A63 - Victory for common sense -?

[Cyril Haearn]

Yet more evidence that Highways England should in fact be banning motorvehicles from the A63, another crash involving a motor..

+1
Cars belong on trains

[Vorpal]

I see that there is quite a strong "thin end of the wedge" argument in this discussion and also in the C-UK response. I would be interested to know:

1. How big a wedge people have in mind. (I.e. cycling being banned from entire strategic road network, or on all A roads etc.)
2. What it is that leads them to this conclusion.

I don't suggest that a ban on cycling on all 70 mph dual carriageways could be a good thing because it wouldn't negatively affect me (although that is true), but rather I suggest it for several reasons:

Firstly, the reasons most often given for banning cyclists is that it is for 'our own safety' most often in the aftermath of a crash. If they can ban us from one stretch of road for our own safety, where does it end?
The second part of my response is to deal with the nature of this reaction. Why is the response to serious accidents where only motor vehicles are involved not include banning motor vehicles? Is is the motor vehicle which do the harm. The answer to this is of course the perception that that is what the roads are for. The implication being they are *not* for cyclists.

A 70 mph dual carriageway can be a hostile environment. It certainly isn't an environment I want to cycle in, given other alternatives. However, without very clear guidelines under which cycling could be banned from a road, or a type of road, I will always object to such bans. As long as the language about acceptable alternatives is vague, then I cannot see it as anything other than the thin end of a potentially very wide wedge.

I don't fear banning cycling on a 70 mph dual carriageway road.

It is the attitude that I have a problem with. The subjugation of cyclists. The cyclist-inferiority approach to infrastructure design.

I don't fear being banned form a 70 mph dual carriageway. I fear being relegated as an inferior road user.

[RickH]

2. It puts more pressure on the relevant highway authority to provide alternatives of a decent standard. If cycling is still permitted on the parallel dual carriageway, authorities are free to say that if you don't like this twisty, narrow, bumpy path then just cycle on the road. If cycling is forbidden on the road, that argument is taken away.

The trouble is Highways England who want to ban the cyclists have no responsibility for what goes on away from their precious dual carriageway. You are then completely at the mercy of whether the local authority (or authorities - I don't know if the surround area is all in one authority or not) have the slightest interest in providing acceptable cycling facilities (& even if they are interested have they got funds to allocate).

If HE were genuinely concerned about cyclists they would be doing something to provide something better rather than just trying to get rid of them & passing the buck to the surrounding local authorities thereby making it somebody else's problem!

[The utility cyclist]

We are talking here about fighting for the right to cycle in totally horrid conditions, something that hardly anyone actually wants to do!

How do you know, have you cycled on a d/c before?
Why is it/would it be horrid, is that because the powers that be allow such high speeds for motorvehicles even when they know full well this increases the chances of death and serious injury (of mainly motorists) and yet more cost to the tax payer. Is it because the powers that be including the police, CPS, judges and gov at all levels, ignore micturate poor driving standards and fail in their duty to change this and/or even punish it to actually act as a deterrent to poor driving.

Clearly the solution to this is to push one or more set of road users off the highway, except it isn't and never has been. There are already roads specifically set aside for motorists, billions upon billions are spent solely on them every year. The only reason for fewer KSIs over previous years (though has remained static recently) is better medical treatment, multiple driver aids/protection and the penchant for changing the road surfaces because drivers are incapable of driving to conditions.

Were it not for all those driver aids and protection, deaths would be back in the 10,000s and seriously injured in the 150,000 range, basically it's the standard of driving that is the problem and not just on this section of the highway but on every road, on every day, at every hour, it's this that needs addressing. The reasoning of removing people on bikes for safety is total hogwash, applying that reasoning alone should mean that motors are banned instead and not people on bikes.

A strict 50mph limit from the flyover as you exit Hull city centre all the way along Clive Sullivan Way (which is the A63 as it leaves Hull) to the M62 would not see increases in congestion, it would see an increase in safety for all, and on those days that people tend to cycle on the A63 the traffic would not only still be light - the Highways England numbers are a pure fantasy as the correct figures are on the DfT site which shows a flow rate of 691 per hour (for the count markers A63/South Cave junction to A63 spur at grid ref E500250:N426350 which is just east of north ferriby) not the 2,600 HE state , it would not be "horrid" at all.

[Pete Owens]

I largely agree with this blog post:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... -from.html

Actually the fear addressed in that post is the fear that the act of building segregated farcilities will eventually lead to us being forced off the roads. Most facility campaigners are keen to emphasise that these are just to encourage novices and that those of us actually trying to get home in the evening have nothing to worry about. The recent trends in Highways England such as this example (also this one: https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120298) tend to confirm our fear is well founded.

And far from agreeing with the post you are actually supporting the ban that Hembrow says we shouldn't worry about. Indeed if the alternatives were as good as you claim there would be no need for you to ban us as we would use them by choice.

[Stevek76]

To remind about one of the crucial facts to add if missed earlier.
Traffic count is 691/hr not the figure Highways England falsely use. This isfrom DfT website specifically between two markers on the A63 corresponding virtually identically to the course

Link?

Flow does get up to 3000/hr each way on some sections http://webtris.highwaysengland.co.uk, it's obviously much quieter out near south cave.

I'm not sure any of this makes much difference to any of the arguments for/against a ban but it doesn't seem helpful to go lobbing accusations of lying around.

[The utility cyclist]

To remind about one of the crucial facts to add if missed earlier.
Traffic count is 691/hr not the figure Highways England falsely use. This isfrom DfT website specifically between two markers on the A63 corresponding virtually identically to the course

Link?

Flow does get up to 3000/hr each way on some sections http://webtris.highwaysengland.co.uk, it's obviously much quieter out near south cave.

I'm not sure any of this makes much difference to any of the arguments for/against a ban but it doesn't seem helpful to go lobbing accusations of lying around.

link? it's on the dft website - traffic counts. I wouldn't trust what HE put up, they can't divide properly.

[Vorpal]

Here you go. It's not hard to find https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/

[Vorpal]

The consultation period has been extended due to the high interest... https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... e-interest

[thirdcrank]

It's worth remembering that Highways England operates the strategic road network. There's no official recognition anywhere that cycling might be used for a long-distance journey for other than recreational purposes. They have no responsibility for facilitating cyclists making long journeys. I my youth, when I went to Hull it would be normal to ride there using the A63. Not anymore. HE's only responsibility is to ensure there's some sort of vaguely suitable alternative route if they manage to ban cyclists. I don't intend dredging up old threads but at least as far back as the Notional Cycling Strategy, the Highways Agency took suitable opportunities to put down markers saying that the strategic road network was not for cycling. We had a case where - perhaps following a fatal crash (?) some hapless witless now long-forgotten transport minister was quoted as saying something along the lines that he hoped cyclists were not riding on trunk roads.

There is, of course, the National Cycle Network

[Richard Fairhurst]

The trouble is Highways England who want to ban the cyclists have no responsibility for what goes on away from their precious dual carriageway. You are then completely at the mercy of whether the local authority (or authorities - I don't know if the surround area is all in one authority or not) have the slightest interest in providing acceptable cycling facilities (& even if they are interested have they got funds to allocate).

If HE were genuinely concerned about cyclists they would be doing something to provide something better rather than just trying to get rid of them & passing the buck to the surrounding local authorities thereby making it somebody else's problem!

Absolutely.

Highways England (or HA at the time) have in the past funded a "parallel cycle route" on local authority roads to ameliorate the effect of trunk road improvements. The example I know of didn't end up as a particularly great cycle route, but the principle is there.

A tarmaced path from the Market Weighton Canal entrance, alongside the Humber estuary, as far as the Humber Bridge, will do very nicely thank you HE.

[KTHSullivan]

Anybody that cycles without panniers/very large saddle bag should be banned. This is (was a cyclists touring club).

[Stevek76]

link? it's on the dft website - traffic counts. I wouldn't trust what HE put up, they can't divide properly.

I'm aware of the link vorpal posted, but that only provides daily flows, not hourly? I'm not quite sure where the dividing comes in either or why the HE would need to? The tris data I linked to is counts from induction loops that cover the trunk roads, it logs to 15min intervals. It's generally fairly reliable.

[Pete Owens]

Personally, I would not at all be negatively affected if cycling were banned on all 70 mph dual carriageways, since I would never cycle on this kind of road. Such a ban could possibly even be a good thing.

Well if a subtle reference to Martin Niemöller cannot bring you to a state of awareness of you anti-cycling fundamentalism perhaps it needs to be explained more explicitly.

I do cycle regularly on a 70mph dual carriageway. I attend meetings in the evening at Frodsham about 9 miles away. I am coming back home at about 11pm and I just want to get home as directly, efficiently, safely and with as little fuss as possible. And this means riding along the A56 - some of which is a 70mph dual carriageway - route:https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/60301500/#fastest. Now you might prefer a different route - indeed everyone else at the meeting (just like you) would not consider it; they all drive! However, while they might consider my choice eccentric (unlike you) they at least respect my right to cycle.

What punishment would you consider suitable for my delinquency in choosing to use a form of transport you consider "horrid"?

[The utility cyclist]

link? it's on the dft website - traffic counts. I wouldn't trust what HE put up, they can't divide properly.

I'm aware of the link vorpal posted, but that only provides daily flows, not hourly? I'm not quite sure where the dividing comes in either or why the HE would need to? The tris data I linked to is counts from induction loops that cover the trunk roads, it logs to 15min intervals. It's generally fairly reliable.

The section I took the data from gave a daily total.
This worked out to a vehicle in one lane every 5 seconds on average or one in either lane every 10.
HE figures suggest that the hourly flow on that section of the A63 is almost 4x as dense 24 hours aday which is acomplete nonsense.

They haven't specified what hour this rate is taken from. What I do know from personal experience of this road is that the 691/hr is far more accurate than the 2.6k/hr for the specific time when people are time trailling.
So, where did they get their 2600 vehicles per hour flow from?
At rush hours it's busy, absolutely, would I want to cycle on it during rush hour, no, I don't think anyone would. That however is a problem created by allowing vehicles to go at 70/80/90mph. At 50mph limit I would cycle on it if it were busy, I cycle on a bypass d/c often that is one big bend, is busy but only has a 50mph limit.
So the fac that motorists are dying and crashing into each other or on their own says that the speed limit is too high and because of that motorsshould be banned, this Iis the logic that HE are using ... safety. Why are they only applying thisto one group when if they acted with honesty and with respect to wantingsafety they'd simply install av speed cameras along the A63 to the start of the M62 and drop the speed to 50. This would have a dramatic change in deaths and SI whilst increasing capacity of the network