Cyclists have been banned from a stretch of the A19 near Middlesbrough after several serious incidents in the last few years. Highways England says the ban has been put in place 'for the safety of cyclists' and both Stockton and Middlesbrough councils support it. However, the widow of a man killed while riding that stretch of road claims there are no viable alternative routes for cyclists.
The Gazette Live reports how a ban on bikes has been enforced on the dual carriageway between the A689 at Wolviston and the A174 Parkway turn-off from July 13.
A spokesman for Highways England explained: “The ban is in place for the safety of cyclists as there are safer alternative routes for cyclists between these junctions which are away from this busy stretch of the A19.”
Inspector Wendy Tinkler said Cleveland Police have “actively supported” a ban on cyclists using the stretch of road.
In January 2012, Christopher Griffiths was killed while cycling along the southbound carriageway of the A19 between the A689 and A1027 junction, near Billingham. He was struck from behind while riding along a one-metre wide strip of asphalt to the left of a rumble-strip on the left-hand side of the dual carriageway road. The lorry driver involved was acquitted of causing the death of a cyclist through careless driving after a jury failed to reach a verdict.
Griffiths’ widow, Suzi, believes there are no viable alternative cycle routes from Wynyard to Middlesbrough.
“The cycle paths stop before Wynyard so you have to go on the A689 which is a busy dual carriageway as well. The only route then is to go from the Castle Eden Walkway and you come out at Thorpe Thewles, then there is nothing.
“You would then have to go on the old Durham road into Stockton, then down Portrack Lane and along the riverside road into Middlesbrough. And how long would that take?
“There are great cycle paths from Billingham Bottoms but once you get past that there is nothing. No safe routes. There is more chance of me flying to the moon than us getting cycle paths from here.”
47 thoughts on “Cyclists banned from stretch of A19 – but is there a viable alternative route?”
I don’t live there or know
I don’t live there or know the area, but HOW can you BAN cyclists from a road? It’s not a motorway! How about encouraging drivers to drive SAFELY?
Bazzer you’ve just summed up
Bazzer you’ve just summed up the problem, crashes/incidents DAILY on the A19 because its a drag strip with too many junctions and lane changes at times.
I suspect this is the new
I suspect this is the new true-blue form of ‘cycle-proofing’ that we were promised.
It’s a hideous road to drive let alone cycle, especially at peak times. 4 and 5 lanes wide in places on the stretch of the ban.
There may be alternative routes, but they ones I know of go miles out of the way. A lot of the time the A19 IS the only North-south road for miles
Of course if there is a
Of course if there is a multiple car accident on this road killing a few nothing is banned then …
Car is king don’t you know and people can do what they like in a car with few consequences.
Why not just ban (dangerous)
Why not just ban (dangerous) drivers from this road. They’re the ones causing the accidents. Easier for them to take alternative routes from the article.
The lanes are wide, so with a tiny bit of imagination a 2m wide cycle lane could be put at the side of this road.
spot on mate …
Of course
spot on mate …
Of course this is bikes colliding with cars ….
I just rode the A45 from the City centre of Brum to the airport, will they want to ban me from that then ?
gazza_d wrote:I suspect this
Spot on.
There is however something that Highway England haven’t quite got about the term public road. Everyone has a right to use it and it, only motorways are exclusively reserved for cars.
I banning of cyclists from the road is a failure of Highway England to make the road safe for cyclists. I’m sure their decision can be contested in court, and should if there’s no reasonable alternative.
Is it legal they can ban
Is it legal they can ban cyclists from other than motorways ?
If it’s a dangerous road,
If it’s a dangerous road, reduce the speed limit to a sensible level and police it with average speed cameras. Simple.
ah but that will annoy
ah but that will annoy motorists
I was under the impression
I was under the impression that when they want to ban any class of user from a public highway (bearing in mind that a highway is open to all users, whatever vehicle, on horseback or on foot) they first had to provide an alternative route. This is why the Highways Agency surfaced a cycle track across Hindhead Common when the A3 was put in a tunnel which was not open to unmotorised vehicles and mopeds under 50cc.
If there’s no alternative for
If there’s no alternative for cyclists on this road, it would make more sense to keep the route open for cyclists only – make motor vehicles take the detour – why should they expect entitlement to direct routes when they are the ones endangering others (from pollution, deterrence contributing to obesity etc etc etc and all the economic impacts – NHS etc).
Too much too ask?
Well get some decent Netherlands style bike roads put in then.
There is an alternative and
There is an alternative and it’d probably only take 10mins extra.
I quote “In January 2012,
I quote “In January 2012, Christopher Griffiths was killed while cycling along the southbound carriageway of the A19 between the A689 and A1027 junction, near Billingham. He was struck from behind while riding along a one-metre wide strip of asphalt to the left of a rumble-strip on the left-hand side of the dual carriageway road.”
Now correct me if I’m wrong…
1) The white line rumble strip marks the edge of the carriageway.
2) Mr Griffiths is to the left of this line.
Therefore Mr Griffiths is not in or on the carriageway; therefore the driver has to leave the carriageway in order to hit him.
The driver either…
a) Deliberately left the carriageway (Dangerous), or
b) Accidentally left the carriageway (Careless).
How, for the love of all things holy, can the driver be acquitted? How is this different from a driver leaving the road, mounting a pavement and killing someone at a bus stop?
Please tell me I’ve missed something!
levermonkey wrote:I quote “In
A jury of drivers that’s how. Thinking, that could have been me. Pesky cyclists. Therefore not guilty of anything.
Aka SMIDSY or the driver’s defence.
I take it that the council’s
I take it that the council’s first action, then, will be to remove the signs designating the hard shoulder as cycle lane!
See here.
This page is a few years out of date and shows the A19 slightly south of where this death occurred but the same trick has been pulled in that location.
For example. Picture dated
For example. Picture dated October 2014!
I think this is the relevant
I think this is the relevant route on cyclestreets: http://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/45433435/ . The fastest route it suggests is 50 minutes, almost entirely on the A19, the slower route is 70 minutes and still uses a substantial part of the A19.
It’s close enough but what
It’s close enough but what you’ve described as a substantial part of the A19 is actually a cyclepath running alongside the A19.
It’s close enough but what
It’s close enough but what you’ve described as a substantial part of the A19 is actually a cyclepath running alongside the A19.
This is the order as it
This is the order as it apeared in the london gazette – https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2336689
TBH I went to Stockton a few weeks ago and found the roads from the town centre back onto the A19 a total nightmare. I don’t ever want to do it again in a car and can’t imagine why anyone would want to ride it.
But again, someone is killed and the answer isn’t to do something to regulate the actions of drivers but to proscibe the actions of the innocent party (although, as ther driver was found not guilty (no surprise there), technically there wasn’t a guilty party). Stupidly British to the end.
So proposed order published
So proposed order published in the London Gazette on 21/05/2015
Objections lodged by 12/06/2015 (22 days)
Order enacted on 13/07/2015 (31 days)
F**k me, they railroaded that one! It normally takes six months just to decide what biscuits to have.
On the continent a lot of high speed roads have separate cycleways and footpaths running parallel to them. Surely this would have been a better solution. Bet that would take 53 years instead of 53 days though.
On a serious note – This feels like the very thin end of a very large wedge. If you decide to ban cyclists from any road where there has been a cycling fatality in the last ten years … in the interests of safety …
Stories like this make me
Stories like this make me feel depressed! They are supposed to be public roads. The “police are enforcing the ban…?” What the fuck are they doing about all the speeding, aggressive and down right dangerous driving? Answer NOTHING effectively.
If they end up killing someone then the courts hand out suspended sentences, there is no life-time driving ban, the world has gone crackers.
I put the root cause with those useless wankers we are obliged to vote for every few years, they really FULL OF SHIT! X(
My first thought was, looking
My first thought was, looking at the road in the picture “Who’d cycle down there in the first place?”. Then, after some of the comments on here, I checked Google maps and it seems that they can’t really afford roads up there (joke). I feel sorry for you guys if the only roads you have to ride are like this and shared with psychopaths in cars.
Surely councils can be lobbied? Can’t the carriage way be separated from the cycle track with concrete barriers? Banning cyclists is to treat the symptoms and not the cause.
Incidentally, I agree with LeverMonkey; if the cycle track is a separate lane the truck shouldn’t have been in it in the first place. Now it’s cyclists fault for being in cycle lane shared with truck, so best to remove cyclists.
Festina wrote:..Surely
Experience teaches us that all lobbying from bike riders will be ignored. Always remember, those in power do not actually care whether you live or die; they care about being in power. Unless the death, serious injury and danger to bike riders is an election-deciding issue, it while be completely ignored.
I am sorry but cycling down
I am sorry but cycling down the A19 is madness. Its a 70mph road Ffs. You simply cant cycle down it safely. I live in Hartlepool and drive up and down the road all the time…I also love cycling but would never in a million year go cycling down the A19!!! 8}
Try and use the transporter bridge maybe? 60p for a bike but at least you will be alive…
If you can demonstrate that
If you can demonstrate that this is a popular corridor for everyday users then would make a better case for the HA to use some of their funding for ‘Cycle Proofing’ http://road.cc/content/news/141045-transport-secretary-says-%C2%A3100-million-set-aside-cycle-proofing
Worth getting in touch with the relevant Local Authority to see if this is one of the schemes put forward.
If it isnt a stretch of corridor that would be used by ‘everyday’ cyclists then doubtful to be prioritised.
I could ride an horse down it
I could ride an horse down it though.
I cycle through the area in
I cycle through the area in question on a regular basis. I wouldn’t even consider using the A19 along that stretch – because I value my life. I’m sure 99% of other local cyclists would share my opinion. There are much safer alternatives to travel north-south using Billingham/Norton/Stockton etc, which are the routes I use. Cyclists with sense simply don’t use this road, so the ban is largely pointless. The road doesn’t need making cycle friendly – it’s a major trunk road and is going to stay that way. In fact it is planned to widen it to three lanes in the near future. So lets stop bashing motorists/police/authorities and be sensible
Simple solution make it into
Simple solution make it into a single carriageway and use the other lanes as cycle lanes.
How do we seem to have the most incompetent people in Govt, councils, planning, policing. I lived in Germany in the early 90’s it was a pleasure to cycle around, law’s in place, infrastructure in place and yet in the UK 25 years on the authorities still run around with their thumbs up their bum, as if we are asking for solutions that don’t already exist in the world. There again same goes for recycling and green energy 8|
Some of the comments on here
Some of the comments on here reveal a breathtaking level of ignorance. The road is already at 100%+ capacity at peak times. Cyclists need to stay off it for their own safety and use the viable alternatives. And I say that as one of those cyclists. Militant anti motorist cyclists boil my piss. Talk sense for god’s sake
hill4544 wrote:Some of the
It’s a public road. People should be able to make their own decision whether to use it or not.
This country is still in thrall to the motor car and for all sorts of reasons unrelated to cyclo-militancy should be making greater efforts to reduce substantially the number of motor vehicles on the road. One way to do this is to encourage more cyclists onto the roads and make the roads fit for all users.
Telling cyclists to stay off because there are too many cars is arse-about-face. Give the drivers a viable alternative, such as better, cheaper public transport, and some encouragement, such as congestion charging.
If people in London had taken your advice we would not now be seeing the incredible growth in cycle commuting and general provement of the public space that we’ve seen in the 20+ years I’ve been cycling here.
Women are lucky Highway
Women are lucky Highway England isn’t in charge of rape investigation, because following their current line of reasoning women would be banned. Not good news for the continuation of the species.
So using your logic which
So using your logic which other roads shall we not go on if 100% capacity ? Any road in the rush hour then ?
Your attitude just makes excuses for awful driving.
ianrobo wrote:So using your
And if cyclists are banned from rush hour roads ‘for their own safety ‘ then how do I get to work? Oh yeah, I’d have to get in a car. Hmm.
Cyclists don’t belong on
Cyclists don’t belong on these kinds of roads. Some roads should be just for cars. In a way I’d like to remove all roads where cyclists and cars couldn’t coexist, but to do that I’d also need to reduce economic activity, tax take, and public sector services and benefits.
birzzles wrote: Some roads
they are called motorways
ianrobo wrote:birzzles wrote:
Yeah, and the road under discussion is NOT a motorway!
Quote:Cyclists don’t belong
That’s only a practical solution if an alternative of the same standard and distance is provided.
Think about it, every motorists takes it for granted that they can punch a destination into their satnav, and they will be routed there on roads fit for purpose. Why should cyclists not be able to do the same? It shouldn’t be expected that cyclists maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of safe and unsafe roads, either when planning a journey, or spontaneously re-routing whilst cycling.
You can’t have a policy that allows cyclists on A roads, except when they’re not.
birzzles wrote:Cyclists don’t
You don’t need to remove roads where cyclists and cars can’t co-exist, you just need to provide parallel cycle routes of the same quality as the roads in those cases.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
(|:
You don’t need to remove roads, you need to remove motor vehicles. There are too many of them. Cars and bicycles would happily co-exist if there were far more bicycles and far fewer cars.
B
The A19 should be
The A19 should be reclassified as the A19(M) in the same way as Newcastle Central Motorway, so that all other slow moving and other unsuitable vehicles are removed from this road, just another important trunk road in the north east that is no where near fit for purpose and has suffered from years of chronic under investment.
The issue shouldn’t be that cyclists have been banned from this “mental” section of road, it should be that there has neither been nor is there an alternative now being constructed for cyclists and pedestrians.
News report before the two
News report before the two trials collapsed –
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/a19-cyclist-death-trial-lorry-6295306
Two juries failed to agree on verdicts.
I’m wondering how many of the jurors were drivers, perhaps with less-than-stellar driving skills of their own?
Realistically, driving offences are never going to be judged by the legal system in the same way as other offences are, its just never going to happen as long as huge numbers of people who vote and serve on juries themselves drive a lot.
Which is why I just can’t agree with those who reckon the solution is tougher law-enforcement rather than physical separation. The former is an understandable desire but it just seems utterly impossible to achieve unless you happen to have a fascist government where El Generalismo happens to have an idiosyncratic hatred of cars (and most actual fascist dictators seem quite keen on them, really).
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Two juries failed to agree on verdicts.
I’m wondering how many of the jurors were drivers, perhaps with less-than-stellar driving skills of their own?
Realistically, driving offences are never going to be judged by the legal system in the same way as other offences are, its just never going to happen as long as huge numbers of people who vote and serve on juries themselves drive a lot.
Which is why I just can’t agree with those who reckon the solution is tougher law-enforcement rather than physical separation. The former is an understandable desire but it just seems utterly impossible to achieve unless you happen to have a fascist government where El Generalismo happens to have an idiosyncratic hatred of cars (and most actual fascist dictators seem quite keen on them, really).
Perhaps juries could exclude drivers as being overly identified with the defendant when trials like this come up? I know they automatically exclude cyclists so why not the other?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
The cost of separation is astronomical, and for that reason it won’t happen.
Mind you, the cost of proper law enforcement is probably also astronomical, so perhaps we may as well just give up.
When I read the original
When I read the original article I facepalmed so hard I almost hit the back of my head (you need a :facepalm: smiley). As I pointed out in an article that allowed comments, would they ban women from areas where rapes had been occurring or would they work to remove the rapists? They don’t seem to be doing much to remove the cause of cyclists getting hit.
There’s quite a few posting
There’s quite a few posting here that maybe don’t know the region or the road. I originate from the area, the A19 is like the M11/M4/M25/A1 or some other similar roads (10x worse than the A12 in Essex and I *never* see cyclists on there!). Its the closest thing to a motorway in the area for a good distance, the closest actual motorways being the A1(M) and A66(M) iirc.
Its a main artery for heavy lorries into and out of a significant industrial area and some sections go up to dual 5 lanes.
Its history is well covered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A19_road
This is a (un)common sense as much as a driver behaviour issue. Having worked on highways around the country, the risk of being struck by a wandering HGV is huge, even when sat in a vehicle with full livery and flashing lights on a 3m hard shoulder, increase the volume of heavies and the likelihood is increased..
I’m sorry to hear of the death of this poor chap but as a few natives of the area have pointed out, its not wise to ride this road on a bike, everyone has a different perception of risk they are willing to take at the end of the day though.
How 2 juries managed to not reach a verdict is however beyond belief but we don’t have the full record of the court to assist in understanding why.