Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cyclists 'endangering lives' by cycling on dual carriageways (say motorists)

Riders say nearby cycle paths are badly maintained - but they are 'swept annually'.....

A woman in Angus, Scotland, who took to Facebook to complain about cyclists riding on a stretch of dual carriageway has been slapped down by cycle campaigners who say that the nearby cycle paths are badly maintained.

Carnoustie woman Claudia Burgess saw the two cyclists on the A92 and took to Facebook to vent her frustration.

She posted: ''Why put yourself and other road users at risk.

''The road has a 70mph speed limit and if a lorry is in the nearside lane doing 50mph or 60mph and a car is passing on the outside lane, it won't leave much room for the cyclists.''

Dr Kevin Smith, a lecturer at Abertay University lecturer added to the criticism, telling The Courier: ''I have observed, as both a motorist and a cyclist on the adjacent path, cyclists on this stretch of road endangering their lives and frequently causing motorists to make a sudden, and hence potentially dangerous, manoeuvre to avoid them.

''It is such cyclists whose sanity seems to be in question. Moreover, given that the law prohibits cyclists from motorways, which seems only sensible to me even though I am greatly in favour of enabling cyclists' freedom in general, it would seem correct to prohibit cyclists from this motorway-like section of the A92 from Monifieth to Arbroath.''

The A92 is in fact a dual carriageway, which cyclists do have the right to use, although cars can travel on these roads at up to 70 mph.

The treasurer of Angus Cycling Club, Bryan Williams, argued back, saying that cyclists were well within their rights to ride on the roads, and blamed the poor state of cycle paths for forcing riders onto potentially dangerous roads.

He said: ''The state of the cycle paths in general is not good.''There is a lot of road debris and bits of glass on them, where you can risk a puncture and all sorts.''

''It's certainly not illegal [to ride on dual carriageways] but, on the whole, we tend to stay off busy roads, more for comfort than anything else,'' he said.

A spokesperson for BEAR Scotland, which looks after roads in the area said: ''We maintain the section of the A92 from Dundee to Arbroath and the cycle path is kept in good order.

''It is generally swept annually and local areas cleaned as and when necessary if broken glass or debris is noted during our regular inspections.

''Despite this some cyclists - particularly long-distance cyclists - prefer to travel on-road.''

Earlier this year we wrote about how a judge has been campaigning to keep cyclists off many A roads.

Judge Tonkin suggests that it would improve safety “to remove all cyclists from any dual-carriageway which is not subject to a speed limit of 30, or possibly 40, mph.”

He goes on to say, “This would not prevent cyclists from using dual-carriageways in urban areas but would take them away from some of our more dangerous trunk roads where traffic is both heavy and fast moving.

“Any cyclist, particularly a lone cyclist who is not wearing high-visibility clothing, is at huge risk on such roads from vehicles approaching from behind at a (legal) closing speed of up to 60 mph. At such a closing speed a relatively small and very vulnerable “object” is coming into view at the rate of 60ft per second and in a moment’s inattention irreparable damage is done.”

As Carlton Reid has pointed out, there are a few problems with this idea. Even if it only applies to dual-carriageway A roads, in some places such a road is the only way to get fro A to B. Judge Tonkin is effectively saying that non-urban cycling should be banned from such areas.

He also overlooks that it's already possible for A-roads to be restricted so that cyclists cannot use them, via traffic regulation orders.

What's more worrying than a judge forgetting that particular bit of the law, is his use of language. Judge Tonkin speaks of “huge risk”' but in fact the number of deaths of cyclists as a result of being hit from behind on an A-road is small. To solve the problem by banning cyclists from such roads, and to therefore set the precedent of overturning cyclists' general right to use the public highway, is using an atom bomb to crack a walnut.

 

 

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
BigBear63 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Perceived wisdom would suggest that fast busy roads are likely to be the most dangerous for cyclists but I am not sure there is any evidence to support this view.

From my limited research the risk of death from an RTA in the UK is pretty much the same whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. Most cyclist deaths occur from a collision with another vehicle but rarely is it the fault of the cyclist.

BTW there is no reliable UK evidence that wearing a helmet or hi-viz makes any difference to survival rates. If a car hits you it hurts and a flimsy cycle helmet doesn't help at all.

Usually cyclist deaths result from a collision due to poor visbility, poor road configuration, poor driving or an inattentive driver. Whether or not hi-viz wearers suffer less collisions is anyones guess.

As a cyclist, a driver and a motorcyclist I have only had one collision and that was on a motorbike some 20years ago. I was wearing hi-viz, a helmet and leathers, doing about 10mph with my headlight on during a light summer afternoon on the Kings Road and a dickhead driver decided to T-bone me. He was doing about 5-10mph. My bike was a big 1000cc Honda and I am 17stone 6' 4" so I was not easy to miss. I was much more visible than a cyclist and it made no difference. His first comment? 'I'm sorry mate I didn't see you!'. 'No you didn't, even though I was looking in your eyes as you drove in to me! So why did you pull out on me?' I replied. He just shrugged as I got up off the road. The point being that he wasn't paying attention. My Hi-viz made no difference. If he had been doing 30mph I would have been severely injured so I was just lucky I guess. My protective clothing, at any combined speed above 30mph, wouldn't have prevented a serious injury, that I do know.

If protective clothing gives you confidence then wear it. Me? I always wear bright light clothing with reflective elements in the main and keep my fingers crossed that drivers see me. I wear a helmet when I'm riding quickly on the road as I am used to wearing one on my motorbikes so it feels right but I do not have any confidence in the level of protection my £120 LAS cycling helmet gives when compared with my £500 full face carbon composite biker helmet but I still feel better with it on when bombing it down a steep hill at 40mph+.

Obviously collisions with motor vehicles results in the cyclist coming off worse but it simply isn't true to suggest that a cyclist is any more likely to be hit on a fast dual carriageway than on other quieter roads. Yes, there are circumstances that could create a potentially hazardous passing manoeuvre on a dual carriageway but if motorists drive cautiously, whilst looking for potential hazards ahead (as we are all supposed to when on a public highway) there is no reason why cyclists should be excluded. Every driver has a brain, a pair of eyes and a brake and if all drivers used them then maybe cyclists wouldn't keep getting hit.

Pages

Latest Comments