A petition has been launched on Buckinghamshire County Council’s website calling for cyclists to be banned from dual carriageways in the county following the death last week of 91-year-old Raymond Dare, who was hit from the rear by a van driver as he took part in a time trial near Ayslesbury.
> Cyclist, 91, killed while taking part in time trial in Buckinghamshire
The text of the petition, posted last Friday and open until 18 August, reads:
We the undersigned petition the council to Ban cyclists from the high speed dual carriageways county wide
With the sad death of a cyclist taking part in a time trial on the A41 this week it is time the local transport agency did something about the very unsafe practice of cycling on dual carriageways. Cyclists are banned from motorways and many of the counties dual carriageways have the same speed limit of 70mph however there is no hard shoulder so it is in effect more dangerous than a motorway for them.
At the time of writing, 78 people had signed the petition.
Similar petitions have been drawn up before, sometimes following a fatal incident in which a cyclist was killed, such as one posted to UK Parliament site in 2015 calling for bicycles to be banned from the A50 in Derbyshire and Staffordshire.
It attracted 136 signatures, with 10,000 needed to trigger a response from the government, and 100,000 required for the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee to consider holding a debate on the issues raised.
Conservative MP for Burton, Andrew Griffiths, backed that petition, saying: “I can completely understand why residents want to start this petition against the cycling time trials. We’ve seen deaths on the A50 and I’ve seen myself near misses.
> MP supports petition calling for time trialling to be banned on A50
“I think unfortunately cyclists bring it [the petition] on themselves,” he continued.
“Many time trials aren’t well run and aren’t signposted,” he claimed.
“Safety measures aren’t in place and unless cyclists start taking it more seriously these calls for cyclists to be banned will only continue.
“It would be a shame for cyclists but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other road users.
“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.”
Last November, we reported how Surrey County Council had rejected a petition with 306 signatories that had sought to ban cyclists from the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking, popular with riders particularly at the weekend since it is one of the main access points to the Box Hill loop.
> A24 cycling ban rejected by Surrey County Council
The council said that it had the powers to prohibit the use of a road by cyclists, but not a duty to do so. The Prohibition of Cyclists Traffic Orders are made under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, and this would require extensive consultation.
“This type of proposal would also require the support of the police, as they would be responsible for enforcing any traffic order of this type.
“This proposal would set an unjustified precedent that would also create an additional budget pressure for the cost of consultation, advertising and potentially enacting a traffic order, signs and enforcement.
“It is acknowledged that this section of the A24 formed part of the Olympic Cycle Route, in 2012, and the use of the road has brought cycling tourism to the area,” the council added.
“Any proposal to ban cycling from the A24 would not support the Surrey County Council’s cycling strategy, in particular that ‘we will support cycling as healthy, inclusive and affordable’.”
Please note: This article was amended on 27 July 2017 to clarify comments made by Andrew Griffiths MP in an interview with the Uttoxeter News in 2014.
99 thoughts on “Petition launched seeking to ban cyclists from Buckinghamshire’s dual carriageways after rider killed last week”
“It would be a shame for
“It would be a shame for cyclists but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other road users.”
How about the “other road users” open their friggin eyes, and how about the law enforcement and members of legislature do their jobs?
More victim blaming.
Van hits and kills cyclist
Van hits and kills cyclist from the rear and therefore some bright spark decides that the answer is to ban… cyclists. Well hows about a petition to ban fcuking vans?! How about ban all motorists from all dual carriageways while we’re at it. And motorways. The whole road network. Now there would be a petition worth signing 🙂
Christopher TR1 wrote:
Honestly, you just couldn’t make it up.
For what it’s worth I’ve just
For what it’s worth I’ve just submitted a petition to the above council that they do everything they can to ensure that drivers of motorised, lethal vehicles look where they are going when on the council dual carriageways.
It has gone forward for review but I suspect it will be thrown out for being too logical.
grumpyoldcyclist wrote:
It’s gone live, just signed it
[/quote] It’s gone live, just
[/quote] It’s gone live, just signed it[/quote]
Me too.
Exasperating that nearly 100 people have signed the other petition. Exasperating how many stupid people are out there….
DonnyCampo wrote:
https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=3282&RPID=81896426&HPID=81896426&$LO$=1
Signed it too..
Penny_Lane_Cyclist wrote:
For what it’s worth I’ve just submitted a petition to the above council that they do everything they can to ensure that drivers of motorised, lethal vehicles look where they are going when on the council dual carriageways.
It has gone forward for review but I suspect it will be thrown out for being too logical.
— Penny_Lane_Cyclist It’s gone live, just signed it— DonnyCampo https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=3282&RPID=81896426&HPID=81896426&$LO$=1 Signed it too..— grumpyoldcyclist
422 signed at 2045 this evening. Keep it up!
grumpyoldcyclist wrote:
Signed.
What utter b*llocks and ill
What utter b*llocks and ill-informed victim blaming. Cycling on dual carriageways is not “very unsafe” as there is loads of space for vehicles to get past you provided they are driven in a competent manner in accordance with the prevailing road rules. The absence of hard shoulders is completely irrelevant as any driver following the Highway Code should overtake humans travelling on bikes in the same way they overtake a car and give them as much space … I personally prefer dual carriageways to single A roads on which there isnt much space and drivers exceed the nominal 60mph limit most of the time.
rxpell wrote:
Total victim blaming – agreed.
What drivers ought to do, and what they actually do are often very different. I tend to keep single carriageway A-roads to a minimum on my routes, and avoid dual-carriageways like the plague. Busy dual carriageways do carry increased risk IMO, especially with two lanes of vehicles each doing 60-80mph. Drivers seem surprised by cyclists on DCs, and a proportion of inside lane vehicles leave it too late to change lanes properly, with outside lane traffic overtaking them.
Can they not take the names
Can they not take the names of the cunts that sign this fuckwittery and remove their licences?
alansmurphy wrote:
Someone should definitely save off the names. I would imagine that signatories will have a future appearance in the the courts (if they have not already).
Usual bollocks from our car
Usual bollocks from our car centric society. If the infrastructure is unsafe then improve it, and until the works are completed cone off the inside lane, impose a 30 mph speed limit with average speed cameras to enforce it. Problem solved.
“You can get onto the A50 and
“You can get onto the A50 and before you know it there is a cyclist right in front of you.”
pretty obvious here that he isn’t driving with due care and attention…
Amazing that drivers
Amazing that drivers seemingly have no responsiblity to not ill cyclists.
Signed: we’re on 15. Come on
Signed: we’re on 15. Come on folks.
Signed. 18 vs 100.
Signed. 18 vs 100.
Signed. 22
Signed. 22
Signed, victim blaming of the
Signed, victim blaming of the worst kind
Signed. Andrew Griffiths MP
Signed. Andrew Griffiths MP is a fuckwit.
Done
Done
Signed
Signed
Biggus-Dickkus wrote:
Great name…also signed. very easy to do. 40-odd now.
Signed and highlighted to
Signed and highlighted to Club to sign (local to A41 – Berkhamsted Cycling Club).
66 now
66 now
78 now
78 now
As much as I think slogging
As much as I think slogging your guts out for 10k on a torture device that is a TT bike while idiots in 2 ton metal boxes wizz past is a crazy way to spend your spare time I really don’t think it’s the cyclists that needs to change their behaviour.
I think you’ve crashed the site, I can’t get on it to sign 🙁
it’s say database not found.
The poluce should be
The poluce should be proactive and psyche test these wankers who can’t /won’t do hazard perception.
Maybe if I run your child/mother/wife over as they’re crossing the road we can get a petition up to ban people from walking across the roads … ever! That’s what it’s effectively sayung, fackng cretins!
I’ll sign if it comes back on.
Yeah, I’m struggling with the
Yeah, I’m struggling with the link. On a slightly related morons-in-cars note, the missus has a broken foot, so I’m picking her up from the station at the end of the day (cycling from/to the car/work, don’t worry). Her train was 15 minutes late so I sat observing the driving world. Holy shit. What a bunch of impatient, foul tempered, miserable, selfish pricks most… no, not most, but a sizeable chunk of motorists are.
Beecho wrote:
FTFY. Apologies for the negativity, but I live and work in London and have to suffer bad-tempered, miserable, selfish pricks most days. Takes considerable effort not to become one.
I’m hoping that I can’t get
I’m hoping that I can’t get on it to sign because so many thousands of people are doing the same.
I’d never cycle on a dual carriageway if I could help it because I’d find it too boring but each to their own.
barbarus wrote:
i ride on high speed arterial roads all the time, they’re no more scary than cycling on a 30mph or a country lane, in all honesty I’d say it’s much more stressful in the urban environ as someone riding a bike.
This is horrible. To use the
This is horrible. To use the death of Ray – a charming guy who was so full of life and loved his sport, a sport which he competed for so many decades without incident – to blame the victim.
Anyone who has done a few TTs on both DCs and on single carriageway roads, well there’s a lot less space on the latter. When you’re on your own in a TT with cars trying to squeeze past on a narrow road, well it can be a little intimidating. TTs take place on dual carriageways all the time and the extra room for everyone is better.
(I was broken up when I heard about Ray. It wasn’t that long ago when he rode one of my events but the age record eluded him that time. You would never believe that he was over 90)
As dual carriageways tend to
As dual carriageways tend to run into mast cities, I am not sure how I could get anywhere if I were banned (unless they had to have an alternative cyce route built in.)
I’m also an ill cyclist.
Think Beasty Boys.
Counter petition now working
Counter petition now working again 88
Signed. Currently at 92.
Signed. Currently at 92.
Most other countries
Most other countries automatically ban cyclists, tractors, mopeds, horse drawn vehicles from motorways and dual-carriageways, and for good reason.
We get everything wrong is this backward little country of ours, and it sometimes costs people their lives.
Valbrona wrote:
1. They are banned from motorways.
2. Explain to me what a dual carriageway is. You’re probably making the same mistake as the fool who created the original petition – assuming they’re 70mph, minimum four-lane –
but that isn’t the case. That ignorance regarding the current road layout extends to the ‘solution’ of removing vulnerable users, which the later petition addresses.
3. “We get everything wrong”. Oh go and wet your bed somewhere else.
Valbrona wrote:
I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to define dual carriageway.
don simon wrote:
That’s actually a very good point. What people generically call dual carriageway is a misconception.
A dual carriageway is a road where the two CARRIAGEWAYS are physically separated in the middle – this could be via a central reservation or barrier. It doesn’t mean that there are two LANES in each direction, you can easily have a dual carriageway with only one lane each way.
The speed on dual carriageways is also variable, it is not necessarily a ‘high speed road’. You can have a dual carriageway in built up environments with a speed restriction of 30mph.
Valbrona wrote:
The ones I’m familiar with ban cycles from the carriageway because they provide parallel, properly surfaced, protected cycle routes.
Valbrona wrote:
What are these “most other countries”? I’ve ridden in over a 20 countries on 4 different continents. Not one of them banned cyclists on dual carriageways. Obviously some banned cyclists on some high speed road systems (normally freeways / motorways, and expresssways) but none banned them on all dual carriageways.
cyclist petition has
cyclist petition has overtaken the motorists, small numbers though.
How about if we changed the
How about if we changed the subject to pissheads?
“It would be a shame for drinkers but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other drinkers.”
Can you imagine the outrage if we wanted to ban drinking but yet that HAS been proven to CAUSE all manner of unfortunate incidents and criminal behaviour….but cycling’s not really worth any tax, so……
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Oi, I’m not a pisshead, I’m a vulnerable alcohol user 😉
Signed. Now 141.
Signed. Now 141.
143 now.
143 now.
Signed, now at 150
Signed, now at 150
Signed 158
Signed 158
It’s not really a
It’s not really a misconception or even a good point.
If someone says dual carriage way you know exactly what conception they have in their head. However it just doesn’t exclusively cover that road type.
And before you think of it, yes of course I know you’d need something much more specific in actual legislation.
But if you want to carry on counting Angels on Pinheads and avoiding the underlying issue – go for it!
IanMunro wrote:
So you seem to have a crazyportal into the head of the originator of the petition. If you read the petition and concluded that it was written in such a way that suggested the author knew exactly what a dual carriageway was, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
If the author intended the petition to cover all ‘dangerous’ or ‘fast’ roads then it’s on the author to define what that means. There are plenty of dual carriageways that are safe for cyclists.
If the author does know exactly what a dual carriageway is, and still wants cyclists off them all, then that’s more sinister. Have a good look into your crazyportal and tell me exactly where that ends.
So he’s either a fool or a knave.
In either case, the situation we have is a badly written petitiion that might as well cover ‘single-lane carriageways’ and be equally laughed at, or – worse – blanket bullshit like in the petition being seriously kicked around.
edit: I read Crampy’s sensible post after I typed this
Keep signing, people.
IanMunro wrote:
Don’t understand the hostility. I was clarifying that the popular perception of a dual carriageway isn’t the reality, so therefore people signing the petition have no clear idea of the outcome which makes it technically ‘void’.
Why am I ‘avoiding the underlying issue’?
JeevesBath wrote:
You’re not… IanMunro doesn’t like cyclists.
Signed
Signed
“182 people have signed this ePetition.”
So signposts should be placed
So signposts should be placed to warn other road users? If drivers can’t see cyclist’s they’re not going to see a sign are they?
Signed, nearly at 200 now,
Signed, nearly at 200 now, nice to see it going clearly past the other petition.
While we’re at it, could we not petition them to reduce the speed limit on dual carriageways (that aren’t already at or below) to 50? it’d cut pollution, reduce accidents and is still plenty fast enough to get you where you need to go in plenty of time.
And if they’re going to try to ban cyclists, I’d expect speed cameras (average speed ones of course so heavy braking doesn’t help) to show just how the well behaved motorists are obeying the law all the time now that they aren’t having to look out for ‘dangerous’ cyclists.
RobD wrote:
But without warning signs of course, because the nasty warning signs would distract the poor dears.
186
186
How about someone create a
How about someone create a petition to ban women from wearing revealing clothes so that all the rapists don’t get tempted all the time? A rapist turns a corner and before they know it, there’s a woman showing bare ankles straight in front of him!
hawkinspeter wrote:
What the fuggery buck has this got to do with the subject?
I’ve signed the petiton, I know the road well, its all but in name a motorway.
Carlp wrote:
Victim blaming?
Carlp wrote:
You don’t see any equivalence – people doing legal things having their freedom restricted to accommodate other people’s inability to obey the law?
Guess you’re well qualified to be a motorist.
oldstrath wrote:
I’m a cyclist actually, and I do not see any equivalence between rape and the discussion in hand, bringing a vile crime like rape into a discussion about banning cyclists on roads is at the very least distasteful.
Carlp wrote:
And you don’t think that killing a man because you couldn’t be bothered looking us a ‘vile crime’. Just because we have normalised the dangerous activity that is driving doesn’t make killing people any less ‘vile’.
oldstrath wrote:
Perhaps you’d be kind enough to retype your message so that it makes sense.
Killing is vile in all its manifestations, and not one us here would disagree but mentioning rape has nothing to do with this conversation and on this matter I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
Carlp wrote:
I’ll repeat again for the obtuse, but the original comment was hinting very heavily towards VICTIM BLAMING.
Perhaps not good to introduce rape as peeps are likely to jump on a tangent of arguments, but hey!
Have yourself a good day and don’t waste too much more time fighting with all and sundry.
Carlp wrote:
I was trying to re-phrase the original petition in terms that make its victim blaming more obvious. Yes, rape has nothing to do with this, except that it’s a violent crime against innocent people and has a history of victim blaming. Maybe you can see the parallels with cyclists being killed and then blamed as they were wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes or using the ‘wrong’ roads.
Anyhow, I didn’t intend for you to take my suggestion literally.
We have ended up with an
We have ended up with an idiotic situation in this country where we have many roads that have narrower lanes than a motorway and no/a narrow hard shoulder, yet have a 70mph speed limit, yet cyclists (and other road users prohibitied from motorways) are allowed to use them.
Except sometimes they are banned.
It’s inconistant.
And idiot drivers forget that there could be vulnerable road users. Hell, idiot drivers seem to forget there are other road users full stop. Dual carriageways near me (especially the A14) are plagued with crashes.
In the short term, a ban is fundamentally wrong.
In the long term, all major roads (start with: every Motorway and A Road, and then move onto the B Roads) should have a parallel or equivalent (eg- more direct) high quality wide cycleway. Only then would a ban be appropriate. Might need to rethink a lot of TTing though.
Is it just me or does anyone
Is it just me or does anyone else fancy starting a petition to have cars banned from Dual Carriageways and Motorways because of the volume of accidents that they have?
Signed. 200+
Signed. 200+ 🙂
Signed – now at 211
Signed – now at 211 😀
Signed – now at 216
Signed – now at 216
Anyone know what the the
Anyone know what the the original idiotic petition is at?
SevenHills wrote:
110
The cycling friendly petition 228
Signed. It’s at 222
Signed. It’s at 222
241
241 🙂
Signed. 264 now.
Signed. 264 now.
Can we keep on track and not start with the dinosaurJR esque tangental ranting with a side order of cnut?
289 now
289 now
Petition signed.
Petition signed.
This is a real shame. Most
This is a real shame. Most dual carriageways are wide enough for two cars plus a cycle lane but for the love of motorised vehicles there is no provision.
Pub bike wrote:
Yes that’s what we should be lobbying for – Proper infrastructure. Not these ‘ban cyclists’ or ‘ban cars’ nonsense petitions. 60 and 70mph dual carriageways are not nice or safe places to cycle at present are they? as evidenced by several tragic events this year alone
700c wrote:
I haven’t heard of many mass pile ups of cyclists on such roads though. It is adding cars and speeds as mentioned that make these ‘roads’ dangerous – ban the car!
alansmurphy wrote:
Being pragmatic, ‘build better infrastructure’ is far more likely to have a positive reception than ‘ban the car’ isn’t it.
Don’t lower yourself to their level of stupidity and ignorance.
As for ‘mass pile up’s of cyclists’ I presume you’re deliberately missing the point and being obtuse.. you’ve read this article haven’t you? So you know the danger presented to cyclists on these roads as they are currently. No amount of improvement to enforcement or prosecution (welcome as it may be), will completely remove that danger.
Signed.
Now 325
Signed.
Now 325
Signed.
Signed.
http://democracy.buckscc.gov
http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx
Link above give the two petitions (bottom two in table of four).
Currently at 335 v 113
IanD wrote:
That in itself has to give the council food for thought, even if it just makes them discuss how significant cycling is in the modern world.
don simon wrote:
Now 354v115
Signed. The total was 341 …
Signed. The total was 341 …
Signed;
Signed;
https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=3282&RPID=81914437&HPID=81914437
382
382
I think you get the point I’m
I think you get the point I’m making. Roads in themselves aren’t dangerous, it’s the behaviour of those on the roads. Every single day there are pile ups, unbelievably shocking ‘accidents’ et al. If there were a thousand cycles on a given strip of road rather than a thousand cars do we think the fatalities would be the same?
As for infrastructure, it is designed by those that are primarily happy to sit in their tons of metal and speed around, designed not to inconvenience them. Take a main stretch of A Road, paint it blue and ban the cars, see how quickly things would change. Given the examples of any trials in London though we know how the lazy and feckless will take to this…
Signed! Not the original
Signed! Not the original petition, the counter-petition.
I also wanted to note that some short stretches of dual carriageway (for example on the A421 west of Buckingham) are far from having motorway characteristics.
https://democracy.buckscc.gov
https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=3284&RPID=81981018&HPID=81981018
Some people realy struggle to understand things.
don simon wrote:
Oh the irony.
leaway2 wrote:
Brilliant, isn’t it?
don simon wrote:
“Nobody has yet signed this ePetition.”
So who’ll start another one
So who’ll start another one to petition against petitions against frivolous petitions?