the road network was created for motorised vehicles,
Really ? The links between towns were established for motorised vehicles.
The Romans and other olde timely worldes must have had access to some good crystal balls.
They may have developed into that but that was not the idea at their conception.
Motorways on the other hand -those were developed for the motor vehicle I'll give you that .
Really ? The links between towns were established for motorised vehicles.
In modern times, yes, i wasn't talking about hundreds of years ago where people would walk cattle or ride horses down their road network, we've been talking about Dual Carriageways, Single Carriageways, etc on this thread, not Roman Roads, so those roads that have been created for motorised vehicles, i.e. metalled roads.
What the hell is a carist
It's like a cyclist but in a car.
understand that the road network was created for motorised vehicles,
Er, does the rest of you post continue with such rubbish?
so those roads that have been created for motorised vehicles, i.e. metalled roads.
Nope - metaled roads were started for bicycle use. Bicycles appeared before private cars. Horses preferred non metalled roads - but tarmac was introduced for bicycles
Nope – metaled roads were started for bicycle use. Bicycles appeared before private cars. Horses preferred non metalled roads – but tarmac was introduced for bicycles
You forgot to quote the bit where i talked about dual/single carriageways when discussing the road network, but again, it appears like every thread on here, we're arguing for the sake of arguing.