- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Mapperley CC cyclist on an Orbea bike in a time trial (licensed CC BY SA 2.0 by Liam H on Twitter).jpgPetition launched seeking to ban cyclists from Buckinghamshire's dual carriageways after rider killed last week
A petition has been launched on Buckinghamshire County Council’s website calling for cyclists to be banned from dual carriageways in the county following the death last week of 91-year-old Raymond Dare, who was hit from the rear by a van driver as he took part in a time trial near Ayslesbury.
> Cyclist, 91, killed while taking part in time trial in Buckinghamshire
The text of the petition, posted last Friday and open until 18 August, reads:
We the undersigned petition the council to Ban cyclists from the high speed dual carriageways county wide
With the sad death of a cyclist taking part in a time trial on the A41 this week it is time the local transport agency did something about the very unsafe practice of cycling on dual carriageways. Cyclists are banned from motorways and many of the counties dual carriageways have the same speed limit of 70mph however there is no hard shoulder so it is in effect more dangerous than a motorway for them.
At the time of writing, 78 people had signed the petition.
Similar petitions have been drawn up before, sometimes following a fatal incident in which a cyclist was killed, such as one posted to UK Parliament site in 2015 calling for bicycles to be banned from the A50 in Derbyshire and Staffordshire.
It attracted 136 signatures, with 10,000 needed to trigger a response from the government, and 100,000 required for the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee to consider holding a debate on the issues raised.
Conservative MP for Burton, Andrew Griffiths, backed that petition, saying: “I can completely understand why residents want to start this petition against the cycling time trials. We’ve seen deaths on the A50 and I’ve seen myself near misses.
> MP supports petition calling for time trialling to be banned on A50
“I think unfortunately cyclists bring it [the petition] on themselves,” he continued.
“Many time trials aren’t well run and aren’t signposted," he claimed.
"Safety measures aren’t in place and unless cyclists start taking it more seriously these calls for cyclists to be banned will only continue.
“It would be a shame for cyclists but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other road users.
“One option would be to put warnings and signs at every junction.
“You can get onto the A50 and before you know it there is a cyclist right in front of you.”
Last November, we reported how Surrey County Council had rejected a petition with 306 signatories that had sought to ban cyclists from the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking, popular with riders particularly at the weekend since it is one of the main access points to the Box Hill loop.
> A24 cycling ban rejected by Surrey County Council
The council said that it had the powers to prohibit the use of a road by cyclists, but not a duty to do so. The Prohibition of Cyclists Traffic Orders are made under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, and this would require extensive consultation.
"This type of proposal would also require the support of the police, as they would be responsible for enforcing any traffic order of this type.
"This proposal would set an unjustified precedent that would also create an additional budget pressure for the cost of consultation, advertising and potentially enacting a traffic order, signs and enforcement.
"It is acknowledged that this section of the A24 formed part of the Olympic Cycle Route, in 2012, and the use of the road has brought cycling tourism to the area,” the council added.
"Any proposal to ban cycling from the A24 would not support the Surrey County Council's cycling strategy, in particular that 'we will support cycling as healthy, inclusive and affordable'."
Please note: This article was amended on 27 July 2017 to clarify comments made by Andrew Griffiths MP in an interview with the Uttoxeter News in 2014.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- slappop 44 min 37 sec ago
Hopefully it'll still be allowed for recreational use.
- Bungle_52 1 hour 36 min ago
Well Gloucestershire are getting better. I'm being told whether or not action is to be taken, but not what action, within a few days of each report...
- belugabob 2 hours 23 min ago
Surely Lincolnshire is a prime location for UK cycle infrastructure - after all, it's flat, so should assuage the most common excuse that people...
- KDee 2 hours 36 min ago
Yes! 100% a Pace!
- Zazz53 3 hours 57 min ago
I did my first BC intro to coaching course last year and really enjoyed it. But I am not a member of a cycling club and ride with groups of like...
- DogOfOB 4 hours 2 min ago
Hmm - crashing off the side of a mountain at 48kmh sounds a lot safer than crashing off the side of a mountain at 55. Yeah....
- Surreyrider 4 hours 5 min ago
Churnalism nowadays - mostly clickbait stuff and regurgitation in the local rags/comics and beyond.
- DogOfOB 4 hours 17 min ago
I'm glad the barrier wasn't damaged. Whew, close one there! \s
- bensynnock 4 hours 27 min ago
I repurposed a bent rear derailleur hanger into a keyring. It's very useful, and you can use it to open bottles of beer.
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 41 min ago
My bum hates Flites. Worse saddle ever for me.
Add new comment
99 comments
That in itself has to give the council food for thought, even if it just makes them discuss how significant cycling is in the modern world.
Oh the irony.
Victim blaming?
Now 354v115
I haven't heard of many mass pile ups of cyclists on such roads though. It is adding cars and speeds as mentioned that make these 'roads' dangerous - ban the car!
Brilliant, isn't it?
Being pragmatic, 'build better infrastructure' is far more likely to have a positive reception than 'ban the car' isn't it.
Don't lower yourself to their level of stupidity and ignorance.
As for 'mass pile up's of cyclists' I presume you're deliberately missing the point and being obtuse.. you've read this article haven't you? So you know the danger presented to cyclists on these roads as they are currently. No amount of improvement to enforcement or prosecution (welcome as it may be), will completely remove that danger.
You don't see any equivalence - people doing legal things having their freedom restricted to accommodate other people's inability to obey the law?
Guess you're well qualified to be a motorist.
I'm a cyclist actually, and I do not see any equivalence between rape and the discussion in hand, bringing a vile crime like rape into a discussion about banning cyclists on roads is at the very least distasteful.
And you don't think that killing a man because you couldn't be bothered looking us a 'vile crime'. Just because we have normalised the dangerous activity that is driving doesn't make killing people any less 'vile'.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to retype your message so that it makes sense.
Killing is vile in all its manifestations, and not one us here would disagree but mentioning rape has nothing to do with this conversation and on this matter I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
I'll repeat again for the obtuse, but the original comment was hinting very heavily towards VICTIM BLAMING.
Perhaps not good to introduce rape as peeps are likely to jump on a tangent of arguments, but hey!
Have yourself a good day and don't waste too much more time fighting with all and sundry.
I was trying to re-phrase the original petition in terms that make its victim blaming more obvious. Yes, rape has nothing to do with this, except that it's a violent crime against innocent people and has a history of victim blaming. Maybe you can see the parallels with cyclists being killed and then blamed as they were wearing the 'wrong' clothes or using the 'wrong' roads.
Anyhow, I didn't intend for you to take my suggestion literally.
"Nobody has yet signed this ePetition."
Signed
"182 people have signed this ePetition."
It's not really a misconception or even a good point.
If someone says dual carriage way you know exactly what conception they have in their head. However it just doesn't exclusively cover that road type.
And before you think of it, yes of course I know you'd need something much more specific in actual legislation.
But if you want to carry on counting Angels on Pinheads and avoiding the underlying issue - go for it!
So you seem to have a crazyportal into the head of the originator of the petition. If you read the petition and concluded that it was written in such a way that suggested the author knew exactly what a dual carriageway was, I've got a bridge to sell you.
If the author intended the petition to cover all 'dangerous' or 'fast' roads then it's on the author to define what that means. There are plenty of dual carriageways that are safe for cyclists.
If the author does know exactly what a dual carriageway is, and still wants cyclists off them all, then that's more sinister. Have a good look into your crazyportal and tell me exactly where that ends.
So he's either a fool or a knave.
In either case, the situation we have is a badly written petitiion that might as well cover 'single-lane carriageways' and be equally laughed at, or - worse - blanket bullshit like in the petition being seriously kicked around.
edit: I read Crampy's sensible post after I typed this
Keep signing, people.
Don't understand the hostility. I was clarifying that the popular perception of a dual carriageway isn't the reality, so therefore people signing the petition have no clear idea of the outcome which makes it technically 'void'.
Why am I 'avoiding the underlying issue'?
You're not... IanMunro doesn't like cyclists.
Signed 158
Signed, now at 150
143 now.
Signed. Now 141.
How about if we changed the subject to pissheads?
“It would be a shame for drinkers but they desperately need to do something to protect themselves from other drinkers."
Can you imagine the outrage if we wanted to ban drinking but yet that HAS been proven to CAUSE all manner of unfortunate incidents and criminal behaviour....but cycling's not really worth any tax, so......
Oi, I'm not a pisshead, I'm a vulnerable alcohol user
cyclist petition has overtaken the motorists, small numbers though.
Most other countries automatically ban cyclists, tractors, mopeds, horse drawn vehicles from motorways and dual-carriageways, and for good reason.
We get everything wrong is this backward little country of ours, and it sometimes costs people their lives.
1. They are banned from motorways.
2. Explain to me what a dual carriageway is. You're probably making the same mistake as the fool who created the original petition - assuming they're 70mph, minimum four-lane -
but that isn't the case. That ignorance regarding the current road layout extends to the 'solution' of removing vulnerable users, which the later petition addresses.
3. "We get everything wrong". Oh go and wet your bed somewhere else.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to define dual carriageway.
That's actually a very good point. What people generically call dual carriageway is a misconception.
A dual carriageway is a road where the two CARRIAGEWAYS are physically separated in the middle - this could be via a central reservation or barrier. It doesn't mean that there are two LANES in each direction, you can easily have a dual carriageway with only one lane each way.
The speed on dual carriageways is also variable, it is not necessarily a 'high speed road'. You can have a dual carriageway in built up environments with a speed restriction of 30mph.
Pages