Ban cyclists from specific A roads

[gilesjuk]

It's what this MP is thinking of doing, specific A roads in his constituency.

Story here:

http://road.cc/node/31078

It's a slippery slope towards banning cyclists from all A roads.

[Mick F]

It's a slippery slope towards banning cyclists from all A roads.

All A roads?
Somehow I think that is impossible.

[gilesjuk]

All A roads?
Somehow I think that is impossible.

Okay, all "dangerous" A roads. Not that there are any dangerous A roads, just drivers who like to drive at excessive speeds.

[Michael R]

It looks that the driver was homicidal as he was texting. 10 year prison sentnece called for. Stiffer sentences for bad drivers would both be just and a deterrent.

Texting and the use of mobiles should result in an automatic loss of licence

I tend to avoid busy main roads and hence there is much of the A6 from Kendal to Preston I have not cycled and dont intend to. But I did a bit last week as I was short of time

[cjchambers]

You don’t hear about cyclists being killed on the M1 or the M6 because they are banned. Why should the A50 be any different?

Because it's a general purpose road not a motorway, you numpty!

[Mick F]

All A roads?
Somehow I think that is impossible.

Okay, all "dangerous" A roads. Not that there are any dangerous A roads, just drivers who like to drive at excessive speeds.

Agree!

A Roads are good roads. They are usually well maintained, follow decent routes and go through towns. Most were originally built as turnpikes, and those builders knew how and where to build 'em. They are called "Other A Roads" nowadays and are usually red on maps.

Trunk Roads can be quite different though. They are frequently dual carriageways and motorways by another name. It doesn't make them dangerous, just noisy and boring. They are usually green on maps. These too were originally turnpikes, but frequently they are new-build in the form of bypasses and motorway link-roads.

Give me Other A Roads over Trunk Roads every time.

[snibgo]

The extreme comments about cyclists not being killed on motorways, etc, came from the father of a deceased cyclist, NOT the MP.

Because of the circumstances, I wouldn't criticise him for making those comments. But I do think he is wrong.

[iviehoff]

It's what this MP is thinking of doing, specific A roads in his constituency.

Cyclists can already be banned from specific road-sections of any classification. As can private cars, lorries, etc. Although it is unusual to ban cyclists from road sections where private cars can drive, such restrictions do already exist in places. There is no need for new legislation. It is applied not only to certain tunnels, bridges, slip-roads (eg A282 Dartford Crossing), but also to certain sections of road on the grounds that they are fast and dangerous, eg, the A55 in north Wales around Colwyn Bay, the A120 near Stansted Airport, etc.

What would be a very good idea, and much more helpful than banning cyclists from roads, (which might be perfectly fine at certain times of day/week, and attractive for training rides at such times, etc) would be to put up information boards indicating an "advisory alternative route for cyclists" on the approaches to such road sections.

[gilesjuk]

As long as there's a well maintained alternative route which is suitable for all bicycles, not just BSO clunkers from Halfords then specific bans wouldn't be so bad.

But in reality what may happen is NIMBY objections to a new tarmac route through fields or green belt. Or objections to cost. Even when they get built they might have funding for maintenance cut.

Councils seem to have a "that'll do for now" or "it's better than nothing" attitude when building such things.

[stewartpratt]

It's what this MP is thinking of doing, specific A roads in his constituency.

Well, not quite, if you'll pardon a bit of pedantry: one section of one A-road. I don't know the road (though just had a quick look at it on Google satellite view) but maybe there are specific factors which are relevant to that exact section.

And whilst I agree that were this to be a thin end of a wedge it would be a very bad thing, I think the fact that it's such a specific and isolated stretch, and the fact that the MP is seeking discussion with local cycling groups rather than seeking a ban per se, means that I don't think this is the thin end of a wedge.

Not that there are any dangerous A roads

I don't fully agree with this. Derestricted twin-lane dual-carriageway A-roads are inherently dangerous for cyclists. They operate on the same principle as motorways, which is allowing heavy flow to move at fast speeds, by aiming to keep the speeds as constant as possible and reduce any hazards to a minimum. It's where vehicle speeds rise and fall that accidents happen (ok, ignore the facile point that an accident is inherently a rapid fall in vehicle speed). Point is that if you lob a slow-moving obstacle into a flow of that strength, the flow is disrupted, and the disruption is unsafe. Moreover, in that sort of traffic, cyclists can sometimes be extremely difficult to spot.

Whilst it's not wholly unreasonable to blame drivers for lack of attention, it's simple human nature that driving on roads like that does alter the way you pay attention to the roads as a driver. As bad as that may be, it happens.

Personally I don't like cycling on roads like these (especially in the UK) and although on any other road I'd be aggrieved if I felt I was being forced off of it, I think there is a case for some trunk roads which are cycle-free "quasi-motorways" provided there is some reasonable alternative route.

It does seem completely and utterly bizarre, though, that the reaction to a death caused by someone texting whilst driving is one of suggesting the tarmac is at fault. If a texting lorry driver piles into a car will they consider banning cars from that road so that truck drivers can text away with just the armco and other texting juggernauts to bounce off?

[enigmatic]

I noticed the report and passed it on to CTC Campaign Office yesterday. They hadn't seen it but tell me that they will follow it up with Parliamentary 'friends' and any local area club campaigners. I appreciate the thoughts and feelings of the father but am concerned that an MP will give it a knee-jerk reaction and get undue publicity for his own purposes, and that of the motoring lobby. Too much thinking about why cyclists ride on main roads and not enough on why motorists drive in careless, unthinking ways, and Highways Planners ignore cyclists when planning new roads. Just a three feet wide 'bike hard shoulder' would be enough to give us at least some 'wriggle room'. Yet there is a dual carriageway near me which, because of car accidents, had the inside lane hatched off for some distance, with no cycle lane left near the kerb. Needless to say, that road is now 'off limits' to bikes.

Maybe we should all approach our own MP's with a sensible response and ask them to be the 'voice of reason' if/when it is raised on the floor?

[gilesjuk]

Not that there are any dangerous A roads

I don't fully agree with this. Derestricted twin-lane dual-carriageway A-roads are inherently dangerous for cyclists. They operate on the same principle as motorways, which is allowing heavy flow to move at fast speeds, by aiming to keep the speeds as constant as possible and reduce any hazards to a minimum.

I don't think you understood what I said. If these roads had no motor vehicles on them then they wouldn't be deemed dangerous. They are deemed dangerous because of a problem with the drivers on them, driving too fast and without care.

Traffic calming measures are not installed on roads because the needed a few bumps on them to make them interesting, they are installed due to inconsiderate drivers.

[Flinders]

Dual carriageways OUGHT to be the safest roads around for cyclists.
A whole extra lane (for impatient drivers who can't possibly wait) to use for overtaking....and they still kill us.

[Flinders]

PS I also drive on this stretch of road every week, and cycle in the area too. There is no possible reason for banning cyclists from it. The visibility all along this section of road is excellent. From the report, it seems that the driver's behaviour in this case was the cause; this behaviour would have had the same effect on any road.

Banning cyclists from the road because of the actions of one driver is like banning all old ladies from a park because a criminal mugged an old lady there. Why not punish the cause, and ban all drivers from the road? Still a completely mad solution, but at least a bit more logical than the one suggested.

[horizon]

All A roads?
Somehow I think that is impossible.

Okay, all "dangerous" A roads. Not that there are any dangerous A roads, just drivers who like to drive at excessive speeds.

Agree!

A Roads are good roads. They are usually well maintained, follow decent routes and go through towns. Most were originally built as turnpikes, and those builders knew how and where to build 'em. They are called "Other A Roads" nowadays and are usually red on maps.

Trunk Roads can be quite different though. They are frequently dual carriageways and motorways by another name. It doesn't make them dangerous, just noisy and boring. They are usually green on maps. These too were originally turnpikes, but frequently they are new-build in the form of bypasses and motorway link-roads.

Give me Other A Roads over Trunk Roads every time.

++++1

That's why I use old maps - they give a clearer indication of the pattern of traditional A roads.