A petition calling on Surrey County Council to ban cycling on a dual carriageway between Leatherhead and Dorking is to be considered next week. Leatherhead driving instructor Martin Davies, who started the petition, has argued that cycling on the A24 is “very dangerous for all road users, especially the cyclists.”
The Surrey Mirror reports that Davies’ petition attracted 306 signatures and will now be discussed on November 9.
Davies will be given three minutes to speak and says he will be urging the council to improve the cycle paths that run alongside the main road – local cyclists having previously said that they avoid them due to the condition they are in.
It has also been pointed out that on the cycle paths bikes don’t have right of way at junctions, meaning it can at times be less safe to cross.
Speaking in August, Davies said: “When I set up the petition I worded it in a way to bring attention to the council about how dangerous the road is and show how the cycle lanes need to be improved to make it more accessible. I know I got a lot of abusive responses so it backfired a bit on me, but it’s all about their safety. If there are better cycle lanes this would make it safer for both cyclists and drivers.”
After Davies has spoken, the council will put forward its response.
44 thoughts on “Surrey County Council to debate banning cycling on A24 following petition”
It always amazes me that
It always amazes me that cycle lanes in this country never have right of way and are often more dangerous than just using the road (which does have right of way).
hawkinspeter wrote:
I always say that when my wife complains about “cyclists not using the cycle path”. I tell her to imagine having to almost slow to a stop here (driveway entrance) and again here (same) and again (same) and again (same), and now here (side road), and here (another driveway), and here (another side road), all while ghoing steeply downhill… And I then say, “And that’s why people cycle on the road there.”
I ride regularly on fast A
I ride regularly on fast A roads here – A45, A5, A34 etc much prefer them to slow surban roads. I don;t know this road but to claim cycle paths are the answer is stupid ….
What we need to identify is
What we need to identify is what makes this road dangerous then restrict access to that user group….
I’ll say it again. If you
I’ll say it again. If you genuinely want road danger reduction on the A24, we need to ban motorised vehicles from it.
Did this chap really start
Did this chap really start the petition:
A) Out of the goodness of his heart, due to his concern for cyclists safety
or
B) Because he doesn’t like having to worry about cyclists safety whilst driving on this road (and the slowing down, extra concentration etc. it can require)
?
If this petion sorts out the
If this petion sorts out the awful cycle paths either side of that road then push on!
thing is I want to ride on
thing is I want to ride on the fast roads, perfect for test time trailing and intervals !! I am not interested in using cycle paths if honest.
Why does anyone want to cycle
Why does anyone want to cycle on the A24 when there’s a massive cycle path next to it? It’s not like it’s a pleasant road, it’s full of cars doing 50mph. Bizarre why anyone would have an issue with this.
drosco wrote:
Because it is frequented by pedestrians and runners and dog walkers and beginners on bikes and kids (even though there is a pedestrian lane right next ot it) … need I go on?
As is previously mentioned, if you want to ride fast and without interuption (and have right of way at junctions) the cycle path/bike lane is not appropriate.
If Mr Taxi driver is really interested in everyones safety why doesn’t he petition for a lowering of the speed limit to 40 mph? At 40 mph the section he is concerned about could have the right hand lane narrowed slightly, leaving a very wide left hand lane with ample room for cars and bicycles.
kevvjj wrote:
Have you ridden it?
As you say, there’s a separate path for cyclists and pedestrians. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve had issues with dog walkers, kids on it. Everyone is aware it’s heavily used by cyclists, so people take account of this.
People use it to get to Box Hill. Who would want to risk getting there at all for the sake of riding a bit slower on the cycle path?
drosco wrote:
Yes, I ride the section from Denbies to Box weekly. Most sundays I have to avoid people mandering on the path, especially around the Stepping Stones area. I also have to regularly avoid cars parked on the path too. You are wrong if you think that “Everyone is aware it’s heavily used by cyclists”
drosco wrote:
You seem to be struggling with the idea of there being different types of cycling, and the ‘drosco bike use case’ doesn’t appear particularly comprehensive.
Mr Driving Instructor wants cyclists off the road because he wants his students to let rip without the inconvenience of training them in how to deal with cyclists on it. Another cyclist expecting significantly faster riders to HAVE to use the cycle path because they themselves can’t conceive of coasting along at 24mph on their way to a Box Hill session seems more bigoted, to me.
davel wrote:
Have you ridden it?
As you say, there’s a separate path for cyclists and pedestrians. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve had issues with dog walkers, kids on it. Everyone is aware it’s heavily used by cyclists, so people take account of this.
People use it to get to Box Hill. Who would want to risk getting there at all for the sake of riding a bit slower on the cycle path?
— kevvjj You seem to be struggling with the idea of there being different types of cycling, and the ‘drosco bike use case’ doesn’t appear particularly comprehensive. Mr Driving Instructor wants cyclists off the road because he wants his students to let rip without the inconvenience of training them in how to deal with cyclists on it. Another cyclist expecting significantly faster riders to HAVE to use the cycle path because they themselves can’t conceive of coasting along at 24mph on their way to a Box Hill session seems more bigoted, to me.— drosco
Just for reference, if the price of getting proper cycleways alongside the A24, or any similar road is that you had to use them, and average maybe 20mph rather than 24mph, I’m voting for the cycleways. Unfortunately Surrey CC have absolutely no idea how to build them.
If you’re not happy about that, I suggest you join what’s left of the British VC movement. I think their monthly meetings are now held in a telephone box in Leeds.
bikebot wrote:
If I’m not happy about what exactly? Your specific conditions for giving your approval for cyclepaths along the A24? Your take on what constitutes ‘proper cycleways’? Your opinion on Surrey CC’s transport and infrastructure departments? Have you got a TUE for what you took to think I should feel any emotion about that?
I was addressing drosco – but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads ‘for our own safety’.
davel wrote:
Have you ridden it?
As you say, there’s a separate path for cyclists and pedestrians. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve had issues with dog walkers, kids on it. Everyone is aware it’s heavily used by cyclists, so people take account of this.
People use it to get to Box Hill. Who would want to risk getting there at all for the sake of riding a bit slower on the cycle path?
— davel You seem to be struggling with the idea of there being different types of cycling, and the ‘drosco bike use case’ doesn’t appear particularly comprehensive. Mr Driving Instructor wants cyclists off the road because he wants his students to let rip without the inconvenience of training them in how to deal with cyclists on it. Another cyclist expecting significantly faster riders to HAVE to use the cycle path because they themselves can’t conceive of coasting along at 24mph on their way to a Box Hill session seems more bigoted, to me.— drosco
Just for reference, if the price of getting proper cycleways alongside the A24, or any similar road is that you had to use them, and average maybe 20mph rather than 24mph, I’m voting for the cycleways. Unfortunately Surrey CC have absolutely no idea how to build them.
If you’re not happy about that, I suggest you join what’s left of the British VC movement. I think their monthly meetings are now held in a telephone box in Leeds.
— kevvjj If I’m not happy about what exactly? Your specific conditions for giving your approval for cyclepaths along the A24? Your take on what constitutes ‘proper cycleways’? Your opinion on Surrey CC’s transport and infrastructure departments? Have you got a TUE for what you took to think I should feel any emotion about that? I was addressing drosco – but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads ‘for our own safety’.— drosco
What makes you assume you’re a faster rider? I have the whole of Surrey to ride quickly, however for this short stretch I ride at a pace suitable for the cycle path, which itself is still a reasonable pace. So I can’t go flat out for 5 minutes on what is not a particularly exciting bit of flat road. Big deal. Is it really worth mixing it with fast moving cars for that?
drosco wrote:
If I’m not happy about what exactly? Your specific conditions for giving your approval for cyclepaths along the A24? Your take on what constitutes ‘proper cycleways’? Your opinion on Surrey CC’s transport and infrastructure departments? Have you got a TUE for what you took to think I should feel any emotion about that? I was addressing drosco – but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads ‘for our own safety’.— kevvjj
What makes you assume you’re a faster rider? I have the whole of Surrey to ride quickly, however for this short stretch I ride at a pace suitable for the cycle path, which itself is still a reasonable pace. So I can’t go flat out for 5 minutes on what is not a particularly exciting bit of flat road. Big deal. Is it really worth mixing it with fast moving cars for that?— drosco
Easy there: my point isn’t that you’re slow, or that I’m fast.
My point is that just because you don’t want to use that road for your bike use, if you’re judgemental about cyclists who do want to use it for different reasons, ultimately you’re not too far away from this silly driving instructor (and possibly worse in the empathy stakes, being a cyclist and all). But at least you haven’t got all petitiony about it… Have you?
davel wrote:
Have you ridden it?
As you say, there’s a separate path for cyclists and pedestrians. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve had issues with dog walkers, kids on it. Everyone is aware it’s heavily used by cyclists, so people take account of this.
People use it to get to Box Hill. Who would want to risk getting there at all for the sake of riding a bit slower on the cycle path?
— davel You seem to be struggling with the idea of there being different types of cycling, and the ‘drosco bike use case’ doesn’t appear particularly comprehensive. Mr Driving Instructor wants cyclists off the road because he wants his students to let rip without the inconvenience of training them in how to deal with cyclists on it. Another cyclist expecting significantly faster riders to HAVE to use the cycle path because they themselves can’t conceive of coasting along at 24mph on their way to a Box Hill session seems more bigoted, to me.— bikebot
Just for reference, if the price of getting proper cycleways alongside the A24, or any similar road is that you had to use them, and average maybe 20mph rather than 24mph, I’m voting for the cycleways. Unfortunately Surrey CC have absolutely no idea how to build them.
If you’re not happy about that, I suggest you join what’s left of the British VC movement. I think their monthly meetings are now held in a telephone box in Leeds.
— davel If I’m not happy about what exactly? Your specific conditions for giving your approval for cyclepaths along the A24? Your take on what constitutes ‘proper cycleways’? Your opinion on Surrey CC’s transport and infrastructure departments? Have you got a TUE for what you took to think I should feel any emotion about that? I was addressing drosco – but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads ‘for our own safety’.— drosco
What makes you assume you’re a faster rider? I have the whole of Surrey to ride quickly, however for this short stretch I ride at a pace suitable for the cycle path, which itself is still a reasonable pace. So I can’t go flat out for 5 minutes on what is not a particularly exciting bit of flat road. Big deal. Is it really worth mixing it with fast moving cars for that?
— kevvjj Easy there: my point isn’t that you’re slow, or that I’m fast. My point is that just because you don’t want to use that road for your bike use, if you’re judgemental about cyclists who do want to use it for different reasons, ultimately you’re not too far away from this silly driving instructor (and possibly worse in the empathy stakes, being a cyclist and all). But at least you haven’t got all petitiony about it… Have you?— drosco
Unlike the driving instructor, I don’t care whether people use it or not, it’s your life your risking, not mine, but I think the reasons for not using it are quite trivial. Its a wide, comparitively smooth cycle lane, which is separated from both the main road and pedestrians. What more could the council do to make provision for cyclists? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for drivers to ask why cyclists aren’t using it.
drosco wrote:
If I’m not happy about what exactly? Your specific conditions for giving your approval for cyclepaths along the A24? Your take on what constitutes ‘proper cycleways’? Your opinion on Surrey CC’s transport and infrastructure departments? Have you got a TUE for what you took to think I should feel any emotion about that? I was addressing drosco – but the general point is: down with people trying to ban bikes from A roads ‘for our own safety’.— davel
What makes you assume you’re a faster rider? I have the whole of Surrey to ride quickly, however for this short stretch I ride at a pace suitable for the cycle path, which itself is still a reasonable pace. So I can’t go flat out for 5 minutes on what is not a particularly exciting bit of flat road. Big deal. Is it really worth mixing it with fast moving cars for that?
— drosco Easy there: my point isn’t that you’re slow, or that I’m fast. My point is that just because you don’t want to use that road for your bike use, if you’re judgemental about cyclists who do want to use it for different reasons, ultimately you’re not too far away from this silly driving instructor (and possibly worse in the empathy stakes, being a cyclist and all). But at least you haven’t got all petitiony about it… Have you?— kevvjj
Unlike the driving instructor, I don’t care whether people use it or not, it’s your life your risking, not mine, but I think the reasons for not using it are quite trivial. Its a wide, comparitively smooth cycle lane, which is separated from both the main road and pedestrians. What more could the council do to make provision for cyclists? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for drivers to ask why cyclists aren’t using it.— drosco
Without an agenda, I totally agree. Councils, sustains and the like should be interested in the responses.
But when do drivers say ‘why aren’t you using the cycle lane?’ without actually meaning ‘get off the fooking road’?
davel wrote:
Yeah, I’d call that dogma. Here’s the A3.
If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I’m completely fine with that. I’ve never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.
Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I’ve riden on it myself many time. Not that I’m defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.
I’d rather be asking Surrey why they don’t build protected space. At all. Ever.
bikebot wrote:
Yeah, I’d call that dogma. Here’s the A3.
…
If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I’m completely fine with that. I’ve never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.
Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I’ve riden on it myself many time. Not that I’m defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.
I’d rather be asking Surrey why they don’t build protected space. At all. Ever.— davel
I don’t think that was their point. I think they’re worried about it setting a precedent (ie. successfully ban cycling from one particularly horrible A road, then use that as a precedent for banning cyclists from more and more A roads). But I think that’s a red herring: if someone wanted to do that (ie. creeping ban) then they would just look to the increasing use of those spatial ASBO things…
brooksby wrote:
Or just use the existing precedents for A road bans note in the comments above. It won’t create a precedent as said precedent already exists.
brooksby wrote:
PSPOs are a much bigger problem. Local authority abuse of such powers builds very quickly.
Absolutely. I’d be more concerned about the precendent that many very dangerous A roads ARE designated cycle routes.
bikebot wrote:
Yeah, I’d call that dogma. Here’s the A3.
If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I’m completely fine with that. I’ve never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.
Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I’ve riden on it myself many time. Not that I’m defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.
I’d rather be asking Surrey why they don’t build protected space. At all. Ever.— davel
We’re mixing general points/specific examples here – yes, some A roads might not be great for cycling.
Options for the A24:
A – build quality separate infrastructure, which you accept yourself won’t happen
B – boot bikes off the road, onto a shared path that some people don’t like and certainly doesn’t fit your A criteria.
You’ve said yourself that you’d only support B once A is in place, but also that A won’t happen, so in this scenario, I’m struggling to get your point. Alternative scenario surely is to keep as is, maybe make drivers less likely to hit bikes on the A24, but you don’t seem to be arguing that.
* sorry – edit didn’t come through quick enough.
davel wrote:
Yeah, I’d call that dogma. Here’s the A3.
If someone wants to remove that, put a high quality parallel cycleways in, and then ban cycling on that stretch of A road, I’m completely fine with that. I’ve never seen a cyclists use it, ever. Easy pragmatic choice, if in some bizarre scenario I ever had to choose one or the other.
Same deal for the A24 to be honest, even though I’ve riden on it myself many time. Not that I’m defending this driving instructor who has fairly transparent motives, or that the shared use path is viable as is.
I’d rather be asking Surrey why they don’t build protected space. At all. Ever.
— bikebot We’re mixing general points/specific examples here – yes, some A roads might not be great for cycling. Options for the A24: A – build quality separate infrastructure, which you accept yourself won’t happen B – boot bikes off the road, onto a shared path that some people don’t like and certainly doesn’t fit your A criteria. You’ve said yourself that you’d only support B once A is in place, but also that A won’t happen, so in this scenario, I’m struggling to get your point.— davel
I don’t accept that A won’t happen. Campaigning is about changing opinion to make A happen. The most likely scenario is to remain as is, but from a campaigning view that’s a reluctant position of least harm. It won’t lead to any increase in cycling, and there’s almost nothing you can do to a road such as the A24 short of infrastructure that will achieve that.
No problem 😉
bikebot wrote:
Ok… So we’re not in massive disagreement. When we reach Utopia, we’ll have suitable infrastructure and won’t need to bomb down A roads. Today, in Surrey, the timescale for the suitable cyclepath alongside the A24 is….?
Meanwhile, what – status quo?
What I’m really arguing against is seemingly drosco’s agreement with the driving instructor: get cyclists off the road because a shit shared use path exists.
There maybe precedents for that, but that doesn’t mean that Surrey will or can use them for the justification, does it? Or that each case shouldn’t be fought individually.
davel wrote:
Correct!
No idea, I live in London and find Surrey’s politics baffling. But attitudes can change in one generation, that’s a lesson from London.
Agreed. Although If I had to ride that road tonight, at say 5pm I’d appreciate that shared path a lot more than I would on a Sunday morning.
Probably not. But my very first point, was that the debate could even be useful, if it’s an opportunity to remind the County Council what the problems are. I’d tell them what would remove any desire for those cycling to use the road, rather than treat it as a matter of rights.
Can people please stop
Can people please stop referring to this as a “cycle path“, it is a SHARED PATHWAY!
There is no lawful reason to ban cyclist from an A-road especially one such as the A24. It is wide enough and provides ample distance to see an upcoming cyclists and adjust speed position in the road to safely overtake.
The shared pathway is not fit for the purpose of road cyclists at high speeds; the recommended maximum speed limit on a shared pathway is 18mph. It is uneven, full of debris, often floods in places resulting in sludge on the surface once drained, there are several hidden driveways leading across it, a road breaking it apart, and at points narrows to barely a single track on a blind bend (there have been several head on collisions at this point).
If bikes are to be separated from the road, then there needs to be a new cycle path built directly adjacent to the road so that cyclists can safely exit the road and re-join the road at the other end and this cycle lane would have to have right off way across the driveways and turnings along the A24.
I’ve commute regularly on this road both on bicycle and in car and there is no need for a ban based on what can only be described as individuals dislike to a minor inconvenience to their self-importance. Other than motorways, roads were not built solely for cars and people need to start commuting cooperatively and being more considerate to one another when on the roads.
It would certainly set a
It would certainly set a precedent to ban cyclists from A roads if this went through.
Danger Dicko wrote:
The problem is that the A1 just north of London is very different to the A1120 or A134 in Suffolk.
A main dual carriageway vs a narrow winding country road, but both are A roads. Of course the average motorist doesn’t really care so long as those cyclists are outta their way.
WillRod wrote:
Don’t know this road so won’t comment on the specific road and shared path, but there are a number of A roads currently where cycling is banned so there are precedents already. The A720 Edinburgh by-pass is one and the A90 across the Forth Road Bridge another (cycles can go across the shared path beside the carriageway).
If I understand from other threads there are very specific requirements for other routes to be available for bike traffic.
First 17.4 million people was
First 17.4 million people was deemed enough to initiate taking away our citizenship of the European Union. Now 306 people are apparently enough to start the process of taking away our freedom to cycle on A-roads. Whatever happened to the principle that the rights of the individual are inalienable?
To add to DanMoore85 ‘s
To add to DanMoore85 ‘s comment. The average number of pedal cycles on that road has increased nearly 10 times in a decade (DfT stats) – not surprising, as it’s near Box Hill & the AONB/Ride London-Surrey route. The paths are woefully inadequate to take the amount of 20mph+ roadie bike traffic the area sees at the weekend. Especially since rider groups are frequent. Here’s a pic of one section:
https://goo.gl/maps/oUH4urgByTT2
Imagine London Dynamo and Kingston Wheelers groups meeting there from opposite directions.
But over the same period the section of road the driving instructor is exercised about has one of the best cycling safety records in the area (see Crashmap). It’s at junctions like the one on the Streetview link and at the roundabouts that most of the collisions have occurred, but no more frequently than anywhere else on the local network (and maybe less).
So there doesn’t seem to be a case for shunting riders off the road. The only case is to improve the paths for slower riders such as people carrying kids in seats, who may not be so comfortable with fast, stinky and noisy motor traffic but are equally uncomfortable with the shaking of the path surface.
In the more civil country to
In the more civil country to the east across the sea, the Time Triallists happily train on rural cycleways by the equivalent of A roads. The road racers belt up and down cycleways and back roads with nary a care in the world.
But I object to being banned until the cycling provsiion is at that standard.
As an aside, the A14 upgrade project is going to include banning cycles from the existing road between Girton Interchange and Swavesey, and the new road from Swavesey to the A1. But there’s a new road and cycleway along side as part of this.
And there are other A-Roads that have had cycling banned, not just those where the signs are now Blue and there’s a (M) after the number.
In fairness, I mostly use the
In fairness, I mostly use the ‘shared path’ between Dorking and Weshumble because I hate riding on that particular stretch of duel carridgeway, it may be a 50 limit but its always swarming with bikes and cars doing far more. Plus its an opportunity to chill out and take some food onboard after Coldharbour/Ranmore. The stretch of path between Denbies and Rykas isn’t too bad, although having to use the underpass is a pain, but far nicer than the roundabout where people in the right hand lane try and take it flat out. The stretch from Dorking to Denbies however, forget it, its appaling and is just a pavement.
The other option is to reduce the speedlimit between Dorking and Box to 30/40 with enforcement, as basically this stretch is the main issue here. I also feel it’s the responibility of clubs to ride with consideration to traffic along this stretch, as a 50 limit on duel caridgeway with a meandering group taking up a whole lane is just giving the anti-bike lobby the perfect ammo.
I agree that these particular
I agree that these particular shared use paths truly suck – last time I used them I got a pinch puncture. That ought not to even be possible on a signposted cycle path IMHO. To be fair there is very little pedestrian traffic on most of it, so I don’t have such a problem with shared use as in any urban or semi urban environment.
As for trying to ban cycling on the road… well… I don’t really think that’s notivated by concern for others.
I’m sure we could get more
I’m sure we could get more than 306 cyclists to sign a petition to ban cars from the A24 (all for the sake of the safety of the motorists obviously)
I wonder if they would debate that.
I wonder why he thinks he is
I wonder why he thinks he is more capable than I am of deciding what is or isn’t safe for me to do.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Several possibilities:
Or my favourite option:
I’m sure there are a million more reasons so it would be easy to come up with 306 wouldn’t it?
If it makes Surrey CC
If it makes Surrey CC consider some of the reasons why people don’t use it, it might even be a helpful debate. Their mindset on infrastructure is still stuck in the 1980’s.
I oppose this, but I don’t have a problem with the idea of restricting cycling on fast dual lane A roads, where dedicated cycleways of a high standard have been built. I’ve put that in bold before I get a dozen replies about dogs walkers, broken glass, lack of priority etc. There are very few places in the UK that meet that standard, I’m not sure Surrey has any.
A lot of comments, but most
A lot of comments, but most seem to be missing the point that highway authorities have a duty to make their roads safe for all users. ALL, not just some. If cyclists and pedestrians have a legal right to use this road, the highway authority should be making it safe for them to do so, not banning them.
Unless the HA provide a route which is at least as direct, and at least as safe, they would be on very shakey legal grounds if they banned vulnerable users from that road.
burtthebike wrote:
A century of case law doesn’t really support that belief. That’s the reality of the country we live in. Minimal legal support, minimal political support. Atttitudes improve when looking at urban environments, but rural A roads are a problem.
Rejected.
Rejected.
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g4618/Decisions%20Wednesday%2009-Nov-2016%2014.00%20Cabinet%20Member%20for%20Highways%20Transport%20and%20Flooding%20Decisio.pdf?T=2
Jitensha Oni wrote: