# Judge wants us banned from dual carriageways!



## Red Light (3 Oct 2012)

In today's Times Letters, a judge showing all the usual victim blaming tendencies of the judiciary.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article3556175.ece
*Improving road safety for cyclists*

Published at 12:01AM, October 3 2012

Sir, As one who has the painful duty of sitting on cases involving the death of or serious injury to cyclists caused in road traffic accidents, several (but not all) of which have been accepted or found to have been caused by dangerous or careless driving of motor vehicles, I have seen the devastating consequences of such accidents. My support for the calls for action to make life safer for cyclists, most recently highlighted by your article “More cyclists are seriously injured on Britain’s roads” (Sept 28), is therefore whole-hearted and heartfelt.
One immediate remedy, suggested in the light of hearing much evidence about such cases, is to remove all cyclists from any dual-carriageway which is not subject to a speed limit of 30, or possibly 40, mph. This would not prevent cyclists from using dual-carriageways in urban areas but would take them away from some of our more dangerous trunk roads where traffic is both heavy and fast moving. Any cyclist, particularly a lone cyclist who is not wearing high-visibility clothing, is at huge risk on such roads from vehicles approaching from behind at a (legal) closing speed of up to 60 mph. At such a closing speed a relatively small and very vulnerable “object” is coming into view at the rate of 60ft per second and in a moment’s inattention irreparable damage is done.
Lest it be said that cyclists have a right to use such roads and it is up to other road users to be vigilant, the fact is that no cyclist, or even motorcyclist with a machine of small capacity, is permitted to use any motorway. As a matter of logic and realism the same should apply to dual carriageways where the speed limit is not significantly restricted.
His Honour Judge Simon Tonking 
Stafford Crown Court


----------



## Richard Mann (3 Oct 2012)

Well he has a point. But his point would be stronger if he coupled it with a requirement for a Wiggins-standard cycleway alongside any such dual carriageway.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2012)

What a f**kwit. Blame the cyclist for the driver's inattention C**kwomble. Next he'll want to ban pedestrians from using zebra crossings 'cos too many peds get killed on them. Words cannot express what I think of this moron (well, rude words can)


----------



## BSRU (3 Oct 2012)

The correct solution is to reduce the speed limit, then have some traffic police enforce the limit and catch the rampant dangerous tailgating that is going on, a tailgator has a very limited view of the road ahead due to being too close to the vehicle in front.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2012)

BSRU said:


> The correct solution is to reduce the speed limit, then have some traffic police enforce the limit and catch the rampant dangerous tailgating that is going on, a tailgator has a very limited view of the road ahead due to being too close to the vehicle in front.


and more vigorous prosecution of offenders.....the CPS pussyfoots around too much and the judiciary is too lenient. If more people were in fear of loosing licenses/being fined/imprisoned then driving standards could possibly improve. The old chestnut that is "if my client loses his/her licenses then they could lose his/her job" should not be taken into account by magistrates/judges, but all too often it is. If someone is likely to lose their job due to driving offences, then they would soon wake up to the need to improve their driving standards.


----------



## middleagecyclist (3 Oct 2012)

You can choose to agree or disagree with his comments but he has a fair point though at the heart of his suggestions. Vehicles closing on a cyclist(s) doing <20 mph when they are doing ~70 mph is never going to be a good combination. I will not ride on such roads anymore after this little incident so have already a self imposed de facto ban.

I don't think cyclists should be banned by law from these roads currently but would be fine with a future ban on some stretches of duals carriageway if _high quality and well maintained_ cycle lanes were built alongside the newly banned section.

Just my thoughts. Don't shoot me.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> You can choose to agree or disagree with his comments but he has a fair point though at the heart of his suggestions. Vehicles closing on a cyclist(s) doing <20 mph when they are doing ~70 mph is never going to be a good combination. I will not ride on such roads anymore after this little incident so have already have a self imposed de facto ban.
> 
> I don't think cyclists should be banned by law from these roads currently but would be fine with a future ban on some stretches of duals carriageway if _high quality and well maintained_ cycle lanes were built alongside the newly banned section.
> 
> Just my thoughts. Don't shoot me.


Not going to , but I do think it would be the thin end of the wedge. Personal choice whether or not to use roads is great, it's your own personal risk assessment based on your ability, confidence, and road awareness. But to force the matter would be just another example of "nanny goverment ".


----------



## Drago (3 Oct 2012)

How about some rigorous enforcement of speed limits so even 40MPH urban dual carriageway doesn't get used like Santa Pod.


----------



## middleagecyclist (3 Oct 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Not going to , but I do think it would be the thin end of the wedge. Personal choice whether or not to use roads is great, it's your own personal risk assessment based on your ability, confidence, and road awareness. But to force the matter would be just another example of "nanny goverment ".


I can sympathize with the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument but wonder if you would ask for the ban on cyclists using motorways to be lifted as it is an example of nannying? I don't see much difference between NSL dual carriageways and motorways as far as cyclists are concerned. However, if people wish to legally cycle on them that is there concern. I wonder though how many more people would choose to cycle if the infrastructure wasn't so hostile in places?


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2012)

Andy_R said:


> What a f**kwit. Blame the cyclist for the driver's inattention C**kwomble. Next he'll want to ban pedestrians from using zebra crossings 'cos too many peds get killed on them. Words cannot express what I think of this moron (well, rude words can)


 
did you read it and understand it all? Do you not think the speed of cars on such roads is an issue and how quickly a vehicle travelling at 60mph approaches a small/slow cyclist... it's only 10mph slower than the motorway... would you cycle on the motorway if permitted? Would you feel safe? Or is everything the drivers fault?


----------



## Red Light (3 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I can sympathize with the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge argument but wonder if you would ask for the ban on cyclists using motorways to be lifted as it is an example of nannying? I don't see much difference between NSL dual carriageways and motorways as far as cyclists are concerned. However, if people wish to legally cycle on them that is there concern. I wonder though how many more people would choose to cycle if the infrastructure wasn't so hostile in places?


 
There is a big difference. Motorways are purpose built new routes that did not exist before. Dual carriageways are ancient public rights of way that have been upgraded. And such roads provide vital links for my cycling - without them I would need to make major detours or not travel because they are the only road going in a particular direction and many of the junctions to cross them are staggered involving a ride down the dual carriageway to get to the next side road going in my direction.

I look forward to his future suggestions that people should not be allowed to own expensive things to reduce burglaries, that women should have a curfew to reduce sex crimes and that shops not be allowed to stock things to cut shoplifting.


----------



## middleagecyclist (3 Oct 2012)

The National Speed Limit (NSL) on dual carriageways is 70 mph and not 60 mph unless stated otherwise. They are motorways without the safety advantages of motorways IMHO.


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2012)

It comes down to the simple fact that cyclists never were allowed to use motorways, neither were pedestrians, learner drivers, motorcycles under 50cc, horse riders. The motorways were never designed for their use. However, dual carriageways, busy A roads, etc have always been open to use by all and as such they should stay open to use by all. The fact that traffic is heavier/faster then it was 20 years ago is neither here nor there in respect to who can use the roads. Driving standards should reflect that and be more stricly adhered to/prosecuted. Better education is the way forward, for both cyclist and motorist, instead of segregation. By taking cyclists off roads you are only going to get an increase in the amount of drivers who feel they "own" the road and that cyclists are second class citizens with no rights.


----------



## davefb (3 Oct 2012)

locally a road had it's speed limit reduced AND cyclists banned.. The main reason was that it was a very old piece of road (well okay, 60's) and the lanes are already narrow.. around the same timeframe, they reduced lanes from 2 to 1 on more urban dual carriageways with 30 or 40 limits in part to create a 'cycle lane'...

you'd be a total idiot to cycle on it, but that doesnt stop some..


----------



## Andy_R (3 Oct 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> did you read it and understand it all? Do you not think the speed of cars on such roads is an issue and how quickly a vehicle travelling at 60mph approaches a small/slow cyclist... it's only 10mph slower than the motorway... would you cycle on the motorway if permitted? Would you feel safe? Or is everything the drivers fault?


without being patronising (unlike your good self) did you read it and understand it? Do you understand the ramifications for cyclist and the future removal of our rights? Did you miss the subtext that apportions blame to the cyclist for being on the road on a cycle instead of the driver who is inattentive and as such should not be on the road? Or do you think SMIDSY is a valid argument?


----------



## subaqua (3 Oct 2012)

Drago said:


> How about some rigorous enforcement of speed limits so even 40MPH urban dual carriageway doesn't get used like Santa Pod.


 who sets the forces "priority target" ?

as much as North Wales Police Brunstrom got stick for the taliban style enforcement of traffic offences you knew exactly where you stood (or drove) when it came to breaking the law in a vehicle. sadly the rate of catching other criminals such as burglars wasn't as good.


----------



## Davidc (3 Oct 2012)

There's a better way to reduce road casualties - for all users including cyclists (and pedestrians and HGV drivers)

It's for our JUDGES ETC to start giving appropriate sentences to traffic offenders, particularly those who kill and injure others.


----------



## GrasB (3 Oct 2012)

I've been reading a long series of accounts with comments from road traffic officers & the one thing that comes up time & time again is how frustrated they are when they catch someone clearly driving in a careless manner only for them to told by the CPS they can't prosecute or for them to be handed a minimal fine & no driving ban. Also mentioned over & over again is the phrase "this driver shouldn't be let back on the road".

Anyway back on topic. I can't see how this can work. In many cases I can't get from 1 place to another place without a long & complicated diversion or riding on a short stretch of dual carriageway.


----------



## RaRa (3 Oct 2012)

I would have thought taking cyclists away from more roads would only make matters worse. Drivers need to be more aware that they share the roads, removing cycle traffic just makes it less and less likely that they will expect to see someone on a bike so they drive accordingly.


----------



## Mugshot (3 Oct 2012)

Andy_R said:


> Not going to , but I do think it would be the thin end of the wedge.


The speeds quoted by the judge are not are not only seen on dual carriageways and motorways, the national speed limit for single carriageways is 60mph, roads without the luxury of an additional overtaking lane. If the roads cyclists are allowed to use is to be determined by the speed of the motorised traffic then it would indeed be the thin end of the wedge.


----------



## steve52 (3 Oct 2012)

why when we widen or biuld new roads, do we not biuld a decent cycpath alongside, i must be fairly sheap to do it at this stage? then cool ban us from the roads where we have a viable alternative.


----------



## martint235 (3 Oct 2012)

I think people are being a bit harsh on the judge. All he is doing is saying that there is an increased risk to cyclists in this particular environment (which I don't think anyone can deny). He then goes on to suggest a way of removing this risk. There are other ways of removing this risk (better prosecution of offenders, lowering speed limits etc) but that doesn't take away his valid point that on some dual carriageways the risk of injury to a cyclist increases.

And yes I would probably ride on a motorway if it was allowed. I ride on large A roads frequently. I feel it's about evaluating the risk to yourself, doing what you can to mitigate it and then deciding whether it's worth taking that risk on.


----------



## mcshroom (3 Oct 2012)

I would suggest to the supposedly learned judge that the removal of motor vehicles form dual carriageways with speed limits higher than 40 mph would have a significanlty greater impact on the number of KSIs experienced on that road, both in absolute and relative terms, than removing cyclists.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2012)

Andy_R said:


> without being patronising (unlike your good self) did you read it and understand it? Do you understand the ramifications for cyclist and the future removal of our rights? Did you miss the subtext that apportions blame to the cyclist for being on the road on a cycle instead of the driver who is inattentive and as such should not be on the road? Or do you think SMIDSY is a valid argument?


 
are we not talking about dual carriageways with a speed limit of 60mph rather than roads in general?

It may currently be my right to cycle on such roads but I'd always choose not to.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2012)

Mugshot said:


> The speeds quoted by the judge are not are not only seen on dual carriageways and motorways,* the national speed limit for single carriageways is 60mph, roads without the luxury of an additional overtaking lane.* If the roads cyclists are allowed to use is to be determined by the speed of the motorised traffic then it would indeed be the thin end of the wedge.


 
a good point well put. 

however dual carriageways do tend to have a much larger volume of fast moving traffic including loads of HGV's. Maybe the quote in the OP was thinking more along the lines of bypasses which are specifically constructed for motor vehicles.


----------



## benb (3 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I don't think cyclists should be banned by law from these roads currently but would be fine with a future ban on some stretches of duals carriageway if _high quality and well maintained_ cycle lanes were built alongside the newly banned section.
> 
> Just my thoughts. Don't shoot me.


 
If they did ever manage to build high quality and well maintained cycle lanes alongside dual carriageways, then they wouldn't have to ban cyclists: we'd all use the cycle lanes anyway.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> In today's Times Letters, a judge showing all the usual victim blaming tendencies of the judiciary.
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article3556175.ece
> *Improving road safety for cyclists*
> 
> ...


 

Well that's the UK time trialling scene down the pan


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (3 Oct 2012)

yikes - round here they are some of the safest roads to cycle - open wide and with room to be overtaken. A serious improvement to the backroads which wind around left/right/up/down with not enough room for people to even see if they can overtake let alone overtake and only 10mph slower. 60mph or 70mph verses whatever hits me and I'm still dead. I'd go for the extra space any day!


----------



## martint235 (3 Oct 2012)

Unless the cycle path is the width of a road I doubt I'd use it cos they tend to be full of cyclists some of whom tend to be, shall we say, unpredictable. I feel much safer travelling at speed on your average A road.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (3 Oct 2012)

round here the cycle path is usually full of pushchairs or walkers because the walking section is badly maintained and the surface is not something you would want to ride on anyway that and a cyclist trying to maintain 20mph on the flat is not going to happen... it is also full of tiny speed bumps, badly repaired holes and man hole covers and impractical to ride seriously. Oh and currently flooded in many places becuase it is lined with grass banks on either side and it can't drain away. 
great maybe for kids and less experieinced cyclists, but if you actually want to get somewhere, then the road is a better option!
And that does not even cover the stupid constant give way lines, cyclist dismount, lack of priority at simply things like driveways, the constant on/off the road when it fancies and the lack of decent dropped curbs to aid transition.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Oct 2012)

Mugshot said:


> The speeds quoted by the judge are not are not only seen on dual carriageways and motorways, the national speed limit for single carriageways is 60mph, roads without the luxury of an additional overtaking lane. If the roads cyclists are allowed to use is to be determined by the speed of the motorised traffic then it would indeed be the thin end of the wedge.


My thoughts exactly, many rural, quiet, pleasurable cycling roads have a 60 limit, will we be banned from these as well?


----------



## Mugshot (3 Oct 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> however dual carriageways do tend to have a much larger volume of fast moving traffic including loads of HGV's. Maybe the quote in the OP was thinking more along the lines of bypasses which are specifically constructed for motor vehicles.


That is a reasonable assumption on behalf of the quote in the OP, and you're right with regards to volume. I'm quite sure nothing will come of it but it's an interesting debate.
If we look at the volume of traffic, which could be what the judge is referring to, at what point do we decide that busy is too busy? For example at rush hour on a single carriageway where a national speed limit applies do we have an upper limit of how many cars per a set period of time are using it before we ban cyclists, or do we take an average speed for them and as it is likely to be lower than national speed limit due to the volume of traffic allow the cyclists to use it despite the volume of traffic, providing it's below a certain mph?


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> My thoughts exactly, many rural, quiet, pleasurable cycling roads have a 60 limit,* will we be banned from these as well?*


 
FFS please don't try to read between the lines because you're clearly not very good at it.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Oct 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> FFS please don't try to read between the lines because you're clearly not very good at it.


Eh? Some judge wants cyclists banned from duel carriageways because traffic moves at 60 mph, If that is implemented how long before some other eeejit comes along and says that cyclists should be excluded from all national speed limit roads?

How many drivers would agree with that sentiment? As a cyclist I probably feel safer on some duel carriageways than on some roads in rural areas,Snake Pass etc etc that attract lunatic bikers and hooning car drivers, and speaking as a driver I would sooner not have to worry about cyclists on narrow winding country lanes myself.


----------



## Trickedem (3 Oct 2012)

I don't have much enthusiasm for riding on A roads and tend to avoid where possible. However there is no way I want to be banned from using them. I have cycled on the A2, which is more of a motorway than many motorways and I have cycled on quite a few other similar roads whilst riding Audaxes. But I have done it at 4am in the morning and figured that the advantages outweighed the risk.


----------



## Ian Cooper (4 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> ...Vehicles closing on a cyclist(s) doing <20 mph when they are doing ~70 mph is never going to be a good combination. I will not ride on such roads anymore after this little incident so have already have a self imposed de facto ban...


 
If you cycle that far left, it's no wonder motorists think they can squeeze past you in the same lane. If you ride like that, I agree that you should not be riding on roads that have a high speed limit. But to argue that the judge has a fair point and that cyclists should be banned, based on your (frankly) suicidal cycling behaviour, is nonsense.

The following are from the US, but the same principles apply (just on the opposite side of the road):


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0twza9B7o&feature=plcp


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B18Pwdnybo&feature=plcp

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

Please, for your own sake, learn to ride safely - in the lane so that drivers can easily see you and know change lanes in plenty of time.


----------



## gavintc (4 Oct 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Eh? Some judge wants cyclists banned from duel carriageways because traffic moves at 60 mph, If that is implemented how long before some other eeejit comes along and says that cyclists should be excluded from all national speed limit roads?
> 
> How many drivers would agree with that sentiment? As a cyclist I probably feel safer on some duel carriageways than on some roads in rural areas,Snake Pass etc etc that attract lunatic bikers and hooning car drivers, and speaking as a driver I would sooner not have to worry about cyclists on narrow winding country lanes myself.


 
+1. A ban from dual carriageways is not the answer. Like others, I find many urban dual carriageways some of the best and safest roads to be on.


----------



## middleagecyclist (4 Oct 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> If you cycle that far left, it's no wonder motorists think they can squeeze past you in the same lane....Please, for your own sake, learn to ride safely - in the lane so that drivers can easily see you and know change lanes in plenty of time.


Ian.

You fail to see the whole context of the video. I was on a heavy touring bike and going up hill into a head wind. The cycle lane had just run out and I was cycling down the widish shoulder. This was just disappearing in the video.

So, how are slower cyclists supposed to use these types of roads? I can just imagine some old dear on a shopper taking primary in lane one of the 70+ mph A19 dual carriageway.


----------



## MrJamie (4 Oct 2012)

I see quite a few cyclists on the dual carriageway grid roads of Milton Keynes and I can never decide if its ballsy or just insane. Plenty of people drive 70-80mph and in the evenings you do see people going faster and racing eachother, I knew a guy who would try to hit a ton between every roundabout.


----------



## martint235 (4 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Ian.
> 
> You fail to see the whole context of the video. I was on a heavy touring bike and going up hill into a head wind. The cycle lane had just run out and I was cycling down the widish shoulder. This was just disappearing in the video.
> 
> So, how are slower cyclists supposed to use these types of roads? I can just imagine some old dear on a shopper taking primary in lane one of the 70+ mph A19 dual carriageway.


If you're going to cycle a road like that then you have to cycle it in such a manner that a car can't overtake you while they have another vehicle on their right hand side. I don't think you need to be very far out but you do need to force the overtake into the next lane.


----------



## StuAff (4 Oct 2012)

I rode the A27 and A35 in both directions today (to Bournemouth and back), including stretches of dual carriageway. Nothing too scary, IMHO. If I had felt in danger/intimidated by traffic levels and speed, I'd have got off sharpish.


----------



## Andy84 (4 Oct 2012)

"At such a closing speed a relatively small and very vulnerable “object” is coming into view at the rate of 60ft per second and in a moment’s inattention irreparable damage is done."

I would have thought that the more obvious 'immediate remedy' would be to reduce the speed limit, therefore these 'objects' (yes mr judge doesn't think of you as a person, but as an object) would come in to view at a slower rate.

Or, why not just 'remove all motor vehicles'?


----------



## middleagecyclist (4 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> If you're going to cycle a road like that then you have to cycle it in such a manner that a car can't overtake you while they have another vehicle on their right hand side. I don't think you need to be very far out but you do need to force the overtake into the next lane.


Thanks for the advice. It might just be me but if I am struggling to get over 10mph on these kind of roads with that much traffic there is no way I have the confidence/balls to take a strong secondary or primary position. In such circumstances now I give them a wide berth.


----------



## middleagecyclist (4 Oct 2012)

Andy84 said:


> I would have thought that the more obvious 'immediate remedy' would be to reduce the speed limit, therefore these 'objects' (yes mr judge doesn't think of you as a person, but as an object) would come in to view at a slower rate.


So the solution on fast dual carriageway major trunk routes such as the A1 or A19 (ones I know well) is to reduce the speed limit so cyclists can be accomodated with more safety? What speed should it be reduced to from the 70 mph speed allowed I wonder?



Andy84 said:


> Or, why not just 'remove all motor vehicles'?


So turning them into defacto ...mega cycle lanes!

You get my vote but I doubt you'll get a majority with those policies.


----------



## martint235 (5 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Thanks for the advice. It might just be me but if I am struggling to get over 10mph on these kind of roads with that much traffic there is no way I have the confidence/balls to take a strong secondary or primary position. In such circumstances now I give them a wide berth.


Probably a good call. I don't think anyone should cycle on a road they aren't comfortable on. It's a shame that we have these kinds of roads but the reality is they exist and we need to deal with them. Calls to ban cars just aren't going to help


----------



## 400bhp (5 Oct 2012)

Try riding on something like the A556 between Knutsford and the M56 roundabout.

Clubs used to use that stretch of the road when I first started cycling 20 odd years ago. I made the mistake of going on there about 18 months ago. Never ever again.

The judge has a point and like Middleagecyclist "if" a cycle lane can be introduced alongside then why not


----------



## middleagecyclist (5 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Try riding on something like the A556 between Knutsford and the M56 roundabout.


I did. That's where my video incident was. Didn't know the road well and was using the cycle path until it fizzled out. Thought "I've only got a mile or so to go till my turn off. I'll use this nice wide shoulder". I did...until it ran out. I could have shoot a brick.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I did. That's where my video incident was. Didn't know the road well and was using the cycle path until it fizzled out. Thought "I've only got a mile or so to go till my turn off. I'll use this nice wide shoulder". I did...until it ran out. I could have s*** a brick.


 
Funny isn't it - I remember a chap on here who posted a vid of that road, maybe a year ago, one of the closest hgv passes i've ever seen. He'd not realised what a nasty road that is.

I was probably doing 30ish heading from Knutsford towards the M56 roundabout too. I still shudder about that experience.


----------



## sabian92 (5 Oct 2012)

He has a point that it is a dangerous road (as well as a lot of other dual carriageways) but he's looking at it that WE are the problem when we have the right to be here.

He ignored the fact people drive like morons and speed. If they had well maintained hard shoulders then there wouldn't be a problem, but most don't.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (6 Oct 2012)

Yeh - I wouldn't do that section of the A556 either, but the otherside of the M6 and its OK again, and by the time you get to Northwich, it's a breeze compared to the back roads that I have to do.

I used to think the same (bad) things about the A3 south of Guildford (no way in **** in Guildford), but after 12 months cycling and in some countries having no option but to cycle down a motorway to leave the country legally, I now look at that section of the A3 and think - well actually what is the problem with that section - OK not rush hour, but any other time and it too would be fine. 

Guess your views change with experieince.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 Oct 2012)

I see cyclists using the A9 (Perth to Inverness section) all too often. The road goes from dual to single carriageway and back many times. It is known as "the killer" and for good reason. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9_road_(Scotland). 

If this road is considered dangerous to ALL road users then who in their right mind would knowingly cycle it?? 

Point being is there is a national cycle route as a valid alternative. It basically runs parallel. It's obviously not as quick but IMO it's a delay i am more then happy to accept if it involves getting to keep my life and limbs. 

As for the "law", it is perfectly legal to cycle on black ice but i would hope my common sense would outweigh my legal right to do so.


----------



## Norm (6 Oct 2012)

1. Studded tyres for black ice.
2. Significant awareness for riding a dual cabbageway.
3. Judges for upholding the law, not imposing their blinkered view on others.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> 1. Studded tyres for black ice.
> 2. Significant awareness for riding a dual cabbageway.
> 3. Judges for upholding the law, not imposing their blinkered view on others.


All the awareness in the world is not going to make riding on the A9 a safe journey. Can a cyclist honestly say he or she trusts every motorist and road user out there? I for one do not and for that reason i use the cycle route (N77). 
There is no room at the side of the road and HGV's etc have a decision to make. Do they slow down to potentially 10-20mph or do a risky overtake?
Judging by the amount of deaths on this road i am going to go ahead and put my life in my own hands and not some lorry driver or motorist who may or may not be competent behind the wheel.
With this road and many like it, riding along it is a choice and one i would not take lightly.

I agree the law should not be changed. I also believe that cyclists should use their common sense in choosing their routes and not follow the letter of the law. Not all dual carriageways are dangerous but not all are safe either.


----------



## Sara_H (6 Oct 2012)

I'd have preferred a suggestion that cars are banned on dual carriageways - that would bring the fatality rate on such roads to 0, for sure.


----------



## mcshroom (6 Oct 2012)

When we did LonJOG in June we started off up the A9 out of Perth by mistake, and were very happy to get off of it, though the Worst bit was probably getting to the Bridge in Inverness with a on/off sliproad coming from your left and traffic swapping lanes all around you.

OTOH two club riders in our group from Nottinghamshire somewhere rode the A9 from Perth to Newtonmore and thought it was fine, and even I on a tourer abandoned the joke that is the Dromochter Pass cycle path and finished the climb on the A9 DC.

I don't think people are arguing you should be cycling down the A1 at rush hour, but that you should be able to have the choice whether you do or not, instead of being banned because car drivers are too poor to use the roads safely.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Oct 2012)

StuAff said:


> I rode the A27 and A35 in both directions today (to Bournemouth and back), including stretches of dual carriageway. Nothing too scary, IMHO. If I had felt in danger/intimidated by traffic levels and speed, I'd have got off sharpish.


I seem to recall both of us holding a decent assertive secondary even on the dual carriageway of death 

Hugging the white line on the left just invites drivers to pass you without changing their trajectory, i.e. moving over to the right, one iota in my opinion.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I see cyclists using the A9 (Perth to Inverness section) all too often. The road goes from dual to single carriageway and back many times. It is known as "the killer" and for good reason.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9_road_(Scotland).
> 
> *If this road is considered dangerous to ALL road users then who in their right mind would knowingly cycle it??*
> ...


but the logic of that is that all roads are dangerous. even the national cycle network contains an element of danger and risk, I carried a huge bruise on my shoulder for weeks after hitting the upright on one of the combined cattle grid bridge things besides the A9. 

Anyway cycling is a very safe activity, especially compared to things not considered risky like taking a shower, trimming a hedge, painting a ceiling etc., etc..

Finally, so far as I know the A9 itself has never killed anyone, but the behaviour, poor skills and crappy judgement of the drivers on it has.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 Oct 2012)

[quote="Finally, so far as I know the A9 itself has never killed anyone, but the behaviour, poor skills and crappy judgement of the drivers on it has.[/quote]

Yeh i agree it is the behaviour, skills and judgement. Though the road itself is not of a good design hence the plans to change it to full dual carriage way sometime soon-ish.


----------



## Recycle (6 Oct 2012)

Any road system should be exactly that - a system. If a motorist for example plans to drive from A to B he (I'll use single gender for the sake of simplicity) he would expect to do so all the way without having to carry his car over or under obstacles, get out and push his vehicle, or detour via China. If the roads are so disjointed that he can't reach his destination then the system fails. Why should cyclists expect different?

I don't like cycling on dual carriage ways, but have used them to avoid unacceptably long detours.

I'm immensely grateful for His Honour Judge Simon Tonking's concern for our safety, and I assume that in his infinite compassion he will be arranging a helicopter service to ferry cyclists over the stretches where there is no alternative to the dual carriage way.


----------



## Minotier (7 Oct 2012)

The same Judge Simon Tonking!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3372221.ece


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2012)

So the judge is admitting his bias in a national newspaper a few months after giving a lenient sentence in accordance with his bias.


----------



## Recycle (7 Oct 2012)

Minotier said:


> The same Judge Simon Tonking!
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3372221.ece


How ironic. Leaving aside the lack of custodial sentence for taking a life, the motorist in this case will now probably have to cycle to work along the A38 to Derby during the period he has been banned from driving. Along this stretch the A38 is dual carriage way!


----------



## arghill (8 Oct 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> The following are from the US, but the same principles apply (just on the opposite side of the road):
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0twza9B7o&feature=plcp




I think that guy should check his shoulder before sticking his arm out!


----------



## Bromptonaut (8 Oct 2012)

Has anybody considered a complaint to the Lord Chief Justice or the office that handles complaints against the judiciary? 

Writing to a paper using his judicial title on a matter that may be controversial is sailing close to wind IMHO.

Too near my professional locus for me to raise it personally.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> Why are you cycling to the left of the lane edge marker? A stupid place to be...


Thanks for your...err...[struggles to find the right word]...insightful input. It's a help. But not much.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> Why are you cycling to the left of the lane edge marker? A stupid place to be...


 
Have you ever tried to cycle on the A556 between altrincham an knutsford? It's essentially a Motorway. The stupid place to be is cycling on that road, not your position. IMO the position was a sensible place to be.


----------



## GrasB (9 Oct 2012)

I'm with User on this one. If you are going to be on that kind of road then you need to be serious about taking the lane. If you don't you'll get people sneaking past with 18" if that to spare at >50mph. Taking the lane forces drivers to avoid you properly.


----------



## martint235 (9 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Have you ever tried to cycle on the A556 between altrincham an knutsford? It's essentially a Motorway. The stupid place to be is cycling on that road, not your position. IMO the position was a sensible place to be.


 


User said:


> Not at all. If you're intent on cycling on the road then cycle on the road, not on the verge (which is what anything to the left of the white line is classed as) - and there's nothing wrong with cycling on dual carriageways. I quite often cycle on the A14 but I take the lane properly...


 Not often I agree with Reg. The road is fine, I've cycled the A2 at Gravesend when the M2 joins it and everyone still behaves like they are on a motorway. As I said in a post further up this chain, you don't need to take primary to be safe but you do need to take enough of the lane that a car can't overtake you while there's another car on his/her right. In effect, as I said, you have to force the overtake into the next lane (which is where it should be). You're also more visible if you're out in the lane rather than hugging the side.

I also agreed with MAC though in that if you're not comfortable on these types of road, don't force yourself to go on them in "I've got a right to be here". You'll just scare yourself silly.


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> ...
> HGV's etc have a decision to make. Do they slow down to potentially 10-20mph or do a risky overtake?
> ...


 
I don't drive a HGV so may need correcting here... but how long does it take a fully laden HGV to slow down from say 55mph to 10-20mph. I'm sure it's very different to slowing down a Fiat Punto.

Years ago i advised a friend of mine give up driving altogether after a very scary trip to Manchester. Torrential rain and a driver in panic, constantly slowing down to 20-25 mph on the motorway as fear got the better of them. This speed, in my opinion is dangerously slow on a road intended for traffic travelling at 50-70mph... especially in reduced visibility.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I've never seen a cyclist on that road and you'd have to be insane to choose to cycle on it. Putting yourself in the middle of the lane will, IMO
> 
> 
> martint235 said:
> ...


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> Not at all. If you're intent on cycling on the road then cycle on the road, not on the verge (which is what anything to the left of the white line is classed as) - and there's nothing wrong with cycling on dual carriageways. I quite often cycle on the A14 but I take the lane properly...


 
Have you cycled on the road in question?

Apologies for making a point about this but, IMO, the road is just not somewhere where cyclists should be or have been. It's very difficult to make the point stand out but unless you know this particular road then it's difficult to convey how dangerous it is.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (9 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Have you cycled on the road in question?
> 
> Apologies for making a point about this but, IMO, the road is just not somewhere where cyclists should be or have been. It's very difficult to make the point stand out but unless you know this particular road then it's difficult to convey how dangerous it is.


 
Agreed. 
I have cycled the A1 out of scotland into england and would much prefer to repeat that or the A3/A27 or any of the other major A roads I have cycled, than go anywhere near that particular section of the A556. Further down the road on my side of the M6, the A556 is fine again, but without being there when it is even vaguely busy, you can't hope to comment on it. That section of road is shear hell even as a car driver. the number of accidents that I have seen along that section is stupid. Whoever thought that cramming 2 lanes each way into that A road was a good idea ought to be shot - or better still... and as for the location of that BP garage at the roundabout where peoples left hadn indicators have not yet autocancelled so no-one actually realises.... I'll quit on the rant there.

You have to know that road and know it well and then you won't want to cycle it. the M6 itself would probably be safer with that big wide open hard shoulder....


----------



## martint235 (9 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Have you cycled on the road in question?
> 
> Apologies for making a point about this but, IMO, the road is just not somewhere where cyclists should be or have been. It's very difficult to make the point stand out but unless you know this particular road then it's difficult to convey how dangerous it is.


 So we're putting this road up as the most dangerous road in the world? And if we've not cycled on this actual stretch of tarmac, we're not allowed to offer an opinion despite that fact that MAC has offered us video evidence of what the road is like?

I've never cycled the A1 from Scotland into England either. I have been on it as it approaches London though. I would also hold up the stretch of A2 mentioned earlier as amongst the busiest (and at times fastest) stretches of road in the UK. It carries a lot of the traffic from Dover into London. I wouldn't count myself as an expert on A roads in the UK but I've cycled on quite a lot of them including two that rank in the top ten most dangerous roads in the UK (A12 and A1306)

I may as well say that the stretch of road on the A207 outside my house is freakishly scary and that no one who hasn't actually cycled that bit is allowed to disagree.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> So we're putting this road up as the most dangerous road in the world? And if we've not cycled on this actual stretch of tarmac, we're not allowed to offer an opinion despite that fact that MAC has offered us video evidence of what the road is like?
> 
> I've never cycled the A1 from Scotland into England either. I have been on it as it approaches London though. I would also hold up the stretch of A2 mentioned earlier as amongst the busiest (and at times fastest) stretches of road in the UK. It carries a lot of the traffic from Dover into London. I wouldn't count myself as an expert on A roads in the UK but I've cycled on quite a lot of them including two that rank in the top ten most dangerous roads in the UK (A12 and A1306)
> 
> I may as well say that the stretch of road on the A207 outside my house is freakishly scary and that no one who hasn't actually cycled that bit is allowed to disagree.


 
Of course not, but this started by intimating that MAC was taking an incorrect position on the road. He wasn't, he just shouldn't have been on it.


----------



## martint235 (9 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Of course not, but this started by intimating that MAC was taking an incorrect position on the road. He wasn't, he just shouldn't have been on it.


 I think we have to agree to disagree. I think MAC was in the wrong position for, shall we say, a road of that kind. I think we agree (and I think that MAC will concur) that MAC shouldn't have been on that road as he's obviously not comfortable being there from what he's said, I don't think that is the same as cyclists shouldn't be there.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> So a two laned road (it's not a dual carriageway) with a 50mph speed limit is inherently more dangerous than a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit?


 
In general, probably not.

In this particular case, then yes (vs the average 70 dc).


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

Anecdotal.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> So you only have anecdotal evidence that this particular road is worse than any 70 mph dual carriageway.
> 
> And you don't see why people might have difficulty giving your opinions on this matter any credence?


 
I didn't say _any_ 70mph dual carriageway did I. I said the _average_ DC.

Whether anyone gives credence or not to my opinion is up to them. I'm not asking them to, I'm stating my opinion on an open bicycle forum on a particular road I know very well.


----------



## middleagecyclist (9 Oct 2012)

Just been out for a nice birthday lunch (not mine). I return to find this debate about this particular section of road and my position on it quite amusing (could be the alcohol!).

Can I just reinforce my point. I do not believe cyclists should be banned from dual carriageways as they stand at present. If cyclists wish to use them that is their legal choice to do so. I found myself on this road without knowing it well and the conditions caught me unaware. In similar circumstances again I would choose to find an alternative route. That is my choice. If a high quality and well maintained cycle path was provided alongside such dual carriageways though - one with smooth tarmac, right of way at junctions, wide and seperated two way lanes, no crap barriers - and the price to pay was being banned from that particular stretch of road, I for one would be happy to accept that. I do not like the standard of the average current UK cycle infrastructure though and would not accept that as a suitable trade off.

I can also do without people telling me my position was wrong. I am well aware of the benefits of primary but felt safer keeping out of two lanes of heavy traffic doing 50-80mph. I didn't want to be there. The crap cycle lane had just fizzled up its own existence and I was cycling down the fast disappearing verge as the road went from dual carriageway to two lane A road, knowing to turn round and walk back against the traffic was as far as my turn was up ahead (about a mile). I just wanted to get off as quick as possible.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Oct 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> I don't drive a HGV so may need correcting here... but how long does it take a fully laden HGV to slow down from say 55mph to 10-20mph. I'm sure it's very different to slowing down a Fiat Punto.
> 
> Years ago i advised a friend of mine give up driving altogether after a very scary trip to Manchester. Torrential rain and a driver in panic, constantly slowing down to 20-25 mph on the motorway as fear got the better of them. This speed, in my opinion is dangerously slow on a road intended for traffic travelling at 50-70mph... especially in reduced visibility.


I agree completely.


----------



## davefb (9 Oct 2012)

User said:


> So you only have anecdotal evidence that this particular road is worse than any 70 mph dual carriageway.
> 
> And you don't see why people might have difficulty giving your opinions on this matter any credence?


 
it's very narrow ( note how when MAC gets passed, the truck has nowhere to move across, yes he could slow, but theres no room for him to move across either, pita), isn't always straight and carries very high volume of traffic..

personally, if they wanted to do something they need to make a proper lane away from the road ... but the problem with this bit is that it's been attempted to "fix" for years but every time something is about to be done, it gets mothballed again...

I suppose the other idea is to make it one lane, but it's a very major route so that is unlikely to happen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A556_road


----------



## davefb (10 Oct 2012)

User said:


> It's a two lane road (or it was where MAC was cycling and that is clear from the video) - it's was not very narrow at that point. The driver could have signalled and moved over - or even slowed down.
> 
> The road isn't the problem here. The driving is the problem which, I have to say, was possibly compounded by MAC's decision to ride on the verge rather than take the lane.


 
take the lane by moving across into traffic travelling at 60 mph?

not the best of advice tbh.. the best is avoid like the plague...


it genuinely is 40 years since they've tried to upgrade or build a road to fix this, beggers belief it's still like it is.


----------



## Norm (10 Oct 2012)

davefb said:


> not the best of advice tbh..


In your opinion. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any more valid, though.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (10 Oct 2012)

User said:


> On a road with a 50mph limit...


 
problem is, that section with the dual carriage way used to be 60mph and was dropped, but not seriously enforced and after being allowed 50mph on the hell section beforehand, you suddenly open up onto a decent section of dual carriageway (as opposed to 2 lanes each way on single carriage way) and the limit is still the same... what do you think happens? usually 60-70mph at least


----------



## davefb (10 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> In your opinion. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any more valid, though.


 
tell you what, have a look at the road... obviously it's miles away from most people, but streetview gives an idea.. and it isn't ALL bad, some of it is reasonably wide.... 


but take for example, theres a no-right-turn for traffic on the road, due ( no doubt) to traffic levels..
why not start screaming "its an outrage, i want to turn right at that point".. well no, because that would be barmy.. and no doubt theres been accidents due to people trying to in the past...

What *is* insane, is that there isn't a safe route for cyclists to go down because of this inability to sort this road out.... That's the wrong thing, you can't just ban cyclists if there isn't a safe alternative... You also shouldn't just accept "bad roads" like this just because of lethargy of the planning process... 

mind you, why not make the whole bit 30? and put more speed cameras on it.. at least the speed difference wouldn't be so pronounced.


----------



## Licramite (10 Oct 2012)

were as I agree Banning cyclist from duel carrageways is nuts - why not ban motorbikes as well.
and I would aviod cycling on a dual carrage way like the plague
I do think cyclists should accept they are vunerable - and are going to loose any sort of collision.
and so stay within the white line and the road edge (boy I,m going get some flak for this one)
and stay in single file.
ok you have drain covers and dead badgers to negiotiate but cars/lorries don,t cross the white line on the edge of the road and its the closest thing we have to a cycle lane on such a road.

I drive and cycle and having to get round a cyclist on a duel carrageway were I may be doing 70mph legally can be dangerouse for all concerned.


----------



## martint235 (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> were as I agree Banning cyclist from duel carrageways is nuts - why not ban motorbikes as well.
> and I would aviod cycling on a dual carrage way like the plague
> I do think cyclists should accept they are vunerable - and are going to loose any sort of collision.
> and so stay within the white line and the road edge (boy I,m going get some flak for this one)
> ...


 Yep you're nuts. If you stay to the left of the white line, what's to stop a 30 tonne artic passing just to the right of the white line? Position yourself 3 feet to the right of that line and the truck can't pass while there's anything in the other lane. I'm not saying you won't still get a close pass but you will make the driver see you, think about you, act according to your position and these 3 things should lead to a better experience for all.


----------



## Mugshot (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> were as I agree Banning cyclist from duel carrageways is nuts - why not ban motorbikes as well.


The quote in the OP was referring to, in the main, the disparity between the speed of a cyclist and the motorised traffic, many motorcycles are pretty nippy in my experience.


----------



## Licramite (10 Oct 2012)

err , If I,m left of the white line the lorry passes me, close maybe ,
if I,m right of the white line the lorry runs me down?
or passes so close as to knock me off or get me with his back wheels.
60ton artics take a long time to slow down , he may not even see you.
dead is dead even if it his fault.

drivers may not want to kill you, but in some cases I swear they just don,t care.

if you cycle out on a duel carrageway , your a braver man than me gunger din (and I used to jump out of aeroplanes for living)


----------



## martint235 (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> err , If I,m left of the white line the lorry passes me, close maybe ,
> if I,m right of the white line the lorry runs me down?
> or passes so close as to knock me off or get me with his back wheels.
> 60ton artics take a long time to slow down , he may not even see you.
> ...


Ok let's put two myths that seem to be on these forums to bed once and for all: 1. Trucks don't suddenly appear out of nowhere 2. Most motorists do not want to kill you. These two are simple.

If you're 3 feet into the lane the truck driver is more likely to see you and also more likely to think. He may think "Ooh I can just squeeze this thing between that cyclist and the on coming traffic" but he's less likely to think that than if you're to the left of the line.

On a busy road, even if there are cars between you and the artic, the driver will think "Why are those drivers in front of me swerving to the right slightly in a consistent manner?". If there are no cars, then he's more likely to see you in the lane because that's where he is looking anyway.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2012)

Every morning on my commute I ride a single carriageway road with a NSL. Cars pass me at 60 mph. Sometimes more. Most of the time they do it nicely. Sometimes, not so much. I take secondary because, ime, it reduces the frequency of what I call 'squeeze passes'. By my riding secondary the drivers have a simple choice, pull out to overtake and cross the line in the center, or drive straight through me, or slow down. To date no one has taken the middle course.

Apply the same logic to a dual carriageway. Cars are maybe 10 - 20mph faster so take an even stronger secondary. Make them decide; run you down, or pull over to the right, or brake. The incident of the first is in the 'almost never happens' category. Squeeze passes when you hug the verge on a DC are 10 a penny.

But my bottom line; if I'm not comfortable riding in a good secondary on a given road I should not be cycling on that stretch of road.

So A24 through and south of Horsham and A23 south of Crawley and Handcross are off limits to me. As are parts of the A9.


----------



## martint235 (10 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Every morning on my commute I ride a single carriageway road with a NSL. Cars pass me at 60 mph. Sometimes more. Most of the time they do it nicely. Sometimes, not so much. I take secondary because, ime, it reduces the frequency of what I call 'squeeze passes'. By my riding secondary the drivers have a simple choice, pull out to overtake and cross the line in the center, or drive straight through me, or slow down. To date no one has taken the middle course.
> 
> Apply the same logic to a dual carriageway. Cars are maybe 10 - 20mph faster so take an even stronger secondary. Make them decide; run you down, or pull over to the right, or brake. The incident of the first is in the 'almost never happens' category. Squeeze passes when you hug the verge on a DC are 10 a penny.
> 
> ...


This is more or less what I've been saying. It's about making the driver cross the line into the next lane (either into oncoming traffic on a single lane road or into the faster lane on dual carriageway). It makes them think which if you give them enough room to squeeze past you, they probably won't bother thinking.


----------



## Dan B (14 Oct 2012)

mcshroom said:


> I don't think people are arguing you should be cycling down the A1 at rush hour


and how else am I going to get from London Wall to OId St?


----------



## Norm (14 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> and how else am I going to get from London Wall to OId St?


Pedantic in the extreme, but it still raised a grin.


----------



## Licramite (14 Oct 2012)

"and how else am I going to get from London Wall to OId St?"

well if you look at most cycling magazines , bicycles can fly , maybe thats thye answer


----------

