Highways England wants to ban cyclists from the UK’s fastest time trial course

BehindTheBikesheds 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!

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.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

(snip)... 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.  

Thanks.  However, isn't 70-80 above the speed limit...?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

So if they allowed you to use the motorway, would you? I occasionally see the odd cyclist on the a64 and just think 'nutter'.

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:

So if they allowed you to use the motorway, would you? I occasionally see the odd cyclist on the a64 and just think 'nutter'.

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:

So if they allowed you to use the motorway, would you? I occasionally see the odd cyclist on the a64 and just think 'nutter'.

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:

So if they allowed you to use the motorway, would you?

I occasionally see the odd cyclist on the a64 and just think 'nutter'.

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.

alansmurphy wrote:

"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.

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:

[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!"

Listen to your arrogance. You don’t want to cycle on it, therefore nobody should, and anyone who disagrees is a dimwit.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

"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.

Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road.  Why do you think they're so long?

So twats can build up enough speed to kill people?

alansmurphy wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

"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.

Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road.  Why do you think they're so long?

 

So twats can build up enough speed to kill people?

What an astonishing lack of logic your post demonstrates.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

"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.

Take a look at the huge, 500m long slip roads onto that road.  Why do you think they're so long?

 

So twats can build up enough speed to kill people?

What an astonishing lack of logic your post demonstrates.

Does it?

You tell me why the slip roads are 500m long then...

Yrcm wrote:

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. 

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:

 

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.

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. 

Tony wrote:

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.

You can look up reported ones on Crash Map.

A2thaJ wrote:

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.).

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.

Feckthehelmet wrote:

Plasterer's Radio. What's with the anti Irish stuff? Tosser.

Never mind the radio, you're a stuck record.