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

[SA_SA_SA]

It occurs to me if cyclists are to be banned from a dual carriageway (or other busy/fast) road for being too slow then it is unreasonable to single them out (and unfair to other slower kinds of users) therefore if HE could be forced (by law or court case) to only have the choice between
banning all non-motorway users (ie tractors, mopeds etc) from a currently all-purpose road thus having to provide an alternative route for said larger range of banned vehicles
or
fixing the all-purpose by road by engineering and enforcement measures (eg lowering and enforcing speed limits, removing long slip roads etc) ,
then the alternative of applying safety measures to the all-purpose road might suddenly seem the more attractive option....?

[[XAP]Bob]

Yes...

[thirdcrank]

Or better still, why not make it compulsory for cycling provision to be so good that riders automatically choose it in preference to the main road alternative? Neither looks likely.

[bovlomov]

Or better still, why not make it compulsory for cycling provision to be so good that riders automatically choose it in preference to the main road alternative? Neither looks likely.

To be fair to the highway engineer (even if he doesn't deserve it), accommodating all types of cycling preference would require a rather wide cycle way. A cycle way wide enough for all - from children and pootlers to racers - would require the width of a road... ...Oh! Is that what you're thinking? In that case, I'm all for it.

[pwa]

Curious how you do occasionally see signs indicating that cycling is forbidden on a major dual carriageway, but not horse and cart! I'm not saying horse owners are being treated better. Far from it. They exclude themselves from very busy roads. But in theory they are allowed on those roads! And the faster, narrower cycles are not. Odd.

[thirdcrank]

... To be fair to the highway engineer (even if he doesn't deserve it), accommodating all types of cycling preference would require a rather wide cycle way. A cycle way wide enough for all - from children and pootlers to racers - would require the width of a road... ...Oh! Is that what you're thinking? In that case, I'm all for it.

I thought you were going to say that the cycle way would need to accommodate all the other banned traffic, including tractors and horse-drawn carts.

[bovlomov]

... To be fair to the highway engineer (even if he doesn't deserve it), accommodating all types of cycling preference would require a rather wide cycle way. A cycle way wide enough for all - from children and pootlers to racers - would require the width of a road... ...Oh! Is that what you're thinking? In that case, I'm all for it.

I thought you were going to say that the cycle way would need to accommodate all the other banned traffic, including tractors and horse-drawn carts.

They can have their own paths. In fact, every mode of transport should have its own segregated track. With high walls, to discourage interaction (spitting, stone throwing etc).

[The utility cyclist]

3m wide cycle lane in both directions with absolute priority everywhere would be the only thing to persuade me to back cycles being banned from roads.

[bovlomov]

3m wide cycle lane in both directions with absolute priority everywhere would be the only thing to persuade me to back cycles being banned from roads.

Any loss of priority would be worse than what we have cycling on the road.

[Bmblbzzz]

So you would have eg the A63 transformed into a motorway. Brilliant.

[cotswolds]

Somewhat tangential, but slightly relevant...

I've at least twice seen signs banning "vehicles not capable of exceeding 25mph" - from memory, the A34 near Abingdon and the A45 near Northampton - both fast, near motorway dual carriageways. I assume this is aimed at a particular class of motor vehicle - tractors, JCBs, etc.

I'm guessing whoever created the regulation probably assumed it banned bikes, and wonder if this has ever been tested. There's obviously endless scope for argument.

[The utility cyclist]

3m wide cycle lane in both directions with absolute priority everywhere would be the only thing to persuade me to back cycles being banned from roads.

Any loss of priority would be worse than what we have cycling on the road.

I know, that's why I'd never support the motion because what I've asked will never come about, there's nothing like that in any country so ain't gonna happen.

[TrevA]

This may be stating the obvious, but Motorways have to have grade- separated junctions (over bridges and underpasses), so that there is no interaction with other roads unless you come off the motorway. Many new A roads are built with grade- separated junctions anyway e.g the A46 between Widmerpool and Newark. Older A roads tend to have lots of junctions with minor roads and that's why it's not possible to upgrade to a motorway without a lot of re-engineering. Many stretches of the A1 are an example of this.

[thirdcrank]

While it's true that any junction between a motorway and other roads will, by definition, have all the "end of motorway" stuff and vice versa, there are motorway junctions controlled by traffic lights ie not grade separated.

[SA_SA_SA]

Or better still, why not make it compulsory for cycling provision to be so good that riders automatically choose it in preference to the main road alternative? Neither looks likely.

But my idea was that if the choice was between super-nice wide (4m+) cycleways or banning a wide variety of slower vehicles and thus having to provide an alternative for them, then remedial safety measures* on all-purpose dual carriageways would suddenly look like the cheapest option:
*e.g. lowering the speed limit to 60mph or less, enforcement etc.., no long slip roads, visual reminders that is an all-purpose road etc.