Cycling UK Forum

Audax67 wrote:Riding on 2x2 dual carriageways is forbidden here. In any case it's not a pleasant experience.

Can you provide a link showing this please.

A few years ago I was bypassing a town which is a junction for many major roads. My minor road joined a dual carriageway about 1km away from the minor road on the other side. I rode the dual carriageway for that short distance. There were no signs forbidding this. It was not pleasant because it was part way up a long hill away from town, long enough that lorries had lost a lot of speed by the time they got to me. A couple sounded horns, which I thought unusual but if I was in the wrong this would explain it.

Perhaps it's just NSL duals?

Looking at the POV of "The Bench," there is a rapidly dwindling number of victims who may be blamed without causing the ceiling to land on the rug.

reohn2 wrote:

Mick F wrote:

Audax67 wrote:Riding on 2x2 dual carriageways is forbidden here ..........

reohn2 wrote:It's the same in the Netherlands ...........

How do you overtake?
Maybe you're overtaking and your speed differentials are small?

For what distance is it illegal?

Sorry Mick you'll have to clarify,I'm confused

Sorry. Unclear maybe.

Audax67 made the point of riding two breast on dual carriageways is illegal in France, and I thought you were saying it was the case in the Holland too.

I was asking if you were cycling on a dc, and came up behind another cyclist, how would you overtake him without riding two breast for a distance?

Judge Tonkin suggests that it would improve safety “to remove all cyclists from any dual-carriageway which is not subject to a speed limit of 30, or possibly 40, mph.”

He goes on to say, “This would not prevent cyclists from using dual-carriageways in urban areas but would take them away from some of our more dangerous trunk roads where traffic is both heavy and fast moving.

“Any cyclist, particularly a lone cyclist who is not wearing high-visibility clothing, is at huge risk on such roads from vehicles approaching from behind at a (legal) closing speed of up to 60 mph. At such a closing speed a relatively small and very vulnerable “object” is coming into view at the rate of 60ft per second and in a moment’s inattention irreparable damage is done.”

Subjecting all dual carriageways to a speed limit of 30, or possibly 40 mph should be quite simple to achieve. Judge Tonkin has hit upon a simple way to improve road safety for all, what a shame he doesn't seem to have realised it.

Mick F wrote:Sorry. Unclear maybe.

Audax67 made the point of riding two breast on dual carriageways is illegal in France, and I thought you were saying it was the case in the Holland too.

I was asking if you were cycling on a dc, and came up behind another cyclist, how would you overtake him without riding two breast for a distance?

My understanding of Audax67's post was that cycling on dual carriageways wasn't allowed in France.

I replied that it was the same in the Netherlands but that the Netherlands always has a decent alternative cycle facility.

Nothing to do with cycling two abreast.

It has happened here in Scotland with the notorious A90 between Queensferry and Cramond. No alternative given, unless you count Sustrans' Route 1 which is a narrow pavement barely wide enough for one bike.

And on the A728 Southern Orbital in Glasgow. Bikes and mopeds and horse drawn vehicles not allowed. Yet it's not a motorway...

I see that Martin Porter has written a response to The Times, where the judge's views were aired. It seems this response has not been published.

Talking of Martin Porter, he does mention that The Times used to publish his letters. That, of course, is often one of the benefits of adding the brass knobs to one's name and address. IMO, there's a strong case for people in the judiciary (as opposed to lawyers more generally) not using their job title to get prominence for their own opinions and prejudices - that's as opposed to writing in an official capacity about things they are empowered to announce.

This jusdge may well feel able to separate his own opinions from the law he charged with administering but that's not the oint: this is a question of perception. How can any cyclist riiding on a dual carriageway who has to give evidence in this judge's court, or the family of a cyclist killed on a DC, have any confidence in his handling of the trial?

It really does need a cycling organisation - and it doesn't matter which one - to complain, asking at the very least that he should not in future be allocated road traffic cases involving cyclists.

Complaints should be addressed to the relevant toothless watchdog:

http://judicialcomplaints.judiciary.gov.uk/index.htm

How can any cyclist riding on a dual carriageway who has to give evidence in this judge's court, or the family of a cyclist killed on a DC, have any confidence in his handling of the trial?

Hmmm, who has confidence in any Judge's handling of trials?

However isnt the complaint best kept in reserve and used after the trial if there is an unfavourable outcome?

meic wrote: ... Hmmm, who has confidence in any Judge's handling of trials? ...

Within the rules of the system, I think most I've seen were doing a good job

... However isnt the complaint best kept in reserve and used after the trial if there is an unfavourable outcome?

I simply don't know, although I see from the rules published by the toothless watchdog that they can't overturn judgments: that's a job for the appeal courts.

The point I'm trying to make is that judges have stopped saying things like women in short skirts shouldn't be out late at night, even if that's what they think, and they need a shot across their bows from cyclists.