"The thin end of the wedge" - Cycling UK slams Highways England's proposed A63 bike ban

Yrcm wrote:

This isn't the thin end of a wedge, it's something that's already well established. There are already cycling prohibitions on a number of fast unsuitable non motorway dual carriageways, the A630 into Sheffield being just one example. The only reason there is an outcry about this particular bit of road is that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a TT on it, anywhere else and I suspect we'd just shrug our shoulders and think "well I wouldn't cycle there anyway".

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 6 collisions in 5 years is a lot better than some of the supposedly safer 40mph country roads around here, and you can't really say it's due to numbers if it's a TT course, it's likely to be being used more frequently than some of the ways I commute, and still there manage to be some pretty serious accidents.

As has been said, why don't they try lowering the speed limit a little, put up some signs to alert drivers (they could even be ones that light up during an event) or maybe if drivers stopped driving so selfishly and actually thought about other people a little bit then things would likely be a lot better.

RobD wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 

Personally speaking, knowing the road and having driven it regularly

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

Yrcm wrote:

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

Are they not restricted to 56 mph and subject to the same rules as everyone else?

And this is not about "playing chicken" (inappropriate use of emotive language) it's about establishing a worrying precedent.

As for it being a continuation of a motorway, it isn't. It's a dual carriageway. When you come off a motorway do you always continue to drive the same way regardless of the signage etc (e.g. absence of a hard shoulder)? Have you seen that road when a time trial is taking place - the signs, the hi-viz, the additional people in the area? Would those not be clues that you need to pay attention?

Depending on how you interpret the stats, it can be argued that dual carriageways are safer than single carriageway roads. So should TTing on SC roads be banned? After all, there is no shortage of HGVs on those too. And while the majority of drivers are considerate it only takes one 32-tonne roadhog / texting c**t to flatten a cyclist (whether they are racing or just getting from A to B on a bicycle).

Once you've stopped TTers then the next logical step, in the name of "safety", is to stop anyone on a bicycle using these "dangerous" roads. Hence the very real concern.

Yrcm wrote:

RobD wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 

Personally speaking, knowing the road and having driven it regularly

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

What is the hourly count rate at the start of the M62 so we have a proper comparison?

As I've said, on that stretch of the A63 the count averages out at 691/ hr, that's one vehicle every 5 secs in either lane, how does that compare to single laned roads with poor sight lines, multiple exits from minor roads every few seconds, static obstacles and drivers who going by the stats crash into each other and other people on a massively greater rate than on the A63 and certainly more so between themselves than people on bikes?

If you know the roads so well how about comparing how shit is to cycle down say Beverley road from the town centre or Holderness Rd, what about the A1079, should we ban cyclists from that road too because you know it's a 'race track' and high speed (and again a bypass road with no fecking cycling facility), how about the A1035 Tickton road, that's an absolute shocker but allows 60+mph on a narrow single lane, shall we ban cycling there too, what about the A164, that's a load of crap as well, where does it end precisely?

Having the dual lane and good sight lines on a pretty much level road gives ample time for motorists to overtake slower moving vehicles safely, it's just that they can't be arsed/incapable/dangerous. Even when the other vehicles are motorised they crash into one another with massively greater regularity.

The safest solution for all is to reduce the limit to 50mph from the outskirts of Hull that being Clive Sullivan Way all the way to the M62 and put in place average speed cameras with a zero tolerance approach.

That way you increase how many vehicles can use the road at peak times thus better traffic flow and people have significantly greater time to react to incidents and more able to avoid them or correct their own problem.

As a driver and bike rider it's far far easier to navigate issues on multi laned roads than it is single laned particularly if everyone is doing what they should, the number of hazards presented by motorvehicle drivers and their weapons in lower speed/higher density highways is far greater than on a D/C.

Clearly your interpretation is different, just like Highways England.

Yrcm wrote:

This isn't the thin end of a wedge, it's something that's already well established. There are already cycling prohibitions on a number of fast unsuitable non motorway dual carriageways, the A630 into Sheffield being just one example. The only reason there is an outcry about this particular bit of road is that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a TT on it, anywhere else and I suspect we'd just shrug our shoulders and think "well I wouldn't cycle there anyway".

Agreed.

On occasion, in the past, I have cycled a short section of the A404 to link up 2 B-roads - Hurley Lane and Bradenham Lane, partly when I was commuting, as the alternatives add more miles and different dangers, but also sometimes on a Sunday ride.

It's 0.2 miles of flat-out heart-in-mouth sprint because that road is a motorway in all but name - it links the M4 to the M40 and gets treated as an extension of the A404(M) by pretty much everyone on it, with speeds of up to 90mph. I've heard various people refer to it as a "racetrack"!

I don't think I'll ever ride that bit again on my own, because, to me, it is just too dangerous - I probably wouldn't care if cycling was banned on that road.

However, I'm not keen on the principle of this ban and the bizarre logic behind it.

LastBoyScout wrote:

On occasion, in the past, I have cycled a short section of the A404 to link up 2 B-roads - Hurley Lane and Bradenham Lane, partly when I was commuting, as the alternatives add more miles and different dangers, but also sometimes on a Sunday ride.

It's 0.2 miles of flat-out heart-in-mouth sprint because that road is a motorway in all but name - it links the M4 to the M40 and gets treated as an extension of the A404(M) by pretty much everyone on it, with speeds of up to 90mph. I've heard various people refer to it as a "racetrack"!

I don't think I'll ever ride that bit again on my own, because, to me, it is just too dangerous - I probably wouldn't care if cycling was banned on that road.

However, I'm not keen on the principle of this ban and the bizarre logic behind it.

Also part of a local TT course, never felt unsafe on that section though, although time of day would probably be a factor as it is normally early morning starts.

Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

Most dual carriageways in the UK are too dangerous for cyclists/horse drawn vehicles/mopeds. They worked this out a long time ago in lots of other countries, and his has doubtless saved countless lives.

If it's "doubtless" then I assume you can provide some supporting evidence?

In reality, in most other countries, just as here, people worked out that cycling on any road was too dangerous, so they don't do it, and this undoubtedly has cost a great many lives.

(And what on earth do level crossings have to do with anything?  Cyclists are not banned from using them).

Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road.

That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways.

Cars can also steer, trains can't.

As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there.

Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately).

As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists.

A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

wellsprop wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road. That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways. Cars can also steer, trains can't. As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there. Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately). As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists. A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

Not really the same thing because of the nature of the roads, the speed differential isn't really what you've said. Most people dawdle about at 45-50 in the 60s and annoying people in Hondas or Toyotas with hat in the back do 35, causing everyone else to do that speed. I average 30 if I drive to work, I average about 16-17 if I ride and about 3/4 of that is 60 zones. 

Cyclists are generally expected to be on these roads which counts for something given cyclists really aren't expected on dual carriageways. You can say drivers 'should' see us but it's not really very often someone does take to the dual carriageway. And more fool them. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

wellsprop wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road. That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways. Cars can also steer, trains can't. As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there. Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately). As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists. A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

Not really the same thing because of the nature of the roads, the speed differential isn't really what you've said. Most people dawdle about at 45-50 in the 60s and annoying people in Hondas or Toyotas with hat in the back do 35, causing everyone else to do that speed. I average 30 if I drive to work, I average about 16-17 if I ride and about 3/4 of that is 60 zones. 

Cyclists are generally expected to be on these roads which counts for something given cyclists really aren't expected on dual carriageways. You can say drivers 'should' see us but it's not really very often someone does take to the dual carriageway. And more fool them. 

 I know what you mean about the cars with the hat in the back!

To be fair, I do drive the same route occasionally, my car has a telemetry box which feeds back to my insurance, so I drive at 60mph (speed limit) - I very often get overtaken on my commute (when driving) by cars travelling in excess of 60 mph.

My cycle commute involves 1k of dual carriageway, I avoided going that way for a long time as I thought it would be dangerous. I gave it a go and it is far safer than the 60mph a-road which is my alternative - owing to having two lanes, so cars can overtake much more easily, it's also got very good line of sight compared to the a-road (plenty of blind corners/summits).

I don't think drivers are anymore surprised to see me on a dual carriageway than they are to see me on the a-road I occasionally ride on my commute.

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

burtthebike wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

I'm very confused where the figure of 160mph comes from.

Regardless, they would be banned because they were breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit.

There is no suggestion that the cyclists have broken any laws.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

[/quote]

Why would they be doing 160mph?  The whole point of a time trial is that it is perfectly legal, no laws broken, so if a driving equivalent was run, it too would have to obey the law.

burtthebike wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

Why would they be doing 160mph?  The whole point of a time trial is that it is perfectly legal, no laws broken, so if a driving equivalent was run, it too would have to obey the law.

[/quote]

If it was a driving time trial, then it would be pointless, as it would be purely a test of who could accelerate up to the speed limit fastest and stay there.

Bikes are not subject to speed limits (because they don't have calibrated speedometers) - and most riders can't hit them anyway.

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

If they were breaking the law by doing so, then yes, they would.

Regularity rallying is a motorsport sometimes held on public roads. Cars are timed over a point to point course and they are scored on how closely they match an average speed. Cars drive within the law, so it's fine - it's also quite interesting to watch all the varied vintage cars that take part!

SteveAustin wrote:

Is this the right place to ask if timetrailing is racing and if this should be happening on public roads anyway?

I think that is a question worth asking, to make it clear to the uninitiated, what a time trial is exactly.

Similar to a sportive, a time trial isn't a race. If what you are suggesting is banning any form of cycling which is timed, then every cyclist using a ride computer would have to be prevented from cycling.

If people are time trialling on public roads and doing daft things/breaking the law, such as drafting cars, riding three abreast, not following road regulations - then this should be addressed.

However, time trialling seems to be one of the safest forms of cycling (I've never time trialled myself - but I've done recce's of the local routes ahead of this season), most the routes are wide roads with very good lines of sight. Moreover, CTT rules make it very clear that riders should obey the law at all times. In addition to this, riders are set off at intervals of 1 minute, at 24mph this gives a rider-to-rider spacing of 60m (I know people cycle at different speeds so this isn't perfect) - vastly safer than the crowds of cyclists seen during sportives.

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

And there is the point I made on the previous article covering this story. Banning time trialling on a stretch of road is one thing, banning all cycling (which is what appears to be proposed here) is quite another. 

You wouldn't ban ALL cars from the A5 to stop them time trialling.