# Campaign to ban cycling on the A50



## downfader (16 Feb 2011)

http://www.uttoxeteradvertiser.co.uk/News/Dead-cyclists-father-in-bid-to-ban-bikes-on-A50.htm

So to summerise - the problem is drivers pulling out on all two wheelers, several large vehicles are being driven too fast around bends and across the roundabout, and a driver killed a cyclist whilst texting.

Seems logical to ban cycling.  

However from the article this looks like a fast 70mph road. I could see a decent cyclepath with underpasses would benefit a few cyclists. Questions are, would it ever be done, and be done to a proper standard? Also how the hell would this help motorcyclists?


----------



## 661-Pete (16 Feb 2011)

The usual stuff .... "the cyclists are the problem" - right?  

I must admit there are few stretches of out-of-town D/C, without cycle track, that I ever get to cycle on. One which I often use, because literally _there is no reasonable alternative_, is a stretch of the A24 near Dial Post. It looks markedly similar to the stretch of the A50 referred to in the above link, but then don't all out-of-town D/Cs look pretty much alike?

Anyway I don't really feel unnerved or threatened on that particular D/C, although there's always a risk that a maniac texting at the wheel of a HGV could take me out.... just as there's a risk of a meteorite striking the Earth. You've got to accept some things. I admit that some cyclists may prefer to shy back from using such a road. Such is their choice - and a long detour in consequence!

Banning cyclists because there is a risk, then?


----------



## summerdays (16 Feb 2011)

I've not cycled on it ... and I wouldn't want to - its a very busy dual carriageway. I don't think I would want to ban cycling - as gradually you could see that argument being used on more and more roads. Surely the way to protect cyclists in this particular case would be to have far stiffer penalties for driving and using a mobile ... it could just as easily been on one of the non-dual carriageway roads he had driven on that day - it was the driver rather than the road which killed the man.


----------



## darth vadar (16 Feb 2011)

For what its worth, I haven't got a problem supporting such a campaign.

I don't, and never have enjoyed cycling on fast, busy, urban roads. It takes away all the pleasure.

Its dangerous, and I am not foolish enough to think that wearing a helmet (at all times) would save me either if I were involved in an accident.

After saying that, I am only a social cyclist, so I suppose the commuters or the purists will have a different view.

I just don't think the argument can be won so we'd be better campaigning for much better cycling facilities that would keep us out of harms way.


----------



## Dan B (16 Feb 2011)

If the argument is that "it's practically a motorway" it should be upgraded to motorway status with all the process and ceremony that entails and a proper provision for non-motorway traffic. If that's too expensive or impractical, then it remains a highway for all kinds of road user and whatever necessary measures should be taken to make sure it's suitable for all kinds of road user. But it has to be one or the other: they can't go round creating motorways on the cheap like this. Dangerous precedent


----------



## a_n_t (16 Feb 2011)

I did my 25 mile TT PB on there, didn't seem that dangerous to me tbh!


----------



## frank9755 (17 Feb 2011)

Dan B said:


> If the argument is that "it's practically a motorway" it should be upgraded to motorway status with all the process and ceremony that entails and a proper provision for non-motorway traffic. If that's too expensive or impractical, then it remains a highway for all kinds of road user and whatever necessary measures should be taken to make sure it's suitable for all kinds of road user. But it has to be one or the other: they can't go round creating motorways on the cheap like this. Dangerous precedent



Exactly. It's either a motorway or it isn't. 


I've not ridden on that particular road but it reminds me of when I was trying to get from High Wycombe to Hertford one Saturday afternoon last year. I started out using sustrans paths but navigating was impossible and I was getting nowhere slowly, so I flipped onto the A414 (dual carriageway) and made great progress while feeling reasonably safe doing so. Banning cyclists from these roads would be a serious curtailment of our ability to use a bike as a credible means of transport.


----------



## marinyork (17 Feb 2011)

It's infeasible to ban it, you'd have nightmare complicated rerouting as would some pedestrians. It's much better to leave things as they are with a bog standard cycle facility on one of the worst bits of the A50 and cyclists can use the normal road if they want. Really it's some of the other bits they should be looking at but they don't seem to be bright enough to have thought of that. There's very little you can do about upgrading the road or putting in bridges etc, which is why things are the way they are around Doveridge. The people who thought up this idea have just given zero thought as to why things are the way they are that's all. The sudbery roundabout isn't great but that's because people drive like pillocks. It's best to live with the current situation, splash in a few tweaks for cyclists and redesign a few features of the A50 and roundabouts and have SPECs cameras truvelos and other things. That said bits of it aren't any worse than n other A roads around the country.


----------



## summerdays (17 Feb 2011)

Its a couple of months since I was on that road (in a car) I don't remember seeing any camera's along that section - though as you say the Sudbury roundabout seems to be an area for bad driving where we have been hassled for being in the right hand lane approaching it but apparently not going fast enough!! Lots of vehicles take that roundabout at speeds too high.

If you were to turn it into a motorway it would eat up far too much land and form a barrier for people wanting to cross it.


----------



## subaqua (17 Feb 2011)

Dan B said:


> If the argument is that "it's practically a motorway" it should be upgraded to motorway status with all the process and ceremony that entails and a proper provision for non-motorway traffic. If that's too expensive or impractical, then it remains a highway for all kinds of road user and whatever necessary measures should be taken to make sure it's suitable for all kinds of road user. But it has to be one or the other: they can't go round creating motorways on the cheap like this. Dangerous precedent




it can't be classified as a motorway as it does not have grade separated junctions all the way along it . 

this means it cannot become the A50 (M) without a significant spend and land take (grab) . one of the reasons it was built like that in the 1st place. 
there is a viable cycle route , its called the Old A50 and its a very quiet route. 

still, nothing like a knee jerk reaction from an MP

they couldn't make sections into an expressway A la A55 from J 23 (Llandulas) to J19 ( glan conwy corner) either as that still has grade separated junctions


----------



## Paco de Bango (17 Feb 2011)

I worked on the construction of this road back in the mid 90's  

Not as a designer I might add, just counting the beans. 

That said it is the Doveridge 'bypass' so the road leading into then out the other side of Doveridge is still open iirc.

I would've thought that would be quite a pleasant route to take instead now all the traffic is on the bypass. Or am I missing the point?

you're all correct thought: no thought regarding cyclists went into the design, It's all about letting the traffic flow as fast as possible


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Feb 2011)

the safety of fast dual carriageways has, in my personal view, a lot to do with lane width. 

The A12 is no longer used for timetrialling because cyclists got killed timetrialling - the lanes are narrow, and if two trucks are travelling side by side then there is no option but for the truck in the left hand lane to slow rapidly, probably to the speed of the bike. On the other hand - cycles are not excluded. 

By contrast the A130, a modern road, has wide lanes, and is a lot safer - but cycles are excluded (albeit not entirely effectively).


----------



## Paco de Bango (17 Feb 2011)

Just to add to the above.

I think banning cyclists would be a ridiculous move.

It's dangerous driving thats the problem, deal with that, not the cyclists


----------



## CotterPin (17 Feb 2011)

Can't we just ban drivers using hand held mobile phones?
















Oh - sorry we have.


----------



## Hilldodger (17 Feb 2011)

Paco de Bango said:


> Just to add to the above.
> 
> I think banning cyclists would be a ridiculous move.
> 
> It's dangerous driving thats the problem, deal with that, not the cyclists




And the stupid, moronic cyclists. I've been down there at night in the pissing rain only to come across two time trialists riding with no rear lights!


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Feb 2011)

Hilldodger said:


> And the stupid, moronic cyclists. I've been down there at night in the pissing rain only to come across two time trialists riding with no rear lights!


on the A50!!!!??????


----------



## Hilldodger (17 Feb 2011)

Yep, on the A50 near Derby. Morons.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Feb 2011)

Hilldodger said:


> Yep, on the A50 near Derby. Morons.


well, it takes all sorts.

If you look at the BBC interactive road death thingy you see that rural A-roads feature heavily. And, if you want a really quick fix the answer is distressingly straightforward - reduce speed limits and enforce them. I realise that these roads are not constructed for cyclists, but for our sake, as opposed to anybody else's reducing the speed limit of narrow-lane dual carriageways or two lane A-roads to 40 would do the trick.


----------



## Dan B (17 Feb 2011)

I suspect that removing the painted line between lanes 1 and 2 would in many cases be a good thing too, by encouraging people to think about their road positioning and move out for overtakes instead of thinking "must stay in lane, I can squeeze past that obstacle". That's just a gut feeling, though, I'd be interested to know of any research


----------



## mark barker (17 Feb 2011)

I think that a ban on cycling (and other slow moving vehicles) on certain roads isn't a bad idea. I'd like to see the introduction of a minimum speed limit on dual carriageways, and a ban being introduced for vehicles unable to sustain that speed. If you've got a potential speed differential of 50 or 60mph then thats never going to be safe.


----------



## subaqua (17 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> I think that a ban on cycling (and other slow moving vehicles) on certain roads isn't a bad idea. I'd like to see the introduction of a minimum speed limit on dual carriageways, and a ban being introduced for vehicles unable to sustain that speed. If you've got a potential speed differential of 50 or 60mph then thats never going to be safe.




and then you have B- Roads that have a National speed limit ,yet are narrower. 

where do you draw the line?


----------



## Hilldodger (17 Feb 2011)

It would be a good idea if cyclists stuck a flashing LED on the back if they really want to ride down a fast dual carraigeway. Slow moving motor vehicle have to and it gives drivers a lot more notice and time to react.


----------



## mark barker (17 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> and then you have B- Roads that have a National speed limit ,yet are narrower.
> 
> where do you draw the line?


In a perfect world I'd reduce the limits on single carriageways. We have to accept that dual carriageways are not there for enjoyment, they're there to move people and things around as quickly as possible. 

Its all fine people jumping up and down defending their rights to be where ever they want (and recently the "we were here first" line seems to be popular), but a little responsibility and thought for everyone else is also in order.


----------



## Dan B (17 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> In a perfect world I'd reduce the limits on single carriageways. We have to accept that dual carriageways are not there for enjoyment, they're there to move people and things around as quickly as possible.
> 
> Its all fine people jumping up and down defending their rights to be where ever they want (and recently the "we were here first" line seems to be popular), but a little responsibility and thought for everyone else is also in order.




There seems to be an assumption in this (on the face of it entirely reasonable) argument that the cyclist is on that road for fun or for bloody-mindedness. I think it's more likely that he also is simply there to get from A to B as fast as possible (there are no sensible alternative routes, or the cycle path is coated in glass, or he doesn't know the local area, or he missed his turning or whatever). There is _no need_ to ban slow vehicles from dual carriageways if the vast majority of them would be elsewhere anyway given a sane alternative that meets their needs, just to provide (and inform them about) the said alternative.


----------



## marinyork (17 Feb 2011)

Hilldodger said:


> It would be a good idea if cyclists stuck a flashing LED on the back if they really want to ride down a fast dual carraigeway. Slow moving motor vehicle have to and it gives drivers a lot more notice and time to react.



Er except they frequently don't turn them on...


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Feb 2011)

Paco de Bango said:


> I would've thought that would be quite a pleasant route to take instead now all the traffic is on the bypass. Or am I missing the point?



On my commute, once traffic filled the "new" road, everyone started rat running on the "old" road - the end result is that both are about as busy as each other now. 

Dunno whether that's true of the road in the op mind.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> On my commute, once traffic filled the "new" road, everyone started rat running on the "old" road - the end result is that both are about as busy as each other now.
> 
> *Dunno whether that's true of the road in the op mind.*


According to posts on a similar thread on BikeRadar, the old A50 road and a cycle path are a pleasant way of avoiding that stretch of the new A50.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> According to posts on a similar thread on BikeRadar, the old A50 road and a cycle path are a pleasant way of avoiding that stretch of the new A50.



Fair enough. A part of me still bridles at the idea that the solution to cretinous driving is to move vulnerable[1] road users out of their way though.

[1] Although I'd imagine a family car, or motorcycle to be fairly vulnerable to a poorly driven LGV also.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> A part of me still bridles at the idea that the solution to cretinous driving is to move vulnerable[1] road users out of their way though.


I feel the same way! 

I'd ride the old road and cycle path though - I only use fast, busy dual carriageways when there is no realistic alternative. Even if it was safe, I wouldn't enjoy cycling on a road like that.


----------



## marinyork (17 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> According to posts on a similar thread on BikeRadar, the old A50 road and a cycle path are a pleasant way of avoiding that stretch of the new A50.



The old A50 is pleasant enough, depends where you're trying to get to. I wouldn't say the cycle path was. The cycle path bit is there as there is no way of crossing the river otherwise. There's virtually nothing you can do about this. Banning cyclists and peds off the A50 would still have the rerouting problems I talked about, it's just as with most cycle schemes it's just assumed that 'no cyclists live there' or 'they wouldn't go that way' which is nearly always wrong.


----------



## downfader (17 Feb 2011)

marinyork said:


> The old A50 is pleasant enough, depends where you're trying to get to. I wouldn't say the cycle path was. The cycle path bit is there as there is no way of crossing the river otherwise. There's virtually nothing you can do about this. Banning cyclists and peds off the A50 would still have the rerouting problems I talked about, it's just as with most cycle schemes it's just assumed that 'no cyclists live there' or 'they wouldn't go that way' which is nearly always wrong.




Then someione will always get a confounded outrage when a cyclist does use it.


----------



## marinyork (17 Feb 2011)

downfader said:


> Then someione will always get a confounded outrage when a cyclist does use it.



It's impractical and it's impractical to make it a motorway. There's no definite rule ala mark barker for banning cyclists from national speed limit dual carriageways because the road network varies too much - there aren't perfect roads running in straight lines in exactly the right places as people assume without thought.


----------



## ComedyPilot (17 Feb 2011)

What next, a campaign to ban girls from wearing short skirts because...............?


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> I'd ride the old road and cycle path though - I only use fast, busy dual carriageways when there is no realistic alternative. Even if it was safe, I wouldn't enjoy cycling on a road like that.


Over here I would too - I've ridden similar roads in France though, and there isn't the hostility and constant threat that there is on similar British roads (although they're bloody dull compared to the smaller roads).


----------



## ComedyPilot (17 Feb 2011)

Once again the focus is taken from the cause, and placed firmly on the victim.

If they banned people owning flash cars to deter vehicle theft, there'd be uproar. If they banned plasma tv ownership to deter burglary, there'd be uproar.

They want to reduce casualties, so they want to ban cyclists, as opposed to dealing swiftly and justly with the root cause - people driving vhicles and NOT LOOKING WHERE THEY ARE GOING OR WHAT THEY'RE DOING.


----------



## totallyfixed (17 Feb 2011)

No such thing as a dangerous road, it's inanimate.
See http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=54436 hotly debated on time trialling forum.
It's a public road and if cyclists are banned from the A50 it might be the thin end of the wedge. I wouldn't race on it myself and Mrs TF would most likely get a massive PB on it but we both think the traffic is too fast and so stay away. Having said all that I respect the right of a cyclist to ride it if they want.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2011)

Oh. I just read that thread and found this ...



will10 said:


> I've been talking to one of Gary Livingstone's former club mates who's reminded me of a few facts about his case. Gary was killed riding on the A50 on his way home from work in Foston. Apparently he normally rode along the cycle path for the 2 miles from Doveridge to Uttoxeter, however elected not to as he had fallen off a few days earlier as it was so icy. (The cycle path at Doveridge is never, ever treated when icy, and goes months without any maintainance/road sweeping whatsoever.) So he was on the main road, supposedly lit up like a christmas tree with lights and reflectors. Mr. Welsh was texting in his HGV, ran into him and killed him.


How can _anybody_ imagine it is safe to text and drive! 

If you look at a map, you'll see that since the cycle path was out of action, if Gary Livingstone hadn't tried to ride 3 km along the A50 from Doveridge to Uttoxeter, he would have had to have ridden at least 13 km including some hilly minor roads which themselves might not have been gritted.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Feb 2011)

User said:


> Funnily enough, I spotted that as I drove  down the A130 to a meeting in Southend on Wednesday.
> 
> I wonder on what basis they have justified excluding cycles? I may do some digging and see whether they've done so in accordance with the rules and in the proper manner. Some roads authorities think it's simply a case of sticking up a sign...


this was given a good going over at the time. To be fair there is (as you no doubt saw) a wiiiide supersmooth hard shoulder in both directions (I make no admission, mind) and the 'old' A130 runs parallel - as you would no doubt have found out for yourself if you weren't off to a wedding in Llangollen......

I think that cyclists are also banned on the A470 (once again, I make no admission) and iirc a bit of the A43 has cyclists banned. Then, of course, there is the Limehouse Link and, most outstandingly cyclists will be banned from the new A3 tunnel, and the existing A3 torn up at vast expense to turn it in to a mixed use (cyclists, pedestrians, horseriders) path.


----------



## Davidc (19 Feb 2011)

I avoid dual carriageways for cycling, and always have, but there are routes where there's no real alternative. Nonetheless I'm strongly opposed to cycle bans anywhere except motorways.

In the UK the car culture is strong - the motor vehicle reigns supreme, and until that changes cyclists will go on having an uphill struggle to maintain the right to ride. I think the tide will turn, eventually, but it's a long way off.



Hilldodger said:


> It would be a good idea if cyclists stuck a flashing LED on the back if they really want to ride down a fast dual carraigeway. Slow moving motor vehicle have to and it gives drivers a lot more notice and time to react.



As a minimum. One flashing and one constant is the least I'll use on a road, and on the occasions I have to ride on dual carriageways I make sure they're both working before getting there.

Edit: In a sensible world, if there are too many collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles why can't we segregate them, use one carriageway for motors and the other for everything else. A much better use of the land occupied by the road.


----------



## srw (19 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> the existing A3 torn up at vast expense to turn it in to a mixed use (cyclists, pedestrians, horseriders) path.



Hindhead? Lovely if true, but I doubt it. There are permanent "tunnel closed" signs at both ends, with venetian blinds, implying that they can be turned between "tunnel closed" and "tunnel open" states.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Feb 2011)

Apparently it's down to the National Trust

http://www.bikemagic.com/forum/forummessages.asp?dt=1&UTN=52462 

This is on the current Highways Agency website

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/3841.aspx 
_Closure of the existing A3 across Hindhead Common would also mean that the Common is no longer divided and walkers, cyclists and horse riders would be able to use the network of paths across the Common without disturbance from traffic noise and without the risk of road crossings. 

_

_One of the greatest difficulties that walkers, cyclists and horse riders face at present is getting to destinations along the line of the existing A3._

*The A3 Hindhead Scheme design includes new largely off-road routes along the entire scheme, i.e. from the Canadian Memorial Underpass to Thursley comprising:*


_a 9.8 ft (3m) wide cycleway from the Canadian Memorial underpass to Knockhundred and Hammer Lanes along the east verge of the road, and a further cycleway in the west verge connecting Bridleway 71, which runs across Bramshott Common, to Hammer Lane Underpass; _
_a 9.8 tf (3m) wide cycleway in the west verge of the existing A3 from Hammer Lane all the way through to Hindhead Crossroads, providing cyclists with a safe route from the Grayshott and Hindhead residential areas to the network of paths and lanes in the Bramshott and Woolmer Hill areas. At Hindhead Crossroads, toucan crossings would be installed to allow the safe crossing of both the existing A3 and A287; _
_London Road, which would be reduced to an access only for motorised traffic, from Hindhead Crossroad to the National Trust Café; _
_a route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders along the line of Old Portsmouth Road (BOAT 500). This would be a 9.8 ft (3m) wide paved cycle path (suitable for use by road cyclists) with a 6.5 ft (2m) wide grass-gravel horse path alongside. Across Hindhead Common, the existing A3 would be restored to heathland between the NT Café and the access to the youth hostel. The paved cycle path would also be available for use by those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs - a use that is expected to be popular, as it would lead up a gentle gradient to the Sailor's Stone and Gibbett Hill, where panoramic views across the Surrey countryside can be seen; _
_North of the youth hostel access, the existing A3 would be kept, but reduced in width to 11 ft (3.5m) for use as an access to the youth hostel and two other properties in the Punch Bowl, and as a continuation of the cycle and horse path; _
_Blackhanger through to Thursley, cyclists, walkers and horse riders would be able to use the Boundless to Thursley Link, a new country lane 11ft (3.5m) wide with passing places and a horse margin._


----------



## Flying Dodo (20 Feb 2011)

I was reading those A3 links about a month ago (as I was trying to see if the new tunnels could be cycled though), and thinking that when all the work is finished, the new lanes would be nice for a cycle ride......

Does seem daft they can't simply leave the old A3 as it is though (although obviously without the cars allowed).


And on the subject of cyclists banned from roads, there are some stretches of the A27 which don't allow it.


----------



## 661-Pete (20 Feb 2011)

I know of two stretches of non-motorway road, near me, which ban cyclists. Both of them pass through tunnels.
One is the A27 near Shoreham, going through the Southwick Tunnel.
The other is the A26 at Lewes, the Cuilfail Tunnel.
TBH I wouldn't want to cycle through either of those.


----------



## Cardiac (20 Feb 2011)

This is slightly OT, but the thing that bugs me about tunnels is that in this country is that there never seems to be a requirement for drivers to switch their lights on. In Germany for example, it is almost always mandated with clear road signs and every one uses their lights as required, yet in tunnels in the UK one sees very many motorists without lights on, to the extent that even they become hard to see from another vehicle, so how the hell can they see cyclists, etc? The principle of banning cyclists from some roads very much seems to be due to authorities taking the easy option rather than the one that encourages safer driving.

Re the A50 - I agree with others. I would not choose to cycle along it (its design and the lack of enforcement encourages above the limit traffic speeds in many places), but banning cyclists when the real issue is driver awareness and education does not seem fair or helpful.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Feb 2011)

We have a stretch of road near here (A27 by Hilsea) that is a fast dual carriageway.

A few years ago there was a fatal accident when a van drove into a trailer.. from the local press...



> A ROAD race between three Hampshire van drivers in which a young roofer was killed was an accident waiting to happen, a court was told.
> 
> Witnesses watched as the drivers turned a 14-mile stretch of the A27 into a race track one Friday, hogging the fast lane, overtaking cars on the nearside and driving side by side in a rush to get back to Portsmouth to pick up their pay, Winchester Crown Court was told yesterday.
> 
> ...



Given the evidence the local Press decided that what was needed was a campaign to remove the "hazard" of slower vehicles on this stretch of road and make it into a motorway!

What is really needed is to address bad driving as unacceptable as opposed to making bad drivingthe norm and catering to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## srw (20 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Apparently it's down to the National Trust
> 
> http://www.bikemagic...?dt=1&UTN=52462


Interesting. I wonder what the route will be for motorised traffic when the tunnel's closed. I'm afraid I'm all in favour of the idea of chopping out a section of road (ducks for cover as missiles are thrown from all sides) - without a proper closure and removal the old road will just turn into a ratrun. If it means that road whippets need to slow down to 14mph for a mile instead of 18mph I can't see that being too much of a hardship.

We have one office in Guildford and another in Liphook, and I was musing as I was driving between the two the other day how the Devil's Punchbowl would be immeasurably improved by taking out the road.


----------



## frank9755 (20 Feb 2011)

srw said:


> (ducks for cover as missiles are thrown from all sides)


Remember that, while off-road multi-use paths might feel safer than riding on the road, cyclists have significantly more accidents per mile on them!


----------



## srw (20 Feb 2011)

frank9755 said:


> Remember that, while off-road multi-use paths might feel safer than riding on the road, cyclists have significantly more accidents per mile on them!



Since those accidents (incidents for the politically correct pedants) don't involve a ton of metal I'm relaxed about that statistic. In any case, significantly more than a very tiny number is still a very tiny number.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Feb 2011)

I would have thought that for a great deal less money they could reduce the top speed on the remnant of the 'old' A3 and put in controls that would make it even slower than it was in days of yore. 

I know that this is a shameful thing to admit, but when they built the new M40 north of Banbury (which is a horrible scar on the countryside) and turned the A41 in to the B4100 they made the most fantastic cycle route. And, if memory serves, there is already a bit of 'old' A3 somewhere near Liphook that is a dual carriageway B-road.


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Feb 2011)

It is a slippery slope, ban cycles on one road and pretty soon it will set a precedent with liberal bans across the country and the total marginalization of cycling beyond that which we already have.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Feb 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> It is a slippery slope, ban cycles on one road and pretty soon it will set a precedent with liberal bans across the country and the total marginalization of cycling beyond that which we already have.


I agree, but the thing is - we insist on maintaining the right to ride pretty much everywhere except motorways, but we don't also make sure that those roads are actually safe to ride on. We are having a little discussion here about the subject, but we don't go and blockade the roads until they are made safe.

If a plane full of British holidaymakers crashed every month taking off from Heathrow, killing all on board, public outcry would lead to something being done about it. When the same death toll accumulates a few deaths at a time here and there on the roads, the nation just puts up with it. Cost of progress and all that.

At one time, Formula 1 seemed to have the same attitude, that deaths were inevitable so the sport just put up with them, but eventually action was taken and it is much safer now.

There are definitely a lot of roads that we have the _right_ to ride on but where it would be crazy to do so. The trouble then is that the stubborn, foolhardy or the inexperienced do it anyway and pay the price.

I don't mind being banned from a fast, busy dual-carriageway because that isn't the kind of road I like to ride on, but there has to be a sensible alternative road to use. If one isn't, then that dual-carriageway should have a lower speed limit enforced and/or a usable cycle path provided. And if one is provided (as in Gary Livingstone's case) - it should be maintained so it is safe to ride on, not allowed to become a river of ice forcing cyclists back on to the dual-carriageway!


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> I agree, but the thing is - we insist on maintaining the right to ride pretty much everywhere except motorways, but we don't also make sure that those roads are actually safe to ride on. We are having a little discussion here about the subject, but we don't go and blockade the roads until they are made safe.
> 
> If a plane full of British holidaymakers crashed every month taking off from Heathrow, killing all on board, public outcry would lead to something being done about it. When the same death toll accumulates a few deaths at a time here and there on the roads, the nation just puts up with it. Cost of progress and all that.
> 
> ...



Indeed but my point is really aimed at the fact that they are treating the symptoms not the cause, if I have measles but wear a mask it does not mean the measles have gone, it just means you cannot see the spots anymore. Removing the victims of poor driving and ill conceived speed limits does not make the poor driving any better or the speed limits more sensible. If they really want to ban cyclists then they should be forced to reclassify the road as a motorway, otherwise they should be addressing the real problems, not sweeping them under the rug.


----------



## Dan B (22 Feb 2011)

ColinJ said:


> I don't mind being banned from a fast, busy dual-carriageway because that isn't the kind of road I like to ride on, but there has to be a sensible alternative road to use.


Well, that's the crux of it really. Banning cycling on some road is not in itself likely to lead to the creation and advertising of a reasonable alternative. And if there is a reasonable alternative there won't even be a need (well, much need) to ban cycling on the original because all but the insane will be using the alternative through choice anyway.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Feb 2011)

I've just seen the reference to the A26. I've done that. It's not a problem - it's short and flat - 300 metres at most. In fact it's a blast. 

Compared to the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's easy peasy.


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I've just seen the reference to the A26. I've done that. It's not a problem - it's short and flat - 300 metres at most. In fact it's a blast.
> 
> Compared to the Rotherhithe Tunnel it's easy peasy.



I don't ride the Rotherhithe tunnel, tried it a couple of times and it is just too tight for space with the motons.


----------

