Another cyclist down

[mjr]

What has that got to do with the price of chips?

Well, road rage is both a crime and contrary to the driving standards and IMO incompetent and illegal motorists (who shouldn't be on the road to start with) have absolutely no right to demand that legal road users get out of their way. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[icowden]

It's not "effectively a motorway", and shouldn't be treated as one. That lorry driver is so far up his own rear he probably lives on Mull.

As one of the busiest fastest A roads in the UK, the majority of it is often considered to be part of the motorway network. It's a very fast road with heavy traffic. I suspect that the only reason it hasn't been upgraded to motorway status is the difficulty around Stonehenge and the fact that it is difficult to widen / make safe in many places.
https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/a303

I definitely wouldn't cycle on it. Cycle Route 24 and 3 both avoid it.

 

[mjr]

As one of the busiest fastest A roads in the UK, the majority of it is often considered to be part of the motorway network. It's a very fast road with heavy traffic. I suspect that the only reason it hasn't been upgraded to motorway status is the difficulty around Stonehenge and the fact that it is difficult to widen / make safe in many places.
https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/a303

I definitely wouldn't cycle on it. Cycle Route 24 and 3 both avoid it.

Route 24 is Southampton to Bath (similar to the A36) and Route 3 is Bristol to Land's End (similar to the A38-A39 route). I struggle to think of a journey on either route where the A303 would make sense as an alternative, so could they really be said to avoid it?

Also, is most of the route really that difficult to widen? It seems to have been widened to two lanes both ways in many places, in preference to using any of the width for cycling and sometimes not even for walking.

There does not seem to be an alternative cycle route to the A303 or even many routes that near. Maybe there should be. Until then, it seems odd to respond to a cycling death by saying you wouldn't cycle on that road.

What would readers of this site do if they were living in, say, Stoke-sub-Hamdon and going to Ilchester, then? Drive? And if you can't? Just meekly accept that you must ride 11½km including 2km across basically open fields and 1km on another iffy A road, or 15km with 5km on unsurfaced bridleway? Would you really never be tempted by the 9km on smooth tarmac? And do you think that's good for the nation if cycling between places along most big A-roads is discouraged like that?

 

[icowden]

I was mostly replying about whether the A303 is pretty much considered a motorway.
As to your second question, yes I'd drive, or take the bridleway.

Yep. I would discourage cycling on major A roads where the speed limit is 70mph in the same way that I would discourage 40 tonne trucks from using minor B roads and driving past schools. Common sense tells me that a vehicle moving between 10mph and 30mph is not compatible with a 60-70mph speed limit and carries a high risk of death.

Seven Hills road near me is 40mph and narrow. I wouldn't cycle down that one either unless I was on the pavement. Do I think it should have a proper segregated cycle lane? yes. Same goes for the A303. If there isn't a suitable route, then we should be looking to make a safe one. I don't want my epitaph to be "Well, I had right of way!". Being "right" is useless if you're dead.

As for whether it is difficult to widen, that bit near Stonehenge seems to be causing a lot of problems for a start.

 

[mjr]

Yep. I would discourage cycling on major A roads where the speed limit is 70mph in the same way that I would discourage 40 tonne trucks from using minor B roads and driving past schools.

Does this mean "not at all in most cases" (the current UK practice) or that you would ban cyclists from major A roads?

Common sense tells me that a vehicle moving between 10mph and 30mph is not compatible with a 60-70mph speed limit and carries a high risk of death. [...]

So why is the reaction to inconvenience the least harmful users by banning them, instead of lowering the speed limit there for the deadliest ones until a separate route is provided?

As for whether it is difficult to widen, that bit near Stonehenge seems to be causing a lot of problems for a start.

Well, yes, because the half-length tunnel plan approved by Grayling is yet another cheapskate piecemeal upgrade which even got objections from UNESCO. I doubt adding cycleways would provoke anything like as much objection. http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/

 

[icowden]

Does this mean "not at all in most cases" (the current UK practice) or that you would ban cyclists from major A roads?

So why is the reaction to inconvenience the least harmful users by banning them, instead of lowering the speed limit there for the deadliest ones until a separate route is provided?

I didn't say anything about banning. However as much as we can dream about turning the UK into a dutch style cycling utopia, it isn't going to happen overnight, and there is a much stronger argument for banning cycles to ensure safety than reducing speeds for motor vehicles. It would affect delivery logistics, pollution, times to get to work for a much larger number of people etc.

I'm a realist, and realistically providing a route for a smallish number of cyclists is going to be a lower priority than the huge number of motorists that use that road. Of course, you can cycle on that road. But personally I wouldn't.

 

[Uphilldowndale]

Having read some of the above comments, its probably worth confirming that the accident happened close to mid-day, in good visability. The accident happened on a single track road, and her Partner (who was ahead) had already pulled into the Passing Place to let the vehicle behind pass . Its also apparent from comments above, that this sort of accident/near miss happens way too often on our Roads. Words fail me that people think a few seconds or minutes of their time are worth more than someone else's life. I can only urge everyone to carry front and rear cameras - so if the worst happens, there is at least a record of what happened, and a way open to prosecute dangerous drivers.

 

[mjr]

Thanks for the update. I do carry cameras, but we also need to keep up the pressure on police and CPS to actually use the evidence and on politicians to undo the watering down of motorised killing offences.

I didn't say anything about banning.

Indeed, but I was trying to work out what the heck "I would discourage cycling on major A roads where the speed limit is 70mph in the same way that I would discourage 40 tonne trucks from using minor B roads and driving past schools" meant - what way would you do that?

However as much as we can dream about turning the UK into a dutch style cycling utopia, it isn't going to happen overnight,

And it'll never happen if we don't get a move on.

and there is a much stronger argument for banning cycles to ensure safety than reducing speeds for motor vehicles. It would affect delivery logistics, pollution, times to get to work for a much larger number of people etc.

Logistics would cope and might even be easier with more people cycling, similar for times to get to work but probably wouldn't cope as well. Pollution would reduce if speed limits were lower (lower speeds require less energy requires less fuel burnt). Doesn't seem a strong argument at all.

I'm a realist, and realistically providing a route for a smallish number of cyclists is going to be a lower priority than the huge number of motorists that use that road.

The main reason it's a smallish number of cyclists is probably because it's so crap. As is often said, you don't judge the demand for a bridge on the numbers swimming across the river.

Of course, you can cycle on that road. But personally I wouldn't.

Great for you, but people who live along it probably have few viable alternatives.

 

[Drago]

I was mostly replying about whether the A303 is pretty much considered a motorway.

It is not a motorway.

It should not be considered a motorway.

It should not be treated by its users as if it were a motorway.

It is open to all classes of traffic, and all users should consider that before driving upon it.

Motorised users who trot out the "it's a motorway in all but name" platitude should be relieved of their licences. That's a fundamentally dangerous attitude for the pilot of a metallic kinetic weapon to hold.

The "it's a motorway in all but name" attitude is somewhat disturbing, the cycling equivalent of telling women not to wear short skirts and low necklines when going out if they don't want to fall victim to unpleasant types of crime. Blaming the victim for the actions of the offender is utterly reprehensible.

Even worse, if we surrender the A roads, then what's the progression? Having set the precedent we then risk being forced off the B roads too. Then off the 40 MPH roads, then the 30, then off the roads altogether. When that happens we know who to thank.

 

[Skanker]

I work in logistics and have done for about 20 years.
Most hgv’s are still physically limited to 56mph even after the speed limit was raised to 60mph in 2015.
So even if it is a 70mph road the lorries will never be travelling at that speed, and if they are travelling up any kind of steep incline they will probably only be doing about 45mph. If they can’t see and avoid a cyclist at that speed on any road then they should consider a different profession!

 

[icowden]

It is not a motorway.
It should not be considered a motorway.
It should not be treated by its users as if it were a motorway.
It is open to all classes of traffic, and all users should consider that before driving upon it.

That's a great standpoint. How do you intend to educate the many thousands of drivers who use the road having come off a motorway? Opinion is all very well but at the moment the reality of the situation is very different.

@Skanker, whilst I agree with you, there are a number of steep inclines, and when that truck hits the top of the hill at 20-25 metres per second and encounters a bike starting to speed up from 5mph or less, there may not be time to react. Line of sight is not uniform unless the route is flat, and the road is often not wide.

 

[Drago]

That's a great standpoint. How do you intend to educate the many thousands of drivers who use the road having come off a motorway? Opinion is all very well but at the moment the reality of the situation is very different.

It's not up to me educate anyone. It's down tp the government, the motoring interest groups, and individual motorists themselves to ensure the road network is used properly, and not to the detriment or endangerment of legitimate users who don't happen to own a 40 tonne suit of armour.

And it's not an opinion, it is a fact. The roads are open to all legitimate users, fact. Not just the ones that want to blithely blast along at speed and without consequence, fact.

If you don't want to use major roads then that's fine, I've no personal issue with that, but please keep your reasoning to yourself - every time that line of reasoning is trotted out it adds legitimacy to those that want us off such roads, and even off the roads altogether.

As an aside, but a very pertinent one, do you believe women should not go out at night wearing "provocative" outfits? Please explain the difference

Should victims of auto crime not own nice cars, or victims of burglary not keep nice things in their houses? Please explain the difference.

crime is crime, regardless of whether it is sex crime, property crime, or road crime, and none of it is the fault of the victim, and in this day and age it is absolutely preposterous to suggest that a person desist from a lawful and legitimate action in order to appease the criminals.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

How do you intend to educate the many thousands of drivers who use the road having come off a motorway?

If they’re having trouble with reading and understanding the big road signs for 'motorway ends' and the associated speed limit signs then we ought to introduce the same measures for them as councils do for people who cycle.

Maybe the motoring equivalent of one of these at the end of every motorway off-slip...

Oh, you can’t fit anything but a standard car through there? Never mind.

 

[icowden]

crime is crime, regardless of whether it is sex crime, property crime, or road crime, and none of it is the fault of the victim, and in this day and age it is absolutely preposterous to suggest that a person desist from a lawful and legitimate action in order to appease the criminals.

It isn't a crime to drive at 70mph on a dual carriage way. It also isn't a crime to kill a person by accident travelling at a tenth of the speed of your car, if you have no time to react to them or stop. It might be a crime if a prosecutor can persuade a magistrate or judge that you were driving without due care and attention, but that's going to be difficult.

Drivers aren't criminals per se. Neither are cyclists. It is fundamental that a road with a speed limit of 70mph is generally incompatible with cyclists unless safe provision is made for them. Just because you can cycle on a road, it doesn't follow that it is wise to do so. There are many A roads I would not cycle on. The A3 for example. I have never seen a cyclist on the A3, but it isn't illegal to cycle there. Just unwise.

I have never suggested appeasement of a criminal and the majority of motorists are law abiding citizens driving perfectly safely and reasonably well. What I have suggested is that a lawful and legitimate action can also be extremely unwise.

@glasgowcyclist - motorway ends is fine. But the speed limit remains unchanged. The perception of danger for the driver also tends to remain unchanged precisely because so few characteristics change. We can wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

As an aside, but a very pertinent one, do you believe women should not go out at night wearing "provocative" outfits? Please explain the difference

Should victims of auto crime not own nice cars, or victims of burglary not keep nice things in their houses? Please explain the difference.

I don't believe anything. That can lead to religion. Of course women should not be dictated to regarding what they wear and neither should men. However it seems likely based on human nature, research, statistical analysis etc that some outfit choices may be better than others depending on the environment you are going into regardless of gender.

If I own an expensive car I would avoid parking it in an area with high car crime. If I have nice possessions I wouldn't leave them in the window for all to see. When I leave my bike I try to find the most secure place possible, and avoid locking it up in a public place if I can help it due to the certain knowledge that I have had a bike stolen from me in a public place.

This isn't a binary right / wrong. The world doesn't work like that.

 

[Slick]

I don't believe anything. That can lead to religion. Of course women should not be dictated to regarding what they wear and neither should men. However it seems likely based on human nature, research, statistical analysis etc that some outfit choices may be better than others depending on the environment you are going into regardless of gender.

Really?