- 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
OPINION
Cycling on fast dual carriageways – Yes or No? A road.cc reader gives his view
Wed, Oct 21, 2020 14:47
112
Dual carriageway at Alvie on the A9 (licensed CC BY-2.0 on Flickr by Glen Wallace)A video featured in our Near Miss of the Day series earlier this week showing a cyclist being subjected to a very close pass at a car travelling at around 60mph on the A34 ignited a debate in the comments, as footage shot on such roads often does – should you, or should you not, ride on fast dual carriageways?
> Near Miss of the Day 483: Audi driver makes close pass while beeping horn
Highways England decided two years ago against implementing a blanket ban on cycling on the A63 near Hull after Cycling UK gathered more than 10,000 signatures in a petition against the plan, warning that it might set a dangerous precedent, and whether or not to ride on one remains a personal choice.
> Highways England decides against banning cyclists from UK’s fastest time trial course
Having said that, there are some places where it is impossible to avoid riding for at least a short time on one, perhaps to negotiate a roundabout – and often, there will be no usable footpath alongside for those who don’t want to ride on the main carriageway.
After we published that Near Miss of the Day on Monday, road.cc reader Phil Reynolds got in touch to give his views on the subject.
“I’m very rarely moved to write in about anything, but I feel this needs comment,” he said, adding, “Perhaps you'll publish this email as a discussion starting point?”
We agree with Phil – we know that our readers hold a broad range of views on the issue, and it’s one we feel is worth debating. Here’s Philip’s post in full – let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
I'm an avid cyclist, hater of close passes, and defender of cyclists’ rights – I’ll state that for the record before beginning.
I'll also agree that, in the video I've copied into the subject box, the cyclist has a legal right to ride on that road and would be in the right if her/she were to be hit.
However, one thing is totally clear: he/she should not be on a 60mph dual carriageway. That is completely stupid. Sure, it’s allowed, but it's also allowed to jump off a cliff on a bike, and the resultant death is not the cliff’s fault.
We can’t expect drivers to think pushbike when they’re on a dual carriageway any more than we can expect them to think pedestrian, injured bird or crashed alien spaceship. It’s too dangerous. The two are incompatible.
The only option is to ban cycling on these car-only roads. It’ll probably actually ameliorate the car-cyclist antipathy, to my mind, if we give this sensible concession.
In case you yourselves don't agree, let me ask you: would you cycle on a dual carriageway? Would you walk on one? On that road in the video?
Close passes are always the driver’s fault – let’s not deny that – but in some cases, as with the above, the cyclist has made a really stupid decision to ride that road in the first place, and simply being in the right doesn't cut it for me.
Perhaps you'll publish this email as a discussion starting point? I don't have all the answers but I certainly think the debate is more complex than ‘close pass equals condemnation’.
Do you agree with Phil? Should cyclists avoid such roads at all costs? Do you feel confident riding on them?
Or should more be done in terms of giving cyclists safe infrastructure to ride alongside the dual carriageway, as well as carrying out more and tougher enforcement against drivers who do put cyclists’ lives in danger?
Over to you …
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- Andrewbanshee 27 min 57 sec ago
It is possible that he didn't know that many of the trees need to be cut down.
- eburtthebike 37 min 51 sec ago
You should learn to share the road: like the drivers do.
- Steve K 43 min 4 sec ago
I don't think Lime are anywhere near folding.
- Andrewbanshee 46 min 15 sec ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 47 min 17 sec ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 8 hours 50 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 14 hours 16 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 14 hours 46 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 19 hours 58 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
112 comments
As a matter of personal choice, I try to avoid fast multi-lane roads. In practice, that can include roads with a posted 40 or 50mph limit too, as a lot of drivers seem to think second lane = national speed limit. They should be safe, for the reasons that people have already cited (good sight lines, space for overtaking). And yes, drivers should know to be on the look out for all sorts of hazards, including cyclists. But in practice most drivers won't encounter those hazards very often, and precisely because the roads are straight and well sighted, they lapse into semi-concentration, focusing on the car in front, occasionally checking their mirrors, and maintaining a high speed. If you're only expecting to encounter large motorised traffic (because that's all that you've seen for [x] miles, or [x] years driving on this road), then a bike can be easily missed until you are far too close, and closing on it rapidly, and it's the closing and passing speed that makes these roads feel deeply unsafe (though I don't know if statistically they are). Many drivers also don't seem to appreciate the wake that they cause when passing you at a differential of 40+mph, and won't bother to move fully into the second lane. I'm not saying that's ok, but if the typical driver isn't expecting to see you, I don't want to be there.
Unfortunately they're the best (quickest, most direct) option to get out of urban South Wales, so they're often used for club runs or audax routes. I find they're bearable in a conspicuous group and early on a weekend morning, but riding them solo or at busier times can be very intimidating. Having said all that, banning their use in general is not the answer.
I work right next to the A63 near Hull (the one HE were going to ban cyclists from a couple of years ago) ... close enough that I can smell the fumes from the vehicles if I have the windows open.
I have ridden it a couple of times, and it is the shortest and most direct route from my home to my place of work ... as well as the only way I could cycle home without doubling the distance or spending at least 2-3 miles on one of three different winding, unlit lanes.
The A63 at this point does have a shared use path, on one side, which is essentially a roadside footpath barely wide enough for two pedestrians to pass each other let alone two bicycles, and which the council leave in the hands of nature ... the surface is cracking and rutted, and the vegetation never trimmed back, and it is deeply unpleasant to ride.
It would not be my first choice to ride the dual carriageway, but there are times, particularly on dark Winter nights when it is the least worst option, particularly as all the unlit lanes are prone to gathering large puddles of water whenever it rains.
I have been a police response driver and a cyclist on police 'close pass' operations. I have spoken to many drivers who were stopped on our operations. ( For those who don't know, a cyclist - with radio and cameras radios waiting police motorcyclists when a car passes too close. They pull the driver over and he or she is given education including a short video on the dangers of driving too close to cyclists.) The problem on busy dual carriageways is that the car is approaching the cyclist at 50mph - the driver is unable to pull out and give space to the cyclist. He has to brake sharply in fast moving traffic, which can be (is) dangerous. I would not drive on a busy dual carriageway again - the driver either risks being rear ended by the car behind or driving too close to the cyclist.
A lot of complaints about lack of options but near me is the 50-limit dual carriageway at the bottom of Box Hill where people choose to cycle on the main road despite there being a cycle path at the side. I totally get the argument around sight lines/stopping distance being an ex-biker who did advanced training but the speed differential still creates a risky situation that doesn't need to exist - at busy times the right hand lane will have small gaps for a vehicle to accelarate into from the speed of the cyclist they are behind. You may have the right to ride on the dual carriageway, but choosing to share it with 2 ton lumps of metal when you don't need to is an odd one. Cycling infrastructure alone doesn't seem to be the answer (shrugs)
The A3 from the Robin Hood roundabout in London all the way to Portsmouth is an A road and so technically permitted for cyclists. It's also effectively a three lane motorway in both directions and I'd no more risk cycling on there than I would cycling up the M1 (if it were allowed). I'd always want a minimum of roads to be car-only but that sort of triple-lane 70mph carriageway should definitely be.
I've certainly ridden on dual carriageways in the past. As a young rider I used to take the route from Edinburgh out to the Forth Bridge on a regular basis. But now I think I was young and foolish. Yes, it may be legal to cycle on a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 60mph or even 70mph, but to my mind, it's taking a big risk. I wouldn't do it now.
I'm working from home at present but prior to that would commute along the very busy A2 into North Kent on my motorbike for much of the year, only switching to cycling to the train station instead during the very coldest months. I certainly would not cycle along there, though I sometimes see people riding along it. For most (but not all I readily admit) dual carriageway routes, there are safer alternatives. Those alternative routes may be less direct, but then remember that for cycling, the fun is in the journey.
I do recall having a disagreement with some members of this site on this topic previously.
I've got a solution. You stick a barrier between the two lanes and one becomes a cycle superhighway. 'But this will inconvenience people traveling by car', I hear you cry. So its better to give those travelling by bike little choice but to put their lives at risk? We already have loads of good cycling infra. Problem is most of it is full of cars. This only seems like a radical solution because we live with an idea of normality distorted by car culture. We live in a society where dangerous driving is more 'normal' than pedalling to the shops letting your kids ride on the road would be widely seen as poor parenting. Besides, the alternative to radical solutions is climate chaos and collapse of human civilisation as we know it. We need to be urgently moving towards a world where dual carriageways aren't a thing.
I reckon cyclists should avoid dual carriageways at all costs. I would sooner take the bus/car/train/tram than have to cycle on one.
A new cycle path has opened here and it provides a useful connection for me. The only problem it connected by a short 1.7km section of straight dual carriageway. If I could navigate through the residential area I could avoid it but that's circa a km further and on older sections of older less suitable paths. A lot further if I get lost. I'm choosing the dual carriageway at the moment.
Only if they build a cycle track alongside.
Oz seems to manage that (or at least, Adelaide), according to my nephew who lives out there there's decent segregated cycle tracks alongside the two motorways out of the city.
It should be safe for cyclists to ride on ALL roads on which they are permitted. By that I mean that it should be safe in the presence of motorists exercising reasonable competency. If we cannot ensure this, then we either need to make suitable provision for cyclists on such roads or prevent cyclists from using them. I'd obviously much prefer the former, for example, by making suitable modifications to the road, or by providing high quality alternative provision (e.g. separate lanes). However, if we cannot ensure that it is (reasonably) safe for cyclists to do so in the presence of reasonably competent drivers, then the only safe alternative is to prevent cyclists using them. That should only be contemplated where it is not possible to ensure cyclists safety. If authorities wish to ban cycling on safety grounds they should first be required to demonstrate that it is not possible to modify the road in question to achieve this.
Utterly wrong. The rider is visible for at least your stopping distance - you are leaving the correct stopping distance aren't you?
The scenario you describe is one where the driver is not thinking more than about 1s ahead of themselves. In that situation, the driver is risking themselves and others regardless of the presence of a cyclist.
It might just have something to do with the condition/quality of the so called cycle path - it's rubbish.
I cycled on the A24 and A27 (mentioned earlier in the topic) when I was young. The big difference to now is the volume of traffic and the speed/acceleration. So when you say 'I wouldn't do it now' that partly reflects the change in traffic volume.
So perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should ask, "Should cyclists have to use fast dual carriageways?"
In other words, if motorists don't appreciate cyclists on these roads, and cyclists don't like using them, why are there not better cycling alternatives so that (almost) no cyclist would want to be using the dual carriageway instead.
As a student I rode from Guildford to London on the A3, before the days of internet and gps navigation. I had no issues at all until the kingston bypass when the hard shoulder stopped. Up until then it felt safer than rural roads with 60mph limts or urban roads with high traffic density. Without the hard shoulder extremely uncomfortable. I didn't do it again.
We need to be urgently moving towards a world where only motorways are considered to be motorways. A lot of the problems with our roads come down to motorists who are unable to share the road with others - especially others that aren't also using motor vehicles. National speed limit multi-lane dual carriageways hightlight this issue as they closely resemble motorways - but they are not the issue - any motorist who is unable to safely share such a road with cyclists is not capable of sharing any road safely.
As others are have said there are many reasons multilane dual carriageways should be among the safest to cycle on. The things that make them unsafe all boil down to poor driver attitude.
The solution, in my opinion, is for motor traffic to be de-prioritised on every non-motoway that doesn't have the highest quality segregated cycling infrastructure.
Another alternative is to stop the dangerous drivers from using those roads, or indeed any roads. It's not the roads themselves that are inherently dangerous (excepting motorways which have different uses), but just a small percentage of problem drivers.
Got to aagree with Cap'n Badg here. If the person in charge of a vehicle cannot stop within the distance they can see is clear ahead then they are not operating that vehicle safely. Its a simple statement which should apply to all vehicles on the road.
It doesn't apply to other spaces, and hence they are seen and managed as being more dangerous like race tracks or railways, hence why railway lines are fenced off and walking on the lines is treated as a serious offence
It's not about being right or wrong- often the only option for the driver is to slow down, at 55 mph this will be fairly brisk braking - which is often hazardous. Why are you asking me if I'm leaving the correct stopping distance, I'm the one on the bike.
If I have a reason slow my car own using the brakes, the car behind must be expected to be able to also? When did braking supposedly become dangerous? Before you say "tailgating" the Highway Code instructs you to slow down if the vehicle behind is too close, to ensure you have adequate space to brake if required
Yes it is
I am always prepared to use my brakes at whatever speed I am going - on what planet is it hazardous to slow down?? A cyclist on the road ahead is not a sudden occurrence. If drivers cannot stop safely and under control in the distance they can see to be clear then they are either going too fast, or not leaving sufficient space. Both of these situations can only be rectified by reducing speed - typically by use of the brakes.
I use "you", as the only reason I can see that you sympathise with these (yes wrong) drivers is that you employ the same poor, high-risk principles of driving yourself.
Furthermore, if this rationale is shared amongst the wider profession, it may go some way to explain the reluctance of some forces to prosecute dangerous and aggressive behaviour by drivers
exactly, you shouldnt need to remotely briskly brake in that situation, briskly braking means you havent been observant enough and planned far enough ahead, the cyclist hasnt just mysteriously appeared theyve been there the whole time to be seen and drivers should be expected to react much sooner to things like that, which could be anything not just a cyclist, a tractor, a lorry whose tyre blows out or shedding a load, loose animals anything, and it should happen at least 30-50metres out at that speed, not just mere car lengths away, and if they cant do that maybe this driving lark isnt really for them
Paul, thanks for taking the time to post here. It's valuable to hear a perspective from someone with your experience. You will, however, get short shrift from the residents [ducks for cover].
But that cycle path is just awful, pothole filled, glass and litter strewn and virtually never cleared of leaves in the autumn. I avoid it by riding back via Headley, Epsom Downs, Epsom, WestEwell, Worecester Park and on to Kingston and Richmaond Park. I certainly wouldn't want to ride the dual carriageway but equally I'm not into mashing £120 tyre sets and £800 wheels on that piece of crap. You say "cycling infrastructure alone doesn't seem to be the answer" - no it isn't, proper, usable, well-cared for cycling infrastructure is the answer.
I was following a van a few months ago on an otherwise empty 2 x 2 dual carriageway with a 50 mph limit, whose driver (probably travelling at more than 50 mph) chose to overtake two cyclists without even moving into the completely empty second lane. I have never been so tempted to chase after a vehicle and ram it off the road.
Well, yes, sort of. The old chestnut of putting yourself in danger, but the danger only existing due to the inexperience / incompetence / negligence or poor attitude of others.
Indeed, the same mentality that asks the question "Well what was she doing out at that time alone?" ....
Don't get me wrong, the responsibility for operating a motorised vehicle safely absolutely has to be the focus of enforcement. But you are a braver cyclist than I to be routinely using a busy 60 or 70 mph dual carriageway on or in a vehicle that cannot travel at the speed of the other traffic.
Got caught once with the choice of a few miles on the A1 or a complete backtrack. If I find myself in that situation again I'll take the backtrack option and I consider myself fairly confident around faster traffic.
Pages