Bucks: Petition to ban cyclists from 'high speed' DC's

[horizon]

BTW was it an accident as in unavoidable? I suspect the driver who killed this guy made some decision in his driving that caused it.

It's an interesting question as although most will concede that the driver was at fault, there is little consensus on this forum (AFAIK) as to whether dual carriageways are more inherently dangerous than other types of road.

[meic]

and we are all agreed that this simple knee-jerk response doesn't get us very far.

I dont think the petitioners (rather than counter-petitioners) are interested in getting us very far. They just want cyclists off their road so they get back to driving along them without being distracted from what they are doing (daydreaming, speeding, watching TV, phoning a friend etc) by having to watch out for cyclists ahead.

[meic]

there is little consensus on this forum (AFAIK) as to whether dual carriageways are more inherently dangerous than other types of road.

So hands up all who will ride the A2 out of London at rush hour. Or the A34.

[Tangled Metal]

AFAIK the term trunk refers to main routes that aren't under the remit of local councils but a higher level. They can be both single and dual carriageway. Well I can immediately think of one such route that has a long stretch of dual carriageway (built in last 10 years) that has roads entering it serves is winding in at least part of it. I'm sure if I could be bothered a few more would spring to mind.

BTW I know it's still a trunk road because there was an attempt to palm off the maintenance to the local council and remove it's trunk status. Needless to say the council wouldn't take it on without funding so the plan was scrapped.

Whilst these trunk dual carriageways might be outliers they will still be affected by blanket bans which was my point. One size fits all solution isn't possible. The best solution is to offer alternatives that are preferable and obvious to prevent cyclists wanting to use such DCs. Prohibition without credible alternatives is not a solution.

[horizon]

Mohammed Ali was dyslexic; clearly nothing he said was worth listening to

Actually my real disdain was for the shallow thinking but they left themselves open to my feelings about the grammar. The counter petitioners will be let off .

[Bez]

AFAIK the term trunk refers to main routes that aren't under the remit of local councils but a higher level. They can be both single and dual carriageway.

Yes; again, that's why we've been using the term trunk dual carriageways

[meic]

AFAIK the term trunk refers to main routes that aren't under the remit of local councils but a higher level. They can be both single and dual carriageway. Well I can immediately think of one such route that has a long stretch of dual carriageway (built in last 10 years) that has roads entering it serves is winding in at least part of it. I'm sure if I could be bothered a few more would spring to mind.

BTW I know it's still a trunk road because there was an attempt to palm off the maintenance to the local council and remove it's trunk status. Needless to say the council wouldn't take it on without funding so the plan was scrapped.

Whilst these trunk dual carriageways might be outliers they will still be affected by blanket bans which was my point. One size fits all solution isn't possible. The best solution is to offer alternatives that are preferable and obvious to prevent cyclists wanting to use such DCs. Prohibition without credible alternatives is not a solution.

And as pointed out at the beginning of the thread if it is trunk road dual carriageways then they are petitioning the wrong people anyway. So all of our replies and thoughts on the subject are giving it a lot more consideration than the original petitioners ever did.

[meic]

The best solution is to offer alternatives that are preferable and obvious to prevent cyclists wanting to use such DCs. Prohibition without credible alternatives is not a solution.

Money is supposed to be "too tight to mention" at the moment, though there is always enough for a few more "cyclist dismount" signs. If there was a place to vote for how to spend the cyclists' pound then this would probably get my vote. With the use being on a voluntary basis, during busy periods uphill with my child, leaving me free to do 50mph, on the road, downhill in the Quest on Sundays.

[Psamathe]

The best solution is to offer alternatives that are preferable and obvious to prevent cyclists wanting to use such DCs. Prohibition without credible alternatives is not a solution.

Money is supposed to be "too tight to mention" at the moment, though there is always enough for a few more "cyclist dismount" signs.....

Norfolk Highways have been spending like there was no tomorrow, really splashing out. They've been buying pots of white paint and going round painting big white arrows on the road diverting cyclists up onto the pavement (even when that pavement is hardly wide enough for a single seater parent & buggy to use!).

Ian

[reohn2]

The best solution is to offer alternatives that are preferable and obvious to prevent cyclists wanting to use such DCs. Prohibition without credible alternatives is not a solution.

Money is supposed to be "too tight to mention" at the moment, though there is always enough for a few more "cyclist dismount" signs.....

Norfolk Highways have been spending like there was no tomorrow, really splashing out. They've been buying pots of white paint and going round painting big white arrows on the road diverting cyclists up onto the pavement (even when that pavement is hardly wide enough for a single seater parent & buggy to use!).

Ian

And the fear is that all other Highways depts and councils will be splashing out similarly.
Then all of a sudden a law will be passed making it compulsory to follow those arrows however bad those farcilities are,just so long as the nuisance cyclists are out of the way of the important traffic

[mjr]

Norfolk Highways have been spending like there was no tomorrow, really splashing out. They've been buying pots of white paint and going round painting big white arrows on the road diverting cyclists up onto the pavement (even when that pavement is hardly wide enough for a single seater parent & buggy to use!).

Not around here they haven't. Maybe you need a cycling campaign in your district?

Although instead, we seem to be suffering another outbreak of chippings, where the council is clearly so rich that they can simply coat roads inch-thick and hope some of them don't ping off into the verges.

[Mattyfez]

If you look at the other petitions you'll see there is a counter-petition already.

The counter petition has 412 signatories compared with the originals 122 at present.

https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=3282&RPID=81927118&HPID=81927118

[Steady rider]

How many miles of Duel Carriageway in Buck?, a list could be helpful?

[SA_SA_SA]

It is indeed nonsensical to have the same upper maximum speed limit (70mph) on motorways (restricted users) and dual carriageways (all-purpose roads): so simply lower that for dual carriageways rather than ban a legitimate road user due to poor driving. And visibly differentiate them from motorways to show that they are all purpose roads with slow and vulnerable road users present.

Highway code rule 225* is an admission of culpability in my opinion: ie the speed limit on an all purpose dual carriageway is too high if amber flashing lights are required on tractors yet inconsistently not on mopeds pedestrians cyclists. Perhaps the rule is actually to protect the careless driver from injury rather than the occupent of the slower (but substantial) tractor, thus placing slower vulnerable users at greater risk not less by not teaching driver a lesson via a dented 'precious'(vehicle) or removing them from the gene pool? Can the authorities not be sued for not having a 50mph limit on all dual carriageways so as not to endanger old-tractor drivers and cyclists and pedestrians and moped riders etc etc?

No one is forced to drive badly, even on a dual carriageway.

Any road can become full to capacity at some time, to ban cyclists rather deal with bad driving is, as observed above, to allow theft of road access by allowing faster vehicles to endanger legitimate slower road users unchecked then claiming they (slower users) should be banned rather than the perpetrators. Why should I give up the legitimate backup of using a road in the case of the much vaunted proposed alternative cycle route being blocked/slippy etc etc.


*

225 Vehicles with flashing amber beacons. These warn of a slow-moving or stationary vehicle (such as a Traffic Officer vehicle, salt spreader, snow plough or recovery vehicle) or abnormal loads, so approach with caution. On unrestricted dual carriageways, motor vehicles first used on or after 1 January 1947 with a maximum speed of 25 mph (40 km/h) or less (such as tractors) MUST use a flashing amber beacon (also see Rule 220 above). Law RVLR 1989, reg 17

[basingstoke123]

AFAIK the term trunk refers to main routes that aren't under the remit of local councils but a higher level. They can be both single and dual carriageway.

Yes; again, that's why we've been using the term trunk dual carriageways

But the petition does not use the term 'trunk'. As it stands, this ban could include any and all dual carriageways.

So, in the case of a car driver crashing into and killing a slow cyclist, it is the cyclist's fault for being there. But when a lorry driver crashes into the back of a queue of stationary or slow moving cars, killing several people, the lorry driver is found guilty and given a prison sentence. Two recent cases where lorry drivers were found guilty (and a 3rd cased by a car driver). All 3 occurred on the A34 (and involved mobile phone use).
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/20959/a34-chieveley-death-crash-lorry-driver-jailed-for-over-four-years.html
Edit: to clarify - it's the former that is wrong. Just showing the inconsistency.