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

[The utility cyclist]

I don't want to cycle on Dutch style segregated, it doesn't suit my needs, having grown up cycling on high speed roads since the '80s I'm perfectly comfortable riding on trunk roads, single and double laned dual carriageways, bypass roads and the like. In fact I find these less stressful/less 'dangerous' than many urban situations and narrow country lanes with very limited sight lines. They are also the most direct.

There will not be joined up Dutch type cycling infra in the UK to even 10% of what the Dutch have over the next 50 years, so discussion about any alternate to the types of road under discussion is moot for a start off, that's on top of the clear benefits of further speed restrictions of motorvehicles on all roads and importantly driver & legislation enforcement improvements.

Any call for change must be 100% on those presenting the harm or we fall into the ever worsening route we've had since compulsary rear lights that obviated people who drive from following one of the most important rules 'drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear'. We already have helmets, hi-vis and other crap forced upon us, further restrictions/impositions are a continuance of the slippery slope.

[SA_SA_SA]

Then why bother banning cyclists

Well, quite. Virtually the only calls to do so come from people who drive and couldn't give two hoots if other people weren't allowed to ride a bike.....
But anyone expecting people who want to cycle to do so on quasi-motorway roads is also being ignorant and selfish.

But, responding to landsurfers opposition to banning cyclists., you said
'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.)'
Thats not exactly going to look like rejecting a ban to a motorist reading it....

I object to dual carriageways being built as quasi motorways with same speed limits but that does not mean I have to object to dual carriageways:
Dual carriageways are all-purpose roads, rather than ban cyclists there are 2 options:
lower the speed limit (and preferably reduce lanes to 2) simple and quick or convert to proper motorway and provide proper all-purpose alternatives .

Separate cycle roads could also be additionally built but I object to losing access to an all purpose road as backup. Once that right is lost it will be very hard to get back.

I am comfortable with cyclists (AND OTHER SLOW ROAD USERS) being banned from 70mph motorways because alternative ALL-purpose roads are provided and I think that 70mph is thus simply too high an upper limit for dual carriageways: nevertheless the driver is responsible and if they know cannot drive safely with regard to all allowed users at the legal maximum speed it is their responsibilty to drive slower. If the speed limit is too high then lower it, don't ban (only some) slow vehicles from an all-purpose road.

As for not swerving for humans as opposed to animals that seems criminally negligent to me: fair enough to not swerve for an animal but I do not think it is right to use that as an argument to ban cyclists from an allpurpose dual carriageway road: it is just an example of bad driving that could happen on any road unless treated seriously by police etc.

[Bez]

But, responding to landsurfers opposition to banning cyclists., you said…

…something consistent with what I've said all along? Which is that I wouldn't object to restrictions if we basically got to the point where we were restricting no-one anyway.

What everyone is missing is that currently there is a de facto cycling restriction in place. For over a decade now I've driven up and down a trunk dual carriageway on a near daily basis and, truthfully, I believe that other than time trials I've seen three people using it in that time. Three.

Ironically we're almost in a situation where a ban is immaterial anyway, because there's almost no-one to ban. It's just that their only other choices are, rather than a safe and direct parallel route, to take a non-direct route or (more commonly) not to cycle at all. A ban in the current situation would indeed be the wrong thing to do, of course. But let's not ignore the very real restriction already in place, that comes about by means other than legislation.

[reohn2]

To cut a long one short,cycling facilities should be there to facilitate cycling,for the most part in the UK they don't they're an excuse in an attempt to remove cyclists out of the way of the 'important traffic' as cheap as possible.
When and if cycling is taken seriously in the UK as a means of transport and not just for wacko's or as a sport,only then will things move forward,but don't hold yer breath

[Phil Fouracre]

To cut a long one short,cycling facilities should be there to facilitate cycling,for the most part in the UK they don't they're an excuse in an attempt to remove cyclists out of the way of the 'important traffic' as cheap as possible.
When and if cycling is taken seriously in the UK as a means of transport and not just for wacko's or as a sport,only then will things move forward,but don't hold yer breath

Perfect - just about sums it!!

[SA_SA_SA]

But, responding to landsurfers opposition to banning cyclists., you said…

…something consistent with what I've said all along? Which is that I wouldn't object to restrictions if we basically got to the point where we were restricting no-one anyway.
...But let's not ignore the very real restriction already in place, that comes about by means other than legislation.

I don't care that your view is consistent, I don't want cyclists supporting/seeming to support a ban: ask away for additional cycle routes if you want, just don't support/appear to lend support removing my right to use an all-purpose road . Lowering the speed limit (so that differs from a motorway) is simple and would be a simple message that these are all-purpose roads and that slow /slower road users are to be expected. It does not preclude cycle routes (although I dislike the sort you showed which involve one direction of cyclists being against the flow of motor vehicles: shouldn't the dutch have abandoned these now? )

I don't think anyone is overlooking the fact that many cyclists have been bullied off such roads...they just don't wish to give in to it...

[The utility cyclist]

I object to dual carriageways being built as quasi motorways with same speed limits but that does not mean I have to object to dual carriageways:
Dual carriageways are all-purpose roads, rather than ban cyclists there are 2 options:
lower the speed limit (and preferably reduce lanes to 2) simple and quick or convert to proper motorway and provide proper all-purpose alternatives .

Separate cycle roads could also be additionally built but I object to losing access to an all purpose road as backup. Once that right is lost it will be very hard to get back.

I am comfortable with cyclists (AND OTHER SLOW ROAD USERS) being banned from 70mph motorways because alternative ALL-purpose roads are provided and I think that 70mph is thus simply too high an upper limit for dual carriageways: nevertheless the driver is responsible and if they know cannot drive safely with regard to all allowed users at the legal maximum speed it is their responsibilty to drive slower. If the speed limit is too high then lower it, don't ban (only some) slow vehicles from an all-purpose road.

As for not swerving for humans as opposed to animals that seems criminally negligent to me: fair enough to not swerve for an animal but I do not think it is right to use that as an argument to ban cyclists from an allpurpose dual carriageway road: it is just an example of bad driving that could happen on any road unless treated seriously by police etc.

Dual Carriageways can be and are 2 lane already, as in one in each direction, there seems to be confusion on this thread as to what defines a d/c. I think reducing them to 50mph UNLESS there is a 2 metre wide cycle lane all along the route in BOTH DIRECTIONS (or 3 metres for multi directional) AND with safe/easy access and egress.
Continued ignorance by police and the law favouring those criminals behind the wheel all add up to little impact on curbing such and more negatives for cycle safety overall and on all types of road everywhere.

[SA_SA_SA]

For clarity when referring to dual carriageway I meant each direction(carriageway) is separated by raised section (eg grass or tarmac with barriers etc etc).


3m is narrow for a 2 way path IMO , also surely safer for adjacent paths to be unidirectional in same direction as adjacent road traffic lane?

[MikeF]

I don't want to cycle on Dutch style segregated, it doesn't suit my needs, having grown up cycling on high speed roads since the '80s I'm perfectly comfortable riding on trunk roads, single and double laned dual carriageways, bypass roads and the like. In fact I find these less stressful/less 'dangerous' than many urban situations and narrow country lanes with very limited sight lines. They are also the most direct.

Really????
You mean like this? You will find traffic passing at 70mph (or more!) on your left and on your right if you are continuing to Brighton on the A23. A French woman cyclist was killed at this point a year or two ago. In fact I would say it's far more hazardous cycling here than on a hard shoulder of a motorway. This is by no means an isolated example, and I don't think many would be "comfortable" with roads such as this.

Edit to add. Then after the junction you need to merge with 70mph on your left on the slip road.


If there's a properly built cycle route alongside a road, I don't understand how it can be slower than cycling on the road itself.

[The utility cyclist]

Really????[

Firstly you miss the point of my post for start-offs. Second I don't live in that area so I don't know what it's like but I do ride on plenty of 60/70mph roads that are as I've described. Clearly some routes are better than others for people on bikes that are high speed but as I started commuting in amongst HGVs coming from the heavy industry areas on their way through the city I was born in since I was 17 in the mid 80s. we're not talking one of two I'm talking hordes of the buggers, all on relatively narrow roads that have other roads coming off them, roundabouts, traffic lights, river bridges etc, so it's not really phased me. Oh sure, I've had some cruddy overtakes that were unpleasant and even a Skip lorry that did its best to take my life but for me it's much less stressy being on these types of roads than forever having to be vigilent on urban roads and country lanes.

As i said though, I've nothing against segregated and for some people it will be brilliant for them, however you also don't understand how some people like to cycle, how even in the Netherlands their infra doesn't really allow for fast cycling either liesure or utility and still is more circuitous than by road, this is a fact, not fiction.

I simply do not want my freedom to choose where I want to go and by what route, removed, because of the disgustingly selfish and criminal behaviour of others that are directly causing the problem in the first place. We aren't going to get decent segregation any time soon if ever (not in my lifetime and I'm not even old for gods sakes), so in the meantime I don't want my rights to travel unencumbered and without fear of harm removed, I do want the leaders of our country to curtail the criminal element in our society that is doing massive harm to both individuals and society as a whole, particularly on the roads and to actually do something that has positive benefits for all including motorists.

Anyone agreeing that people on bikes should be curtailed in where they go or what route they choose and thus what roads they can use because they feel that some roads like the A23 are 'dangerous' and wouldn't be for them, should be ashamed of themselves, it's utter madness and just gives more credence to those opposed to cycling and government to do nothing or simply say well you aint using them so you're banned for your own good and in doing so making matters worse not better than they already are.

[MikeF]

Anyone agreeing that people on bikes should be curtailed in where they go or what route they choose and thus what roads they can use because they feel that some roads like the A23 are 'dangerous' and wouldn't be for them, should be ashamed of themselves,

Cycling on this length of the A23 isn't for me. I, and I suspect a great many other cyclists, have been effectively banned because I regard cycling amongst multiple lanes of 70mph motor traffic as too hazardous. That's my view even if it's not yours. I not saying I'm happy with that situation at all, but where conditions like that have been created, I would like to see that excellent cycle routes are provided alongside. Unfortunately that is not the case here, where Highways England/Agency have provided something that is very poor indeed.https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/cycling-along-a-new-highways-agency-scheme/.

Maybe the A21 will be better? https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/a-visit-to-a-highways-england-cycling-and-walking-scheme-the-a21-dualling/

I'm not agreeing that cycling should be banned from any road. However unless cycling conditions are improved, cycling will remain for a minority of users only. There are many roads I cycle that others won't, so there already exists users who would cycle if conditions were suitable.

[mjr]

how even in the Netherlands their infra doesn't really allow for fast cycling either liesure or utility and still is more circuitous than by road, this is a fact, not fiction.

Sorry, that's fiction. Of course, not every cycleway in the Netherlands allows for fast cycling, but not even every carriageway does. Some of their infrastructure does indeed allow for fast cycling and it's not unusual to see chaingangs whizzing away, including passing other cyclists safely because there's adequate width on the fast routes.

If you want a minimum-speed-infrastructure scenario, I'd say look at Denmark. It's Milton Keynes on a national scale (as far as I've experienced) where even their highway authorities admitted it "functions best when cyclists travel at relatively low speeds". Even there, there are some cycleways where you can do a decent speed, as well as minor carriageways with no cycling provision, but it's not as common as on the Netherlands infrastructure. I think even their "Super Bikeways" are hampered by fairly frequent traffic lights and jug-handle turns (pull over and wait to turn across carriageways).

I simply do not want my freedom to choose where I want to go and by what route, removed, because of the disgustingly selfish and criminal behaviour of others that are directly causing the problem in the first place.

I think we agree on that, but the problem is that our freedom to choose our routes are already being taken away by "the disgustingly selfish and criminal behaviour" of motorists - cyclists using quasimotorways are seen as the reckless and irresponsible one and motorists killing them get minimal sentences or simply aren't prosecuted because it's seen as an error that most motorists feel they could make. So most people stop cycling on those roads, then Highways England have argued that they don't need to design for cycling at all when modifying the road and so the remaining few cyclists are discouraged by even crapper designs and thereby cycling is basically stamped out. Sure, we continue to oppose the formal legal bans, but what good is that? It doesn't get any more people cycling that route. It becomes a valid cycling route almost in name only.

It seems much better to push for cycling to be required to be designed back in at every upgrade or even simply renewal. Yes, we need to be mindful of fast or unusual cycles that will want or need to use the carriageway like they often do anyway, as well as the ability to avoid cycleway obstructions or defects by using the carriageway, but don't let perfection block improvement.

The other thing I'd note is that I feel the key thing is not the easy bit, the stretches between junctions, but providing for cycling around junctions, which is the area where English highway authorities have tended to basically give up and give "the disgustingly selfish and criminal behaviour" priority. That is the top thing that must change IMO.

We aren't going to get decent segregation any time soon if ever (not in my lifetime and I'm not even old for gods sakes),

A pessimist is never disappointed! The Netherlands built a lot of its cycling infrastructure in a lot less than your remaining lifetime. France has started from a pretty low base and several parts of the country have leapfrogged most of England now IMO, although there are still some depressingly familiar gaps. It can be done and if we care about public health, air quality or countryside conservation, we should make a start.