MP moots A-road cycling ban

As usual, another MP who misses the point entirely. Another knee jerk reaction to an age old problem. Why punish the humble cyclist when it's the ill educated and road safety informed motorist?

Cyclist should be able to cycle anywhere we want to, freely and out of danger from other road users. Changes to the driving test and harsher penalties to motorist would put pay to this.

I've cycled on some fairly dangerous roads myself (eg A10 from Royston to London) however I would never cycle on the parkways around Peterborough as they are treated like motorways by car drivers.

There are risks to everything but for me the biggest risk when out riding is from cars (for that reason I avoid cycling in high winds or icy conditions).

I recall that the A46 Warwick Bypass used to be the most dangerous road for cycle accidents, about three times the national average. There are parts of the A27 that are treated like a motorway.

So I can see some value in a ban on A roads, if an alternative is available and signposted. A complete ban would be too much.

I used to cycle along the A90 regularly. It could be alarming at times and I'm not surprised cyclists are banned from it now. There is a detour but it's a long way round although it wouldn't take a great deal of work to put a special separated cycle lane in away from the main road to join the missing link. It could be put in along the top of the cutting and still within the boundary for the main road. But by the Cramond Brig there's a 40mph speed limit and has been for years. If there was a fatal accident with a truck killing a cyclist, it does beg the question what the truck driver was doing.

Perhaps Mr Griffiths would like to address the issue of cows on the road - I suggest he might find a ban of these more fruitful for road safety:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12491228

The answer is simply - a truck caused the accident, so ban all trucks from that stretch of road.

What? That would cost the economy money? Oh well, let's just screw the cyclists instead.

Don't like this idea, as it can set a bad precedent for the future, and knowing the UK Gov, they would not put in alternative routes.

in this case though, the last time I drove on the A50, I thought it would be suicidal to ride it at the Derby end.

If it's the Derby end, that should really be an M road, not an A road, but the Stoke end is just a normal fast A road.

For any road, if you can driver tractors, or AFV's like the one which fell over last week on the A1, you should be able to cycle as well.

At the end of the day, riding, driving and walking all have risks associated with them, sometimes fatal; maybe we should all live in cotton wool, but then we may suffocate or have an allergic reaction to it

WAT.

Knob head.

Criminally incompetent person kills somebody in a place, you don't blame the place! This is the kind of idiot who would try to ban short skirts to prevent rape.

Idiocy of the lowest order, pandering to a weepy constituent. Kill this stupidity with fire.

Aimless King & others - I've cycles the A1 and the A 720 in safety and comfort - and the A90 but not when they are busy. The routes provide a direct and convenient way to get around - substantially better then the back roads alternatives. There has to be choice and a far stronger focus on the cause of these deaths rather then the outcome.

The other detail is that arrogant assumption to signpost only the route for a qualified driver try finding a route to cycle to Perth from North Queensferry, or as I did early one morning, rolling up at Warrington - look for signs to Liverpool for a cycling conference - fine as long as I followed the M62 (well it was almost deserted at 4 am. At the conference the Sustrans person suggested I followed the Trans Penning Trail alongside the Manchester Ship Canal - unlit - hardly a surface to use at any speed with barriers and vegetation to crash into etc - how everyone laughed. I managed to navigate by a knowledge of the station names on the original Liverpool & Manchester railway....and it was not that bad a route!

“absolutely convinced that there is no defence for not prohibiting cycling on the A50.”

Well that's clear then! Nice use of double negatives. Easy way to ban cycling on it - reclassify as a motorway. Then it will also be shut to mopeds, learner-drivers, horses etc as well. Leaves it free for idiots who think their driving is so good they can text, read, apply make-up, eat and drink safely whilst steering a 1/4+ ton vehicle with their knees.

Most drivers also need an eye-test too. I wonder when prosecutors will start asking for compulsory eye-tests on drivers involved when in accidents...?

What about a heavy fine and life ban for drivers who text / surf the internet etc. and drive?

Let's ban aeroplanes..they crash..sometimes on innocent victims/houses.
....and then there are birds...I've lost count of the birds I've hit with my car, windscreens damaged and dead birds at the side of the roads, a cyclist could easily crash/skid on one of those and end up under the wheels of a texting, smoking (yes that is a distraction), coffee drinking automobile driver...
I'm not being flippant, but as most folks have pointed out..there are dangers on our roads..does that mean non fossil fuelled (or alternative) modes of transport will be banned from all other roads that are deemed dangerous..?
Fix those dangers, police those dangerous areas, take people that are seen to be dangerous out of the equation for good...
..or how about actually providing alternatives (that work), respect the issue and try to resolve it by building a better, safer transport network..

A-roads don't kill cyclists.

Inattentive or careless dangerous drivers sending and receiving texts whilst driving do.

I had a look at the road and I wouldn't choose to use it. But I have used such roads in areas I wasn't familiar with as the back roads way wasn't obvious.
A ban would be a step in the wrong direction, as it would lead to more and more roads being off limits to cyclists.

The Lorry driver was texting, so I wouldn't have give a motorcyclist or a small car much more of a chance if he had hit one of them.

And the alternative - forced to use a poorly lit(if that), badly paved cycle path with numerous pedestrians to dodge. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against pedestrians using cycle paths if you are to provide an alternative to a road ban a dedicated alternative would need to be in place!

The real issue is that of dangerous and careless driving. Thats what needs to be addressed. You could ban cyclists, pedestrians, 50cc mopeds tractors from all A roads and you know what... there will still be fatalities on all our roads. the A9, A66, A17 are three roads that I use regularly and all of them have huge casualty and fatality figures!

Maybe ban anything with an engine is a better idea>>>

Deaths of motorists on A roads are all too common, let's ban them as well, that's just as logical.

Take a look at what's happened on the Sheffield Parkway. Bikes were banned on it from the outset. Now as it's been developed as a multi-lane road it would be impossible to reverse that decision. The alternative is a hump-backed section of the National Cycle Network, fraught with broken glass and off-road motorbike problems.

It's a bit like banning people from parks because someone got mugged in one. If the road is dangerous to cyclists, fix it.

The A50 isn't as good as a motorway. It is dotted with roundabouts along the section mentioned - Uttoxeter to Doveridge.

If you take this argument to it's logiical conclusion, no pedestrian should be allowed to cross a road other than by a high level walk way or subway.

Also in Edinburgh area - cyclists and pedestrians are banned from A90 from Burnshot to Forth Road Bridge. Ban has been in place for 7 or 8 years after a fatality between a truck and a cyclist near Cramond Brig. No proper alternative offered. A90 path from Burnshot towards Dalmeny is woeful and detours add substantial distance.

“You don’t hear about cyclists being killed on the M1 or the M6"

But they are on other roads
The logic is clear
Put cyclists on the M1 and M6 for added safety

I sympathise with Mr Livingstone's reason for wanting a ban on the A50 but following his own argument to its logical conclusion, cars should be banned from the M1 and M6 due to fatal accidents.

A-roads can be anything from a country road to a fast moving dual carriage way and it should be left to the discretion of the individual whether to use the road or not.

Rob

Surely this can all be fixed with a simple strip of green paint with a bike painted at intervals on top of it. This way all dangerous (or careless if you are the CPS and deciding on how to prosecute) drivers will know to keep out of this bit when texting, putting on makeup, shaving etc...

I have sympathy for anyone who has lost someone but to think that they make cycling safer for all by banning us from stretches of road that can be dangerous is absurd and does not account for all users.

When group riding at night smaller unlit lanes can be a lot more dangerous than a lit dual carriageway. The small lanes can be the domain of the drunk driver using the backroads to get home from the pub whilst trying to avoid an encounter with the police. Maybe cyclists should also be banned between 10.30 and midnight to give the drunks a chance to drive home without hitting us?

A de facto ban effectively exists on pretty well all major trunk roads by virtue of they being designed for motor traffic only. That they are *designated* public highways open to ALL traffic suggests that they are unfit for that purpose. As others have suggested, perhaps such roads should be re-designated as motorways - as they are such in all but name - then as "Step-hent" states, alternative provision would have to be made for non-motorized traffic.

(Before anyone says...
yes, I know...
Pigs fuelled and ready for take-off.)

Slightly off topic, but by mistake I've cycled along a section of motorway in Portugal, after taking a wrong turn. Strangely, it felt safe. I did however get off the road at the earliest opportunity.

There's a precedent here: a section of the A55 in North Wales near Bangor effectively has motorway regulations without having an (M) status or the hard shoulders which are necessary for a 'proper' motorway.

As both a cyclist and a motorist who used to drive that section of the A50 every week, if there's a viable alternative route, I say the ban should be put into place.

Agree with the option of re-designating it as a motorway.

After all, as an A-road its also open to 50-125cc scooters which aren't much faster than a cyclist and could easily have been the victim of the txting driver. They wouldn't be "protected" from a cycle ban.

If it's as good as a motorway anyway, then it should be designated as subject to motorway regulations (like the A1M and other stretches of A-road treated as motorway) - and then alternative provision has to be made (and maintained) for all non-motorway traffic. Hopefully someone in the highways agency (or whoever is responsible for designation of the roads - is it local government?) will point this option out...

Carlton, I am with you on your concerns about segregated cycling. Part of my concern about it is that I can't believe that anyone is going to stump up the cost of new, high-class cycling infrastracture.

So rather than trying to reduce the danger, his approach is to simply remove anyone who might be affected by the source of that danger?

Stupid, arse-about-face logic. I hope this goes no further than one grandstanding idiot.

!

It wouldn't be the first. Cyclists, as well as pedestrians and horse-riders, are already banned from the A720 Edinburgh Ring Road. If you've ever driven on it, you can see why and none of the aforementioned would dream of using it (unless they had a death wish!).