Highways England wants to ban cyclists from the UK’s fastest time trial course

Wolfshade wrote:

And so it begins!

I thought the first strike would actually be when the proposed "expressways" come along and ban cyclists and other vehicles from trunk roads, but looks like this might just jump the gun!

It is a great way to improve your road safety statistics! Instead of addressing any specific concern with appropriate traffic engineering use the cheap option and ban the people most likely to be hurt. It is a cycnical and cheap "solution". It is no different in spirit to local councils slapping lower speed limits on roads rather than re-designing them to be safer. 

 

Looking out of my window at work, near Crewe Railway Station I can see traffic backing up as we speak as another re-think of a roundabout design is happening.

25 years ago there was a road to the train station, one to Sandbach, one to the hospital and town centre. They have now added 2 high speed bypasses that still effectively feed onto the same road.

The next 'junction' accross puts you into the countryside; Weston, Betley and beyond out towards the Welsh border if you so wish. They've put another link road in to link to a link road that will link to a bypass and the motorway. On this one they have put a 2 way cycle lane down one side of the road.

All these actions are increasing the volume of traffic feeding into roads that cannot cope. They are increasing the speed of traffic and people's desire for speed. They are creating more roundabouts with poor infrastructure and people approaching at speed. They provide cycle lanes which often result in a lot of stop-start riding playing second fiddle to the aforementioned traffic or putting you into the path of traffic at dangerous points.

Progress?

peted76 wrote:

Lots of very valid points here, ultimatley it doesn't matter how dangerous it may be, if it's not a motorway and as long as the police are informed and okay with the dates of when TT's are run on the route, Highways England can fuck right off. 

I'm more concerned about the thin end of the wedge, also does this mean Highways England are 'anti cycling' now? They are only employed to look after motorways and some a roads right?

Ah.. it's okay, they have some new guidelines... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-principles-put-people-at-the-hear...

 

Interesting press release; banning cyclists from the A63 would seem to go against around half of their "ten principles of good road design" including,

makes roads safe and useful
is inclusive

is environmentally sustainable
is innovative
is collaborative.

Yet another exercise in BS, does this mean anything at all?

And the next person who says "going forward" should be whipped to death with their own tongue

matthewn5 wrote:

Why can't they just cone off 10km of that road on a Sunday morning? They'd do it to repaint the lines FFS.

They probably could but it would cost several thousand pounds, so only feasible for a big well supported event.

kingleo wrote:

Riding time trials on roads that have a lot of traffic to get a fast time is cheating  - it is the same as taking illegal drugs to get a fast time.

Is this a comedy post or a poorly disguised attempt at trolling?

If it's neither then I can only guess that you don't think people should race on any downhill section or with a tailwind as both are artificial assistance. Perhaps you only ride fixed-gear events where the start is at the bottom of a hill and the finish at the top. After all, gears were seen as cheating at one time.

Stick to Strava old chap, no-one cheats on there.

Potsy the Swift wrote:

The safest way is to add a cycle lane alongside but not necesarily that great for time trialists.

Although I'd usually agree with providing more infrastrcture for cyclists I really don't see that providing a cycle lane for a few riders doing time trials on Sunday is the best use of a limited budget. Would much rather it was spent on routes that would benefit all including commuters and reduce traffic accordingly. I suspect many of these guys drive to the start anyway with their precious cargo in the boot.

And as you say, TT'ers wouldn't use a lane anyway as they would have to slow down frequently and miss out the benefit of the draft from vehicles.

I say let the cyclists carry on using it and accept the risks. They clearly do already.

massive4x4 wrote:

It's not the thin end of a wedge and fighting it is just making cyclists look unreasonable (bear in mind that to the general public as a lycra wearing aero-bike user you are cyclist they have least identification with!).

Loads of cyclists don't share your optimism. Loads of cyclists see what councils and Government actually DO (not say) and think 'bollocks to that, the thin end of the wedge is exactly what it is. It's a precedent'. Some of this opinion, here, is whipped up because of it being an echo chamber, OK. But just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get us. What evidence there actually is (I'm talking the high quality infrastructure that you mention, but is like gold dust in the UK, vs authority-types *talking* about being friends of cyclists) is pretty damning.

alansmurphy wrote:

I can't argue with the fact that you've returned, at least you've changed your digger for a spade. I'm sorry, you're still so wrong as to be brainwashed. What actual harm would halving all speed limits in the UK do? You admit that driving standards are terrible! Your experience of driving past a TT simply demonstrates people's idiocy. The first car must see the bike, if the first car acts correctly then they are either slowing massively to avoid hitting the bike or pulling into the other lane in a safe fashion. It is then up to the following car, who without doubt would be keeping a safe distance, to do the same. It's not fucking rocket science. Also a TT will generally have a gap of a minute or so. How long did it take your moronic motoring friends to realise there was more than one bike on the road. Either reduce your speed or just stay in the right hand lane. What you're describing is a shit driver going too fast and making a poor decision. Another shit driver nearly collides, gets pissed off and they pull back in, still going too fast. Driver behind shit driver one is too close and also reacts like a twat. All this time you're driving perfectly and witnessing this apparent carnage. At no point do you think "well if they all drove properly like me they'd be a lot safer like I am"? Ah no, it's the fault of the slowest moving vehicle at the head of the race for space...

Dear Alan,

Thank you for deciding on the basis of an argued point that contradicts your own that I, an adult who you have never met lacks the agency to draw their own conclusions from life experience and statistics and must therefore be "brainwashed".

To address your points:

1: Driving standards in the UK are based on the most important measure of deaths per population or deaths per mile world leading, by some measures the best of any major nation. 1700 people died on the roads (not all the fault of a driver) there are 60,000,000 million of us.

Death rates for cyclists are higher per mile, but where this has been solved in other countries it has been done with segregated infrastructure and sheer numbers driving familiarity and empathy not by encouraging cycling on trunk roads. 

2: If you halved the speed limits everywhere you would near double the cost of shipping and reduce the interconnectivity effects that make the economy as productive as it currently is. Cars carry 85% of the passenger miles in the UK and this is similar in most advanced economies, road freight carries an even greater proportion of our goods. Speed limits are generally set at around a velcoity that an average driver would drive at, compliance in most cases is therefore volentary. A 50% reduction would therefore be routinely ignored and if attempts were made to enforce compliance these would be vastly unpopular. Our fastest roads are also our safest (see access restrictions) and are a good example of a "natural speed limit" in action, the posted limit is 70mph, the actual limit is around 85mph as authorities know that blanket enforcement of the posted limit would be unworkable, unpopular and of limited benefit given accident stats.

3: Re: Shit driving – Or observed driving by normally experienced and trained British drivers.

4: In safety engineering terms the presence of a cyclist on a dual trunk road would be termed an “initiating event”. This event when applied to the existing system results in an unsafe condition.

If we look at mitigation you propose which is to magically change the behaviour of the general public. To change the behaviour of the general public is expensive and takes a long period of time, this is not going to happen to accommodate a minority sport which could easily take place in more suitable places. Therefore the best treatment of the risk is to remove the initiating event given that the consequence of doing so is forcing a cycling time trial to relocate to a less dangerous location.

5: Nobody has an inalienable right to use all of the road network. We exclude users from parts of the network where it would be dangerous, not least people who have not demonstrated competence to operate motorised road vehicles. In this case you have a dangerous interaction between a small number of road users and a very large number of road users in this circumstance then needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You could protest this order but you will be pissing into the wind.

This is an entirely different situation to places where cycling could be a viable form of transport or a popular form of leisure and a modal shift from driving would be a positive change. In these circumstances cycling deserves space and funding commensurate with the numbers likely to use the facilities.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Massive 4x4;

Reducing the speed increases the capacity of any given highway AND importantly its safety plus also improved environmental impact and lessens damage to the surface/substructure. The amount of vehicles stuck in traffic because of excessive speed is a massive issue but people blindly seem to think that lowering speeds is going to massively slow up traffic, it simply doesn't, quite the opposite.

Your ignorance is demonstrated when you gleefully announce that food costs would double if you reduced the speed limit of fast moving roads by half, well it won't because LGVs are limited to 56mph in any case at the very max, halving of a 70mph limit road (which I wouldn't agree with personally) would only see a theorectical maximum reduction in speed of some 21mph, that's not even including other factors in real life driving that mean average speeds are well below the maximum permissable anyway particularly for much larger vehicles.

If you managed to cover 160 miles in 4 hours in an LGV including leaving depot and delivering to end destination you'd be going some and be lucky at every single lightset, entrance and exit and there be zero snarl ups or others holding you up.

I can't even be bothered to read the rest of your post tbh

BehindTheBikesheds consider why you feel the need to throw insults into posts on the internet.

I am perfectly aware of the idea that reducing speeds can increase the carrying capacity of a road. However most of the road network at any point in time actually isn't in stop go traffic, the average speed on the strategic highways network is 61mph over the course of the day (stats availible from DfT).

As for your assumption that I don't know the speed limit for trucks, come on......

You are basically nitpicking between a 37.5% and a 50% speed reduction for HGV's.

If you lowered the speed limits drastically on the strategic road network you would increase journey times, even if this were only a 10% reduction in the speed of HGV's and of people in the service sector who make multiple visits per day the results would be massive.

It would be a combination of less economic activity and more vehicles required to move the same ammount of goods. The knock on effects accross the economy would be massive.

Trunk roads are on balance a good thing that underpins our economy. They aren't going to be replaced with cycling. Our failure to invest in them is probably one of the reasons why we have seen low productivity in the recovery from the last recession. 

Wolfshade wrote:

It is no different in spirit to local councils slapping lower speed limits on roads rather than re-designing them to be safer. 

In spirit whatever, but in practice I would have thought that any cyclist would be happy with a measure (if it's effectively enforced) that reduces the speed of traffic on the roads. 

There's too much traffic and a toxic driving culture in this country but no political will to do anything meaningful about it.

massive4x4 wrote:

 

Having encountered a time trial on the A50 a few times I can speak from some experience of what this is like to drive around. The short answer is bloody dangerous!

 

How so, did you nearly spill your coffee?

massive4x4 wrote:

Bikes in the inside lane are doing 25-30mph, with the traffic volume lorries and cars were having to take the option of either close passing or pulling out into the fast lane where traffic may be going 50mph faster than they were.

They don't HAVE to take that option, they can wait behind, maybe pull out when it's safe. If the bike in the inside lane is doing 25-30mph and you're pulling out into traffic doing 50mph more - you do realise who is breaking the law and causing the issue here don't you?

massive4x4 wrote:

This is a particularly hazardous scenario because you have the vehicle in the inner lane catching the cyclist at 20-30mph, they may not be able to see the cyclist until vehicles ahead of them pull out into the fast lane. They must then move out against traffic which may be going faster than them. They then have a short time to decide to either pull out into the fast approaching traffic or slow down to the speed of the cyclist. If they do the latter they now have a very high speed differential if they pull out into the outer lane. The other options are a close pass or a partial encroachment into the fast lane.

So the car ahead has already driven dangerously and you as the car behind would HAVE to do the same. Again, try slowing down!

massive4x4 wrote:

Also if they mess this up they either hit the cyclist while looking over their shoulder, pull and panick stop and/or swerve into the fast lane. 

True, they do. Hitting a cyclist will normally result in a scratch on your car and the inconvenience of having to tell the Police that the cyclist wasn't wearing hi viz, or a helmet or that it was sunny or the a-frame of your car blinds you.

massive4x4 wrote:

The last time I passed the A50 time trial I saw maybe 5-10 near misses. The solution is not "better drivers", a driver on a dual carriageway probably encounters a cyclist 1-2 times per year. They are not looking for cyclists nor will they have a mental map for what to do in this circumstance.

So by your very good maths it clearly is a requirement for better drivers. If it is so infrequent to meet a cyclist on such a road then there's no inconvenience, whay are so many people so shit at driving?

massive4x4 wrote:

It's not the thin end of a wedge and fighting it is just making cyclists look unreasonable (bear in mind that to the general public as a lycra wearing aero-bike user you are cyclist they have least identification with!).

It is, you've just said it is. You've already decided they are louts because you clearly read the daily mail

massive4x4 wrote:

Dual carriageways with a speed limit of 70 are functionally equivalent of motorways where bikes are banned. They were not designed for cyclists, they have very high hazards when cycles cross slip roads.

I've been quite easy on you above. Your own words have given you enough rope to hang yourself and every other moton. How about I go left field here? Most traffic in town centres travels at less than 5mph due to the congestion they cause, about the average speed for a pedestrian. How about all cars are banned in town centres and residential areas. You can keep your motorways and dual carriageways, we'll just take the other roads...

We may be in an echo chamber here, but you have been socially engineered and are spouting ill thought out, cretinous views that are leading to the increased congestion seen on the roads, the increased reliance on unsustainable travel and the continuation of a ridiculous health epidemic caused by your preferred method of transport.

Wolfshade wrote:

And so it begins!

I thought the first strike would actually be when the proposed "expressways" come along and ban cyclists and other vehicles from trunk roads, but looks like this might just jump the gun!

It is a great way to improve your road safety statistics! Instead of addressing any specific concern with appropriate traffic engineering use the cheap option and ban the people most likely to be hurt. It is a cycnical and cheap "solution". It is no different in spirit to local councils slapping lower speed limits on roads rather than re-designing them to be safer. 

That's the thing though, it simply won't because the vast majority of incidents on that stretch of road (well any road) are motorists crashing into each other or simply crashing in a single vehicle incident.

Might as well ban people from leaving their homes in case they are mugged, raped, stabbed, assaulted etc, y'know for safety's sake

massive4x4 wrote:

I would caution many of the people on here to remember that this is one of those online echo chambers. Remember that compared to most people you are an "extremist".

Having encountered a time trial on the A50 a few times I can speak from some experience of what this is like to drive around. The short answer is bloody dangerous!

Bikes in the inside lane are doing 25-30mph, with the traffic volume lorries and cars were having to take the option of either close passing or pulling out into the fast lane where traffic may be going 50mph faster than they were.

This is a particularly hazardous scenario because you have the vehicle in the inner lane catching the cyclist at 20-30mph, they may not be able to see the cyclist until vehicles ahead of them pull out into the fast lane. They must then move out against traffic which may be going faster than them. They then have a short time to decide to either pull out into the fast approaching traffic or slow down to the speed of the cyclist. If they do the latter they now have a very high speed differential if they pull out into the outer lane. The other options are a close pass or a partial encroachment into the fast lane.

Also if they mess this up they either hit the cyclist while looking over their shoulder, pull and panick stop and/or swerve into the fast lane. The last time I passed the A50 time trial I saw maybe 5-10 near misses.

The solution is not "better drivers", a driver on a dual carriageway probably encounters a cyclist 1-2 times per year. They are not looking for cyclists nor will they have a mental map for what to do in this circumstance.

My message to those who cycle TT's on dual carriageways is let it go.

It's not the thin end of a wedge and fighting it is just making cyclists look unreasonable (bear in mind that to the general public as a lycra wearing aero-bike user you are cyclist they have least identification with!).

Dual carriageways with a speed limit of 70 are functionally equivalent of motorways where bikes are banned. They were not designed for cyclists, they have very high hazards when cycles cross slip roads. The only reason cycles can ride on them is due to grandfather rights, nobody though that anyone was actually going to cycle down a 70mph dual carriageway especially as very rarely are they useful for getting anywhere by bike.

What we need for cycling is lots of infrastructure for the masses, such as segregated cycle paths, so that more drivers are used to driving around cyclists and actually are cyclists themselves. The message should be that cycling is a mainstream activity that we can all do. What we don’t need is people defending their right to carry out a dangerous activity on roads that are basically designed for cars and that cyclists are only allowed to use because nobody got around to banning them.

So on a pretty much dead straight road where you can see a good 300m up the road (if not further) which is 10 seconds at 70mph you're basically you're incapable of mirror, signal manoeuvre, have I got that right?

Again, a dual carriageway with 691 vehicles per hour is NOT a motorway and is in no way comparable to a motorway in terms of vehicle numbers.

If you can't manage to get around someone going slower on a D/C with at least 10 seconds to do so then for fucks sakes stay off the roads!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Wolfshade wrote:

And so it begins!

I thought the first strike would actually be when the proposed "expressways" come along and ban cyclists and other vehicles from trunk roads, but looks like this might just jump the gun!

It is a great way to improve your road safety statistics! Instead of addressing any specific concern with appropriate traffic engineering use the cheap option and ban the people most likely to be hurt. It is a cycnical and cheap "solution". It is no different in spirit to local councils slapping lower speed limits on roads rather than re-designing them to be safer. 

That's the thing though, it simply won't because the vast majority of incidents on that stretch of road (well any road) are motorists crashing into each other or simply crashing in a single vehicle incident.

Might as well ban people from leaving their homes in case they are mugged, raped, stabbed, assaulted etc, y'know for safety's sake

All depends on your scale and what you are measuring. I'm sure the route manger of the A63 will now see significantly less vulnerable road user ksis if they enact the ban. 

But I totally agree with the more general point, what is it on average 5 people killed  day across the roads, thing is we as a society just accept death on the streets as a consequence of driving rather than it being abnormal and not normal and treated as such.