A63 - Victory for common sense -?

[The utility cyclist]

Coming to the UK soon http://road.cc/content/news/235915-high ... ial-course

This would set a dangerous precedent but also you might as well ban cycling on any road there has been a death or serious injury on.
Maybe if they thought about how many actual deaths of motorists were caused by dangerous motorists they'd ban motorvehicles from those roads too, fairs fair right?

[[XAP]Bob]

This is a one mile stretch which has had 5 accidents involving cyclists in 5 years, including one fatality (a TT rider riding heads down into the back of a stationary caravan (pulled over having broken down).

What I don't know is the number of 'non cyclist' accidents/injuries/deaths on that stretch of road...

[Lance Dopestrong]

Not sure how they'd enforce that. Does it mean I couldn't try to better my best time riding to work on that stretch?

[Psamathe]

My interpretation of the article is that all cyclists are to be banned and the only "Time Trial" aspect is that it forms part of a fast time trial course.

Highways England is reported to be proposing a ban on cyclists using a stretch of one of its roads near Hull. The A63 Trunk Road forms part of the V718 course on which Marcin Bialoblocki set the 10-mile time trial record of 16m35s in 2016, but Highways England wants all cyclists excluded for safety reasons.

I find is disappointing that the time triallists can only see the the loss of a fast course as the implications of this. To me it is far more disappointing that rather than ban cyclists, the authorities are not instead proposing alternative cycle paths be built. Maybe there are already alternative cycle paths (in which the article should really have mentioned them - or I missed it).

My initial reaction is that it can become the thin end of the wedge where bans are imposed rather than safe alternatives being provided (and not just divert cyclists only an existing pedestrian pavement and call it "shared use"). We risk going down the same paths schools seem to be doing with their unilateral helmet/training/permit rules.

Having no interest in time trialling I overlooked this thread - maybe update the title?

Ian

[Bmblbzzz]

I perhaps wouldn't object to a ban if there was a decent quality, continuous cycle road running parallel to and alongside the dual carriageway in both directions.

[Si]

I perhaps wouldn't object to a ban if there was a decent quality, continuous cycle road running parallel to and alongside the dual carriageway in both directions.

Would you allow timetrialists to race on it?

[The utility cyclist]

This is a one mile stretch which has had 5 accidents involving cyclists in 5 years, including one fatality (a TT rider riding heads down into the back of a stationary caravan (pulled over having broken down).

What I don't know is the number of 'non cyclist' accidents/injuries/deaths on that stretch of road...

In one small section near Elloughton alone there have been 2 fatalities and over 100 injuries (On the A63 itself), this only covers a 3km radius along the A63.
There's a slightly better map for giving the numbers on a particular road that I used yesterday but seem to be having difficulty finding it but this sort of doesthe job if not somewhat cumbersome http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

[thirdcrank]

I agree with the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument although I think the wedge is already deeper in. The Highways Agency was always keen to get cyclists off "its" roads and Highways England is just continuing the antics of its predecessor. I'm pretty sure that if there was a simple way of banning cyclists from all the strategic road network it would have already been done.

The M62 was partly conceived as a connection between two of the country's major ports, Hull and Liverpool, both of which have since lost that status. The other big transport project in that neck of the woods was the Humber Bridge, which instead of connecting Hull docks with the southern part of the country, now connects Immingham with the North. For whatever reason, the conversion of that part of the A63 to the M62 never went ahead and in the easterly direction, the M62 drops from three lanes to two and then loses motorway status, continuing towards Hull as the A63, with all the side entrances, laybys and filling stations typical of general purpose A roads. As a teenager in the 1950's and 60's, I cycled to Hull from Leeds vai the A63 a good few times to visit family friends in Hull, and it was the normal way to go but I'm not sure what cyclists - except TT riders - would use that stretch of road today since none would approach via the M62. Presumably, part of the Highways England case for a ban is that they've driven most cyclists off it already, although they'll use weasel words to say that.
============================
edited to remove an embarrassing typo

[Bmblbzzz]

I perhaps wouldn't object to a ban if there was a decent quality, continuous cycle road running parallel to and alongside the dual carriageway in both directions.

Would you allow timetrialists to race on it?

On the dual carriageway or the "cycling facility"? The answer is yes in both cases. I wouldn't ban cycling on dual carriageways and if I were in charge of building the cycle path, I would build it wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions that it would be suitable for time trialling (which is why I used the somewhat invented term "cycle road").

[Bonefishblues]

I perhaps wouldn't object to a ban if there was a decent quality, continuous cycle road running parallel to and alongside the dual carriageway in both directions.

Would you allow timetrialists to race on it?

On the dual carriageway or the "cycling facility"? The answer is yes in both cases. I wouldn't ban cycling on dual carriageways and if I were in charge of building the cycle path, I would build it wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions that it would be suitable for time trialling (which is why I used the somewhat invented term "cycle road").

How would one cater for the regular cyclists during TTs?

[Bmblbzzz]

Would you allow timetrialists to race on it?

On the dual carriageway or the "cycling facility"? The answer is yes in both cases. I wouldn't ban cycling on dual carriageways and if I were in charge of building the cycle path, I would build it wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions that it would be suitable for time trialling (which is why I used the somewhat invented term "cycle road").

How would one cater for the regular cyclists during TTs?

By making it "wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions".

[PH]

Time trailing to be banned on Dual Carriageways - where does it say that? We jump up and down when the media misrepresent cycling, yet seem to accept the same on this forum. There are plenty of roads up and down the country where cycling is prohibited, this certainly isn't the first. If anyone feels strongly about any one of them then please do campaign against it (I'd rather spend my time campaigning for adequate alternatives) but if you can't do so honestly, then there's no hope.

[Wanlock Dod]

...This would set a dangerous precedent but also you might as well ban cycling on any road there has been a death or serious injury on...

Yet it is pretty much this kind of thing that they have in the country where people cycle the most, so is it really a bad thing for cycling?

Perhaps accepting that motons cannot be trusted to watch what they are doing sufficiently to drive around cyclists is the first step in normalising cycling.

[The utility cyclist]

On the dual carriageway or the "cycling facility"? The answer is yes in both cases. I wouldn't ban cycling on dual carriageways and if I were in charge of building the cycle path, I would build it wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions that it would be suitable for time trialling (which is why I used the somewhat invented term "cycle road").

How would one cater for the regular cyclists during TTs?

By making it "wide enough, smooth enough, with good enough sight lines and free of obstructions".

Lane one then, best solution all round I reckon and no extra cost aside from some barriers

[The utility cyclist]

...This would set a dangerous precedent but also you might as well ban cycling on any road there has been a death or serious injury on...

Yet it is pretty much this kind of thing that they have in the country where people cycle the most, so is it really a bad thing for cycling?

Perhaps accepting that motons cannot be trusted to watch what they are doing sufficiently to drive around cyclists is the first step in normalising cycling.

We aren't going to get Dutch style or levels of segregated lanes ever, not in my lifetime or my sons, basically not in the next 100 years. To think so is simply not able to grasp the reality even with all the evidence we have that more cycling equals better society/better health/less expense on NHS etc no one is prepared to do a damn thing except piecemeal offerings that do squat. We have basically ZERO increase in cycling over the last what, 20 years, that's even with increases in sporting cycling.
Accepting that motons can't drive properly should be the first step toward simply removing them from the roads, as based on facts that would be by far the cheapest, most efficient and safest option.