A63 - Victory for common sense -?

[Vorpal]

... The few remaining copies are most likely gathering dust in archives or kept by wistful, ageing campaginers ...

I've been sussed!

Will admit that was, er... targetted

The other big change is that the Notional Cycling Strategy - which briefly had highwaymen believing they had to do something serious about promoting cycling - has been kicked way beyond the long grass.

I think I saw in the compost heap.

In short, spin.

Quite.

[Stevek76]

The 2600 doesn't relate to the two markers that almost replicate the TT course, the 3000 max isn't anywhere near it geographically (and the reason it's much fewer further down is the bridge) and the real figure is around what I said it was at the outset. Yes the HE figure is concocted, it doesn't represent that section of road, nor the period of time when the cycling takes place.

I'd had problems actually establishing the time trail route, the proposed ban is a longer stretch. Within the bounds of the TT route, the eastern section of that stretch has a typical ~2300 southbound, ~1900 northbound for the 8-9 hour.

As mentioned though, this is nothing unusual for a dual carriageway hence the worrying thin end of the wedge feel about it. Further just looking at the last 10 years in collisions, of the 11 serious and 2 fatals, only 1 serious and 1 fatal were cycle casualties and the latter of those was entirely self inflicted and not related to the nature of the road, all other collisions involving cyclists were slight severity - a tiny proportion of the couple of hundred or so slight severity collisions on that stretch.

The proposal to ban cycling on this busy road represents some kind of an acknowledgement that there is a problem with combining cycle and motor traffic in these situations. It may not be the kind of acknowledgement we would like, but I believe that it is something which could be capitalised upon.

I think that's naively optimistic. It's not quite clear where the initial pressure for this has come from, HE use a lovely bit of weasel worded 'concerns have been raised' and its reported that both levels of councils and the police are in support, presumably at least one person along the chain has a bee in their bonnet about cyclists.

Re guidance on cycling audit & review, there's actually still copies available for purchase around...

[millimole]

For a somewhat different view of the thin edge of this wedge then I'd suggest looking at this (huge) thread on the SABRE site forums : https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/vi ... =1&t=38400
While there's a lot of arcane discussions about road numbering and sign standards, there's also some insight into possible (? probable) Highways England thinking.
Thankfully it's not all petrol-head discussion as one of the moderators seems to be a cyclist.
As I say it's long read, but there are some worrying nuggets in there.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[millimole]

For a somewhat different view of the thin edge of this wedge then I'd suggest looking at this (huge) thread on the SABRE site forums : https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/vi ... =1&t=38400
While there's a lot of arcane discussions about road numbering and sign standards, there's also some insight into possible (? probable) Highways England thinking.
Thankfully it's not all petrol-head discussion as one of the moderators seems to be a cyclist.
As I say it's long read, but there are some worrying nuggets in there.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

The url got broken for the forum - try https://goo.gl/MxegFv

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[thirdcrank]

A bit more of the jig-saw emerges. Perhaps they want cyclists off the A63 altogether before converting it all to motorway.

Hull road scheme: 19,000 bodies to be exhumed for A63 upgrade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43402056

[The utility cyclist]

A bit more of the jig-saw emerges. Perhaps they want cyclists off the A63 altogether before converting it all to motorway.

Hull road scheme: 19,000 bodies to be exhumed for A63 upgrade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43402056

That has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, Castle street is in the city centre which has almost 4 times as much traffic oer a 24 hour period as the A63 at the point where the time-trailing takes place.
This project won't alleviate the problem for one thing because the incoming and outgoing congestion is caused by bottlenecks further into the city ...due to more motorvehicle use. I ride on the Castle street dual carriageway, not often because it's not usually on my route but I can tell you it is nothing like as intimidating as some other stretches of road around the country that are single lane. The plan for footbridges to get across are an absolute disgrace.

The A63 cannot and will not become a motorway in any case and as mentioned many times, the reason why the flow rate is so low at the point of the time-trailling and why the whole A63 aside from peak times is very quiet compared to most A roads is because the Humber bridge takes a lot of traffic off it before it becomes the M62.

[thirdcrank]

Highways England and its predecessors have had a strategy of building the easy bits first so "improving" the hard bits in between become more inevitable. eg The way the M67 heads towards Sheffield, stopping at the edge of the Peak District.

On a more random note, a couple of decades ago, there was a widespread de-trunking of roads ie the responsibility for a lot of trunk roads was passed to local highway authorities. I was a CTC RtoR rep at the time and because I live in Leeds where the Highways Agency had a regional office for northern England, there was a time when CTC HQ was sending me HA proposals for the whole of that area. Memory unclear about a lot of the roads involved but I've a feeling part of the A63 was proposed for de-trunking.

[The utility cyclist]

I also have just noted that the upgrade or whatever it is doesn't have a cycle lane, yet more shared use BS that doesn't join up and is bidirectional. So bi-directonal and shared use and 3 metres wide but only for a short section.

[Pete Owens]

A bit more of the jig-saw emerges. Perhaps they want cyclists off the A63 altogether before converting it all to motorway.

Hull road scheme: 19,000 bodies to be exhumed for A63 upgrade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43402056

That has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, Castle street is in the city centre which has almost 4 times as much traffic oer a 24 hour period as the A63 at the point where the time-trailing takes place.

But will be a direct continuation of the stretch where the ban will apply (remember it is ALL cycling to be banned ALL the way to HULL - not just a ban on TTs). Indeed cycling already is banned on the flyover (though I'm not sure whether this sign is legal: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7323286,-0.360069,3a,44.7y,39h,92.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSA_IyYRGowISWN5Y41ryjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Once they have spent hundreds of millions converting the next mile into an urban expressway in 2025, I'm sure they will want to extend the cycle prohibition.

The A63 cannot and will not become a motorway in any case and as mentioned many times, the reason why the flow rate is so low at the point of the time-trialling and why the whole A63 aside from peak times is very quiet compared to most A roads is because the Humber bridge takes a lot of traffic off it before it becomes the M62.

And has been pointed out before it wouldn't be a problem for us if a motorway was proposed - If they were to extend the M62 east then they would have to leave the A63 in place (or at least one carriageway) as an existing right of way for non-motorway traffic. This is what happened further west where the route of the A63 (now the B1230) can still be cycled. You see the same on other schemes where a motorway is built to serve the route of an A road (eg M74 or A1(M) - where cyclist can still use the original alignment). The problem for us is when they try ban cycling from ordinary roads - subjecting us to long detours or dangerous farcilities.

[eileithyia]

Well it's all been blown out of the water, because local time trial district committee have decided to suspend ALL time trials until such time as a decision is made. Going fully against the strength of feeling and the campaigns of all those involved in protecting our rights to ride on the roads.

And while this is in Australia it might be worth taking note:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-09/w ... ad/9532370

[Vorpal]

And has been pointed out before it wouldn't be a problem for us if a motorway was proposed - If they were to extend the M62 east then they would have to leave the A63 in place (or at least one carriageway) as an existing right of way for non-motorway traffic. This is what happened further west where the route of the A63 (now the B1230) can still be cycled. You see the same on other schemes where a motorway is built to serve the route of an A road (eg M74 or A1(M) - where cyclist can still use the original alignment). The problem for us is when they try ban cycling from ordinary roads - subjecting us to long detours or dangerous farcilities.

Most upgrades on A roads in the last decade, maybe a bit more, have not created motorways. They've instead created a road that is very much like a motorway, but still has an 'A' road designation.

[merseymouth]

Hello there, Too many folk only see the loss of a fast time trial course as being the prime issue? It's not, the granting of such an order will turn that particular area into an even grimmer backwater, where those without motorized transport will be condemned to a withering death!
Having raced that course, on a Bank Holiday Monday and subsequently ridden that road to Brough on the Tuesday, I can say that it is very scary!
Motor traffic makes it a very unpleasant trip, yet no ready alternative exists.
It is de facto an extension of the M62, which HE wants to make permanent, with carelessly driven fast traffic. The number of HGV's chasing cross-country from hull to ports for Ireland make it a "Rat-Run", surely better provision could be made to transport such heavy freight without wearing a groove across the north of England?
I think it is time that the spirit of "Robin Hood" should be brought to bear on such issues? That was the Nom de Plume of the late, great G.H. Stancer, who must be spinning in his grave at the thought of such an order banning the beloved pedal-cycle!
Motor traffic must not dominate our freedom & safety, especially when so many poor, dangerous, offending driver are allowed to continue driving after being convicted of below standard roadcraft? Ban them instead of punishing the innocent, law abiding cyclists!
TTFN MM

[Cyril Haearn]

There used to be a modern electric railway over the pennines (Woodhead), it was closed and the locos sold to NS Nederland, cyclists padadise
One does wonder whether ships could be used between Eire and the mainland,could well be cheaper
Probably not, most of the trucks on the M62 + A55 are full of essential goods, flowers from NL that must be delivered to Galway asap
-99

[Vorpal]

Hello there, Too many folk only see the loss of a fast time trial course as being the prime issue? It's not, the granting of such an order will turn that particular area into an even grimmer backwater, where those without motorized transport will be condemned to a withering death!

I don't think most people see the time trial course as the big issue. The OP picked the title.

[thirdcrank]

Not directly related to time trialling but there's been a teenager killed on the A63, just beyond the end of the M62.

Hull A63 crash: Boy, 15, killed as car hits him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43532368