- 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
Bradley Wiggins on the A63 (via YouTube).jpgHighways England wants to ban cyclists from the UK’s fastest time trial course
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.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Laz 59 min 30 sec ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- Nick T 2 hours 15 min ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 3 hours 57 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 4 hours 13 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 4 hours 16 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 4 hours 30 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 4 hours 59 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 6 hours 35 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
116 comments
Try riding a few TTs. See how it feels on a single carriageway vs a dual carriageway.
Dual carriageway feels much more dangerous. Not to mention the higher speed limits they often have
I've ridden "a few" TTs on all roads in all conditions - it's crazy to be riding on that road with that traffic...
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.
Think you will find that most don’t.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
That decision is Irish at best
All bow down to the great God, Car!
What's 'Irish' about it?
What's with the Irish jibe? You fucking English cunt !
Heh English twat? Feck off!
English cunt
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.
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.
Exactly this. No time for clicktivism right now, we have until 19 Feb to properly engage with the process.
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...
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
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.
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".
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?
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.
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?
Pages