Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-ways

drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by drossall »

gaz - no, but revoking established rights seems a bit different.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Bmblbzzz »

I like your thinking drossall, but in practice that's not what happens. There are numerous roads where certain types of traffic are banned and no alternative provision made. There is even one near Cardiff where agricultural tractors are specifically banned.
9494arnold
Posts: 1208
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 3:13pm

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by 9494arnold »

Is this not the "Thin end of the wedge?" :x

I vividly recall going to a meeting in Birmingham a few years ago , the outline proposal was to get cyclists off the Arterial Roads in the Rush Hour. It was dressed in a very postitive manner , "better cycle provision" "alternative route information" but the bottom line was banning cycling from the roads in question and sending the hapless cyclist round a circuit of parks and side roads which might be better for the soul but would add to journey times considerably for the commuter. shock:
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2360
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Bmblbzzz wrote:What does overturning this inconsistency achieve? An alliance of cyclists and farmers?

1) The more opponents the better surely?

2) The HA will have to explain why they don't care about other slow road users safety....

3) Perhaps some protection from any laws about unfairly treating particular groups. It at least sounds bad(cos it is) in the media....

4) Then If it is managed to remove/make socially/politically unacceptable the option of banning only cyclists(for whatever reason), either the current all-purpose routes must be made safer for the allowed users (ie lower speed limits as mentioned in OP, thus no more all-purpose roads as pseudo 70mph motorways) or an alternate route provided for those banned users which in current climate is probably likely to be nicer than some sort of fa(r)cilty for those 'pesky cyclists' HA managed to remove from the road they stole by their current ruse of converting it to a pseudo-motorway,'

5) I am fed up with the acceptance of 70mph as a reasonable speed limit on an all-purpose road: this seems an easy thing to fix (change meaning of national limit sign) yet no cycle organisation/campaign group has managed that yet.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Reasonable points, but I just don't see it happening.
1) Yes, but as it would have to start with a campaign (by cyclists) to get agricultural vehicles, construction machines, horses, put in one group with cyclists, this would easily be seen by those groups as "Cyclists got us banned from the Axx!" And in practical terms, there are cases where the only feasible route for those vehicles, at work, includes a dual carriageway (for instance construction happening alongside).

2) That's quite easy to explain (ignoring that the real reason for such bans is usually "traffic flow"); farm and industrial vehicles are big (often much bigger than a car and sometimes wider than a lorry), the driver is protected in a cab, and their speed is much closer to car speed. As for equestrians, they simply don't use such roads, so don't feature in the reasoning at all; cos not in statistics, and won't campaign to be allowed to use such roads.

3) "Local farmer unable to reach own fields due to traffic order" would make headlines and get sympathy, but see 1).

4) The current all-purpose d-cs are deemed safe for allowed users including industrial and agricultural vehicles due to 2). Also due to their low numbers. Alternate routes provided to include them, rather than just "cycle paths", could be great; visions of wide, smoothly surfaced, barrier free roads, with 40mph limit (IIRC currently max permitted for fastest farm tractors). But only where they were purpose built routes rather than directions to "Use Watery Lane, Acacia Avenue, Cedar Close and A999". Without an obligation to provide suitable alternative routes, I fear what would happen is large vehicles being directed on to such routes - narrow lanes and residential streets - to share with cyclists and horse riders.

5) Yes, 70mph is too fast for a road supposedly to be used by all. Slip roads also not suitable for junctions supposedly usable by all.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Bmblbzzz »

I seem to have done a lot of disagreeing in this thread. :? Rather than be entirely negative and/or argumentative, I'm going to try and make a constructive post. Hopefully! What would I like to see in this regard?

Thinking about the recent case in Humberside, it's clear that some cyclists make good use of dual carriageways. Not just time triallists -- there are people who've written about using that road to commute. The point they make is three-fold: that at many times of day, there is so little traffic on that road that there is plenty of room for cyclists and fast motor traffic (yes, and tractors) without any conflict; that the qualities which make the road attractive to motorists are the same ones that make it attractive to cyclists (fast, flat, direct, well surfaced); and that the number of crashes involving cyclists on that road is far lower than those involving only drivers. At the same time, many other cyclists would not dream of using that road, and almost everyone who does not ride a bike would never dare to do so (and perhaps the same goes for those who do not drive a tractor, or even ride a horse?*) So effectively, many cyclists see busy d-cs as a barrier anyway. This barrier effect is compounded because, unlike with motorways, there is no legal obligation to provide continuity for roads and paths severed by a supposedly all-purpose road.

The problem then is how to eliminate this barrier effect while not upsetting the bolder cyclists who do use it, (or those who through work or adventure get to use it at 1a.m.). The key here is providing continuity in two dimensions; both along the road and across it. So where it crosses another road or path, there must be a bridge or tunnel usable by all who might use that path or road. And along the new road, a path usable by same, with access at each junction and free of barriers, gates, etc. That means it must be wide and smooth enough for time triallists as well as bimblers. A road for cycling on, rather than a path. Definitely not a pavement you're allowed to cycle on; if anything, more like a small road you can safely walk on.

That provision strikes me as the key, and if anything the crossings are more important than the path alongside (at least for new roads; the longer a road's been around, the more it will have got to be a part of the infrastructure, so to speak -- and where a single carriageway is dualled, as opposed to a new d-c built from scratch, it's essential). The end point might even be the same as the OP's but the process is different.

*I've never seen anyone riding a horse on that type of road but I certainly have seen horse-drawn vehicles (farm and travellers) on them.
StephenW
Posts: 158
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by StephenW »

I agree with everything Bmblbzz said.

Tractors and bicycles are two very different vehicles, with different requirements. Does it make sense for them to be required to be always bundled together? Perhaps in some cases it is appropriate to combine them, but in other cases not.

On a slight tangent, I think that particularly busy single carriageways could be greatly improved by having a small parallel road for the use of bicycles, mopeds, slower tractors, horses etc. This is surely much cheaper than converting to dual carriageway, and would surely make a big improvement to safety by reducing the amount of overtaking. (Especially if speed limit is reduced to 50 mph so there is no difference between HGVs and cars. If average speed cameras are used, even better). This would also make more efficient use of the road by not mixing vehicles with very different speeds. I would find riding on such a road more enjoyable too (provided there are good sight lines).
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by drossall »

It's junctions that are the problem though. That's where most bike accidents happen anyway, and it's easy to design paths such that junctions are harder to handle for cyclists and motorists alike, and therefore the road is more dangerous than it was without the path.

Not an argument against all such paths, but the good designs also tend to be expensive, with bridges and the like.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by MikeF »

gaz wrote:
drossall wrote:Isn't the definition of a highway something to do with a facility allowing the free passage of the public, and their goods, to and fro?
There are various categories of Highway. Footpaths are Highways and whilst you may have free passage on foot do not take it for granted that you can take a barrow of bricks with you too :wink: .
:lol: :lol: You'd have to prove they were an accepted normal accompaniment.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Pete Owens »

Of course on dual carriageways there is always a way to provide completely segregated routes for fast and slow vehicles. Simply allocate one of the carriageways to motors and the other to prohibited vehicles. That way cyclists cannot complain about inferior provision and Highways England get to segregate us for our safety. Who could possibly object?
StephenW
Posts: 158
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by StephenW »

drossall wrote:It's junctions that are the problem though. That's where most bike accidents happen anyway, and it's easy to design paths such that junctions are harder to handle for cyclists and motorists alike, and therefore the road is more dangerous than it was without the path.


In urban areas this is certainly so. But according to a document I read by TRL, in rural areas car-bike collisions are equally divided between junction and non-junction locations.

drossall wrote:Not an argument against all such paths, but the good designs also tend to be expensive, with bridges and the like.


Suppose it were possible to make a cycle path that neither increased nor decreased the risk at junctions. In that case, in rural areas, it would halve the number of car-bike collisions, which would be a very worthwhile improvement in safety.

Although grade-separation is best, perhaps in some cases safety at junctions could be improved for cycles without this.
jgurney
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by jgurney »

StephenW wrote: Suppose it were possible to make a cycle path that neither increased nor decreased the risk at junctions.


Risk to the individual, or overall number of accidents? A roadside cycle path might make the route look safer and actually reduce non-junction collisions, and not affect the risks of any given cyclist being in a junction collision, yet by attracting more cyclists to ride there might lead to an increase in the absolute number of collisions at those junctions. Would such a case be regarded as a successful outcome for cycle safety?

On some rural roads there are currently so few cyclists that a few more people starting to cycle along a particular route could be a large (e.g. 500%) increase in cycle traffic.

I have some photos I took in Dorset showing cycle path signs sticking up out of a thicket. Due to lack of use and maintenance, the bushes each side had grown until they merged. Only the signs on tall posts, and close inspection revealing tarmac under the interwoven branches, showed there was supposed to be a cycle route there.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Cyril Haearn »

StephenW wrote:I agree with everything Bmblbzz said.

Tractors and bicycles are two very different vehicles, with different requirements. Does it make sense for them to be required to be always bundled together? Perhaps in some cases it is appropriate to combine them, but in other cases not.

On a slight tangent, I think that particularly busy single carriageways could be greatly improved by having a small parallel road for the use of bicycles, mopeds, slower tractors, horses etc. This is surely much cheaper than converting to dual carriageway, and would surely make a big improvement to safety by reducing the amount of overtaking. (Especially if speed limit is reduced to 50 mph so there is no difference between HGVs and cars. If average speed cameras are used, even better). This would also make more efficient use of the road by not mixing vehicles with very different speeds. I would find riding on such a road more enjoyable too (provided there are good sight lines).

Increasing the lgv maximum speed limit was madness, they used to go at 40+x, now they go at 50+y
Was there no opposition to it?
Did cuk have an opinion?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Pete Owens wrote:
Cyril Haearn wrote:Did cuk have an opinion?

Yes:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/.../1302_ctc_dft-hgv-speed_con.doc

Tried to open the link
Permission denied
Could you summarise what cuk thought?
Diolch yn fawr iawn
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Post Reply