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

[Spinners]

https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgEPet ... D=81894425

I don't know the roads but is this a knee-jerk reaction to the unfortunate death of 91-year old Ray Dare, a competitor in a time-trial?

[meic]

I would have thought that it was beyond the County's powers to ban cyclists on roads that are the responsibility of Highways England.

[Toffee]

It's probably started by someone who doesn't know which Agency / Council is responsible for which road.

[jgurney]

"the very unsafe practice of cycling on dual carriageways"

What does he think is unsafe about dual carriageways? The whole idea of the design is to facilitate safe overtaking. Cycling on narrow single carriageways is more likely to be risky.

[millimole]

Dual carriageway roads are seriously unpleasant places to cycle, but rarely are they dangerous.
I feel a counter-petition is in order to ban driving on these roads as they are 'dangerous' for everyone- look at the statistics!


You can easlily remove the Tapatalk spam using settings on YOUR phone

[Bez]

What does he think is unsafe about dual carriageways? The whole idea of the design is to facilitate safe overtaking.

Yes and no. They function this way when traffic density is low and people are driving as if it were a single lane road with a reserved overtaking lane.

In reality that's far from always the case. The premise of motorways and trunk dual carriageways, most of which are de facto motorways, is that the traffic moves at a uniform speed, which reduces any problems caused by speed differentials and (through the use of multiple lanes) allows greater rate of flow. They're not designed for 50mph speed differentials, which is why slow vehicles are banned from motorways.

Fundamentally these are roads where the traffic is moving at 70mph, and dropping a 20mph cyclist into that creates immediate problems. Those problems are compounded by the fact that (understandably) very few people are brave/stupid enough to put themselves in that position and so very few people expect to see someone on a bicycle.

The same problems are further compounded when the traffic density is high, because it doesn't take much for a cyclist to be completely obscured from view until the last minute. People are advised to observe "the two second rule" but, especially when following a tall vehicle, even two seconds isn't enough to reliably cope with a 50mph speed differential. Perhaps perversely, people on dual carriageways appear to be reluctant to brake hard or move across into an occupied lane two avoid hitting a cyclist: I can think of fatal examples of both of those off the top of my head, where the driver saw the victim and appears to have made a conscious decision not to take evasive action, much as drivers are taught not to avoid an animal that runs out in front of them.

While I don't support the petition, fast dual carriageways are a totally unsuitable environment for cycling. What's needed is neither simple demands to just kick bikes off them nor the completely misguided belief that they're suitable for cycling; it is good quality alternatives.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/07/27 ... gn-a-death

[Bez]

Dual carriageway roads are seriously unpleasant places to cycle, but rarely are they dangerous.
I feel a counter-petition is in order to ban driving on these roads as they are 'dangerous' for everyone- look at the statistics!

Rarely are they dangerous, but that's probably because rarely does anyone cycle on them.

It's a bit like saying that sticking your face in a lawnmower is rarely dangerous. It might not figure highly on the "causes of death" list, but that's because no-one's stupid enough to do it.

[hufty]

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

[meic]

Dual carriageway roads are seriously unpleasant places to cycle, but rarely are they dangerous.
I feel a counter-petition is in order to ban driving on these roads as they are 'dangerous' for everyone- look at the statistics!

Rarely are they dangerous, but that's probably because rarely does anyone cycle on them.

It's a bit like saying that sticking your face in a lawnmower is rarely dangerous. It might not figure highly on the "causes of death" list, but that's because no-one's stupid enough to do it.

Yes, I avoid them but still ride on them. A ban would cover those times when riding on a dual carriageway is quite reasonable, like 2am in the morning with a bike impersonating a Christmas tree.
It would also cover those really unpleasant quarter mile stretches which save you a twenty mile detour over three mountains.

[landsurfer]

Yes, I avoid them but still ride on them. A ban would cover those times when riding on a dual carriageway is quite reasonable, like 2am in the morning with a bike impersonating a Christmas tree.
It would also cover those really unpleasant quarter mile stretches which save you a twenty mile detour over three mountains.

+1
I was happy in my younger days to TT on dual carriageways all over the country but nowadays keep my use of them to off peak "short cuts" to improve day rides. I would be very much against any restriction on road type access for cyclists, as no doubt we all are.

[Bez]

I would be very much against any restriction on road type access for cyclists, as no doubt we all are.

Actually I wouldn't be against it… on the condition that a good quality alternative was provided. (Without wishing to get into the detail of the definition of "good quality" right now: assume "good enough for you personally to freely choose to cycle on it every time" as a minimum.)

So you (and by "you" in this post I mean anyone agreeing with that sentiment) would prefer there to be no cycling restriction on motorways?

If you would, then why do you think they're suitable for cycling?

If you wouldn't, then what do you see as the significant difference between motorways and trunk dual carriageways that makes the latter suitable for cycling?

[jgurney]

Fundamentally these are roads where the traffic is moving at 70mph, and dropping a 20mph cyclist into that creates immediate problems.

Are those problems significantly different from those arising if a cyclist is on a single carriageway where traffic is moving at 60mph? (Assuming drivers are actually obeying the limit).

[landsurfer]

I would be very much against any restriction on road type access for cyclists, as no doubt we all are.

Actually I wouldn't be against it… on the condition that a good quality alternative was provided. (Without wishing to get into the detail of the definition of "good quality" right now: assume "good enough for you personally to freely choose to cycle on it every time" as a minimum.)

So you (and by "you" in this post I mean anyone agreeing with that sentiment) would prefer there to be no cycling restriction on motorways?

If you would, then why do you think they're suitable for cycling?

If you wouldn't, then what do you see as the significant difference between motorways and trunk dual carriageways that makes the latter suitable for cycling?

What a pile of antagonistic gibberish, Is there any need for this.

[Bez]

Are those problems significantly different from those arising if a cyclist is on a single carriageway where traffic is moving at 60mph? (Assuming drivers are actually obeying the limit).

It's a good point but I think they are. On the types of DC being discussed there is an expectation, and explicit one, that traffic will maintain a steady speed. The road is designed in such a way that this is highly achievable: generally speaking there are no bends to restrict visibility or cause a speed reduction, there are few steep gradients, the road surface is maintained to a very high standard, there are no junctions at which traffic must give way, and so on.

On a normal rural single carriageway road there are generally all of these things: bends, junctions, loss of sight lines, broken road surfaces, more slow-moving vehicles, less opportunity to overtake. Far more stimuli to maintain alertness on various things, and far more frequent cause to react to things. Often you can use cruise control quite satisfactorily on a dual carriageway, but it's useless on a single carriageway road: you simply can't reduce your interaction that much.

It's that frequency of reaction to the environment and interaction with the vehicle controls that makes single carriageways more amenable to mixes of traffic, IMO/IME.

[Bez]

What a pile of antagonistic gibberish, Is there any need for this.

Eh? It's a genuine question. I'm often curious to know why some people seem quite comfortable with cycling being prohibited on motorways but are vociferous in their advocacy of cycling on roads which are virtually identical (and, by lacking a wide hard shoulder, are arguably rather less suitable for cycling).