A63 - Victory for common sense -?

[thirdcrank]

For the record:-

Any chance of updating the title of this thread to actually reflect the story linked to and being discussed?

Article and Highways proposal is about one dual carriageway and is about ALL cyclists and not just Time Trials. e.g. "Proposal to Ban cycling From Section of A63 - Thin End Of The Wedge?" (or similar)

Ian

[thirdcrank]

The BBC is now running the story

Plan to ban cyclists from road 'deeply concerning'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-42965217

[SA_SA_SA]

The C-UK response mentions cyclists crossing points being overlooked but my navigator map shows bridges for the little roads crossing the section: is it wrong?

[PH]

As I've been reading elsewhere (YACF) the claim from Highways England that the ban has the backing of Hull City Council seems to be false

We have checked with various officers at Hull City Council within our
Highway and Legal teams and also our Councillor who is the Portfolio for
Highways and Transport, however we have no knowledge of supporting this
order so do not hold any recorded information to provide you with.

The information was obtained via a freedom of information request
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... sing_the_3

There is also an outstanding FoI request to Humberside Police
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _using_the

[Vorpal]

The C-UK response mentions cyclists crossing points being overlooked but my navigator map shows bridges for the little roads crossing the section: is it wrong?

I'm not sure, if you use Google Earth to go along the A63, it looks like all of the crossings at road level have been blocked off or replaced with bridges. But they wrote also about the proposed TRO, which showed red hatchings. I haven't seen that document; it's possible that it encompassed the crossings, or that they were not excluded in the document.

[The utility cyclist]

Yet more evidence that Highways England should in fact be banning motorvehicles from the A63, another crash involving a motor and this time it was lucky not to kill multiple people as it crashed onto the main line in Hull https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hu ... sh-1198545

[PH]

Cycling UK petition
https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/20163 ... g.id=CLIPS

[Psamathe]

Cycling UK petition
https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/20163 ... g.id=CLIPS

This is just the sort of thing CUK should be doing far more often. It's the 1st time I've been aware of them doing this for these types of issue. It's low cost (once such a system is setup) and hopefully quite effective (or at lease more effective than doing nothing).

So on this (the e-mailshot campaign) - well done CUK.

Ian

[Pete Owens]

There is also an outstanding FoI request to Humberside Police
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _using_the

They have now responded. It appears the police are a tad confused about about the nature of the proposed ban.

Certainly they have supplied no reasons or evidence - which is what the FoI request asked for - so presumably no such evidence exists and their opposition is simply anti-cycling prejudice.

[StephenW]

Personally, I would not at all be negatively affected if cycling were banned on all 70 mph dual carriageways, since I would never cycle on this kind of road. Such a ban could possibly even be a good thing.

Some years ago, cycling was banned on the A90 just outside Edinburgh. The alternative path was narrow and bumpy, and for a section was separated from the road by only a narrow grass verge. More recently the path has been upgraded, and is now wider and smooth, with a crash barrier between the road and path and light barrier to prevent dazzling. I don't know whether this would have happened anyway, but I do think that if cycling is banned on the main carriageway there is a stronger case to be made for improving parallel cycle routes.

The new standards for cycle facilities on the strategic road network are quite good (https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... e-traffic/). So new cycle facilities should be much better than what has been built in the past. (e.g. desirable minimum width of 3 metres for 2-way path, absolute minimum 2.5m).

I find the C-UK response a bit muddled. If their concern is that the due process has not been followed, that is fair. However, asking for speed reduction seems a bit contrary to the whole purpose of roads like this, which are for moving large numbers of motor vehicles quickly from one place to another. Also, talking about a cycle network which is "suitable and safe for everyone" seems confused. Even if the speed limit on this kind of road were reduced to 40 mph, it still would be quite unsuitable for most potential cyclists.

To my mind, a better response would be to acknowledge that cycling on this kind of road is very unpleasant, and to say that Highways England may ban cycling on it if they wish, so long as they provide an alternative which is direct, pleasant to use, and conducive to fast and efficient cycling.

[Vorpal]

To my mind, a better response would be to acknowledge that cycling on this kind of road is very unpleasant, and to say that Highways England may ban cycling on it if they wish, so long as they provide an alternative which is direct, pleasant to use, and conducive to fast and efficient cycling.

That's great in theory, but in practice, they do nothing of the sort. Where bans like this were introduced in Essex, they could have substantially improved things for cyclists by making the old roads cycle-friendly. Instead, shifting all the traffic to the new roads just made the traffic faster and more intimidating than ever on the old roads. One has seen several serious crashes involving cyclists. But of course the overall (motor vehicle) crash rate has dropped substantially so it looks like they are doing something amazingly good.

[The utility cyclist]

Higher speed reduces capacity so reducing the speed limit to 50mph is no big deal, this also would reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes considerably which are several hundred over a fairly short period particularly considering the traffic counts being so light (and not the concocted BS HE made up)
There is no space along the A63 for a 4metre wide bidirectional cycle lane or 2.5m on either side and one would not be built after banning order anyway.

[Pete Owens]

Personally, I would not at all be negatively affected if cycling were banned on all 70 mph dual carriageways, since I would never cycle on this kind of road. Such a ban could possibly even be a good thing.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[StephenW]

I see that there is quite a strong "thin end of the wedge" argument in this discussion and also in the C-UK response. I would be interested to know:

1. How big a wedge people have in mind. (I.e. cycling being banned from entire strategic road network, or on all A roads etc.)
2. What it is that leads them to this conclusion.

I don't suggest that a ban on cycling on all 70 mph dual carriageways could be a good thing because it wouldn't negatively affect me (although that is true), but rather I suggest it for several reasons:

1. It represents an official recognition that combining cycles and large numbers of motor vehicles travelling at 70 mph or more in the same space is not an acceptable solution.
2. It puts more pressure on the relevant highway authority to provide alternatives of a decent standard. If cycling is still permitted on the parallel dual carriageway, authorities are free to say that if you don't like this twisty, narrow, bumpy path then just cycle on the road. If cycling is forbidden on the road, that argument is taken away.
3. In countries where cycling is much safer and much more popular than the UK, cyclists are banned from numerous roads. As long as the alternative is of a good standard, this is not a problem.


We are talking here about fighting for the right to cycle in totally horrid conditions, something that hardly anyone actually wants to do!

I have never been to this area, and I don't know the local situation. I do agree with this aspect of the C-UK response:

Neither have they provided an impact assessment for how the ban will affect people whose journeys will be made more difficult or prevented altogether

Surely what is needed is an assessment of what journeys people currently make by bike, what potential exists for more cycle journeys, and what effect the ban may have on this. Providing a good alternative doesn't necessarily mean building a parallel cycle path, it all depends on the local context.

Vorpal, I agree that building new roads represents a really good opportunity to make existing roads cycle-friendly. This is exactly what we should be campaigning for, rather than being distracted by a theoretical right to cycle on any kind of road except motorways.

Utility Cyclist: if there is a problem with motor vehicle crashes, perhaps a lower speed limit is sensible. However, this is to some extent a separate issue. Even with a 50 mph limit, a dual carriageway is hardly a cycle route which is "suitable and safe for everyone". What makes you say that the traffic counts are made up?

I largely agree with this blog post:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... -from.html

[Wanlock Dod]

I see that there is quite a strong "thin end of the wedge" argument in this discussion...

I largely agree with this blog post:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... -from.html

This pretty much sums up my view too.