Judge wants us banned from dual carriageways!

[Red Light]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[middleagecyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?