Not a worrying thought IMO, just common sense!

depends whether you live in/near a village that only has DCs connecting it with anywhere else (with out going many miles out of your way) I suppose. Amongst the great many other road stuff that needs doing is checking that roads are safe for the traffic allowed. If roads like the a19 aren’t safe an alternative should be available (first) and bikes banned (once alternative in place) or change the road itself to make it safe, not bung the limit upto 70 and scare most cyclists off of it.

My commute used to go down a DC (50limit) it was ok-ish if you held primary (scary as hell if you rode in the gutter) but you would get abuse from drivers, the alternative was a 30mph rat run where thanks to a “just FYI” speedo I clocked people overtaking me at 45 on a narrow residential street. The alternative alternative is a couple of back streets but due to junctions and a couple of short (quiet) pavement sections (which some will flame me for) it’s significantly slower, pita but a trade off I’d take most days.

I personally don’t want to ride DCs but getting booted off them with no viable alternative is not palatable either.

We’re off on a tangent now but what the hell.

I’d be very concerned by the idea of a blanket exclusion of bicycles from NSL DCs, especially when, as I learned today, the “Special Roads” statutory implement already exists to allow appropriate rights of way exclusions to be made as judged necessary on a case by case basis.

Of course it to the “car is King” mentality by placing a blanket restriction on where other forms of transport can legally travel.
It further helps drivers feel absolved of any responsibility for the consequences of their actions, the idea that they shouldn’t be expected to pay as much attention or expect have to slow / stop for hazards just because they are on a wider, faster limit road is verging on comical…

Where does it stop? Place a blanket ban on riding bicycles on NSL DCs and you might as well start considering Busier NSL SCs or as some would have it, any road with a “Cycle path” on the kerb… All because some drivers are inattentive, impatient gits.

Taking away rights of way on the grounds of “safety” is the thin end of a rather uncomfortable wedge IMO…

As a cyclist (and a driver), I’d rather have that choice over taking a direct but busy route Vs a quieter but longer one, than have people who really just want to drive on main roads without being expected to pay proper attention or moderate their speed force me off the road and tell me “its for my own good”…

I’d rather have this sort of thing judged on its individual merits, rather than a blanket ban.
Reviews of likely usage, volume, average speed, suitable reasonable alternative routes etc would all need to be looked at.

Certainly any such restriction would have to be adequately prevented from ‘creeping’, and would have to be contingent on some decent statutory provision of safe alternatives.

The case of the fast dual carriageway – particularly the strategic network which has very high levels of traffic – is a very problematic anomaly, though, in terms of allowing slow and highly vulnerable roads users onto an environment which is a motorway in all but name (and arguably rather more dangerous for even fast motorised traffic, given the same speed limit with generally no hard shoulder, less restriction of slow traffic, tighter bends and reduced sight lines, etc).

I’ve only spotted three people brave/stupid enough to ride on the A3 on a daily basis. That represents pretty much a de facto ban already. Even the cycle paths adjacent to it are pretty dangerous given the alarming frequency with which cars leave the main carriageway on that road.

Im reminded of Clarkson driving his P45 micro car thing onto the A3 East of Guildford and being rather frightened.
No way would I take a bike along there, in all but classification its a Motorway along there, certainly most motorists will regard it as such!

I’d rather have this sort of thing judged on its individual merits, rather than a blanket ban.
Reviews of likely usage, volume, average speed, suitable reasonable alternative routes etc would all need to be looked at.

Who makes the call and why? Seriously if it was a motorist and the motivation was to get rid of bikes, they might say a two mile diversion is ok, but 2miles to a car and a bike is a vastly different impact.

Certainly any such restriction would have to be adequately prevented from ‘creeping’, and would have to be contingent on some decent statutory provision of safe alternatives.

Even talking of such a thing suggests the creep has begun!

if this is true

rather than making excuses, drive so you’re sure you won’t kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

so should this
rather than making excuses, cycle so you’re sure you’re not easily killed by anyone. Don’t be an idiot.

rather than making excuses, drive so you’re sure you won’t kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

Thing you missing, you have to prove your safe to drive, it is why you have a licence. You don’t have to prove your safe to walk down the street or to ride a bike. The only place you should not expect cyclists is Motorways, and on that basis you drive on the assumption, or at least you should. ie no overtaking on blind bends!

Yes don’t ride like an idiot, but that doesn’t absolve motorists from actually bother to look where they are going.

“Im reminded of Clarkson driving his P45 micro car thing onto the A3 East of Guildford and being rather frightened. No way would I take a bike along there, in all but classification its a Motorway along there, certainly most motorists will regard it as such!“

I’d never ride there either. It’s a 50 limit there but you wouldn’t know it by the way people drive. It’s an accident blackspot, regularly gummed up. And a mate of mine was hit there on a bike years ago (driver on the phone), sustained massive injuries that he never recovered from.

“Even talking of such a thing suggests the creep has begun!“

Of course the creep’s already begun: motorways for a start, plus the existing restricted A roads.

“Thing you missing, you have to prove your safe to drive, it is why you have a licence.“

In theory. I wasn’t what I’d now call “safe” when I passed my test. (Anyway, we’re agreeing, aren’t we?)

“if this is true: “rather than making excuses, drive so you’re sure you won’t kill anyone. Not even an idiot” so should this: “rather than making excuses, cycle so you’re sure you’re not easily killed by anyone. Don’t be an idiot.”“

Yes, to a point.

I liken it to guns and spud guns. You can have someone’s eye out with a spud gun but you can do a lot worse with a proper firearm. That’s why we licence the use of those and have specific laws around them; whereas we let kids use spud guns and we’re happy to let any assault with a spud gun be dealt with by generic laws of assault.

The level of requirement to not behave like an idiot goes up with the capability for damage that the machinery provides. And just as it is for things with triggers, so it should be with things with wheels.

We let kids cross the road on foot and we let them ride bikes. Kids, we have to assume, often behave like idiots. Ok, we really don’t expect kids to be riding along the A55 despite their entitlement to do so, but why not expect an idiot? Why excuse the death of an idiot? There are plenty of fast dual carriageways that have pedestrian crossing points, which daft kids and drunk people can easily use. Are we just going to write them off as not worth slowing down a bit for?

The important thing is that people get home to their families in the evening, not who is or isn’t an idiot.

The real step forward only comes when you put the issue of idiocy aside and accept that we should be driving cars in a way that doesn’t kill them.

Bez – I keep waivering on your arguments – sometimes your argument is good, but then you say something which I don’t agree with.

Yes the important thing is that everyone should get home safe, even the idiots. And its a good line but….

If the idiot decided to jump out from behind a tree as you are going past at 20mph in a residential street then its hard not to drive a car in a way that wont kill them.

Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can’t see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?

I’m not saying idiots deserve to die, I’m saying that trying to drive on the basis that you will never hit an idiot can be an impossible task.

By the way, I do drive on the basis that an idiot will jump in front of the car in a residential area (I’m constantly scanning the road and the pavement and junctions and parked cars, etc in case there is someone waiting to step out) but on dark unlit major roads I have to admit I don’t expect someone to jump out in front of me from behind a tree, and having inadequate lights, no reflective clothing, dressed in black, etc is the equivalent of doing that on an unlit and fast section of road.

Yes, I should be aware of all other road users, but in the dark on a fast section of road we rely on our headlights and the lights of other road users (or crossings) to navigate safety.

Being an idiot should not be a death sentence, but we can only take reasonable precautions, you cannot legislate for every eventuality.

Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can’t see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?

Or an unlit fallen tree, or an unlit object that’s fallen off the back of a lorry?

If the idiot decided to jump out from behind a tree as you are going past at 20mph in a residential street then its hard not to drive a car in a way that wont kill them.

I’m guessing it’s already been noted, but I think there’s a distinct difference between having a clear road in which an obstacle is unexpectedly launched in front of you and you are unable to stop, and a road where the obstacle pre-dated your arrival and you are unable to stop.

I’m with those who just say well done to the OP.
I rant and rave at those who drive too close, I provoke arguments with mates and generate all sorts of ill feeling amongst those who I shouldn’t do so too.
I loath it. Thee is no excuse. If you can’t stop you are a complete ****wit who should lose the licence.
There is no excuse. If you are going too fast to see that fallen tree, sink off a lorry etc then you are going too fast. Easy really. Why some people are just too thick to see that I do not know.
However. S*it happens ( I had a tree land on my car after I had almost passed it and it was behind my windscreen and wotshisname from ELO was hit by a big bale) and there are some people who just ask to be hit and in this case I am with the Op all the way. Just occasionally the fates are against us.
Well done mate.

“Are you saying that driving 70mph on an unlit dual carriageway should be illegal on the basis that you can’t see an unlit cyclist wearing all black on a black road until you are too close to avoid hitting him?“

I’m not saying it should be illegal, because for example doing 70 on a widely-visible road with main beam on can be quite safe, but I’m saying that driving fast enough to be unable to safely avoid an unlit cyclist ahead (lights can fail, reflectors can get splattered with dirt) is driving too fast to ensure that everyone gets home alive. And I’d argue that driving such that that situation will never result in a collision (a) is a good idea, (b) isn’t much of an inconvenience, and (c) also results in being safe in a number of other scenarios such as a broken down car or some debris on the road such as a fallen tree. (And even an unlit cyclist is likely to be moving at 10mph or more, which reduces the differential.)

“on dark unlit major roads I have to admit I don’t expect someone to jump out in front of me from behind a tree, and having inadequate lights, no reflective clothing, dressed in black, etc is the equivalent of doing that on an unlit and fast section of road.“

Well, I’m not sure it is. In the former case I take it to imply someone appearing suddenly into your envelope of vision (since if they’d done it ahead of that envelope you’d not know they’d be jumping out) rather than someone already on the road whom you’ve pushed your envelope of vision towards.

Sure, I think someone leaping out from behind a tree directly in front of you on a major rural road is a pretty exceptional case where all bets are off, but I don’t think someone moving in the same direction of travel entirely within the bit of road that you have to cover is analogous. I dunno, we’re maybe getting into rather fiddly details here.

So, no, I’m not saying every conceivable eventuality resulting in a collision is avoidable on a unilateral basis. But actually I do think it’s pretty damn close to that.

Martin,

I saw your post title and had to click on it for personal interest because I came across a similarly poorly illuminated cyclist this morning. Once I read your post it hit me that my experience could have been with the same guy. I came across him at the last minute on the as he went around a roundabout heading south on the A470 coming out of Llandudno – the A470 joins the A55 at the Black Cat Roundabout. My encounter was at 07:15 this (Monday) morning. I know the A55 is long so it could simply be coincidence and maybe there are loads of them that started this summer and have not really got with the plan yet for the winter. My thoughts are with you and I hope this/these fellow cyclist/s gets with the plan sooner rather than later this winter.

Jimm

I have always found A55 a scary road when driving it, even when I was working on it as being built it was bloody dangerous (holywell BP) always busy always fast but the new road left a lot of the old road in place as quieter ‘local’roads I hope we dont end up with ‘man down ‘thread. Still get flashbacks to watching site engineer send his chainman out into moving traffic to set out new junction, if one person had pulled out to overtake… That bit of work never did get checked !