Highways England decides against banning cyclists from UK’s fastest time trial course

Woldsman wrote:

For those not familiar with the A63 and its surroundings, yes there are far more pleasurable roads to cycle along for those not interested in timetrialling.  But that's not the point, is it? 

Since this story broke earlier in the year the local TT folk have voluntarily switched to a section of the 'old A63' between Howden and Selby for their events. The problem is that this is not a dual carriageway, so when cyclists are riding on an out-and-back-course there is limited opportunity for bigger vehicles to pass safely, potentially as cyclists are passing each other in the opposite direction, as opposed to the A63 proper - a dual carriageway with the width to support relatively safer overtakes on those quieter times that CTT events are typically run. 

The downside to this story, which on the face of it has given a welcome outcome, is that recently imposed additional safety requirements - having professional, ie costly, sign erectors put up warnings and, oddly, the doing away with marshals - has meant that TT events have been priced out of taking place and may even be less safe. 

It is good news that the Cyclists' Touring Club/Cycling UK has mobilised to put an end to this dangerous precedent, but given how the whole affair has impacted upon the V718 this would appear to be somehing of a Pyrrhic victory. 

That's tragic and appalling.  So they've allowed time trialing and effectively banned it.  Who imposed the additional requirements? I'm sure a lot of people might be persuaded to sign another petition or write to some beaurocrat.

burtthebike wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

... The downside to this story, which on the face of it has given a welcome outcome, is that recently imposed additional safety requirements - having professional, ie costly, sign erectors put up warnings and, oddly, the doing away with marshals - has meant that TT events have been priced out of taking place and may even be less safe. 

It is good news that the Cyclists' Touring Club/Cycling UK has mobilised to put an end to this dangerous precedent, but given how the whole affair has impacted upon the V718 this would appear to be somehing of a Pyrrhic victory. 

That's tragic and appalling.  So they've allowed time trialing and effectively banned it.  Who imposed the additional requirements? I'm sure a lot of people might be persuaded to sign another petition or write to some beaurocrat.

This is the gist of an interview during yesterday's Radio Humberside 'Drivetime' programme given by Ed Nielson of Vive le Velo, a local bike shop.  Ed has ridden the V718 and supported such events.  He was saying that these impositions (and, I'm sorry, I didn't follow who or what organisation had brought about these restrictions) meant that even he would be unwilling to ride the course again. 

alansmurphy wrote:

Can HE not simply change the speed limit to 30mph?

Wot, and not go under 20 mins for 10?

alansmurphy wrote:

Can HE not simply change the speed limit to 30mph?

I don't think it's fair to slow everyone down just to save some lives. Wouldn't it be better to install airbags and crash protection in all the cars and just ban anyone not in a car?

Master Bean wrote:

I wouldn't cycle between Swindon and Cirencester on the A419 so why would you want to use the main road into Hull. Fast TT course and all that but I'm sure there are more enjoyable quiet roads to cycle along.

Which bit of "time trial" did you not understand?  Or you could be a troll I suppose.

burtthebike wrote:

Master Bean wrote:

I wouldn't cycle between Swindon and Cirencester on the A419 so why would you want to use the main road into Hull. Fast TT course and all that but I'm sure there are more enjoyable quiet roads to cycle along.

Which bit of "time trial" did you not understand?  Or you could be a troll I suppose.

There used to be a time trial run on the A419 but the road became too busy and somebody died I think so it was stopped.

Master Bean wrote:

I wouldn't cycle between Swindon and Cirencester on the A419 so why would you want to use the main road into Hull. Fast TT course and all that but I'm sure there are more enjoyable quiet roads to cycle along.

I wouldn't want to be trapped in a vehicle stuck in long queues of traffic, belching out damaging air pollution - I'm sure there are more enjoyable ways of spending your time.

MikeKay wrote:

This is a good disision as bans are never a good thing, but the road is unsafe for cyclists as it's a 70mph stretch of duel carageway ( the main road in to hull and it's docks) there is and has always been a good cycle path and alternative routes to avoid using it. Lets just hope the clubs that run the TT's see sense and stop using it to race on.

I fail to see how the "road" is unsafe. Does it have pit-traps (apart from the usual pot-holes) or did they use exploding tarmac to cover part of it?

I would be willing to bet that the road is perfectly safe, but that there's lots of dangerous drivers using it. Dangerous driving can be tackled with appropriate policing/traffic calming/speed cameras etc., but to just accept it seems like a foolish and short-sighted decision.

Let's apportion blame where it belongs - the road is innocent and it's the inconsiderate/uncaring/thoughtless drivers that are making it unsafe.

MikeKay wrote:

This is a good disision as bans are never a good thing, but the road is unsafe for cyclists as it's a 70mph stretch of duel carageway

I think you'll find that the dual carriageway moves at 0mph, relatively speaking of course.
FYI, the speed limit on the stretch of road has nothing to do with cycling.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

MikeKay wrote:

This is a good disision as bans are never a good thing, but the road is unsafe for cyclists as it's a 70mph stretch of duel carageway

I think you'll find that the dual carriageway moves at 0mph, relatively speaking of course.
FYI, the speed limit on the stretch of road has nothing to do with cycling.

Hmm... if we are strictly  relatively speaking, if a cyclist (lets assume a time triallist) is doing an average speed of just under 30mph eastbound along the A63, then relative to the reference point of the cyclist, the A63 is moving at 30mph west.

Physics is great.

CygnusX1 wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

MikeKay wrote:

This is a good disision as bans are never a good thing, but the road is unsafe for cyclists as it's a 70mph stretch of duel carageway

I think you'll find that the dual carriageway moves at 0mph, relatively speaking of course.
FYI, the speed limit on the stretch of road has nothing to do with cycling.

Hmm... if we are strictly  relatively speaking, if a cyclist (lets assume a time triallist) is doing an average speed of just under 30mph eastbound along the A63, then relative to the reference point of the cyclist, the A63 is moving at 30mph west.

Physics is great.

From Voyager 1's frame of reference, they'd both be travelling at around 38000mph. Just slow down!

rkemb wrote:

Quote:

A spokesperson for Highways England said it was now developing cycling and safety improvements for the road

Which is obviously what they should have done in the first place, at the design stage, to ensure that the road was fit to be used by all classes of users who have a right to use it. Have they learned any lessons from this?

The original road.cc story on this quoted HE as saying

"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."

It doesn't, nor does HE, say how many accidents involving motor vehicles there've been on that road over the same period, but I'd guess its a greater number.

When was the road actually constructed or dualled?  Was it during the Cycling Dark Ages when everyone was expected to drive a car everywhere no matter what?

Seems to me, HE has already put forward a cast-iron case for why they need to build an off road, segregated cycle way or, (given the likely numbers of pedestrians there) even a shared-use facility...

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I wonder what the council are now doing about the quite obvious huge danger to cyclists that they tried to use as the reason to ban cycling on this road?
Oh, just "encouraging" everyone to use the road safely.

Neither Hull City Council nor the East Riding of Yorkshire Council had anything to do with this nonsense. The request to Highways England came from Humberside Police. 

Woldsman wrote:

The request to Highways England came from Humberside Police. 

Humberside Police have a dismissive attitude towards both cycling events and cycling generally. A friend of mine is chair of one of the local clubs and was told in no uncertain terms that HP would refuse to allow a particular event to take place unless the club had applied for road closures when the event didn't need them (and had run for a number of years very safely and successfully without them) and would almost certainly not be granted them. 

This year I have suffered very two close passes on my commute into work by police cars, one of which took place on a section of solid double white lines which they happily straddled ... and on neither occasion were they running with sirens or flashing lights as I would happily have got out of their way if they had been. 

I have also had "discussions" with two separate police drivers in Hull city centre about the bad example they were setting by illegally pulling into the ASZ beside me while the lights were red. The first ignored me, the second told me I should probably "mind my own business".

But then, considering their response to our last burglary was to give me a crime number so I could claim on my insurance but add that there was unlikely to be any investigation because it was low priority, I guess it should be expected.