A video featured in our Near Miss of the Day series earlier this week showing a cyclist being subjected to a very close pass at a car travelling at around 60mph on the A34 ignited a debate in the comments, as footage shot on such roads often does – should you, or should you not, ride on fast dual carriageways?
> Near Miss of the Day 483: Audi driver makes close pass while beeping horn
Highways England decided two years ago against implementing a blanket ban on cycling on the A63 near Hull after Cycling UK gathered more than 10,000 signatures in a petition against the plan, warning that it might set a dangerous precedent, and whether or not to ride on one remains a personal choice.
> Highways England decides against banning cyclists from UK’s fastest time trial course
Having said that, there are some places where it is impossible to avoid riding for at least a short time on one, perhaps to negotiate a roundabout – and often, there will be no usable footpath alongside for those who don’t want to ride on the main carriageway.
After we published that Near Miss of the Day on Monday, road.cc reader Phil Reynolds got in touch to give his views on the subject.
“I’m very rarely moved to write in about anything, but I feel this needs comment,” he said, adding, “Perhaps you’ll publish this email as a discussion starting point?”
We agree with Phil – we know that our readers hold a broad range of views on the issue, and it’s one we feel is worth debating. Here’s Philip’s post in full – let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
I’m an avid cyclist, hater of close passes, and defender of cyclists’ rights – I’ll state that for the record before beginning.
I’ll also agree that, in the video I’ve copied into the subject box, the cyclist has a legal right to ride on that road and would be in the right if her/she were to be hit.
However, one thing is totally clear: he/she should not be on a 60mph dual carriageway. That is completely stupid. Sure, it’s allowed, but it’s also allowed to jump off a cliff on a bike, and the resultant death is not the cliff’s fault.
We can’t expect drivers to think pushbike when they’re on a dual carriageway any more than we can expect them to think pedestrian, injured bird or crashed alien spaceship. It’s too dangerous. The two are incompatible.
The only option is to ban cycling on these car-only roads. It’ll probably actually ameliorate the car-cyclist antipathy, to my mind, if we give this sensible concession.
In case you yourselves don’t agree, let me ask you: would you cycle on a dual carriageway? Would you walk on one? On that road in the video?
Close passes are always the driver’s fault – let’s not deny that – but in some cases, as with the above, the cyclist has made a really stupid decision to ride that road in the first place, and simply being in the right doesn’t cut it for me.
Perhaps you’ll publish this email as a discussion starting point? I don’t have all the answers but I certainly think the debate is more complex than ‘close pass equals condemnation’.
Do you agree with Phil? Should cyclists avoid such roads at all costs? Do you feel confident riding on them?
Or should more be done in terms of giving cyclists safe infrastructure to ride alongside the dual carriageway, as well as carrying out more and tougher enforcement against drivers who do put cyclists’ lives in danger?
Over to you …
112 thoughts on “Cycling on fast dual carriageways – Yes or No? A road.cc reader gives his view”
I personally wouldnt touch a
I personally wouldnt touch a dual carriageway (particularly the A34 near me which is basically a 2 lane motorway) with a barge pole whilst on my bike, but I’ll defend my cycling brethen rights to do so to the hilt – doing otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Pretty much this. I do get that there are some riders who don’t have much of a choice – that’s fair enough.
All of the comments here make
All of the comments here make sense. Would I want to ride a long distance on a dual carriage way – absolutely not, but there are a fair few bits of busy road in West London/Buckinghamshire/Surrey where you don’t really have a choice but to use them for short distances. I’ve not had any issues to date fortunately.
If all A roads were required
If all A roads were required to have a high quality cycle path alongside them I might be more inclined to agree. At the least, no new road, or significant work should be done to an existing road, without due consideration of supporting cycling. When we’ve got good, full infrastructure then I’m fine with it.
But there are many places where it’s either impossible or near impossible not to use them so to me there is no way any rights should be removed for the foreseeable.
I came onto one unwittingly,
I came onto one unwittingly, after crossing the old Runcorn bridge. Really bad mistake, couldn’t get off it quick enough. Hopefully you live and you learn.
Not far from the Buckingham –
Not far from the Buckingham – Oxford stretch of the A34 myself.
Would I cycle it?
No f’in way!
Happy to concede that right to the motorist and would like to think that the concession helped understanding between the two but very much doubt it!
I’ve done it a few times,
I’ve done it a few times, once at rush hour (not by choice). When I chose to ride it it was either relatively quiet, or closed!
No, the real doozy was taking a wrong turn at Milton Common at 3am, and ending up on the wrong road numbered “40” (the gate was left open, so “authorized vehicles only” was completely invisible). Incidentally, that felt safer than the A34…
No motorist is aware of your
No motorist is aware of your concession not to ride on the road that you helped pay for. By all means choose your road to use, but there won’t be any impact on the car & lorry driver vs all the other road users relationship.
Not for me, live in west
Not for me, live in west Sussex and close by is the A27 which I avoid whenever possible even the 40mph stretches are a nightmare.
We are a long way off achieving education for all types of drivers and significant cycleways seem to very much an afterthought for planners. Only choose to use an A road at off peak times for a limited distance.
ironically, the dual
ironically, the dual carriageway pictured is the A9, during the dualling of dalraddy – kincraig. it has a reasonably decent and seperate cyclepath running alongside it – true for most of its length.
The A9 also has at least one
The A9 also has at least one cycle route (i.e. the official type with minute signs, kerbs to hop, muddy fords etc) that crosses over it at right angles. 70 mph stretch in Perthshire, with zero assistance for the rider. Not even a will-writing service.
I live in the West Midlands
I live in the West Midlands and it’s basically impossible to move around without using dual carriageways. There are urban roads around here which are national speed limit and even when I’m driving feel unsafe over 50mph. The other options for my new commute are canals (long muddy detour) town centres (very hilly) or villages (no direct route out of Birmingham) so the best I can hope for is traffic to be at a standstill so I can filter through.
Like everybody here, I avoid
Like everybody here, I avoid these roads almost entirely, and try to keep away from all busy/fast/ commuter roads generally when I’m riding my bike. I think it’s a good idea for the cycling community to discourage riding on dangerous roads like these, but I’m not in favour of it being actually outlawed.
Who would benefit from such a law? Most bicycle riders keep away from such roads from an instinct for self-preservation; but those do who end up riding on a dual-carriageway – either by choice or ignorance – could do without having the law against them.
On the main dual near me, the A30 in Cornwall, most people (myself included) drive at high motorway speeds, yet 20mph tractors are a common occurrence during harvest, and the steep hills force plenty of slow vehicles down to similar speeds year-round. Drivers must expect to approach vehicles in their lane at 50mph+ speed differential, and plan for last minute lane changes or heavy braking on busy roads. This is considered an ordinary part of roadcraft for driving on such roads, and I’ve heard no calls to ban tractors or old camper vans from dual-carriageways. I think it important to keep the burden of responsibility clearly with the driver, rather than potentially criminalising the bicycle rider.
Balthazar wrote:
The tractor thing happened on the A1 round Newcastle…
https://goo.gl/maps/pZv2esCgfupjtCbg9
Indeed however that is case
Indeed however that is case by case
It is perfectly possible for prohibition to happen on the local level, here is a snap from the bypass near me
Blimey, I hope in that case
Blimey, I hope in that case there’s a reasonable alternative. With it being a bypass, the old road probably offers a more direct (and nicer) route.
I’ve noticed that near me, there’s a dualled bypass that I’ve never seen a cyclist on, not because it’s banned, but because there’s a better option. This was confirmed by having a gander at the Strava heatmaps. The old road gets a lot more love.
I guess this is part of the problem, cyclists will self-select alternative routes to busy dual-carriageways. So the presence of bikes on them becomes rare and people don’t see what they’re not looking for.
So for the dual-carriageways where the existing road has been widened and there isn’t a better alternative, you then become an anomoly for cycling there. I guess we need to thank the TT guys for getting out there on the main roads and asserting the bicycles’ ‘right to roam’!
As for the A1, did I ever ride it round Ncl at rush hour? Hell no! But I did further north near Morpeth, where the bypassed old road merged back into the widened dual-carriageway for a couple of miles. It was mid-morning and felt ok and the other options were a significant detour.
So in my view, it’s nothing to do with the number of lanes or speed limit of the road, but the risk-assessment I make at the time. No route is risk free. That Stafford A34 one, whilst the NCN5 looks fairly reasonable with lots of cycle warning signs, it’s a single track road in places and you could easily envisage a nasty close pass occuring there too.
HoarseMann wrote:
You can go through the town and pick up the DC at teh next junction, but it’s not as direct. In any case none of that DC (whether permitted) or not is a road I’d want to ride
Absolutely right in your last paragraph. There is another single carriageway road that I used to ride regularly. Very fast, but wide and drivers were pretty good at passing wide, partly cos it was easy for them to do so.
Yes, yes and yes basically.
Yes, yes and yes basically.
The real issue here is the
The real issue here is the failure to provide any reasonable alternative for anybody wanting to use the route who cannot reasonably be expected to travel at a speed of 60 kmph or more. Perhaps we can look forward to there being suitable (i.e. good enough for 95% of cyclists to choose over the road) provision on new or upgraded roads in the future.
dodpeters wrote:
Basically, this.
Banning cyclists from dual carriageways would only be at all feasible if suitable alternative routes (with drainage, tarmac, etc) was provided.
Like the “run off road by slow moving hill climbing vehicle” earlier in the week – one of the commenters has said, “They shouldn’t have been on that road!”. OK, fair enough, but is that the only – or the only decent – road going from that rider’s Point A to Point B?
I wouldn’t have to expect to buy a fat bike just so that I could avoid a nasty road – I’d expect the council or the authorities to do something about that nasty road.
Motorists already have roads built just for them – they’re called motorways. I’m afraid the rest were not built for them and they’ll have to learn to live with it.
Agree with this. But I
Agree with this. But I watched the vid yesterday and my immediate gut reaction was that I just wouldnt ride on that road. You can be right and be dead/injured. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Agreed with the principle but it isn’t a position i would put myself in. Each to their own, that’s just how I feel.
I think there are many of us
I think there are many of us who would agree… unless there is no option for our particular journey.
However the fact that many riders would not ride a particular type of road if they can avoid it does not absolve drivers of their duty of care
There are all sorts of places
There are all sorts of places where cyclists have no option but to ride on A roads but there is no doubt they are dangerous. A good example is LEJOG where my friend Toby Wallace was killed:
https://road.cc/content/news/128916-lorry-driver-jailed-8-12-years-killing-lejog-charity-riders
Overalls I’m not sure what I think. Ivan see both sides
Since this is a ride I plan
Since this is a ride I plan to do one day, I’ve had a poke around with Google maps for that section, Land’s End car park to Summercourt.
Staying on the A30: 42.7 miles, elevation gain 1801 ft, about 4h.
Avoiding A30 and other A roads: 53.4 miles, elevation gain 2687 ft, about 5h (I’m sure the route I picked is not optimum.)
If that pattern holds, then the 950 mile entire route becomes 1188 miles, so about 3 extra days for most people. Personally, I’d take that over riding that stretch of the A30, though.
Does anyone know of a route planning tool with “avoid A roads” option?
I’ve never found a route
I’ve never found a route planning tool that is perfect. I tend to use ridewithgps as it’s easy to adjust the route, then supplement with a combo of strava, heatmaps, google street view, cyclestreets etc. to find the best trade off.
On your particular problem of avoiding the A30, cyclestreets seemed to do a fair job: https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/71944471/#fastest
But using main A roads does make navigation so much easier if you are doing long distances.
Check out the route the Ride
Check out the route the Ride Across Britain (mass start LEJOG) takes. Search for e.g. “RAB Day One” on Ride GPS. Definitely hillier than the A30, but the overall LEJOG route length on this event is 980 (mostly scenic) miles. Of course this is a fully supported event with 9 x 100+ mile days and everything laid on for you at the end, and focusing on enjoying the journey rather than just getting from A to B. The routing reflects that and may not be what you’re after, but I certainly don’t remember being on the A30 for any length of time.
It’s the vehicle drivers that
It’s the vehicle drivers that are dangerous, not the road
As a driver, I have no worries about encountering riders when on the road, and particularly on dual carrieage ways – long sight lines, no oncoming traffic, wide lanes, plenty of time to plan my strategy.
Any driver who can’t deal with the variety of road users they will encounter on UK roads is by definition incompetent, and should surrender their licence
“it’s also allowed to jump
“it’s also allowed to jump off a cliff on a bike, and the resultant death is not the cliff’s fault.”
The analogy here, of course, being that the resultant death on a dual carriageway is not the road’s fault…
Actually that would probably
Actually that would probably be classed as suicide which is not allowed.
I learnt the actual
I learnt the actual definition of a dual crriageway recently, turns out it doesn’t necessarily have 2 or morre lanes…
“A dual carriageway or divided highway is a class of highway with carriageways for traffic travelling in opposite directions separated by a central reservation”
I try to avoid cycling on any road with 2 or more lanes if at all possible. Sometimes it’s not though and I think it’s the responsibility of government/councils to provide decent cycle lanes adjacent to the main road routes
Like this horrible stretch –
Like this horrible stretch – I can only assume some relic from the nearby airfield’s wartime past, but it’s officially 70mph and there’s really not enough room to pass a bike.
https://goo.gl/maps/85TPKzri6qRm2cNT7
(No subject)
The first image – just off
The first image – just off the Epynt military ranges? Glorious bit of dual carriageway, but not quite as good as the perfect asphalt that precedes it over the hills. I think it’s technically national speed limit(?), but it’s single lane, virtually no traffic and the greatest risk to cyclists is the gravel on the steep descent.
I nikced it from here
I nicked it from here
https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/what-makes-dual-carriageway
Yeah, it’s in the Brecon
Yeah, it’s in the Brecon Beacons: https://goo.gl/maps/ZD2urU3kP78vHww37 There is a sublime road across the military ranges here, but it’s pretty desolate. Great on a sunny summer’s day, not so much in the wind and rain.
“However, one thing is
“However, one thing is totally clear: he/she should not be on a 60mph dual carriageway. That is completely stupid. “
You are aware that 60 is the limit and not a minimum requirement?
So what about single lane roads with a 60 limit – are these not more dangerous? The logical solution is to make all other roads 30mph surely.
This argument is akin to not havoing nice posessions in case of thieves, blaming a sexual assault victim due to their clothes etc.
The close pass that triggered this should have resulted in a 2 year ban, not questioning someone’s right to use a method of transport…
Instead of banning cycling on
Instead of banning cycling on dual carriageways, the obvious solution is that every dual carriageway should have a protected cycle lane.
OnTheRopes wrote:
I’m not sure this is the answer, as the main reason I avoid dual-carriageways is just the sheer volume of traffic. It’s unpleasant to cycle (or walk) in proximity to frequent, fast moving traffic, with all the noise and fumes.
Where I’ve tried to use such infrastructure in the past, it’s often been covered in debris and badly maintained. But they should consider bike paths that are some distance away from the main road.
Cycle Infra Design has
Cycle Infra Design has recommended buffer strip widths and maintenance programmes for bike lanes. It’s worth a read – better than Jeffrey Archer!
Boo & Socrati were better
Boo & Socrati were better than Archer.
I thought Highways England
I thought Highways England were obliged on new roads that they build to do exactly that, and have funding in that 28.8billion pounds pot of money everyone cites, specifically to do that. There are some examples of the stuff theyve done out there already, some good, some not so good, though the problem is always linking things up and its always an issue whether improving an existing road triggers the same deal.
I tend to avoid dual
I tend to avoid dual carriageways, but I have ridden short stretches of them out of necessity.
My view is: we have motorways (where cycling is banned) and there are certain dual carriageways where cycling is banned (despite not being motorways). On any other road, cycling is a perfectly legitimate activity and cyclists (and indeed pedestrians) should be able to use them without fear for their life.
I see no reason why drivers should be excused from driving with due care and attention on those roads. Cyclists are not invisible, and indeed dual carriageways normally have very good visibility.
Whilst some events (e.g. wildlife leaping out of the undergrowth) might lead to unavoidable collisions, I cannot see how road users using the road in accordance with the law could possibly be one of them.
The author of the e-mail
The author of the e-mail bandies about the word ‘stupid’ rather freely, but makes the equally ‘stupid’ comment (in my humble opinion) that cycling should be banned on multi-lane roads. What next? The road from A to B seems a bit dodgy and those cyclists are a bit of a nuisance, so let’s just ban them! The point is that all road users need to be educated to each others needs (cloud cuckoo land, I know). OK, I agree that it is perhaps unwise to ride on these roads unnecessarily, but to ban people? No, that is not a sensible way forward. Thin end of the wedge and all that.
As long as TTs are banned.
As long as TTs are banned. Everyone else can ride.
BOOB? is that you?
BOOB? is that you?
Dual Carriageways,
Dual Carriageways, particularly national speed limit one with a 70mph speed limit, have significantly better site lines than single carriageways with a 60 limit as well as a second lane to permit overtaking without having to wait for oncoming traffic to clear and create an opportunity to pass safely. A Competent driver should observe what is ahead well in advance and be able to change lane (and adjust speed if required) well in advance of a rider in front of them. Now they don’t often drive into tractors or broken down vehicles in these situatons, so is a cyclist only a problem because the drivers aren’t looking properly. Surely this is once again an education/enforcemnet issue.
And if a roadside cycle lane is the solution then please open up all those lovely motorway hardshoulder for us to use 🙂
** Saying all that, but I still don’t like riding on them, I prefer single tracks as I mosly cycle for the pleasure not to get somewhere
Most of the dual carriageways
Most of the dual carriageways around my way are limited to 40mph, while most of the single carriageway lanes are National Speed Limit – 60mph to most vehicles. Why am I less safe on the dual carriageway Phil?
I am really conflicted by
I am really conflicted by this topic.
First of all, is this not victim blaming?
Secondly, when you are taught to drive, you should have had it hammered into you to expect hazards, to expect people to do absolutely anything. They might be indicating, and turn in that direction; they might not. They might not be indicating, and make a turn. The car you are overtaking could have a blowout, the lorry could shed its load. There might be ice on the road, or that little pothole could be two feet deep. There could be a herd of cows in the middle of the road, round the next corner…or a cyclist…We should be demanding higher driving standards, not meekly accepting lower ones. Higher driving standards would benefit everyone that uses the road network.
I used to sometimes ride on a dual carriageway to work, although Strava tells me it has been over two years. This is the A24 out of Worthing and the traffic can be very fast, but it has a kind of hard shoulder with a white line, which varies from about 70cm wide to over a metre and a half. I have experienced better passing on this road from some drivers; I think partly because they have a second lane to move into, a lot of them do, and they are expecting to be overtaking things on this road. When the outer lane is occupied they either slow down behind me or half straddle the two lanes, either way is better than a close pass. On the flip side, when you get a close pass on this road it is terrifying and the speed differential is much more noticeable.
There’s plenty of “fast” dual
There’s plenty of “fast” dual carriageways that are the simplest most direct route for cycling, so the drivers have to expect to see cyclists and not drive into them. Typically the roads are straight and have good site lines, so it shouldn’t be difficult to avoid collisions – if the drivers are going too fast to react, then they need to slow down a bit.
It’ll probably actually
It’ll probably actually ameliorate the car-cyclist antipathy, to my mind, if we give this sensible concession.
Yeah, that’s going to happen. The people who hate you for riding a bike will hate you no matter how much you ground you concede.
My comment has nothing to do with whether I’d ride on a dual carriageway or not. It’s related to whether “the car-cyclist antipathy” – if that’s even an accurate description of a state of affairs – would change as a result of this suggestion.
Absolutely, cos bullies are
Absolutely, cos bullies are well known to respond positively to comporomise
I live in Stafford.
I live in Stafford.
My mate lives in Stone.
The most direct route is the A34 and I ride it regularly without issue as it’s wide with good sightlines.
There are 2 alternatives, less direct routes. One also involves an A road and the other a very busy B road. In many ways, the dual carriageway is the safest route.
I’ll also add that the cycle route between the two towns actually involves the A34 for approx 1 mile from Stone towards Stafford, coming off it at Stone Hockey and Rugby club.
I’ve generally only ended up
I’ve generally only ended up on a fast A road when I’ve cocked my route up, but I recall one occasion heading down to Brighton using a chunk of dual carriageway. Weather and visibility were good, so I felt ok. Would have noped in the other direction if the weather was shitty or light low. Very much a situational thing.
I’ll also add that the A34
I’ll also add that the A34 dual carriageway between Stone and Trentham (Stoke on Trent) is used all winter by the local clubs as their CG route and has been for years without incident.
no I dont agree with Phil at
no I dont agree with Phil at all on this, dual carriageways are perfectly safe roads to cycle on, they have good sight lines & theres space for vehicles to overtake you safely, it should not be a problem at all, the danger if you perceive the roads to be more dangerous is introduced by the poor driving by motorists, but since these are the exact same motorists you can encounter on any road, Id say if you argue its unsafe to ride on a dual carriageway, you are in fact arguing its unsafe to ride on any road.
the video from the other day just highlighted a bunch of rubbish drivers thats all,they were driving too close to each other, not paying proper attention to the road or planning ahead properly, not using the outside lane to overtake properly, not using the fact cars have brakes they can use.
I guarantee Mr Audi would have treated you to exactly the same type of pass had he encountered you on a 60mph single country A road, a 30mph road in a town or city, or even on a 20mph residential street.
would I ride on it, if it was the only reasonable route option, then yes I would, Ive ridden on the A12 a few times, I dont make a habit of it, because I prefer to ride more rural routes for peace & quiet though they are arguably more dangerous to ride, but Ive never myself had a problem with cyclists on a dual carriageway when Ive been driving instead.
Driving on fast dual
Driving on fast dual carriageways – Yes or No?
I’d have thought an important
I’d have thought an important consideration is the amount of air pushed by large vehicles at speed.
You can feel it in a layby.
I’d want a lorry to be in the other carriageway when overtaking!
“We can’t expect drivers to
“We can’t expect drivers to think pushbike when they’re on a dual carriageway any more than we can expect them to think pedestrian..”
Yes ? We ? Can ?
It’s a dual carriageway, not a motorway
The correct answer is:
The correct answer is:
Drivers need to start accepting the roads aren’t theirs alone. If you see a cyclist on the road, no matter what the speed limit, it’s time to find the pedal in the middle and wait for a safe way to pass. This arrogance has to end and with it lives across all modes of transport will be saved. If you want to drive fast go on the motorway or wra your mondeo up on the track but the rest of the roads of for us all, suck it up.
One reason this situation exists is because drivers are permitted to believe they are the top-most road user instead of the one at the bottom. We need to remind drivers of the rules and their responsibilities at all places
Eloquently put.
Eloquently put.
samuri wrote:
I totally agree with these comments:
There were A roads long before cars came along. They allowed people to move efficiently around the country. People on foot, people on horseback and in carriages, and latterly on bicycles.
At some point the motorised vehicle has come along, at its drivers have been licensed to use these same roads safely in conjunction with the existing users.
But this has obviously led to far greater speed, increased traffic levels, and formalised multiple lanes.
None of that takes away from the fact that every user has a right to be there.
And drivers should remember they are licensed to drive amongst other road users, not instead of them.
The more that drivers dominate, and other users evaporate, the more that vehicle dominance becomes de facto.
It is important that cyclists continue to use dual carriageways. And it is essential that drivers expect them to do so, and accord them safety.
The best thing authorities can do is to educate drivers, not shift everyone else out of the drivers’ mighty way
What’s the difference between
What’s the difference between a fast dual carriageway and a slow one?
We use a local Dual carriageway on a training route, on Sunday mornings there’s hardly a car on it.
The issue is not with not cycling a certain type of road but perhaps with the amount of traffic on those roads at certain times and how drivers act at those times in particular.
The point always boils back down to drivers being inattentive and other people, including other drivers accounting consciously or unconsciously for that.
I can, will and do feel vulnerable on any fast road road in busy traffic.
Old, populated with side
Old, populated with side turnings and a (say) 40 mph speed limit, or new, like the A34 Newbury by pass?
Traffic volume is everything – too many cars is what makes it “dangerous”: a lightly trafficked dual carriageway is arguably safer than anything else because there is ample room to pass.
I completely disagree with
I completely disagree with Phil that the cyclist should not have been on the A34. As I said in the comments on the original article, part of that road was on my fairly regular route across the country a couple of years ago, and it felt no more dangerous than many single carriageway roads. There are dual carriageways I would not ride on (the A3 out of London springs to mind) but that’s a matter of personal judgement knowing the road and the amount of traffic on it.
“However, one thing is
“However, one thing is totally clear: he/she should not be on a 60mph dual carriageway.”
In which case Phil, you can point out in the HWC exactly where it states this… Otherwise what you have expressed is merely opinion, and doesn’t excuse your victim-blaming.
I think you should have stopped writing at your 2nd sentence.
Cyclists have a right to get
Cyclists have a right to get from point A to point B and of the only choice is on a dual carriageway then they should be allowed to do so. However, in such a circumstance I would firm up the cycle path rule and state that if available the path MUST be used instead of a dual carriageway. Equally this law must not apply to cycle paths in general, many of which have been put in place as cynical box ticking exercises.
That’s what they do in the
That’s what they do in the Netherlands, but it only works because their cycle paths are so good and well maintained.
Often they have done a better job than just putting a path in beside the main road. The best cycle paths are well away from the noisy polluting traffic and offer a more direct and quicker route than the road.
Triblokerich wrote:
It depends on the quality of the path and where it starts and finishes. My experience is that there’s typically only shared-use paths which means that you have to reduce your speed around other users and all the places where people/children/pets can join the path. I hate it when the paths kind of dump you out onto a side road so that you have to cross multiple lanes of traffic to continue your journey – it’s probably safer to go with the flow of the traffic than having to keep crossing it to rejoin it again.
Phil raises a genuine dilemma
Phil raises a genuine dilemma. Should we surrender our freedoms in exchange for safety, accepting the hegemony of motor vehicles? Or should we assert our rights whilst railing against the obvious dangers?
That seems like a lose/lose choice to me, and placing the blame changes nothing.
Or is there another solution? If cyclists and motorists alike agree the situation is dangerously unsatisfactory, why is it not a reason to make it safe?
That is a bit of a cop-out so far as the immediate question is concerned, but I fear that it gets lost in the acrimony of the immediate debate, and thereby perpetuates the situation. We end up forever skirmishing over what to do yesterday instead of making cycling provision a mandatory component of all expenditure on public infrastructure.
As a matter of personal
As a matter of personal choice, I try to avoid fast multi-lane roads. In practice, that can include roads with a posted 40 or 50mph limit too, as a lot of drivers seem to think second lane = national speed limit. They should be safe, for the reasons that people have already cited (good sight lines, space for overtaking). And yes, drivers should know to be on the look out for all sorts of hazards, including cyclists. But in practice most drivers won’t encounter those hazards very often, and precisely because the roads are straight and well sighted, they lapse into semi-concentration, focusing on the car in front, occasionally checking their mirrors, and maintaining a high speed. If you’re only expecting to encounter large motorised traffic (because that’s all that you’ve seen for [x] miles, or [x] years driving on this road), then a bike can be easily missed until you are far too close, and closing on it rapidly, and it’s the closing and passing speed that makes these roads feel deeply unsafe (though I don’t know if statistically they are). Many drivers also don’t seem to appreciate the wake that they cause when passing you at a differential of 40+mph, and won’t bother to move fully into the second lane. I’m not saying that’s ok, but if the typical driver isn’t expecting to see you, I don’t want to be there.
Unfortunately they’re the best (quickest, most direct) option to get out of urban South Wales, so they’re often used for club runs or audax routes. I find they’re bearable in a conspicuous group and early on a weekend morning, but riding them solo or at busier times can be very intimidating. Having said all that, banning their use in general is not the answer.
quiff wrote:
So perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should ask, “Should cyclists have to use fast dual carriageways?”
In other words, if motorists don’t appreciate cyclists on these roads, and cyclists don’t like using them, why are there not better cycling alternatives so that (almost) no cyclist would want to be using the dual carriageway instead.
quiff wrote:
I was following a van a few months ago on an otherwise empty 2 x 2 dual carriageway with a 50 mph limit, whose driver (probably travelling at more than 50 mph) chose to overtake two cyclists without even moving into the completely empty second lane. I have never been so tempted to chase after a vehicle and ram it off the road.
I work right next to the A63
I work right next to the A63 near Hull (the one HE were going to ban cyclists from a couple of years ago) … close enough that I can smell the fumes from the vehicles if I have the windows open.
I have ridden it a couple of times, and it is the shortest and most direct route from my home to my place of work … as well as the only way I could cycle home without doubling the distance or spending at least 2-3 miles on one of three different winding, unlit lanes.
The A63 at this point does have a shared use path, on one side, which is essentially a roadside footpath barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass each other let alone two bicycles, and which the council leave in the hands of nature … the surface is cracking and rutted, and the vegetation never trimmed back, and it is deeply unpleasant to ride.
It would not be my first choice to ride the dual carriageway, but there are times, particularly on dark Winter nights when it is the least worst option, particularly as all the unlit lanes are prone to gathering large puddles of water whenever it rains.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
I work right next to the A63 near Hull (the one HE were going to ban cyclists from a couple of years ago) … close enough that I can smell the fumes from the vehicles if I have the windows open.
I have ridden it a couple of times, and it is the shortest and most direct route from my home to my place of work … as well as the only way I could cycle home without doubling the distance or spending at least 2-3 miles on one of three different winding, unlit lanes.
The A63 at this point does have a shared use path, on one side, which is essentially a roadside footpath barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass each other let alone two bicycles, and which the council leave in the hands of nature … the surface is cracking and rutted, and the vegetation never trimmed back, and it is deeply unpleasant to ride.
It would not be my first choice to ride the dual carriageway, but there are times, particularly on dark Winter nights when it is the least worst option, particularly as all the unlit lanes are prone to gathering large puddles of water whenever it rains. — Jetmans Dad
I have been a police response
I have been a police response driver and a cyclist on police ‘close pass’ operations. I have spoken to many drivers who were stopped on our operations. ( For those who don’t know, a cyclist – with radio and cameras radios waiting police motorcyclists when a car passes too close. They pull the driver over and he or she is given education including a short video on the dangers of driving too close to cyclists.) The problem on busy dual carriageways is that the car is approaching the cyclist at 50mph – the driver is unable to pull out and give space to the cyclist. He has to brake sharply in fast moving traffic, which can be (is) dangerous. I would not drive on a busy dual carriageway again – the driver either risks being rear ended by the car behind or driving too close to the cyclist.
Utterly wrong. The rider is
Utterly wrong. The rider is visible for at least your stopping distance – you are leaving the correct stopping distance aren’t you?
The scenario you describe is one where the driver is not thinking more than about 1s ahead of themselves. In that situation, the driver is risking themselves and others regardless of the presence of a cyclist.
Got to aagree with Cap’n Badg
Got to aagree with Cap’n Badg here. If the person in charge of a vehicle cannot stop within the distance they can see is clear ahead then they are not operating that vehicle safely. Its a simple statement which should apply to all vehicles on the road.
It doesn’t apply to other spaces, and hence they are seen and managed as being more dangerous like race tracks or railways, hence why railway lines are fenced off and walking on the lines is treated as a serious offence
It’s not about being right or
It’s not about being right or wrong- often the only option for the driver is to slow down, at 55 mph this will be fairly brisk braking – which is often hazardous. Why are you asking me if I’m leaving the correct stopping distance, I’m the one on the bike.
If I have a reason slow my
If I have a reason slow my car own using the brakes, the car behind must be expected to be able to also? When did braking supposedly become dangerous? Before you say “tailgating” the Highway Code instructs you to slow down if the vehicle behind is too close, to ensure you have adequate space to brake if required
I am always prepared to use
Yes it is
I am always prepared to use my brakes at whatever speed I am going – on what planet is it hazardous to slow down?? A cyclist on the road ahead is not a sudden occurrence. If drivers cannot stop safely and under control in the distance they can see to be clear then they are either going too fast, or not leaving sufficient space. Both of these situations can only be rectified by reducing speed – typically by use of the brakes.
I use “you”, as the only reason I can see that you sympathise with these (yes wrong) drivers is that you employ the same poor, high-risk principles of driving yourself.
Furthermore, if this rationale is shared amongst the wider profession, it may go some way to explain the reluctance of some forces to prosecute dangerous and aggressive behaviour by drivers
exactly, you shouldnt need to
exactly, you shouldnt need to remotely briskly brake in that situation, briskly braking means you havent been observant enough and planned far enough ahead, the cyclist hasnt just mysteriously appeared theyve been there the whole time to be seen and drivers should be expected to react much sooner to things like that, which could be anything not just a cyclist, a tractor, a lorry whose tyre blows out or shedding a load, loose animals anything, and it should happen at least 30-50metres out at that speed, not just mere car lengths away, and if they cant do that maybe this driving lark isnt really for them
Paul, thanks for taking the
Paul, thanks for taking the time to post here. It’s valuable to hear a perspective from someone with your experience. You will, however, get short shrift from the residents [ducks for cover].
Well, yes, sort of. The old
Well, yes, sort of. The old chestnut of putting yourself in danger, but the danger only existing due to the inexperience / incompetence / negligence or poor attitude of others.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Indeed, the same mentality that asks the question “Well what was she doing out at that time alone?” ….
Don’t get me wrong, the
Don’t get me wrong, the responsibility for operating a motorised vehicle safely absolutely has to be the focus of enforcement. But you are a braver cyclist than I to be routinely using a busy 60 or 70 mph dual carriageway on or in a vehicle that cannot travel at the speed of the other traffic.
Got caught once with the choice of a few miles on the A1 or a complete backtrack. If I find myself in that situation again I’ll take the backtrack option and I consider myself fairly confident around faster traffic.
I actually agree – I tend to
I actually agree – I tend to keep off dcs tbh, neither would I advise others use them. a trip to billericay on teh A12 when I was youg and stupid(er) taught me that.
However from an enforcement point of view, sympathising with incompetent motorists to me is a complete no-no, and I don’t get why the Police do it. The motorists who display incompetence and inability to plan ahead on DCs will exhibit the same behaviour in towns.
but the backtrack option
but the backtrack option would no doubt consist of following winding country roads with vehicles of similar types travelling at similar speeds to the A1,so how is it really then any safer for you ? it might feel safer to you, but statistically it comes out for all road users you are 2-3 times as likely to be killed in a crash on a single carriageway country road.
Awavey wrote:
but the backtrack option would no doubt consist of following winding country roads with vehicles of similar types travelling at similar speeds to the A1,so how is it really then any safer for you ? it might feel safer to you, but statistically it comes out for all road users you are 2-3 times as likely to be killed in a crash on a single carriageway country road.— Awavey
Thank you! I was a bit taken
Thank you! I was a bit taken aback- I was just talking about our findings- it could well be that it is the fault of the drivers not paying attention, but sudden braking does occur, causing risk of collisions. The ire though, seems to be directed at me. I volunteered for these close pass ops, they’re not for the faint hearted, I did it to try to increase the safety of cyclists. I don’t mind people disagreeing, but captain Badger or whatever his name is seems rather a rude chap.
Paul Donoghue wrote:
Apparently he once bit a cat’s penis, so consider yourself getting off lightly.
(No subject)
Paul Donoghue wrote:
and that there is why these sort of operations are needed, so thank you for that.
But the police might not need to conduct such operations if they had a slicker way of dealing with uploaded video footage from the public.
I’m of the opinion that it’s not the potential punshiment that changes behaviour, but the probability of getting caught.
The idiots need to be caught and the ignorant need to be taught.
If the processing of these videos could be done by civilians, issuing fines / courses for first offences and passing the more serious ones onto the police. Then it could largely be self-financing and not take up too much police time.
the ire isnt directed at you
the ire isnt directed at you personally at all, its that time and time again the message we get from the public at large, is that its ok to excuse bad driving that puts cyclists,and other road users, who are doing nothing wrong, at risk, because its just one of those things.
and until we crack that nut and start educating people with the mindset that actually people driving vehicles have far more responsibility for their actions/inaction,and its backed up by a solid courts & prosecution setup,and drivers need to take more care around more vulnerable road users, and that its not about saying things like well you shouldnt be on that road, why cant you use that cycle path instead,therefore its your fault if you get close passed, we”ll just keep going round this loop on it.
I mean its interesting you say close pass ops arent for the faint hearted, how do you think regular cyclists feel about them ? most of us are experiencing “close pass ops” every time we go out for a ride and we certainly arent volunteering for it.
Paul Donoghue wrote:
Badgers are bluntly spoken, and are willing to tell people when they’re wrong.
Bear in mind that we conduct “operation close pass” every single time we go out on the road, without back up up the road, and without the ability to prosecute.
Most of us drive, so we also understand how easy it is to drive safely around people on bikes, including on dual carriageways.
Some forces have an excellent record of looking out for the vulnerable, throwing into relief the ones that don’t.
And finally, hearing victim-blaming excuses for poor drivers is nothing new, and it is particularly galling to hear it from those who should know better.
I appreciate that you are new to commenting on this site, and it is useful to hear from you. But don’t expect agreement – I don’t, and am happy to concede a superior argument.
Paul Donoghue wrote:
He’s very opinionated and intransigent from the posts I’ve seen BTL so I wouldn’t take much notice. It’s good to hear from your viewpoint about this too. I rarely ride on a DCW myself, self preservation wins over asserting my rights in this case given the reality of our roads. And its not just those. My wife has recently bought an electric bike but the idea of commuting from near Frome to Bath up the A36 or even the slightly quieter Midford Road (road.cc staff know what i mean) scares her rigid. I hope a tipping point in this will be reached and cycling on main roads becomes a properly mainstream thing.
I can sort of see what you
I can sort of see what you mean but aren’t you really asking a slower moving vehicle to accommodate a driver of poor standard? Seems the answer is to improve driving skills. I amazed there are not more pile ups given the speeds and closeness to the vehicle in front that some drivers adopt. Far too many simply don’t look far enough ahead and plan.
Please post again (despite your reception !) as you must have some good insights to share based on your experience.
First of all thank you for
First of all thank you for putting youself at risk on our behalf, I believe some police forces will not allow their officers to take part in close pass exercises due to the danger involved.
Secondly, I think the problem is drivers driving too close to the car in front. If a car can stop in the ditance the driver can see ro be clear then braking shouldn’t be a problem. May be more prosecutions for “tailgating” would help to deter drivers from doing it and make the roads safer for all of us.
Thirdly, a favour. Could you encourage your force to respond to videos of poor driving by prosecuting the offenders, may be on the second offence. This would need to be national so thet records of warnings could be kept.
Paul Donoghue wrote:
So how exactly does this differ single lane dual carriageways, where the only option is to break – or a national speed limit single carriageway – or a national speed limit single track lane. Or for that matter a 20mph single carriageway, where cycling at 26mph isn’t considered fast enough and the motorist has to overtake on a blind bend on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, creating a speed differential of 50 mph with anyone that might be approaching (assuming they aren’t speeding too)?
A lot of complaints about
A lot of complaints about lack of options but near me is the 50-limit dual carriageway at the bottom of Box Hill where people choose to cycle on the main road despite there being a cycle path at the side. I totally get the argument around sight lines/stopping distance being an ex-biker who did advanced training but the speed differential still creates a risky situation that doesn’t need to exist – at busy times the right hand lane will have small gaps for a vehicle to accelarate into from the speed of the cyclist they are behind. You may have the right to ride on the dual carriageway, but choosing to share it with 2 ton lumps of metal when you don’t need to is an odd one. Cycling infrastructure alone doesn’t seem to be the answer (shrugs)
It might just have something
It might just have something to do with the condition/quality of the so called cycle path – it’s rubbish.
HaveLegsWillRide wrote:
But that cycle path is just awful, pothole filled, glass and litter strewn and virtually never cleared of leaves in the autumn. I avoid it by riding back via Headley, Epsom Downs, Epsom, WestEwell, Worecester Park and on to Kingston and Richmaond Park. I certainly wouldn’t want to ride the dual carriageway but equally I’m not into mashing £120 tyre sets and £800 wheels on that piece of crap. You say “cycling infrastructure alone doesn’t seem to be the answer” – no it isn’t, proper, usable, well-cared for cycling infrastructure is the answer.
The A3 from the Robin Hood
The A3 from the Robin Hood roundabout in London all the way to Portsmouth is an A road and so technically permitted for cyclists. It’s also effectively a three lane motorway in both directions and I’d no more risk cycling on there than I would cycling up the M1 (if it were allowed). I’d always want a minimum of roads to be car-only but that sort of triple-lane 70mph carriageway should definitely be.
Rendel Harris wrote:
As a student I rode from Guildford to London on the A3, before the days of internet and gps navigation. I had no issues at all until the kingston bypass when the hard shoulder stopped. Up until then it felt safer than rural roads with 60mph limts or urban roads with high traffic density. Without the hard shoulder extremely uncomfortable. I didn’t do it again.
I’ve certainly ridden on dual
I’ve certainly ridden on dual carriageways in the past. As a young rider I used to take the route from Edinburgh out to the Forth Bridge on a regular basis. But now I think I was young and foolish. Yes, it may be legal to cycle on a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 60mph or even 70mph, but to my mind, it’s taking a big risk. I wouldn’t do it now.
I’m working from home at present but prior to that would commute along the very busy A2 into North Kent on my motorbike for much of the year, only switching to cycling to the train station instead during the very coldest months. I certainly would not cycle along there, though I sometimes see people riding along it. For most (but not all I readily admit) dual carriageway routes, there are safer alternatives. Those alternative routes may be less direct, but then remember that for cycling, the fun is in the journey.
I do recall having a disagreement with some members of this site on this topic previously.
I cycled on the A24 and A27
I cycled on the A24 and A27 (mentioned earlier in the topic) when I was young. The big difference to now is the volume of traffic and the speed/acceleration. So when you say ‘I wouldn’t do it now’ that partly reflects the change in traffic volume.
I’ve got a solution. You
I’ve got a solution. You stick a barrier between the two lanes and one becomes a cycle superhighway. ‘But this will inconvenience people traveling by car’, I hear you cry. So its better to give those travelling by bike little choice but to put their lives at risk? We already have loads of good cycling infra. Problem is most of it is full of cars. This only seems like a radical solution because we live with an idea of normality distorted by car culture. We live in a society where dangerous driving is more ‘normal’ than pedalling to the shops letting your kids ride on the road would be widely seen as poor parenting. Besides, the alternative to radical solutions is climate chaos and collapse of human civilisation as we know it. We need to be urgently moving towards a world where dual carriageways aren’t a thing.
tendecimalplaces wrote:
We need to be urgently moving towards a world where only motorways are considered to be motorways. A lot of the problems with our roads come down to motorists who are unable to share the road with others – especially others that aren’t also using motor vehicles. National speed limit multi-lane dual carriageways hightlight this issue as they closely resemble motorways – but they are not the issue – any motorist who is unable to safely share such a road with cyclists is not capable of sharing any road safely.
As others are have said there are many reasons multilane dual carriageways should be among the safest to cycle on. The things that make them unsafe all boil down to poor driver attitude.
The solution, in my opinion, is for motor traffic to be de-prioritised on every non-motoway that doesn’t have the highest quality segregated cycling infrastructure.
I reckon cyclists should
I reckon cyclists should avoid dual carriageways at all costs. I would sooner take the bus/car/train/tram than have to cycle on one.
A new cycle path has opened
A new cycle path has opened here and it provides a useful connection for me. The only problem it connected by a short 1.7km section of straight dual carriageway. If I could navigate through the residential area I could avoid it but that’s circa a km further and on older sections of older less suitable paths. A lot further if I get lost. I’m choosing the dual carriageway at the moment.
Only if they build a cycle
Only if they build a cycle track alongside.
Oz seems to manage that (or at least, Adelaide), according to my nephew who lives out there there’s decent segregated cycle tracks alongside the two motorways out of the city.
It should be safe for
It should be safe for cyclists to ride on ALL roads on which they are permitted. By that I mean that it should be safe in the presence of motorists exercising reasonable competency. If we cannot ensure this, then we either need to make suitable provision for cyclists on such roads or prevent cyclists from using them. I’d obviously much prefer the former, for example, by making suitable modifications to the road, or by providing high quality alternative provision (e.g. separate lanes). However, if we cannot ensure that it is (reasonably) safe for cyclists to do so in the presence of reasonably competent drivers, then the only safe alternative is to prevent cyclists using them. That should only be contemplated where it is not possible to ensure cyclists safety. If authorities wish to ban cycling on safety grounds they should first be required to demonstrate that it is not possible to modify the road in question to achieve this.
Another alternative is to
Another alternative is to stop the dangerous drivers from using those roads, or indeed any roads. It’s not the roads themselves that are inherently dangerous (excepting motorways which have different uses), but just a small percentage of problem drivers.