Surrey County Council to debate banning cycling on A24 following petition

brooksby wrote:

I don't think that was their point.  I think they're worried about it setting a precedent (ie. successfully ban cycling from one particularly horrible A road, then use that as a precedent for banning cyclists from more and more A roads).  But I think that's a red herring: if someone wanted to do that (ie. creeping ban) then they would just look to the increasing use of those spatial ASBO things...

Or just use the existing precedents for A road bans note in the comments above.  It won't create a precedent as said precedent already exists.

brooksby wrote:

I don't think that was their point.  I think they're worried about it setting a precedent (ie. successfully ban cycling from one particularly horrible A road, then use that as a precedent for banning cyclists from more and more A roads).  But I think that's a red herring: if someone wanted to do that (ie. creeping ban) then they would just look to the increasing use of those spatial ASBO things...

PSPOs are a much bigger problem. Local authority abuse of such powers builds very quickly.

atgni wrote:

Or just use the existing precedents for A road bans note in the comments above.  It won't create a precedent as said precedent already exists.

Absolutely. I'd be more concerned about the precendent that many very dangerous A roads ARE designated cycle routes.

bikebot wrote:

davel wrote:

- but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads 'for our own safety'.

Yeah, I'd call that dogma.  Here's the A3.

If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I'm completely fine with that.  I've never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.

Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I've riden on it myself many time.  Not that I'm defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.

I'd rather be asking Surrey why they don't build protected space. At all. Ever.

We're mixing general points/specific examples here - yes, some A roads might not be great for cycling.

Options for the A24:
A - build quality separate infrastructure, which you accept yourself won't happen

B - boot bikes off the road, onto a shared path that some people don't like and certainly doesn't fit your A criteria.

You've said yourself that you'd only support B once A is in place, but also that A won't happen, so in this scenario, I'm struggling to get your point. Alternative scenario surely is to keep as is, maybe make drivers less likely to hit bikes on the A24, but you don't seem to be arguing that.

* sorry - edit didn't come through quick enough.

davel wrote:

bikebot wrote:

davel wrote:

- but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads 'for our own safety'.

Yeah, I'd call that dogma.  Here's the A3.

If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I'm completely fine with that.  I've never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.

Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I've riden on it myself many time.  Not that I'm defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.

I'd rather be asking Surrey why they don't build protected space. At all. Ever.

We're mixing general points/specific examples here - yes, some A roads might not be great for cycling. Options for the A24: A - build quality separate infrastructure, which you accept yourself won't happen B - boot bikes off the road, onto a shared path that some people don't like and certainly doesn't fit your A criteria. You've said yourself that you'd only support B once A is in place, but also that A won't happen, so in this scenario, I'm struggling to get your point.

I don't accept that A won't happen. Campaigning is about changing opinion to make A happen. The most likely scenario is to remain as is, but from a campaigning view that's a reluctant position of least harm. It won't lead to any increase in cycling, and there's almost nothing you can do to a road such as the A24 short of infrastructure that will achieve that.

Quote:

* sorry - edit didn't come through quick enough.

No problem

bikebot wrote:

davel wrote:

bikebot wrote:

davel wrote:

- but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads 'for our own safety'.

Yeah, I'd call that dogma.  Here's the A3.

If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I'm completely fine with that.  I've never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.

Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I've riden on it myself many time.  Not that I'm defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.

I'd rather be asking Surrey why they don't build protected space. At all. Ever.

We're mixing general points/specific examples here - yes, some A roads might not be great for cycling. Options for the A24: A - build quality separate infrastructure, which you accept yourself won't happen B - boot bikes off the road, onto a shared path that some people don't like and certainly doesn't fit your A criteria. You've said yourself that you'd only support B once A is in place, but also that A won't happen, so in this scenario, I'm struggling to get your point.

I don't accept that A won't happen. Campaigning is about changing opinion to make A happen.

Ok... So we're not in massive disagreement. When we reach Utopia, we'll have suitable infrastructure and won't need to bomb down A roads. Today, in Surrey, the timescale for the suitable cyclepath alongside the A24 is....?

Meanwhile, what - status quo?

What I'm really arguing against is seemingly drosco's agreement with the driving instructor: get cyclists off the road because a shit shared use path exists.

There maybe precedents for that, but that doesn't mean that Surrey will or can use them for the justification, does it? Or that each case shouldn't be fought individually.

davel wrote:

Ok... So we're not in massive disagreement.

Correct!

Quote:

When we reach Utopia, we'll have suitable infrastructure and won't need to bomb down A roads. Today, in Surrey, the timescale for the suitable cyclepath alongside the A24 is....?

No idea, I live in London and find Surrey's politics baffling. But attitudes can change in one generation, that's a lesson from London.

Quote:

Meanwhile, what - status quo? What I'm really arguing against is seemingly drosco's agreement with the driving instructor: get cyclists off the road because a shit shared use path exists.

Agreed. Although If I had to ride that road tonight, at say 5pm I'd appreciate that shared path a lot more than I would on a Sunday morning.

Quote:

There maybe precedents for that, but that doesn't mean that Surrey will or can use them for the justification, does it? Or that each case shouldn't be fought individually.

Probably not.  But my very first point, was that the debate could even be useful, if it's an opportunity to remind the County Council what the problems are.  I'd tell them what would remove any desire for those cycling to use the road, rather than treat it as a matter of rights.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It always amazes me that cycle lanes in this country never have right of way and are often more dangerous than just using the road (which does have right of way).

I always say that when my wife complains about "cyclists not using the cycle path".  I tell her to imagine having to almost slow to a stop here (driveway entrance) and again here (same) and again (same) and again (same), and now here (side road), and here (another driveway), and here (another side road), all while ghoing steeply downhill...  And I then say, "And that's why people cycle on the road there."