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!
