Main roads that don't allow cycling

[661-Pete]

For me, cyclists being prohibited from any particular road will only be acceptable when a practical alternative is offered. By that I mean quite literally a segregated cycle/pedestrian route running alongside the road in question.

It doesn't always have to be that. When the A23 was upgraded and dualled, over a large section an entire new roadway was constructed, and the old A23 was de-trunked, reclassified as a B road and left as a service road running parallel to the new road, about 200-300 yards west of it. This makes an excellent cycle route. See here.

Having said that, cyclists are not barred from the new A23. I see no reason why they should be, but if they had been, maybe Marie Vesco might still be alive today...

[pwa]

For me, cyclists being prohibited from any particular road will only be acceptable when a practical alternative is offered. By that I mean quite literally a segregated cycle/pedestrian route running alongside the road in question.

It doesn't always have to be that. When the A23 was upgraded and dualled, over a large section an entire new roadway was constructed, and the old A23 was de-trunked, reclassified as a B road and left as a service road running parallel to the new road, about 200-300 yards west of it. This makes an excellent cycle route. See here.

I think we can all think of examples where that has occurred, and the result is usually an improvement. I think we are narrowing our concerns to those instances where alternatives to the prohibited road are absent or inconvenient.

[Bicycler]

I think we are narrowing our concerns to those instances where alternatives to the prohibited road are absent or inconvenient.

Which might well be the majority of cases where cyclists actually use the main road. Who chooses to ride a very busy road when there is a quieter road which is no less convenient for them? The question then becomes how you define inconvenient. It doesn't take much of a delay twice a day to significantly lengthen a commute. What we absolutely do not want to encourage is a situation where the council or Highways England prohibit cyclists based upon their own subjective views of there being "a suitable alternate route". They'd have us winding our way round the rural backroads and tracks, and fighting with motorcycle barriers on canals and NCN routes. If there's a hostile road with a segregated cycle path and still cyclists use the road, you don't need to prohibit them, you need to ask why the path is inadequate for them. Cyclists being able to choose to use the carriageway acts as a great quality check of cycling facilities.

[pwa]

I think the prohibitions I have no problem with are those on new dual carriageways where no cycling access ever existed in the first place, and where the new road makes the existing cyclable roads better.

[Bicycler]

I understand that as far as future road projects are concerned. But surely that would mean that you have a problem with prohibiting cycling on existing main roads that cyclists may currently use legally? Or do you mean prohibiting cycling isn't a problem on roads which were originally built to bypass other older roads? Many bypasses date back decades, yet it only takes a short time for people to change their travel patterns to adapt to the current network. The road network available to cyclists of previous generations is of no concern to the current cycle users of a road.

I think that almost all newly-constructed non-motorway main roads really ought to include pedestrian/cycle paths anyway. I can understand that there might be cases involving circuitous bypasses, or where existing parallel roads meant the new one offered no conceivable benefit to cyclists. In these cases cycle facilities might be superfluous. That's different to building a nice new direct bypass and telling cyclists "don't worry you can still ride through the town centre". At the end of the day these are allegedly all purpose roads constructed out of public money and proper provision for cyclists and pedestrians ought to be considered as part of that.

[jgurney]

What is the rationale for banning cyclists in the first place?

If the issue is concern that faster-moving motor vehicles may be held up by slow-moving cyclists they cannot overtake, or may cause collisions through attempting to overtake without sufficient space, then on a new road being built the obvious solution is the make the inside lane, or each lane if it is a two-lane road, wide enough to allow motor traffic to overtake cyclists at a safe separation without having to change lanes. The Darlington bypass is an example.

[Vorpal]

What is the rationale for banning cyclists in the first place?

They say it's for our own good. the truth of the matter is that they can't tolerate the peasants getting in the way

[mjr]

One that comes to my mind is the A505 through the Weston Tunnels near Baldock, Herts where there is a sign listing prohibited traffic (pedestrians, cycles, invalid carriages, animals and motorbikes under 50cc). They have to go the long way round.

Which is 2.7 miles instead of 2.6, a whole tenth of a mile longer. I think they should have tarmacked the remaining gravel section and ripped out the barriers, but a fairly short route via South Road does exist.

I think the prohibitions I have no problem with are those on new dual carriageways where no cycling access ever existed in the first place, and where the new road makes the existing cyclable roads better.

I have a problem with those, as industrial, office and retail estates tend to sprout up along those dual carriageways before long and are unreachable by cycling or walking, or if the planners insist, they get a fig-leaf less-than-minimum connection to an inconvenient place on the existing networks. That was the basis of my objection to the proposed cycling ban and lack of provision on the forthcoming A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass... of course, it was ignored just as happened with the CTC/NCyC objection to the lack of "cycle proofing" on the forthcoming Norwich nothern bypass (aka N25)

[Flinders]

I find driving on the A14 an unpleasant experience except in the quieter hours (of which there are few), I wouldn't like to cycle on it.
But I'd still say it ought not to be banned. In fact, if traffic enforcement was any good, it would be a perfectly safe road to cycle on (and a safer road to drive on than it is now too).

[DaveGos]

I cycled through the Clyde tunnel one way when commuting between the Rugby 7 s and squash at the commonwealths. I could not find the entrance to the cycle tunnel and was running out of time. The tunnel is weird and out of a gangland film set , you have to press a buzzer to get out . I had a bit more time to find it on the way back and was just about to give up when a local cyclist came along and I followed him

[Questor4]

Is there a list somewhere of A-roads where cycling is not permitted?
I ride a legal e-assisted velomobile (aerodynamic recumbent 4 wheel cycle with limited electrical assistance). It seems that an increasing number of a-roads are being restricted by the whim of somebody with a dislike of cyclists- in many of the recorded cases accidents occur because motor vehicle drivers are not watching the road and are not the cyclist's fault !
I often ride on A-roads around Hertfordshire where I'm probably safer than on B roads because of the reduced number of intersections and increased availability of safe passing places (lanes) Typically my average speeds are in the vicinity of 15 mph with maximum (unassisted) down-hill speeds near 50 mph.My machine is BRIGHT yellow and blue with very visible lighting and one policeman commented that if I couldn't be seen then the complainant shouldn't have a driving licence. I've ridden over 30,000km around the UK and Europe in these machines and NEVER been involved in an accident with a motor vehicle.

[Vorpal]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=70096

linked at the beginning of this thread has a post stating specific roads.

I'm not sure that there is a comprehensive list anywhere.

[thirdcrank]

You might expect that Highways England would know the extent of cycle bans on "their" roads although whether they keep it in any sort of list form, and if they do so, whether they'd willingly share it seems more complicated. FWIW, apart from roads where cycling is banned de jure eg motorways, I doubt if they have that many TRO's creating a cycling ban elsewhere. IME they are happy with a de facto ban ie traffic so fast that most cyclists are frightened off, supplemented with farcilities which cyclists are advised by the HC to use.

Apart from that, all the rest of the road network is the responsibility of local highway authorities and I can't see how they would have any use for a national list.

[Vorpal]

You might expect that Highways England would know the extent of cycle bans on "their" roads although whether they keep it in any sort of list form, and if they do so, whether they'd willingly share it seems more complicated. FWIW, apart from roads where cycling is banned de jure eg motorways, I doubt if they have that many TRO's creating a cycling ban elsewhere. IME they are happy with a de facto ban ie traffic so fast that most cyclists are frightened off, supplemented with farcilities which cyclists are advised by the HC to use.

Apart from that, all the rest of the road network is the responsibility of local highway authorities and I can't see how they would have any use for a national list.

I would think that a list of trunk roads where cycling is banned could be obtained by means of a Freedom of Information request. Non-trunk roads probably have to be identified by the responsible authority.

[drossall]

I'm inclined to agree that bans should not be allowed, not so much because riding on these roads is desirable, but because it may be the only way to force the provision of decent alternatives. The problem is that cycling is such a broad church, and there can be a fixation with providing off-road and track-style routes that are also often quite indirect. As an alternative to a trunk road, these make relatively little sense, because people using trunk roads (whatever their means of transport) are usually trying to get from A to B as efficiently as possible. That or pavement routes with give ways and poor visibility at every side turning or track, which again have poor safety records.

I do struggle with the ban on the Weston Hills tunnel. Anyone wanting to use that on a bike is, by definition, happy to ride on the A505, which is a dual carriageway from the tunnel to Royston. Given that, statistically, most bike accidents happen at junctions, I'd question whether the alternative route through Baldock, where there are loads of junctions = loads of opportunities for accidents, is likely to be safer. The tunnels are quite wide and spacious, and not obviously worse than the rest of the road. You could perhaps make a case that the spearpoint junction east of Baldock is a risk, but cyclists are not routinely banned from spearpoint junctions.