MP supports petition calling for time trialling to be banned on A50

I've got very mixed feelings on the subject of racing on open roads. On one hand there is obviously an increased risk to riders compared to riding on closed roads but if open-road TTs were banned there would be far fewer races overall as the appetite to close roads for such events just doesn't exist.

Personally I would feel more comforatable doing a TT on a nice wide dual carridgeway with good visibility and surfacing rather than a minor A or B road. This is bearing in mind that it's a race rather than a Sunday afternoon pootle and the safety considerations are likely to be different. My top choice would be the minor roads closed to other traffic but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I have to say there are some good points made, and some bad ones.

NO: Cyclists don't "bring it on themselves".
YES: Cycling on a dual carriageway is generally likely to be more hazardous than on a single carriageway road, largely due to the speed involved and the nature of a faster lane overtaking a slower lane. Some cyclists are okay with riding on dual carriageways (obviously). Some don't think it is safe. Let's be aware of the potential risk.

YES: “One option would be to put warnings and signs at every junction. You can get onto the A50 and before you know it there is a cyclist right in front of you.”
If you're driving on a dual carriageway you probably don't expect to see a cyclist on the road, so you're going to be less prepared to deal with a 30mph vehicle. It is simply a sensible move to maximise the awareness of drivers. Why not? That's the general reason we have road signs. I was always happier riding a TT knowing that the junctions had signs at the junctions reading "Warning. Cycle race in progress" - and that was just club 10's.

NO: It doesn't excuse some **** using their phone (texting, driving, reading, doing whatever) whilst driving.

NO: “It would be a shame for cyclists but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other road users". Should we leave it to victimes to protect themselves from rape, domestic violence, child abuse, racism etc? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!

YES: Amanda Brooks has witnessed an horrific incident where someone was violently killed. I can't begin to imagine how traumatic that was for her. She's dealing with it by trying to do something about it.

NO: Banning TT's isn't the only option.

YES: Campaign leader Ms Brooks said: “I’m pleased that it’s raising such awareness and it’s making people think about the risks and discuss solutions such as better signage for motorists as this has clearly been inadequate during recent time trials". At least she's being open minded.

NO: "Cyclists struggle to cycle in straight lines when extremely tired in competitions and tend to vier all over the dual carriageway where heavy traffic is travelling at 70mph". Racing does not equate to people being tired and weaving all over the road FFS!

NO: “The driver was given a driving ban losing his livelihood".
Great! Good! Brilliant! If that driver was texting then he broke the law and killed someone as a direct result. I don't want that driver on the road. He lost his livelihood, but someone else lost their life.

YES: "Cyclists don't stand a chance with their minimal protection from a potentially fatal RTA". True. So we need people to drive with due care & attention!

NO: "There is a perfectly good cycle path away from the A50 dual carriageway so alter the competition route for everyone's safety".
Has she ridden it? Not ideal for time trialling, so it misses the point rather.
I'd add that a large proportion of cycle paths that I use aren't fit for purpose and can be more dangerous than the roads. Of course, if I use the roads instead I get shouts of "Get on the f*****g cycle path".

Apologies for the length of this post, but it is never as black and white as people make it seem. There ARE some reasonable points hidden amongst the idiotic ones.

We have a massive culture problem with poor attitudes of road users, poor standards of road use, inadequate policing of road users & inadequate sentencing of offenders.

Apologies if this seems crass, but would Amanda Brooks also petition for women to be restricted to a 10pm curfew and 2 units of alcohol per evening to reduce the number of sexual assaults? No, it isn't the same... is it?

I tried cycling on a dual carriageway years ago; never again. I was so glad to get off. The speed differential is too high and you only have to get the 'inattentive, #bloodycyclists, speedster' and then etc etc. I had occasion to drive up the A38 from Plymouth a few years ago at 0630 after coming off a ferry. The light was a bit 'flat' but I spotted something in the distance; 2 blokes cycling side by side nattering and doing about 10mph in the LH lane. A few miles on and, again, I spotted something in the LH lane; a time trial. I just thought, suit yourself but no thanks.

I'm no fan of cycling on busy main roads and have lost the urge to put in fast times due to being dragged along by a lorry's wake. That said her comments are stupid and ill thought. More cyclists are killed on the streets of london than on dual carriage ways so do we ban all cyclists there as well, and they aren't racing?

I would support a ruling that stated all time trials must have a rear flashing led light, anything to catch a drivers eye is worth it.

As an aside, wouldn't a more rational petition to start, after you witness a texting lorry driver crash into and kill a cyclist, be a petition for better inforcement of traffic laws?

Ms Brooks states “One option would be to put warnings and signs at every junction."
As an official of a club which holds an annual TT on this road, we would be delighted to do so, and to hell with the extra cost.
But get this folks; I understand such signs are not allowed on the A50, wait for it, due to "Health and Safety" regulations ! ! !
In fact I believe the Dept of Transport (or some other such busy-body organisation) has threatened to actually take down any such signs put up by promoting clubs.
This is not doing anything at all for the health and safety of the riders.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. According to expert witnesses, it's possible to drive even a large vehicle along a lane in which a cyclist is riding, perfectly safely and without having to divert course at all.

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/between-the-lines/

Nobody ever brings it on themselves.

Why anybody would ever want to ride a bike along there is beyond. It's motorway fast. Every slip road is an Un-calculated gamble.
It's one of the main Midlands cut through a from the M1-M6 FFS.
I've ridden it once for 5 miles on Christmas Day just gone, on my way up to my Mothers in the Peaks.
I only rode it because I figured no bugger would be on it, there were only a few cars about but it was still unpleasant.

Should be a no go...

Queue outrage, but I kind of agree with Ms Brookes (although the way she expressed herself - or she has been quoted - is unfortunate). Riding on dual carriageways is for early mornings before there is any traffic or idiots (or when you are lost). Apart from being unpleasant, it's unsafe. Sometime a bit of pragmatism is in order and there's no point anyone dying to prove a point.

"There is a perfectly good cycle path away from the A50 dual carriageway so alter the competition route for everyone's safety." Seems a perfectly sensible alternative, if true.

"Cyclists on dual carriageways should be banned unless the routes are closed off which would cause chaos on this particular road." Don't know how true this is, but maybe they could consider road closures at certain times. Although this might actually inconvenience people materially. I know we are all up in arms but is it really necessary to have this TT run where it is/when it is?

Although I can't agree with her intended outcome, to be fair she does actually seem concerned about road deaths. It's an improvement over "cyclists deserve it because they don't pay road tax."
It's these people in the middle ground that we should be courting with positive messages to get them on side rather then writing them off as numpties (although I agree there's plenty of those around too).

I wonder if the honourable MP's views would have been equally victim blaming if this truck driver, with 1000+ m of visibility, had ploughed into the back of a stationary queue of cars killing a family....

I wonder if the honourable MP's views would have been equally victim blaming if this truck driver, with 1000+ m of visibility, had ploughed into the back of a stationary queue of cars killing a family....

Maybe rethinking the default 70mph limit on dual carriageways would be a better idea? These roads weren't typically designed with that speed in mind, and it really isn't safe in most cases. 60mph is much better as a default, and many places should be restricted further.

Been TTing for a few years, both on DC's & SC's, I've never seen a racer veer "all over" the Dual Carriageway, that is at least 16ft (maybe 20) of "veer"...
Maybe if everyone gave their full attention to the road ahead of (and around) them, we would all be a lot safer.
Shocking bit of 'minority beating' publicity seeking by an MP, going for the LCD vote. Typically Tory (thinly veiled UKIPness).

Shameful the amount of publicity people want from this type of headline.

Mind you thinking a bit more, the A38 from Thornbury has a lot of cycle path sections, as well as the bit north of Gloucester.

I can only guess that with the M5 taking traffic has allowed a rethink on road use?

The MP is just looking for a bit of publicity. What a knob.

I always fail to understand the mentality behind cars.

If people get shot dead, then pistols and rifles are banned.
If people get stabbed then knives are banned.
Because people have tried to blow up aircraft we are banned from carrying potential explosives.
Yet if people are killed by cars etc we call for a ban of people not cars.

MP Andrew Griffiths told the Uttoxeter News: “I think unfortunately cyclists bring it on themselves.
“One option would be to put warnings and signs at every junction.

Mr Griffiths another option would be to make sure drivers stay under the speed limit look where they're going and actually drive properly.

Try that one for a sound bite.

Ms Brooks clearly has no understanding of cycling on the roads and being witness to one accident does not mean she is now an expert on cycling road safety.

"Cyclists don't stand a chance with their minimal protection from a potentially fatal RTA."

What protection should the 875 vehicle occupants and 398 pedestrians who were killed on the roads in 2013 have then?

The number of serious cycling injuries & fatalities on the roads is actually not that high (103 fatalities in 2013), yet uniformed MPs and the press continue to portray cycling as some kind of 'extreme sport'.

But getting smashed up in a car crash is just how it is to these people, no need for campaigns here such as lower A road speed limits, 20mph zones, tougher sentencing, etc.

Agree with 700C.

Our local by pass the A565 ( with plenty of rural side roads) was 70mph but with at least one motorist death a year and countless serious injuries it was dropped to 60mph. Some councillors wanted 50mph but were over ruled. I reckon perhaps 40% are still doing 70mph+ past lorries straddling two lanes to get by a hardy few TT riders. The A59 runs a weekly TT. I support club that runs it: they have a right to do so but it is the front line of the cyclist motorist share the road issue and if motorists don't want to or expect to share the end result is always the same. Motorists are killing each other at a steady rate so cyclists should expect the same.

A roads are dangerous but if it's a danger you choose to accept? Go ahead. As death's increase TT's will either be banned or motorists forced to slow down. I imagine the latter is out of the question.

MP has said that the paper misquoted him, with reference to the "cyclists bring it on themselves"

https://twitter.com/agriffithsmp/status/488266166520250369

But then careers off into more victim blaming territory claiming the TTs are not managed or signed enough.

Neatly seemingly forgetting about this gem on his very own website

Quote:

It is a very busy road and a very tight road. I hope to have talks with cycling clubs in Uttoxeter and Burton to see how they feel about cycling safety on the A50 and A38 and what could be done to make them safer or ban it altogether.

http://www.andrewgriffithsmp.com/content/mp-call-a50-probe-after-cyclist...

So obviously does not like cyclists. He has not offered to support road justice or space for cycling.

Thee's a very good reason this petition has attracted so few signatures. It's completely misguided and ill-informed.

All the open TT events I have seen are well-signed and have marshals on every junction. I have never seen people veering when tired in a TT. As another poster said riders veer because of poor road surface and in and of itself this is only a reason to improve the road surface. It is needless victim blaming as the incident she cites the driver hit the cyclist from the rear. Drivers hit others often because they aren't paying attention.

There are very few dual carriageways that are off-limits to cyclists - the lower section of the A470 down the Valleys to the junction of the M4 being one. I can understand why that one is restricted - numerous slip-wayed junctions, bends, inclined and walled off. Maybe the A50 there is similar. However, this is not the way to petition for a change.

So Amanda Brooks is more concerned about the driver of the HGV losing his job, who happened to be texting on his phone at the time of the accident. than the family of the poor cyclist who through no fault of his own was struck from behind by a driver who was breaking the law. And we have a MP, Mr Andrew Griffiths who thinks the cyclist was a fault too, not the HGV driver. Are these people for real. Mr Andrew Griffiths who in the right mind voted for you. and who in their right mind would support this petition.

As I say to people when their response is "cyclists shouldn't be on the road it is dangerous" - Everyone is perfectly entitled to use the roads, just because you are driving a bigger vehicle it gives you no more rights than any other road user, whether they be a pedestrian, horse rider, cyclist or driver.
Time the car is king bubble was burst and a zero tolerance crack down on the blight of poor/lazy driving standards was implemented starting with those driving vehicles as part of their work. Nearly wiped out in Bath yesterday while driving by a coach driver who felt that the speed limit wasn't fast enough for them and that indicators were optional!!
Cycling is not dangerous.
Cars & Lorries are not dangerous.
It is the idiot behind the wheel of the car or lorry that is dangerous!

I can't agree with the post above about dual carriageway cycling being safer than single carriageway cycling.

I understand why cyclists want to TT on dual carriageways -they are fast, often straight, smooth roads which can be appealing to someone trying to beat their PB. But traffic doing 70+ mph struggles to react to slow moving vehicles, it's not always possible to change lanes. If you're in lane 2, you may not see the cyclist in lane 1, and the temptation for drivers is perhaps to pass close rather than slam on the brakes in that situation.

I think generally drivers will not be expecting a cyclist and their style of driving is likely to reflect that - ie cruising, motorway style, rather than reading the road far ahead, ready to overtake or slow for turnings/ junctions /other traffic

That being said, I don't agree with the petition which calls for banning rather than improved safety measures, (contrary to what the campaign leader says).