A63 - Victory for common sense -?

[StephenW]

I agree with much of what David says. People have different ideas of what "common sense" is. I'm sure there are many people who would regard cycling on 70 mph dual carriageways as contrary to "common sense". (I'm not endorsing that point of view, just saying that I think it's likely that many people would say that).

As I mentioned before, I think what cycling UK could have done, is point out that the existing path alongside the A63 falls massively short of IAN-195, which is Highways England's own standard of cycle provision. Even the briefest glance at Google Streetview makes this very obvious. If HE want to ban cycling on a route, they should provide an alternative which meets their own standards. I believe this is an argument which would resonate more with the wider public.

IF and that is a big if, HE decide they want to provide a 4m wide bi-directional lane along all trunk roads that has absolute priority at every junction, maybe, just maybe that would be acceptable to everyone.

According to IAN-195, desirable minimum width for a bi-directional cycle path with a peak flow of less than 150 cycles/hour is 3 metres, and over 150 cycles/hour it is 4 metres. (Short sections of less than 100 metres are allowed to be 0.5 metres less than this, if there is some unavoidable physical obstruction. This is the absolute minimum allowed). On roads with speed limits of 60 mph or above, all crossings must be grade-separated, so priority doesn't come into it.

[thirdcrank]

... According to IAN-195, desirable minimum width for a bi-directional cycle path with a peak flow of less than 150 cycles/hour is 3 metres, and over 150 cycles/hour it is 4 metres. (Short sections of less than 100 metres are allowed to be 0.5 metres less than this, if there is some unavoidable physical obstruction. This is the absolute minimum allowed). On roads with speed limits of 60 mph or above, all crossings must be grade-separated, so priority doesn't come into it.

One of the problems is calculating that peak flow before decent provision is in place. When it suits them, they'll sit in a layby at the side of a 70mph dual carriageway and observe a peak flow of zilch. Using an example local to this bit of the A63, they estimated demand to support the building of the Humber Bridge.

[The utility cyclist]

... According to IAN-195, desirable minimum width for a bi-directional cycle path with a peak flow of less than 150 cycles/hour is 3 metres, and over 150 cycles/hour it is 4 metres. (Short sections of less than 100 metres are allowed to be 0.5 metres less than this, if there is some unavoidable physical obstruction. This is the absolute minimum allowed). On roads with speed limits of 60 mph or above, all crossings must be grade-separated, so priority doesn't come into it.

One of the problems is calculating that peak flow before decent provision is in place. When it suits them, they'll sit in a layby at the side of a 70mph dual carriageway and observe a peak flow of zilch. Using an example local to this bit of the A63, they estimated demand to support the building of the Humber Bridge.

There's a peak flow of zilch solely because of the horrendous nature of the road as it is, their inability to make safe the traffic that uses it (let's remember that many motorists die and are SI on this road)and the police from, well policing it, such that there are many deaths and serious injuries involving motorvehicle occupants. Frankly I can't understand why HE haven't banned motors from using the A63 decades ago.
If there was adequate infra or a safe lane on the existing road then you'd see far more people riding bikes there as it is a dead straight line from the villages as opposed to having to zig-zag into the city. In any case number of vehicles isn't enough to not build something, afterall there are thousands of miles of roads built solely for motors that barely get used for most of the day.