# Surrey County Council to allow debate on banning cyclists from A24



## benb (2 Nov 2016)

A driving instructor has managed to get enough signatures to a petition suggesting cyclists should be banned from the A24 that it will be debated by the council. His "logic" is that as there is an adjacent cycle path we should be forced to use it.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...cycling-a24-theres-adjacent-cycle-path-297763

The path isn't completely awful, but it's quite unsuitable for fast road bikes.
Here is a section of it.




Hopefully it will be rejected.


----------



## G3CWI (2 Nov 2016)

benb said:


> Hopefully it will be rejected.



I would not be too hopeful.


----------



## Gert Lush (2 Nov 2016)

Don't think they can legally stop cyclists from cycling on the road?


----------



## raleighnut (2 Nov 2016)

I think the only way would be to give it 'Motorway' status (as in it becoming the A24M) which should keep learner drivers off it too.
Far better to restrict the road to 40mph and put 'speed cameras' on it (nice little 'earner' for the Council )


----------



## PK99 (2 Nov 2016)

The Cycle paths by the A24 were built with the road in 1935/6, partly as a model for all future road evelopment. The CTC AGM at the time voted unanimously against any separate provision and all special cycling provision in the UK went on top the back burner untill the late 70's. The UK was ahead of the game wrt Holland, Germany etc but thanks to CTC we ended up generations behind.


Another contemporary example from the not far away @Rosehill. Morden


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I think the only way would be to give it 'Motorway' status (as in it becoming the A24M) which should keep learner drivers off it too.


Sadly not. I'm pretty sure that Traffic Regulation Order can in theory ban cycles from any road, but it should only be for a reason in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/1 (summary: avoiding danger to users, preventing damage to the road or to any building on/near it, facilitating passage, preventing use by traffic unsuitable for its character, preserving it for persons on horseback or on foot, preserving or improving the amenities of the area, or air quality) - but unless there's a safer alternative for all journeys, it's hard to see how there's a tenable argument for banning cycling, so I've mainly seen it used for short and/or junctionless stretches. At best, it should be very embarrasing to a council that they've created a dangerous road and they'll probably have to ban walkers, horses and farm vehicles too, so cyclists shouldn't be alone [edit:] in fighting the ban order.

Of course, they could make an order anyway, then it'll take a load of money getting it overturned in court and it'll probably cause a load of bad publicity for cycling and harm the county council's cycling strategy and public health strategy and argh what a mess.

Any Surrey resident getting a pro-cycling petition together, perhaps asking for the road design to be changed to limit the dangers posed by motorists to all other users? I hope it wouldn't be too hard to top 300 signatures.


> Far better to restrict the road to 40mph and put 'speed cameras' on it (nice little 'earner' for the Council )


Probably. Some redesigns could be good, too.


----------



## steve50 (2 Nov 2016)

I'm sure the "anti cyclist- cycling" brigade will be watching this with interest, what concerns me is if the ban is allowed to go ahead it could create a precedent and open the floodgates for just about any disgruntled anti cyclist driver to start a petition trying to get cyclists banned from roads where there is an adjacent cycle path / route.


----------



## ayceejay (2 Nov 2016)

That is a very dangerous road for sure, I used to cycle from Abinger Hammer to Dorking and back every day so I know of what I speak. I think the idea of trying to get motorists to tone it down and be aware of cyclists is a lost cause my advice to cyclists would be to avoid it if you can.


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Nov 2016)

ayceejay said:


> That is a very dangerous road for sure, I used to cycle from Abinger Hammer to Dorking and back every day so I know of what I speak. I think the idea of trying to get motorists to tone it down and be aware of cyclists is a lost cause my advice to cyclists would be to avoid it if you can.


The A25 is the road from Abinger Hammer to Dorking. The road being debated is the A24, which runs north from Dorking, past Box Hill (actually it starts in Worthing, but you know what I mean).

The A25 is a bit manky. Single carriageway mostly, tight in places. The A24 from Dorking up to Givons Grove roundabout (just S of Leatherhead) is dual carriageway and a different beast altogether.

I cycle on both without trouble.


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2016)

Yeah, cycling on the dual carriageway is not the most pleasant road, but as long as you take an assertive position in the lane, so drivers have to change lanes to overtake rather than squeezing through in the same lane, it's not particularly dangerous.


----------



## Drago (2 Nov 2016)

Twottish driving instructor can debate it all he wants, the power doesn't exist to ban cyclists from it. Don't give the fool the oxygen of publicity he seeks.


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

Drago said:


> Twottish driving instructor can debate it all he wants, the power doesn't exist to ban cyclists from it. Don't give the fool the oxygen of publicity he seeks.


Does that mean you think madness like this doesn't happen, or what?




(pic by andypreece, cc-by-SA)


----------



## Pete Owens (3 Nov 2016)

It would make this sculpture rather ironic:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/45220/


----------



## raleighnut (3 Nov 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> It would make this sculpture rather ironic:
> https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/45220/


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Nov 2016)

I use the A24 from the intersection with the A232 to Ashtead.

I hope this nonsense doesn't ruin my route.


----------



## User33236 (3 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Does that mean you think madness like this doesn't happen, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Edinburgh City Bypass is designated at a 'special road' according to this article and therefore subject to many of the same regulations as motorways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_City_Bypass

Pretty sure the A24 is an 'all-purpose road'.


----------



## hatler (3 Nov 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> I use the A24 from the intersection with the A232 to Ashtead.
> 
> I hope this nonsense doesn't ruin my route.


Apparently not. The section in question is from just South of Leatherhead to just North of Dorking.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Nov 2016)

Maybe the council will go completely crazy and rule that motorists should drive more responsibly?


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Nov 2016)

Actually, are these things open hearings? Anyone know if I can pop over and listen to it, see what happens?


----------



## DaveReading (3 Nov 2016)

Full text of petition:

_"Please make it illegal for cyclists to use the A24 Dual Carriageway between Givons Grove roundabout, Leatherhead and Ashcombe Road, Dorking. It is very dangerous for all road users, especially the cyclists. There is a very good cycle lane off to both side of this road that many cyclists already use therefore it is clearly fit for purpose. I use this section of road many times each week, including the weekends, and have witnessed many close shaves and dangerous situations and feel it is only a matter of time before there are some serious accidents involving cyclists. One particularly dangerous section is when cyclists don't use the underpass and cross two lanes of 50mph traffic to turn right at the Burford Bridge roundabout to go up Box Hill. It will need 'No Cycling' signposts that will need to be actively enforced and a commitment to ensure the cycle lanes are kept in good repair and fit for purpose."_

To be debated at next week's Highways, Transport and Flooding committee decision meeting (2pm Wednesday 9th November at County Hall, Kingston). The meeting, at which a response will be tabled, is open to the public.

http://petitions.surreycc.gov.uk/A24Cyclingban/


----------



## raleighnut (3 Nov 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Full text of petition:
> 
> _"Please make it illegal for cyclists to use the A24 Dual Carriageway between Givons Grove roundabout, Leatherhead and Ashcombe Road, Dorking. It is very dangerous for all road users, especially the cyclists. There is a very good cycle lane off to both side of this road that many cyclists already use therefore it is clearly fit for purpose. I use this section of road many times each week, including the weekends, and have witnessed many close shaves and dangerous situations and feel it is only a matter of time before there are some serious accidents involving cyclists. One particularly dangerous section is when cyclists don't use the underpass and cross two lanes of 50mph traffic to turn right at the Burford Bridge roundabout to go up Box Hill. It will need 'No Cycling' signposts that will need to be actively enforced and a commitment to ensure the cycle lanes are kept in good repair and fit for purpose."_
> 
> ...


There are some 'joke' names in there, "Lukina Mirramate" being an obvious one.


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Nov 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Full text of petition:
> 
> _"Please make it illegal for cyclists to use the A24 Dual Carriageway between Givons Grove roundabout, Leatherhead and Ashcombe Road, Dorking. It is very dangerous for all road users, especially the cyclists. There is a very good cycle lane off to both side of this road that many cyclists already use therefore it is clearly fit for purpose. I use this section of road many times each week, including the weekends, and have witnessed many close shaves and dangerous situations and feel it is only a matter of time before there are some serious accidents involving cyclists. One particularly dangerous section is when cyclists don't use the underpass and cross two lanes of 50mph traffic to turn right at the Burford Bridge roundabout to go up Box Hill. It will need 'No Cycling' signposts that will need to be actively enforced and a commitment to ensure the cycle lanes are kept in good repair and fit for purpose."_
> 
> ...



Some respectable signatories there:

"Sue" and dozens of others without a surname
"Completely agree"
Jane Balch8n
lmoxham
"From the dark ages"
"Giving us instructors a bad name"


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2016)

PK99 said:


> Another contemporary example from the not far away @Rosehill. Morden
> View attachment 149993




St Helier Avenue, looking south.
I lived on that estate for a few years in the 70's.


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2016)

User33236 said:


> Edinburgh City Bypass is designated at a 'special road' according to this article and therefore subject to many of the same regulations as motorways.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_City_Bypass
> 
> Pretty sure the A24 is an 'all-purpose road'.


It turns out that's correct, but there are plenty of other cycling bans without being designated a "special road" AFAICT. I looked for special road regulations for the A1203 (Limehouse Link tunnels - CS3 is the cycling alternative), the A45 (Nene Valley Way - NCR539 alternative) and A14 (west of Welford Road - no signed alternative) and didn't find them, for three other examples. I realise all of those have arguable reasons for banning cycling which don't apply to the A24, but I still think it is legally possible without special road status.


----------



## Mr Celine (3 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> It turns out that's correct, but there are plenty of other cycling bans without being designated a "special road" AFAICT. I looked for special road regulations for the A1203 (Limehouse Link tunnels - CS3 is the cycling alternative), the A45 (Nene Valley Way - NCR539 alternative) and A14 (west of Welford Road - no signed alternative) and didn't find them, for three other examples. I realise all of those have arguable reasons for banning cycling which don't apply to the A24, but I still think it is legally possible without special road status.



Another Scottish example  here  which was rather controversial when introduced, mainly due to the lack of a suitable alternative, though I wouldn't want to cycle on the A90 anyway. This part of the A90 is not a special road.

All classes of traffic are permitted to use all-purpose roads unless specifically banned by a traffic regulation order, which is what happened on the A90.
No classes of traffic are permitted to use a special road unless specifically authorised, in the case of the A720 by the statutory instrument used to allow its construction. So technically it's not a case of cyclists being banned from the A720 but one of motor vehicles being allowed.

Non-motorway special roads are quite rare. Other examples are the A55 in north Wales and the cycle tracks across the original Severn Bridge.


----------



## Pete Owens (3 Nov 2016)

Perhaps his facebook entry should be drawn to the attention of the committee to show his genuine level of concern for cyclists:
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153509508180778&id=200926809928921


----------



## iwantanewbike (3 Nov 2016)

I cycled down here a few times in the summer south of the A25... After several close passes despite an empty road I decided to take the lane. Afterwards I got nothing but really wide berths except one BMW driver who thought he would drive alongside me for thirty seconds for some reason. I smiled and waved


----------



## mjr (3 Nov 2016)

iwantanewbike said:


> Afterwards I got nothing but really wide berths except one BMW driver who thought he would drive alongside me for thirty seconds for some reason. I smiled and waved


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Nov 2016)

If cycling gets banned, I'll make sure I route a few night rides down the A24 next year.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Nov 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> Perhaps his facebook entry should be drawn to the attention of the committee to show his genuine level of concern for cyclists:
> https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153509508180778&id=200926809928921


So he isn't keen on cyclists being on the public highways at all, maybe this *should* be drawn to their attention


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> I use the A24 from the intersection with the A232 to Ashtead.
> 
> I hope this nonsense doesn't ruin my route.



I probably see you sometimes then: I go from Epsom to Carshalton in the morning , and the other way in the evening


----------



## ayceejay (3 Nov 2016)

So I got my 24's mixed up with my 25's. I remember that track at the side of the road from Dorking to Givons Grove, that was where drivers once dumped their shattered windscreens.


----------



## AnthonyC (3 Nov 2016)

The only fair compensation for a ban on that road would be the construction of a decent two-way cycle path next to it. That should be the starting point for negotiations.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Nov 2016)

AnthonyC said:


> The only fair compensation for a ban on that road would be the construction of a decent two-way cycle path next to it. That should be the starting point for negotiations.


Whereas the best course of action by the Council (on an issue raised by a rabid cycle hater) would be a speed restriction on that road (40mph) and a big (published) thankyou to the fella who made them aware of how dangerous the road was.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2016)

AnthonyC said:


> The only fair compensation for a ban on that road would be the construction of a decent two-way cycle path next to it. That should be the starting point for negotiations.


Who needs to construct it? It's a dual-carriageway so they could just fence off one lane in whichever direction gets less traffic, with access gates to allow emergency vehicle use to bypass congestion which reportedly already blocks the road for them at some times.


----------



## hatler (4 Nov 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> Perhaps his facebook entry should be drawn to the attention of the committee to show his genuine level of concern for cyclists:
> https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153509508180778&id=200926809928921


That really comes as no surprise.
Mr Toad levels of poopery dressed up with faux concern for cyclists' safety.

Twat.

Actually, no. Much worse than that. More likely a bullying thug-in-a-car who is doubtless sharing his irrational bile with impressionable new drivers.

Someone who professes to "fukcing hate" any type of vulnerable road user shouldn't be a driving instructor. Clearly unsuited to the job.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2016)

raleighnut said:


> So he isn't keen on cyclists being on the public highways at all, maybe this *should* be drawn to their attention


Done. https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/794575917024759808

edit: and to the Cabinet Member for Health at https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/794577669790859264?p=v - the Transport one doesn't seem to be on Twitter.


----------



## jarlrmai (4 Nov 2016)

For the benefit of clarity, it looks like he has shared with that group, is he a member?


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> For the benefit of clarity, it looks like he has shared with that group, is he a member?


I think it's actually a page but I'm hoping SCC are equally confused


----------



## AnthonyC (4 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Who needs to construct it? It's a dual-carriageway so they could just fence off one lane in whichever direction gets less traffic, with access gates to allow emergency vehicle use to bypass congestion which reportedly already blocks the road for them at some times.



Would be great indeed, but that's probably even less likely..


----------



## Pete Owens (5 Nov 2016)

Why not? - after all this is part of the road in question:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2...4!1sOrOzxUARVyczO2LTf_yEtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Clearly a single lane is sufficient for the volume of traffic using the road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Nov 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Maybe the council will go completely crazy and rule that motorists should drive more responsibly?


This is Surrey we are talking about so not likely.


----------



## Simontm (11 Nov 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> Why not? - after all this is part of the road in question:
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2...4!1sOrOzxUARVyczO2LTf_yEtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> Clearly a single lane is sufficient for the volume of traffic using the road.


That was put in place to slow down motorbikes doing the Mickeys. Too many idiots were launching off the rise into the lower carriageway opposite. 
When I was a brash teenager, you could bomb along in your dad'ds car as the police were only after motorbikes


----------



## DaveReading (11 Nov 2016)

The petition has been rejected.

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/d...ghways Transport and Flooding Decisio.pdf?T=2


----------



## PK99 (11 Nov 2016)

Simontm said:


> That was put in place to slow down motorbikes doing the Mickeys. Too many idiots were launching off the rise into the lower carriageway opposite.
> When I was a brash teenager, you could bomb along in your dad'ds car as the police were only after motorbikes



That stretch used to be two lane toward Dorking and had prominent signs "Deceptive Bends" . 10cc used to record at Strawberry Studios in Dorking......


----------



## mjr (11 Nov 2016)

DaveReading said:


> The petition has been rejected.
> 
> https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/d...ghways Transport and Flooding Decisio.pdf?T=2


Interesting that part of the reason for rejection is that the Local Enterprise Partnership refused to fund repairs. Now there's a double edged sword!


----------



## Tin Pot (11 Nov 2016)

DaveReading said:


> The petition has been rejected.
> 
> https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g4618/Decisions Wednesday 09-Nov-2016 14.00 Cabinet Member for Highways Transport and Flooding Decisio.pdf?T=2



Nice response.


----------



## AnthonyC (11 Nov 2016)

1-0 against the angry motorist.


----------



## Pete Owens (12 Nov 2016)

Simontm said:


> That was put in place to slow down motorbikes doing the Mickeys. Too many idiots were launching off the rise into the lower carriageway opposite.
> When I was a brash teenager, you could bomb along in your dad'ds car as the police were only after motorbikes


Whatever the reason for doing it in the first place it demonstrates that two lanes are not needed to accomodate the volume of motor traffic using the road.


----------



## Bluebug (12 Nov 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> Whatever the reason for doing it in the first place it demonstrates that two lanes are not needed to accomodate the volume of motor traffic using the road.


The only reason the driving instructor is being held up is due to people who purposely drive under the speed limit on a clear day in that area. 

The only traffic problems on that route apart from around the town centres are caused by drivers - those who insist on driving under the speed limit particularly elderly drivers and van drivers in clear conditions. 

Cyclists whether they are using the A24 in London, Surrey or Sussex aren't an issue including if they are doing time trials.


----------



## Flying Dodo (13 Nov 2016)

You're forgetting that a speed limit isn't a target to be aimed for. It's a maximum.


----------



## Bluebug (14 Nov 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> You're forgetting that a speed limit isn't a target to be aimed for. It's a maximum.


Speed limits maybe the maximum but you can be fined for driving too slowly without good reason as you are a hazard to other road users and are driving without due care and attention.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2016)

Bluebug said:


> Speed limits maybe the maximum but you can be fined for driving too slowly without good reason as you are a hazard to other road users and are driving without due care and attention.


A vanishingly small problem compared to excessive speed. If you drive within five below the limit, you're never going to get stopped for that. Too many nobbers act as if speeding is a victimless crime... it's only victimless until there's a collision, then every extra Joule of kinetic energy makes things worse almost every time.


----------



## Markymark (14 Nov 2016)

Bluebug said:


> Speed limits maybe the maximum but you can be fined for driving too slowly without good reason as you are a hazard to other road users and are driving without due care and attention.


Only very slow speeds on a motorway would be deemed as such. Driving 40 on a 60 is slow but not dangerous. It may become dangerous if the twat behind us doing 90 but it is the twat who is being dangerous not the slower driver. 

A car driving 10mph above the limit is massively more dangerous than anyone travelling below it.


----------



## PK99 (14 Nov 2016)

Markymark said:


> Only very slow speeds on a motorway would be deemed as such. Driving 40 on a 60 is slow but not dangerous. It may become dangerous if the twat behind us doing 90 but it is the twat who is being dangerous not the slower driver.
> 
> A car driving 10mph above the limit is massively more dangerous than anyone travelling below it.



My daughter failed her driving test, she thought she was in a 20 limit and stayed below 20. The limit was 30 and she was failed for iirc, not making adequate progress.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2016)

PK99 said:


> My daughter failed her driving test, she thought she was in a 20 limit and stayed below 20. The limit was 30 and she was failed for iirc, not making adequate progress.


I failed for that reason, before 20mph limits were so widespread. I slowed for a school zone, didn't see the school (it was up a side road, I discovered later) and so didn't speed up again soon enough for the examiner. That and a difference of opinion about how close one should get behind a car turning left, one failed test. Yet on the test I passed, I did 35 in a 30 (downhill into it, unfamiliar road again) which was apparently only worth a minor advice note. The driving test regime is broken about speed IMO.

Amusingly, the entire area I drove at 20 is now a 20mph limit.


----------



## hatler (14 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> A vanishingly small problem compared to excessive speed. If you drive within five below the limit, you're never going to get stopped for that. Too many nobbers act as if speeding is a victimless crime... it's only victimless until there's a collision, then every extra Joule of kinetic energy makes things worse almost every time.


It's not even victimless without there being an accident.

Increased pollution = breathing related deaths.
Scary fast cars = children not allowed to cross the road, communities being split.
Increased noise = increased stress for local residents.
Etc etc


----------

