Highways England is reported to be proposing a ban on cyclists using a stretch of one of its roads near Hull. The A63 Trunk Road forms part of the V718 course on which Marcin Bialoblocki set the 10-mile time trial record of 16m35s in 2016, but Highways England wants all cyclists excluded for safety reasons.
Writing on the Hull Thursday Road Club Facebook page, Club Time Trial Secretary Paul Kilvington said that he had received a number of reports that Highways England was proposing a Traffic Regulation Order to ban cyclists from the A63.
He later posted a copy of the document.
In a ‘statement of reasons’ Highways England writes:
“Concerns have been raised for the safety of cyclists using the A63 Trunk Road between North Cave Interchange and Daltry Street Interchange. Cyclists are travelling on a carriageway that carries average speeds of 65mph for traffic, at a rate of over 2,500 vehicles per hour. In the last 5 years there have been six accidents involving cyclists, including a fatality in 2013.
“In the interest of road safety, Highways England Company Limited is proposing to ban cyclists on this stretch of road, including the associated slip roads.
“East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Kingston upon Hull City Council and Humberside Police support this proposal.”
The document states that the consultation period closes on February 19.
Written objections can be submitted to the office of the Director, Operations Directorate (Yorkshire and North East), Highways England, 3rd Floor South, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds LS11 9AT, quoting the order title “The A63 Trunk Road (North Cave Interchange to Daltry Street Interchange) (Prohibition of Cyclists) Order.”
In 2013, a coroner’s court returned a finding of accidental death after a rider in a time trial died following a collision with a stationary caravan on the A63.
Christopher Auker, 65, riding in a tuck and looking downwards, realised the danger at the last moment and was unable to avoid hitting the caravan, whose driver had pulled over after a puncture. He sustained head, spinal and thoracic injuries and died at the scene.
Speaking after the incident, Auker’s widow Elizabeth said: “Neither Chris nor I had any worries about this course – we both felt time-trials were safer on a dual carriageway where there is room for traffic to overtake.
“This was a freak accident that could not have been foreseen and nothing to do with the time-trial course.”
In 2015, then World Time Trial Champion, Sir Bradley Wiggins, rode Hull City Road Club’s 10-mile time trial on the A63. Footage of him riding the course can be seen here.
Highways England has been contacted for further comment.
116 thoughts on “Highways England wants to ban cyclists from the UK’s fastest time trial course”
Why not ban motors from any
Why not ban motors from any road there’s been a death on, you know for safety reasons.
If drivers drove properly and bothered to look, safety for people doing time trials or in fact any type of cycling is not an issue, the road in question has excellent sight lines and even at 70mph you can see everything you need to see. Given that the speeds are in the 25mph region and up to 35 in some cases this isn’t much less than some particular vehicles or even older drivers do plus the events are held at off peak times.
More BS in the name of H&S and yet ignores the actual problem that being motorists who can’t drive safely. I hope it’s opposed vigorously.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Except the fatality was due a rider riding unsafely.
This isn’t unprecedented. Here in the States our club had our own fatality when a TT rider on a closed road loop plowed into a pedestrian, older gentleman, who was killed because that rider too had his nose on the stem.
So credit where credit’s due, eh?
So, Highways England wants to
So, Highways England wants to ban cyclists from a road on which they can legally ride because the motorists drive really fast so it’s too dangerous… Why not reduce the speed limit instead?
If the response is restrictions on cyclists there then it runs the risk of setting a really bad precedent for banishing cyclists to the unclassified lanes.
Looking at it from a purely transport perspective, what are the nearby alternative routes like? I bet they’re not direct or obviously signposted, cos that road was built to be all that?
I’m with BehindTheBikesheds.
I’m with BehindTheBikesheds.
If approved this would be the thin edge of the wedge. We’d see cyclist being banned from roads all over the country.
Think the best response would be for cyclist to congregate on mass and ride up and down that road to make the point that it is motorists killing cyclist, not cyclist killing themselves on the road.
Unless cyclists start getting more active, and extremist, we’ll never see the the law being properly applied and the anti-cyclying movement stopped.
gcommie wrote:
Agreed. I would actually travel to Hull from Reading just to participate in a demonstration ride to stand up for what is right here.
The proposal is insidious.
How many of the cyclists caused the collisions they were involved in? How many were caused by people driving motorised vehicles?
How many other collisions and KSIs have there been on that stretch of road, and what vehciles were involved? We need to see the statistics to compare and contrast to ascertain which vehicle type is the most dangerous and therefore in need of potentially banning from this stretch of road. I suspect it won’t be the humble bicycle. But, you know, “killer fixies with no front brake”.
It’s a proposed TRO, and the
It’s a proposed TRO, and the legal process requires the local authority to advertise it and invite comment/objections. Only after they have covered all comments and overturned (with evidence/legal reasoning) can they move to enacting the order.
They also have to provide a Statement of Reasons – this is where the authority frames the “evidence” to support it. The evidence in this case is flimsy to say the least – it would be interesting if they could provide numbers of drivers of particular makes/colours of vehicle in collisions, which is exactly what they’ve done here. A bicycle is just another vehicle on the road in legal terms.
Objections can be raised, and I’d recommend you do so. You don’t have to live there, or even ever be likely to use the road concerned to comment on these proposals. When I worked for a local authority in Manchester we regularly got objections from a gentleman in Devon who clearly just had a lot of time on his hands. As we are all tax payers, we are “stakeholders” on the public highway so each comment is as valid as the next.
I’ll be writing to them to query the evidence and question whether a road with a similar number of motor-vehicle incidents/injuries/deaths has given rise to similar action. By all means comment on here, but write to them and they are legally required to respond to you.
Zermattjohn wrote:
Exactly this. No time for clicktivism right now, we have until 19 Feb to properly engage with the process.
Drinfinity wrote:
Except that most responses to council type consultations seem to end up getting filed in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet in the basement…
brooksby wrote:
They’re required (by law) to respond to your comment, and explain whether they’re agreeing with it, or overturning it. If over-turning it they need to explain why. Maybe with some informal consultations you might have found this not being the case, but they have to follow the procedures. If they don’t, and “make” (ie, create and enforce the TRO) then they may be subject to a legal challenge – so I doubt they’d do this.
The procedure the local authority MUST follow in TRO proposals is summarised here in case you’re interested http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06013
So instead of performing
So instead of performing their legal duty, and making the road safe for all users, they want to ban the victims? They will of course be investing millions into a really top quality alternative route won’t they? Sorry, rhetorical question, of course they won’t.
I’m beginning to think that Trump is infectious, or at least has given idiots licence to peddle their nonsense.
That decision is Irish at
That decision is Irish at best
All bow down to the great God, Car!
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
What’s ‘Irish’ about it?
Leviathan wrote:
What’s with the Irish jibe?
What’s with the Irish jibe? You fucking English cunt !
Plasterer's Radio wrote:
Heh English twat? Feck off!
English cunt
English cunt
Absolute madness to be racing
Absolute madness to be racing on roads like that. Take a look at the vid of the rider Wiggins passed – crazy stuff with that amount of traffic.
What?
What?
“That amount of traffic” is the problem, not one bike or two or three.
There’s 3 people live in the house next door to me, 3 cars. Both parents work, one less than 5 miles away the other maybe 800 metres. The son goes to 6th form college on the same site as the school my children walk to.
That amount of traffic.
alansmurphy wrote:
But it’s still crazy to be racing on that road.
JohnnyRemo wrote:
But it’s still crazy to be racing on that road.— alansmurphy
How many people have died from racing a bike versus how many people have died after being hit by an idiot in a car?
The road doesn’t hurt anyone, the bike doesn’t hurt anyone. Remove the problem not the victims.
JohnnyRemo wrote:
Try riding a few TTs. See how it feels on a single carriageway vs a dual carriageway.
SteppenHerring wrote:
Dual carriageway feels much more dangerous. Not to mention the higher speed limits they often have
SteppenHerring wrote:
I’ve ridden “a few” TTs on all roads in all conditions – it’s crazy to be riding on that road with that traffic…
alansmurphy wrote:
A good observation on where society is heading. Traffic is getting busier because of greater car ownership. There isnt a family car anymore, now everyone has a car. Roads cannot be built to accomodate because of finite space. Everyone gets stuck in traffic and blames the slower road user for their slow progress rather than the sheer volume of cars on the road. Drivers get angry and drive angry.
As others have said, I don’t condone banning cyclists because there has been cyclist accidents. And banning cyclists on one A road could lead to banning on all A roads in order to simplify the ruling. However I also think it is crazy to ride a bike on a road where there is 2500 cars an hour at an average of 65mph. Motorways have minimum speeds to avoid crashes. Most of the cars on this road are not expecting to have to reduce their speed so significantly to avoid hitting a cyclist that has also reduced their visibility by tucking.
Best course of action is to find a quieter road voluntarily.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Motorways have minimum speeds to avoid crashes. — alansmurphy
Think you will find that most don’t.
Grahamd wrote:
Next time you are using a motorway, drive at a quarter of the average speed of the traffic and see how far you get before traffic cops arrive…
Muddy Ford wrote:
Maybe to increase capacity and safety it should be a 50mph limit, then those goung slower aren’t any issue at all for the incapable/dangerous?
As it hapoens this stretch of the A63 has an average flow of 691 vehicles per hour (see my previous post to where I got the stats) so highways england are lying for one and two the number of vehicles per hour is much much less than any motorway and undeed many roads with no other alternate route and will not be banning cycling, indeed these routes (pick any one from thousands) will have more deaths and injuries on them.
So not only is the evidence to support the TRO weak it’s also deliberate misrepresentation of the facts (a lie) with how busy it is and indeed totally ignores the real problem.
Muddy Ford wrote:
I understand what you’re saying, but there is no minimum speed on the vast majority of UK motorways. Yes if you dawdle and are deemed to be travelling too slowly then plod could interpret this as careless driving, but that applies to every road.
Muddy Ford wrote:
A good observation on where society is heading. Traffic is getting busier because of greater car ownership. There isnt a family car anymore, now everyone has a car. Roads cannot be built to accomodate because of finite space. Everyone gets stuck in traffic and blames the slower road user for their slow progress rather than the sheer volume of cars on the road. Drivers get angry and drive angry.
As others have said, I don’t condone banning cyclists because there has been cyclist accidents. And banning cyclists on one A road could lead to banning on all A roads in order to simplify the ruling. However I also think it is crazy to ride a bike on a road where there is 2500 cars an hour at an average of 65mph. Motorways have minimum speeds to avoid crashes. Most of the cars on this road are not expecting to have to reduce their speed so significantly to avoid hitting a cyclist that has also reduced their visibility by tucking.
Best course of action is to find a quieter road voluntarily.— alansmurphy
I’d be unlikely to cycle on it, as a younger man I committed to a college in Newcastle Under Lyme up the A34 which was a dual carriageway of sorts (lots of traffic lights and roundabouts though). Cycling in the vicinity now as a recreational cyclist I know some much prettier much longer way round, however one was need and one pleasure. I can’t agree with a course of action that bans the vulnerable due to the danger caused by the motor though, it makes no sense and as you say is likely to set a precedent.
I also take exception at “Most of the cars on this road are not expecting to have to reduce their speed”. They should be, always. People have been coerced into believing that a speed limit is a target, that they are safe, privileged, the car is the one that causes a crash, the car is required for every journey, it’s their right. I believe the opposite, most accidents are not accidents they are caused by the beliefs outlined above.
Quote:
Um, no, the roads belong to us.
Hmm. Getting ride of V718
Hmm. Getting ride of V718 would upset a lot of people. But if the traffic count is over 2,000 when people are racing on there then that’s too high. At stupid o clock on a Sunday you’d expect it to be a lot quieter.
The Christopher Auker incident is one of the reasons why CTT are so hot on people looking where they are going.
SteppenHerring wrote:
Hmm. Getting ride of V718 would upset a lot of people. But if the traffic count is over 2,000 when people are racing on there then that’s too high. At stupid o clock on a Sunday you’d expect it to be a lot quieter.
The Christopher Auker incident is one of the reasons why CTT are so hot on people looking where they are going.
[/quote]
Except the figure is incorrect.
I know the 2500/hr count at the point in question is BS because I drive it on a Sunday every few months coming back from visiting the folks.
Found the actual stretch. A63/South Cave junction to A63 spur at grid ref E500250:N426350 (just east of north ferriby) this 6mile stretch takes in the course pretty much.
The traffic counts for this section is 16592/24 hrs or 691/hr or one vehicle in either of the two lanes every 5 seconds or every 10 seconds per lane.
Go bother to check the counts at DFT Traffic Counts and you’ll find higher density traffic on single lane roads with similar speeds and much worse sight lines.
There’s liads of evidence to object this bullshit!
16m35s!!! WTF?
16m35s!!! WTF?
Sven Van Anders wrote:
Motorists not the only ones who get a move on on that road..
Sven Van Anders wrote:
If you ride on a road that is long a straight with few junctions and large numbers of the movements you can be pulled along the road by the slipstream of the trucks.
This is why they like time trial courses on these roads and why the rules have to stipulate riders must not ride on the white line between lane 1 and lane 2, and why a rider was disqualified for doing so.
That time is still an incredible performance, but the sane rider on the same day would not come close to that time on a non dual carriageway course.
However the response of banning the victims from the road is a damning indictment of the police in my view it says they consider they are unable to keep roads safe for all road users.
If the road is suitable and not the only access for many people then they should be looking at designating it as a motorway rather than singling out cyclists.
Any solution banning cyclists from this road must be accompanied by provision of 2m wide cycle paths (one each way) running parallel and not yielding priority to the various joining roads.
Too many muggings in one area why not ban mobile phones instead of policing illegal behaviour.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly this ^^^^ , but don’t forget the replacement surface quality and lighting and maintenance contract.
Forgive me if i’m incorrect,
Forgive me if i’m incorrect, but if they do succeed in placing a TRO on that stretch of road, don’t they then have to provide a similar road (distance wise) in place of it?
http://www.crashmap.co.uk
http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search “A63 South cave” gives a breakdown of collision types for the course.
Doing a rough count, there seem to be 3 total cycle collisions out of 56 for all types in the last 5 years.
Don’t know where the source data is from but a more accurate figure would come from there.
If a 5% make-up of all collisions is the basis to request a ban on cycles then the TRO should shows why these stats are significantly worse than other roads to justify it.
I live 700 meters away from
I live 700 meters away from the A63 where they run the TT and i think anyone riding on that road is mental. It’s the main road in and out of Hull and always busy and narrow compared to modern standards.
Having said that i hate to see any forced bans against any user group, it would be more appropriate if the local clubs withdrew from using it.
Other than the TT we never see any other cyclists on the road as the cycle paths are ok (not suitable for a TT obviously).
Some of the comments here are
Some of the comments here are a bit silly. This is a road designed not for cyclists, but motorists. Full stop. And the cyclists who want to use this road do so in the name of sport, not commuting or travelling to a destination.
https://goo.gl/maps/DwGvsrcE3kr
Seriously, who wants to ride on that? Nobody. Except some time triallists.
There’s a time and a place for cycling, no matter the purpose – and a road like this is not the place. Ever. Find an alternative route, I would.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
what business is it of yours to tell other people where they should or should not want to cycle?
ConcordeCX wrote:
Because that road was not designed for cycling. Ever. It isn’t designed for pedestrians either. Ever. It was built purely for high speed motoring, nothing else.
People driving up those slip roads aren’t looking for cyclists doing 15-20mph, they’re looking for cars and lorries doing at least 50mph. It’s no more suitable for cycling than the elevated sections of the M5 and M6 through Birmingham. I’m a vocal supporter of taking the lane and cycling on any road its feasible to use, but only a zealot would say that the A63 is fine for cycling. I would take an NSL single carriageway B-road over this any day of the week, in fact those are the roads I cycle on most of my time and they’re far less dangerous than the A63, less dangerous even than a typical urban centre.
Of course you may think that cycling is fine on that road, but tell me – would you go for a walk there, down the centre of lane 1? No, would you hell.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
yeah, this road was not designed for cyclists. in much the same way as the vast majority to town centres in this country weren’t designed for motor vehicles. But it doesn’t stop motorists bitching and moaning about the thought of having there access restricted. you only have to look at any of the mini Holland schemes in London or closing the gates of a royal park to through traffic for a few hours a day for the examples.
Housecathst wrote:
No, most town centres weren’t originally designed for cyclists either. More likely horse and cart or pedestrian use. I don’t understand your point.
I don’t support a cycling ban on this dual carriageway but those arguing these dual carriageways are safe or sensible places to ride are deluded. People ride here purely to set a fast TT time and should – and probably do – accept the risks.
I wouldn’t, but each to his own.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
no, I wouldn’t, but it would legal for me to do so, if I chose, and I want to retain that choice.
Nor would I presume to tell other people where they should or should not walk. Your preferences, and my preferences, are not rules for other people.
I don’t tell other adults how to live their lives, except when they tell me to live mine. Then I tell them to fuck off.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Well, the way I see it, it would be fine to ban cyclists from this route _but only as long as a very high-quality alternative were provided_. A route equally-direct, suitably wide, equally-well maintained and surfaced, equally clear of pedestrians, etc.
But I don’t agree with letting authorities get away with banning cycling while not providing such an alternative, however nasty the existing route. In fact, agreeing to be thrown off of existing routes is one of the few negotiating chips cyclists have, so why on earth would you throw them away in return for nothing? Not hard to work out where that will lead once we start down that route.
Hell, I have no interest in sports cycling, but if sports cyclists are prepared to face such a ghastly road, thus creating such a barganing chip for the rest of us, I think they are doing the rest of us a favour!
Well that’s crap. You can in
Well that’s crap. You can in theory faff around the B roads through Riplingham and Kirk Ella, but those types roads are more unsafe for cyclists. My experience of fast dual carriageways is that they’re safer, notwithstanding the higher vehicle speeds. Sight lines are clearer.
Added to my list of things to do Sunday morning. And making myself available for protest rides up and down the V718 course, if they’re on a weekend.
Quite apart for the “thin end of the wedge” point of view, it’s this attitude which almost totally kicked us out of competitive international cycling for an entire fucking century, and we’re just breaking back into over the past decade, including, bizarrely, the TdY in the same county as this proposed restriction. Whilst France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Spain and the rest of Europe revelled in a culture of competitive cycling, we snuck onto A roads at silly o’clock on a Sunday morning on a nod and a wink. Racing, Officer? No not me no sir. Just popping out for a pint of milk. I really, really need a pint of milk, that’s why I was riding so fast. See I got pockets in the back of my jersey specially like.
OK, can I chuck in my five
OK, can I chuck in my five pennorth?
I’m a late starter at this cycling and TTs mullarkey, and I’m proud to be one of the slowest fattest cyclists ever to complete the NDCA BAR….
I know some of you aren’t really meaning to be judgemental when you describe people as being mental or cazy for choosing to ride on dual carriageways, but guess what? That’s how you sound. Choosing to ride in TTs on my local dual carriageways is in no way connected to any mental health problems I may or may not have. It’s a decision about how I perceive risks.
Up here in Northumebrland we have everything from dual carriageway drag strips around Cramlington and Ashington to hilly tracks round the Tyne Valley or some very, ahem sporting tracks around Pennine hills. The one course I won’t ride, because of how I perceive risks, is a 25 drag up and down a single carriageway A road where the contours are challenging, the sight lines aren’t great and the thought of doing a U turn in a road end when knackered is not my idea of fun.
Let me make my choice. No-one rides a dual carriageway course without knowing the risks, but we all see them differently. The idea that the HIghways Agency can seek to ban a class of vehicles because of how they perceive the accident record is simply scary and will lead to roads being closed to cyclists at the whim of badly informed regional managers for no better reason than becaus eit gives HIghways Agency’s managers something to do….
exilegareth wrote:
Spot on on the state of mind comments and on risk perception.
I know the course you mean. I’ve ridden it several times. Personally, I find it a lot less worrying than the 10 up and down the dual carriageway that turns at the roundabout, requiring you to cross lanes of fast traffic, or the 25 that does much the same twice, but I know others who don’t like it.
I’ve never ridden the V718 – there’s no way I’d get in and driving that far seems like a bit of a waste of time, but I’ve driven that road a lot, including when an event’s been on. Personally, I’d not feel safe riding it and wouldn’t want to – the junction design IMO would make it more dangerous than the M62 which runs as far as South Cave, and from which cyclists are banned. The sight lines are great, but there are a lot of junctions that aren’t really adequate and mean that you’d rely on a lot of drivers to anticipate your speed and movement accurately.
Should cyclists be banned ‘for their own safety’? Maybe – That argument makes me a bit edgy, but if cyclists are 5% of all accidents when I doubt they even make up 1% of traffic seems high to me – but we probably need more evidence to see if there’s a pattern, and if there is, asking whether it can be fixed. Because if there is a pattern, it almost certainly relates to all traffic, not just cyclists…
CTT should probably look through national accident stats for all TTs to look for this kind of pattern – who knows, maybe they do, or maybe there just aren’t enough to make a significant sample.
Suck it up slaves! Highways
Suck it up slaves! Highways England? Members of the same “Thought Police ” who would make cyclists wear Helmets.
Plasterer’s Helmet. What’s
Plasterer’s Helmet. What’s with the Irish jibe You fucking English cunt!
Feckthehelmet wrote:
Might be a reference to the no point mailing driver story but still not one of the best comment ever posted (jiyw had an Irish grandmother)
Are they going to close roads
Are they going to close roads to motor vehicles where motorists have killed themselves or others?
They will run out of roads very quickly.
The bigoted stupid English c*
The bigoted stupid English c**t Plasterers Helmet should be careful what he says about the Irish. Erin go broagh
Feckthehelmet wrote:
If you want to troll then at least learn the language you USian fool.
Plasterer’s Radio. What’s
Plasterer’s Radio. What’s with the anti Irish stuff? Tosser.
Feckthehelmet wrote:
Never mind the radio, you’re a stuck record.
Feckthehelmet wrote:
He’s not biting. 1950’s racial slurs, what else would you expect from a plasterer; No Blacks, No Irish, No Cyclists…(?)
There is more organisation to
There is more organisation to a TT than simply standing on the side of the road with a stop watch. You get police permission and work with the local authority. I don’t know, but I think, if the road in question is not maintained by the local authority, you work with the relevant body, possibly highways england.
This road is mainly used by TT’ers, so maybe rather than ban, if there are safety concerns, the above need t explore what they can do to improve safety i.e. more bike event signs…. Possible a police presence (i.e. sign days bike event, sign saysthats a copper with a speed gun, maybe even close inside lane to motor traffic for the 2hours on a Sunday morning the event runs.).
A2thaJ wrote:
Critical correction here: You tell the police the event is running, you do not get their permission. They can object for specific reasons such as something else happening nearby which could impact safety, but this is rare.
If this isn’t nipped in the
If this isn’t nipped in the bud it may escalate. Instead of debating on whether cyclists should use it a coordinated response should be made by as many cyclists as possible against the proposal. British Cycling and all local clubs would be a good place or we may find fewer roads for our road bikes to go on.
Compared to the five
Compared to the five accidents and one death involving cyclists, I wonder how many accidents and deaths involving motor vehicles there were on the same stretch? I suspect many more in which case why not ban motor vehicles too on safety grounds?
As for the fatality, it had nothing to do with traffic volume or speed. That caravan could have stopped on any road and if a cyclist is not looking, the same can happen again.
Tony wrote:
You can look up reported ones on Crash Map.
This road is basically a
This road is basically a continuation of the M62 minus hard shoulder, why anyone would want to run a TT or fight for the right to cycle on it is beyond me.
Yrcm wrote:
No it isn’t, it’s nothing like the M62, the traffic counts are multiple times less than for the M62.
Fact is even just in the small area around elloughton there have been numerous serious and at least two recorded fatal incidents in the l;ast 5 years inviovling motorrists crashing into each other. Given that data surely we should be banning motorvehicles from the A63 for safety reasons?
Yet another who has no understanding of risk. A dual carriageway both from a cycling POV and as a driver I’d say it’s more safe than a single laned NSL road as I explained why further up the thread.
Either the police/government curtail dangerous driving on all roads or you might as well ban cycling altogether. That the incident highlighted was supposedly an error on the part of the cyclist makes the call for a TRO based on safety even more ridiculous/weak, again, on that basis then banning motorvehicles from roads is by far the best/most efficient method to increase safety on roads.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
All roads are risky, but the A63 is effectively the continuation of the motorway, with the same traffic and speed limit (barring what goes up the B1230). Not all dual carriageways are created equal and you don’t need to be Einstein to work out that cycling on a busy national speed limit trunk road serving a major city and port with cars and trucks passing you flat out probably isn’t a great idea.
I would hazard a guess that the number of regular cyclists using it who aren’t competing in a TT is close to or at zero.
look the stats on that
look the stats on that stretch of road are that by far more car drivers are killed and seriously injured, infact I think it also shows more pedestrians are killed on the A63, almost exclusively by trucks it seems too, but highways england arent proposing banning cars, or trucks or pedestrains from using that road, so why focus on bicycles at all
banning bikes from that road would in no way improve the safety record of that road, because the real problem is the heavy bits of metal driven by tired people, drunk people, speeding people, people on phones, people whove taken drugs, people easily distracted,people who tailgate…
the TTers who ride that route as do most bike riders know the risks everytime you swing your leg over a bike and go for a ride on our nations roads, they are adults and better know the risks than some pencil pusher sat behind a desk drawing things on maps.
As I understand it if a
As I understand it if a prohibition is put in place then an alternative route has to be provided. I suspect this already exists.
I grew up in the area (Hessle
I grew up in the area (Hessle, specifically) and for several summers rode to work 6 days a week at a market gardening company down the road. I would NEVER ride on that dual carriageway when the country road that runs roughly parallel is more than adequate for normal riding.
I don’t support a ban but it’s not a bike-friendly road.
“People driving up those slip
“People driving up those slip roads aren’t looking for cyclists doing 15-20mph, they’re looking for cars and lorries doing at least 50mph”
Then they shouldn’t be licensed to drive a fucking killing machine!!!
Can I run down a slow moving toddler on a shared use path tomorrow?
Basic common sense would suggest that there’s more room to pass on a dual carriageway, should be safer than the b road not something that’s seen as an excuse!
Fucking idiotic comment. Whether you choose to ride there or not doesn’t matter.
alansmurphy wrote:
Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road. Why do you think they’re so long?
It’s a motorway in all but name, built in 1950s-60s when nobody gave a second thought to cyclists. You want to cycle on a motorway.
Jesus, there are some dimwits here. “I have the right to cycle on this completely inappropriate road that wasn’t designed to accommodate my choice of transport and I resent it being taken away from me!”
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Listen to your arrogance. You don’t want to cycle on it, therefore nobody should, and anyone who disagrees is a dimwit.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road. Why do you think they’re so long?
— alansmurphy
So twats can build up enough speed to kill people?
alansmurphy wrote:
Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road. Why do you think they’re so long?
— Peowpeowpeowlasers So twats can build up enough speed to kill people?— alansmurphy
What an astonishing lack of logic your post demonstrates.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Does it?
You tell me why the slip roads are 500m long then…
Even if you subscribe to the
Even if you subscribe to the view that riding on that road isn’t pleasant, that doesn’t mean that cyclists should be banned from it. Instead they should be teaching the motorists to share the public roads as is the law.
So if they allowed you to use
So if they allowed you to use the motorway, would you?
I occasionally see the odd cyclist on the a64 and just think ‘nutter’.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I don’t like leeks. They smell and taste disgusting, and make me vomit. People have choked to death on their own vomit, so leeks are a serious health issue.
I’ve seen other people voluntarily eating leeks, and apparently enjoying them, going back for seconds. I think they’re crazy.
Because they’re dangerous, and I wouldn’t eat them, absolutely nobody should be allowed to eat leeks, whether they like them or not, even under supervision by leek stewards. Anybody consuming them should be prosecuted and fined.
Does that sound like a reasonable case for banning leeks? Because it is the same argument that people are making for closing this road to cyclists.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Its a long time since I’ve been up there so please remind me if the A64 has a cycle path adjacent.
If not, I agree that its (from memory) really not a nice road, but that’s an awful lot of cycling along alternative A/B/unclassified roads through the villages and a much longer journey.
Roads like the one in the story and the A64 (Leeds-York) were upgraded and/or built when only small children rode bicycles and by now we were all expected to be in Jetsons flying cars.
They are almost always the most direct route between two points, which is why you still find cyclists using them (since they are allowed to do so). I think the onus is still on the motorists to not kill them, even if they are being stupid.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
It’s rather inconvenient for my regular commute. I’d be happy to see planes for lane one to be made into a cycle lane and every junction to have a nice set of traffic lights though. Or ban cars from it…
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I absolutely would use the motorway. 3m if hard shoulder to use as a buffer between me and the passing traffic. As a student I rode from Guildforfd to London on the a3, it was only uncomfortable once I reached London and the hard shoulder disappeared.
There’s the section from York
There’s the section from York to Tadcaster which has a cycle. sorry ‘shared use’ path on both sides.
The Tadcaster to York side is fairly useable (if too narrow) but on the other side it’s more like an offroad section in places and crosses a lot of farm entraces with annoying curbs and lips. I still wouldn’t go on the a64 though as everyone is doing 70-80 and realistically nobody expects you to be there, so why play with the odds.
It’s rare anyone rides on it but it does happen. You can defend people’s rights to do something they may be legally entitled to do but I reckon it’s daft and I used to be banned from driving for dangerous driving daft. I’d rather do a lap of the IOM in the wet at half decent pace than ride on a dual carriageway. I reckon you’d last longer if you did it every day.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Thanks. However, isn’t 70-80 above the speed limit…?
I have friends that ride it
I have friends that ride it and have also ridden it, much slower than most of the competitors do.
On a sunday the A63 is not as busy as during the week or on a saturday. That said it is a scarey experience, lorries and cars passing at 70mph and in some cases much closer than they should given that they have another lane they could be in.
Its a great event, everyone is very welcoming, its organised well by hull thursday and its being going for as long as I can remember. Traffic numbers have increased since it first started and the road carries a lot of lorries due to the ferries.
The section in question is bascially straight, with a little lump and a bend in it, but its easy to see along. The event is only a run a few times a year and its a great test of out and out speed for any cyclist.
Given the increase in traffic since it was first run, I think they should probably consider closing the inside lane for the TT’s, which don’t happen that often, its a short stretch of the road (5miles ish in both directions), only during the race and on a sunday wouldn’t cause any real delay to drivers. It would cost a bit of money to do so, but would keep everyone safer and a keep great race going, everyones happy.
Though I guess some motorists would be annoyed becuase there journey would be 15 seconds longer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8872644/M5-motorway-crash-death-toll-remains-as-no-more-bodies-found-overnight.html
7 people died, 51 injured. I mean you must be mentally retarded to want to drive on that bit of road even if you were legally allowed to do so, every time I see a motorist on an motorway I just think ‘nutter’!
As per this link, http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/11/where-are-britains-most-dangerous-roads-5056224/ almost 4 casualties per mile on every single motorway on average (as of 2013) in the South East this is over 6 per mile, every single year, yup, anyone using a motorway is absolutely
IrishmentalSo given the dangers on roads presented by motorists to other motorists surely by definition we should simply ban driving a motorvehicle, just to ensure absolute safety and all that!
If it’s that dangerous, put
If it’s that dangerous, put up average speed cameras with enforcement.
The difference in comments on
The difference in comments on this thread are largely down to the fact that most cyclists aren’t time triallists. It’s fair to say that if you do TTs, the majority of DC courses (including this one) are far, far safer than non-DC ones. If you ask them, 90% of testers will confirm this fact (the others either don’t ride TTs that often, or don’t like fast courses)
TTs on DCs are safer for a number of reasons (better sight lines, better road surfaces, less country lane exits, better signage, better roundabouts etc etc). The main difference is that if you’re hit ona SPOCO or SC course you’ve got a reasonable chance of surviving – if you get hit on a DC, that chance is a lot, lot less
Anybody who thinks that the answer to a frankly tiny percentage of accidents on that road is to ban cyclists from it, in any way, shape or form, is deluding themselves. The answer is – and always will be – to educate drivers about cyclists, change the discussion and the way it’s framed in the media, and punish people who can’t or won’t drive properly.
Lots of very valid points
Lots of very valid points here, ultimatley it doesn’t matter how dangerous it may be, if it’s not a motorway and as long as the police are informed and okay with the dates of when TT’s are run on the route, Highways England can fuck right off.
I’m more concerned about the thin end of the wedge, also does this mean Highways England are ‘anti cycling’ now? They are only employed to look after motorways and some a roads right?
Ah.. it’s okay, they have some new guidelines… https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-principles-put-people-at-the-heart-of-road-design
peted76 wrote:
Interesting press release; banning cyclists from the A63 would seem to go against around half of their “ten principles of good road design” including,
makes roads safe and useful
is inclusive
is environmentally sustainable
is innovative
is collaborative.
Yet another exercise in BS, does this mean anything at all?
And the next person who says “going forward” should be whipped to death with their own tongue
And so it begins!
And so it begins!
I thought the first strike would actually be when the proposed “expressways” come along and ban cyclists and other vehicles from trunk roads, but looks like this might just jump the gun!
It is a great way to improve your road safety statistics! Instead of addressing any specific concern with appropriate traffic engineering use the cheap option and ban the people most likely to be hurt. It is a cycnical and cheap “solution”. It is no different in spirit to local councils slapping lower speed limits on roads rather than re-designing them to be safer.
Wolfshade wrote:
Looking out of my window at work, near Crewe Railway Station I can see traffic backing up as we speak as another re-think of a roundabout design is happening.
25 years ago there was a road to the train station, one to Sandbach, one to the hospital and town centre. They have now added 2 high speed bypasses that still effectively feed onto the same road.
The next ‘junction’ accross puts you into the countryside; Weston, Betley and beyond out towards the Welsh border if you so wish. They’ve put another link road in to link to a link road that will link to a bypass and the motorway. On this one they have put a 2 way cycle lane down one side of the road.
All these actions are increasing the volume of traffic feeding into roads that cannot cope. They are increasing the speed of traffic and people’s desire for speed. They are creating more roundabouts with poor infrastructure and people approaching at speed. They provide cycle lanes which often result in a lot of stop-start riding playing second fiddle to the aforementioned traffic or putting you into the path of traffic at dangerous points.
Progress?
Wolfshade wrote:
In spirit whatever, but in practice I would have thought that any cyclist would be happy with a measure (if it’s effectively enforced) that reduces the speed of traffic on the roads.
There’s too much traffic and a toxic driving culture in this country but no political will to do anything meaningful about it.
Wolfshade wrote:
That’s the thing though, it simply won’t because the vast majority of incidents on that stretch of road (well any road) are motorists crashing into each other or simply crashing in a single vehicle incident.
Might as well ban people from leaving their homes in case they are mugged, raped, stabbed, assaulted etc, y’know for safety’s sake
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
All depends on your scale and what you are measuring. I’m sure the route manger of the A63 will now see significantly less vulnerable road user ksis if they enact the ban.
But I totally agree with the more general point, what is it on average 5 people killed day across the roads, thing is we as a society just accept death on the streets as a consequence of driving rather than it being abnormal and not normal and treated as such.
Why can’t they just cone off
Why can’t they just cone off 10km of that road on a Sunday morning? They’d do it to repaint the lines FFS.
matthewn5 wrote:
They probably could but it would cost several thousand pounds, so only feasible for a big well supported event.
Or just wait til it’s coned
Or just wait til it’s coned off, the likelihood of being disturbed by workmen is low an they wear hi viz and helmets so are indestructible!
1792 fatalities on the UK
1792 fatalities on the UK roads in 2016 as per https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2016
So yes, 5 road deaths a day in the UK.
Riding time trials on roads
Riding time trials on roads that have a lot of traffic to get a fast time is cheating – it is the same as taking illegal drugs to get a fast time.
kingleo wrote:
Is this a comedy post or a poorly disguised attempt at trolling?
If it’s neither then I can only guess that you don’t think people should race on any downhill section or with a tailwind as both are artificial assistance. Perhaps you only ride fixed-gear events where the start is at the bottom of a hill and the finish at the top. After all, gears were seen as cheating at one time.
Stick to Strava old chap, no-one cheats on there.
“Christopher Auker, 65,
“Christopher Auker, 65, riding in a tuck and looking downwards,” – I’m not sure who the victim and the perpetrator are in this case, or what the result would be if the caravan’s owner or an AA patrolman had been behind the caravan (something that might have been necessary in order to fix the breakdown) when the collision occured. Or even if it had been a slower rider rather than a broken-down vehicle that was obstructing the road.
At the speed of TT riders, how long do you have to ride not looking where you are going, not to notice a caravan in front of you and take appropriate action?
Presumably this refers to
Presumably this refers to banning not just cyclists but all slow moving traffic including older classic cars, horses and horse or pony drawn traps and Romany caravans too.
That will stir a hornets nest.
The safest way is to add a cycle lane alongside but not necesarily that great for time trialists.
A cycling buddy did a similar job by not noticing an HGV which passed him then pulled over a few hundred meters later. He wasn’t in a time trial just not paying attention as we should all do and tested his helmet to the max. After his helicopter trip to a head injuries unit 20 miles away, given the all clear and on the mend we just took the micky and still do.
It’s a perfectly safe road for all even though the only primary route to Heysham port. No reason for a ban for anyone though. Kinder scout spirit on wheels is required to reinforce our green credentials and health benefits.
Its Darwinian rules to some extent though and I for 1 won’t try cycling North from Perth on the A9 on Friday afternoon rush hour again. If it doesn’t feel safe then dont do it.
Potsy the Swift wrote:
Although I’d usually agree with providing more infrastrcture for cyclists I really don’t see that providing a cycle lane for a few riders doing time trials on Sunday is the best use of a limited budget. Would much rather it was spent on routes that would benefit all including commuters and reduce traffic accordingly. I suspect many of these guys drive to the start anyway with their precious cargo in the boot.
And as you say, TT’ers wouldn’t use a lane anyway as they would have to slow down frequently and miss out the benefit of the draft from vehicles.
I say let the cyclists carry on using it and accept the risks. They clearly do already.
I would avoid cycling on such
I would avoid cycling on such a road at all costs.
I am, however, totally opposed to specifically banning cyclists from this road, as it will set a precedent, and the consequences could be disastrous for future road access for all cyclists.
I suspect the motivation in this case is cost, it being far cheaper to ban cyclists than to either enforce current legislation in regard to driving standards, or to modify the road infrastructure to adequately safeguard vulnerable users.
It’s been talked about for ages, but surely the most cost effective way to safeguard vulnerable road users would be a form of presumed liability? As long as the penalties are sufficient, the consequences of behaving badly would soon make drivers more risk averse, and reduce the appalling annual toll on the roads.
I would caution many of the
I would caution many of the people on here to remember that this is one of those online echo chambers. Remember that compared to most people you are an “extremist”.
Having encountered a time trial on the A50 a few times I can speak from some experience of what this is like to drive around. The short answer is bloody dangerous!
Bikes in the inside lane are doing 25-30mph, with the traffic volume lorries and cars were having to take the option of either close passing or pulling out into the fast lane where traffic may be going 50mph faster than they were.
This is a particularly hazardous scenario because you have the vehicle in the inner lane catching the cyclist at 20-30mph, they may not be able to see the cyclist until vehicles ahead of them pull out into the fast lane. They must then move out against traffic which may be going faster than them. They then have a short time to decide to either pull out into the fast approaching traffic or slow down to the speed of the cyclist. If they do the latter they now have a very high speed differential if they pull out into the outer lane. The other options are a close pass or a partial encroachment into the fast lane.
Also if they mess this up they either hit the cyclist while looking over their shoulder, pull and panick stop and/or swerve into the fast lane. The last time I passed the A50 time trial I saw maybe 5-10 near misses.
The solution is not “better drivers”, a driver on a dual carriageway probably encounters a cyclist 1-2 times per year. They are not looking for cyclists nor will they have a mental map for what to do in this circumstance.
My message to those who cycle TT’s on dual carriageways is let it go.
It’s not the thin end of a wedge and fighting it is just making cyclists look unreasonable (bear in mind that to the general public as a lycra wearing aero-bike user you are cyclist they have least identification with!).
Dual carriageways with a speed limit of 70 are functionally equivalent of motorways where bikes are banned. They were not designed for cyclists, they have very high hazards when cycles cross slip roads. The only reason cycles can ride on them is due to grandfather rights, nobody though that anyone was actually going to cycle down a 70mph dual carriageway especially as very rarely are they useful for getting anywhere by bike.
What we need for cycling is lots of infrastructure for the masses, such as segregated cycle paths, so that more drivers are used to driving around cyclists and actually are cyclists themselves. The message should be that cycling is a mainstream activity that we can all do. What we don’t need is people defending their right to carry out a dangerous activity on roads that are basically designed for cars and that cyclists are only allowed to use because nobody got around to banning them.
massive4x4 wrote:
How so, did you nearly spill your coffee?
They don’t HAVE to take that option, they can wait behind, maybe pull out when it’s safe. If the bike in the inside lane is doing 25-30mph and you’re pulling out into traffic doing 50mph more – you do realise who is breaking the law and causing the issue here don’t you?
So the car ahead has already driven dangerously and you as the car behind would HAVE to do the same. Again, try slowing down!
True, they do. Hitting a cyclist will normally result in a scratch on your car and the inconvenience of having to tell the Police that the cyclist wasn’t wearing hi viz, or a helmet or that it was sunny or the a-frame of your car blinds you.
So by your very good maths it clearly is a requirement for better drivers. If it is so infrequent to meet a cyclist on such a road then there’s no inconvenience, whay are so many people so shit at driving?
It is, you’ve just said it is. You’ve already decided they are louts because you clearly read the daily mail
I’ve been quite easy on you above. Your own words have given you enough rope to hang yourself and every other moton. How about I go left field here? Most traffic in town centres travels at less than 5mph due to the congestion they cause, about the average speed for a pedestrian. How about all cars are banned in town centres and residential areas. You can keep your motorways and dual carriageways, we’ll just take the other roads…
We may be in an echo chamber here, but you have been socially engineered and are spouting ill thought out, cretinous views that are leading to the increased congestion seen on the roads, the increased reliance on unsustainable travel and the continuation of a ridiculous health epidemic caused by your preferred method of transport.
massive4x4 wrote:
Loads of cyclists don’t share your optimism. Loads of cyclists see what councils and Government actually DO (not say) and think ‘bollocks to that, the thin end of the wedge is exactly what it is. It’s a precedent’. Some of this opinion, here, is whipped up because of it being an echo chamber, OK. But just because we’re paranoid, doesn’t mean everyone isn’t out to get us. What evidence there actually is (I’m talking the high quality infrastructure that you mention, but is like gold dust in the UK, vs authority-types *talking* about being friends of cyclists) is pretty damning.
massive4x4 wrote:
So on a pretty much dead straight road where you can see a good 300m up the road (if not further) which is 10 seconds at 70mph you’re basically you’re incapable of mirror, signal manoeuvre, have I got that right?
Again, a dual carriageway with 691 vehicles per hour is NOT a motorway and is in no way comparable to a motorway in terms of vehicle numbers.
If you can’t manage to get around someone going slower on a D/C with at least 10 seconds to do so then for fucks sakes stay off the roads!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I can only speak from experience of having gone past a TT in a car. In many cases the bikes were not visible until the last vehicle behind them pulled out.
Irrespective of how you believe people should respond in practice people who were unfamiliar with the situation were responding in a way that caused a number of near misses. In most cases they were car to car near misses.
To summarise the “Pro TT’s on Dual Carriageway” arguments:
1: “It’s only dangerous because of drivers” – As covered before, my experience is that these events were not pleasant to drive past with a number of near misses.
There is a limit to what driving training and rules can do. Most rules are effectively self-enforcing; see how far you get trying to drive on the wrong side of the road. The roads are safe because we agree a common method of behaviour for situations, train and then reinforce this with day to day experience. Encountering a cyclist on a dual carriageway is so rare that even if it was trained as part of the driving test drivers would soon forget what the highway code said about it. People encountering unfamiliar and high pressure situations are likely to behave in unpredictable ways. (see people getting shot because they didn’t obey a police officer in the US) The only practical way to lower this risk is to avoid the situation in general.
2: “The bike has a right to be there” – Again this right is really a grandfather right based on the original classification of A roads before widespread motorised transport not on the actual current road design or usage. 99.99% of traffic on a 70 mph dual carriageway is motorised. If one party should be forced to adapt to the other it is the tiny number of people using dual carriageways for sporting purposes not the vast majority using them for transportation. Unlike cycling in urban areas I do not see a strong argument for increasing the numbers of people cycling on dual A roads.
3: “Leave me alone, it’s my risk and in the grand scheme of things it’s not a big issue” – Probably the strongest argument, however three points are against it. 1: There is some risk of vehicle to vehicle accidents caused by a TT on a dual carriageway. 2: Being involved in a serious accident is hardly a desirable outcome for the drivers even if physically unharmed. 3: There are plenty of things substantially less deadly than riding a bike on a dual carriageway which are restricted and the subject of intense regulatory scrutiny. Also it’s not like a ban on cycling or TT racing on dual carriageways would be expensive or widely flouted.
4: “Thin end of the wedge” – Cycling is generally winning in this regard with more road space being given to cycling. I don’t think anyone is proposing stopping cyclists going down any roads that are actually suited to cycling. In fact a debate around which roads are suitable for cycling may even be a good catalyst for increasing cycling provision. Winning the debate is achieved by making people into cyclists and be getting people who are not cyclists to see us as being just like them. Trying to defend the right to do something that most people would consider nuts is not the best way of doing this!
The fact is that 85% of passenger miles were by car, this number is actually pretty similar in the UK and in countries with good cycling infrastructure. You aren’t going to wish away cars until a more convenient method of transport takes their place. High speed dual carriageways (inc. motorways) are the safest roads and once the cars and trucks are electrified environmentally friendly. They are the ideal place for cars to be used (fast medium distance journeys) and cyclists should support projects which they get cars and trucks off the roads and allow cycling infrastructure which support mass adoption of cycling for short journeys.
I can’t argue with the fact
I can’t argue with the fact that you’ve returned, at least you’ve changed your digger for a spade.
I’m sorry, you’re still so wrong as to be brainwashed. What actual harm would halving all speed limits in the UK do? You admit that driving standards are terrible!
Your experience of driving past a TT simply demonstrates people’s idiocy. The first car must see the bike, if the first car acts correctly then they are either slowing massively to avoid hitting the bike or pulling into the other lane in a safe fashion. It is then up to the following car, who without doubt would be keeping a safe distance, to do the same. It’s not fucking rocket science.
Also a TT will generally have a gap of a minute or so. How long did it take your moronic motoring friends to realise there was more than one bike on the road. Either reduce your speed or just stay in the right hand lane.
What you’re describing is a shit driver going too fast and making a poor decision. Another shit driver nearly collides, gets pissed off and they pull back in, still going too fast. Driver behind shit driver one is too close and also reacts like a twat. All this time you’re driving perfectly and witnessing this apparent carnage. At no point do you think “well if they all drove properly like me they’d be a lot safer like I am”? Ah no, it’s the fault of the slowest moving vehicle at the head of the race for space…
alansmurphy wrote:
Dear Alan,
Thank you for deciding on the basis of an argued point that contradicts your own that I, an adult who you have never met lacks the agency to draw their own conclusions from life experience and statistics and must therefore be “brainwashed”.
To address your points:
1: Driving standards in the UK are based on the most important measure of deaths per population or deaths per mile world leading, by some measures the best of any major nation. 1700 people died on the roads (not all the fault of a driver) there are 60,000,000 million of us.
Death rates for cyclists are higher per mile, but where this has been solved in other countries it has been done with segregated infrastructure and sheer numbers driving familiarity and empathy not by encouraging cycling on trunk roads.
2: If you halved the speed limits everywhere you would near double the cost of shipping and reduce the interconnectivity effects that make the economy as productive as it currently is. Cars carry 85% of the passenger miles in the UK and this is similar in most advanced economies, road freight carries an even greater proportion of our goods. Speed limits are generally set at around a velcoity that an average driver would drive at, compliance in most cases is therefore volentary. A 50% reduction would therefore be routinely ignored and if attempts were made to enforce compliance these would be vastly unpopular. Our fastest roads are also our safest (see access restrictions) and are a good example of a “natural speed limit” in action, the posted limit is 70mph, the actual limit is around 85mph as authorities know that blanket enforcement of the posted limit would be unworkable, unpopular and of limited benefit given accident stats.
3: Re: Shit driving – Or observed driving by normally experienced and trained British drivers.
4: In safety engineering terms the presence of a cyclist on a dual trunk road would be termed an “initiating event”. This event when applied to the existing system results in an unsafe condition.
If we look at mitigation you propose which is to magically change the behaviour of the general public. To change the behaviour of the general public is expensive and takes a long period of time, this is not going to happen to accommodate a minority sport which could easily take place in more suitable places. Therefore the best treatment of the risk is to remove the initiating event given that the consequence of doing so is forcing a cycling time trial to relocate to a less dangerous location.
5: Nobody has an inalienable right to use all of the road network. We exclude users from parts of the network where it would be dangerous, not least people who have not demonstrated competence to operate motorised road vehicles. In this case you have a dangerous interaction between a small number of road users and a very large number of road users in this circumstance then needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You could protest this order but you will be pissing into the wind.
This is an entirely different situation to places where cycling could be a viable form of transport or a popular form of leisure and a modal shift from driving would be a positive change. In these circumstances cycling deserves space and funding commensurate with the numbers likely to use the facilities.
I’ve been meaning to write to
I’ve been meaning to write to Highways England to object since I saw this article. I’m not geting into a discussion as to whether its correct or not, just to say that today I got around to it. It took me 5 mins. Just saying like.
Massive 4×4;
Massive 4×4;
Reducing the speed increases the capacity of any given highway AND importantly its safety plus also improved environmental impact and lessens damage to the surface/substructure. The amount of vehicles stuck in traffic because of excessive speed is a massive issue but people blindly seem to think that lowering speeds is going to massively slow up traffic, it simply doesn’t, quite the opposite.
Your ignorance is demonstrated when you gleefully announce that food costs would double if you reduced the speed limit of fast moving roads by half, well it won’t because LGVs are limited to 56mph in any case at the very max, halving of a 70mph limit road (which I wouldn’t agree with personally) would only see a theorectical maximum reduction in speed of some 21mph, that’s not even including other factors in real life driving that mean average speeds are well below the maximum permissable anyway particularly for much larger vehicles.
If you managed to cover 160 miles in 4 hours in an LGV including leaving depot and delivering to end destination you’d be going some and be lucky at every single lightset, entrance and exit and there be zero snarl ups or others holding you up.
I can’t even be bothered to read the rest of your post tbh
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds consider why you feel the need to throw insults into posts on the internet.
I am perfectly aware of the idea that reducing speeds can increase the carrying capacity of a road. However most of the road network at any point in time actually isn’t in stop go traffic, the average speed on the strategic highways network is 61mph over the course of the day (stats availible from DfT).
As for your assumption that I don’t know the speed limit for trucks, come on……
You are basically nitpicking between a 37.5% and a 50% speed reduction for HGV’s.
If you lowered the speed limits drastically on the strategic road network you would increase journey times, even if this were only a 10% reduction in the speed of HGV’s and of people in the service sector who make multiple visits per day the results would be massive.
It would be a combination of less economic activity and more vehicles required to move the same ammount of goods. The knock on effects accross the economy would be massive.
Trunk roads are on balance a good thing that underpins our economy. They aren’t going to be replaced with cycling. Our failure to invest in them is probably one of the reasons why we have seen low productivity in the recovery from the last recession.
I have no intention of
I have no intention of entering the debate about whether holding a TT on a road like this is fundamentally a good idea or not, except to say that I am currently sitting in a classroom overlooking this exact stretch of road (my class are all in a mock exam this afternoon) and I wouldn’t want to be cycling on there at the moment with the way the traffic is moving.
Sunday mornings are another story, however, and I have occasionally chanced it, as the cycle path alongside it is generally strewn with broken glass and other garbage, or overgrown with weeds, or both, and never felt in any more danger than any other road.
My issue with this proposal is that it seems to be being made on the basis of the death of a single cyclist 5 years ago which can be put down to an unfortunate combination of circumstances. If a single fatal accident is all it takes to get bicycles banned from certain roads, how long before we are simply banned from all of that type of road “as a precaution”?
Banning time trials is one thing. Banning cyclists from using it altogether is quite another.
Which insults, so now trying
Which insults, so now trying to deflect from the fact you’re wrong you’re going in with the accusation I’ve insulted you. Please highlight which insult I have slung at you?
Please address the fact that no-one agrees with your way of thinking.
Ta