A1 Southbound (Grantham) Cyclist Near Miss.

[davester65]

I am a cyclist and i drive a 44 tonne HGV for a living.

Yesterday evening i was driving my truck down the A1 southbound near the Woolsthorpe junction (between Grantham and Colsterworth) and i had to pass someone riding a bike! (note i don't use the word cyclist!)

What's wrong with that?

Is it unlawful?..........No!
Did said rider have lights?...........Yes!
Was said rider wearing hi-vis......Yes!
Were other road users able to see this rider.......due to the amount of hazard lights, swerving and horns from other drivers...i guess not.
Did i see this rider......Yes...with about 3 seconds to react.
Did i knock this rider down?.....No, but i bet he had a brown trouser moment because it was close.
Should said rider consider using an alternative route?......absofarkinlutely!

As a truck driver i will give cyclists HUGE amounts of room on the road, and i WILL hold other traffic up to ensure that cyclists are safe.....BUT......

If you choose to ride your bike down a road which is effectively a motorway with poor lighting and a grubby hi viz vest during the hours of darkness....I WISH YOU LUCK!

I have posted this as a reminder to us all.......enjoy your riding, but PLEASE use some common sense.........and above all.....STAY SAFE!

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

effectively a motorway?? - What does that actually mean
The A1 is legal to cycle on as such it is not relevant IMHO. The cyclist had as much right to be there as anyone.
It is the cyclists choice to use that route and his right, we don't need to start pointing out specific roads or junctions are dangerous and cyclists should consider alternative routes. We need to address these dangers and start making all roads which are safe and fit for purpose.

 

[davester65]

effectively a motorway?? - What does that actually mean

Although it does not have motorway restrictions (on that section) it is a dual carriageway with a 70mph speed limit for cars, (50mph for HGV's)

 

[simon.r]

The A1 is legal to cycle on as such it is not relevant IMHO. The cyclist had as much right to be there as anyone.
It is the cyclists choice to use that route and his right, we don't need to start pointing out specific roads or junctions are dangerous and cyclists should consider alternative routes. We need to address these dangers and start making all roads which are safe and fit for purpose.

You're right of course, but I think most of us take a pragmatic view and avoid roads that we consider exceptionally dangerous - fast dual carriageways being a prime example.

I consider myself a competent and experienced cyclist, but there are some roads I will not cycle on and even certain junctions where I will either get off and walk across or use a convoluted but safer route across rather than cycle as if I was a car driver.

It would be fantastic if all roads were safe for all users, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon and I doubt that most of A1 will ever be safe for cyclists.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Arguably better lighting would be the solution than not actually riding the road itself. I would avoid the A1 personally but some may feel more confident to do so. That being said I have cycled on the A1 before by Berwick and it was fine.

 

[davester65]

Arguably better lighting would be the solution than not actually riding the road itself. I would avoid the A1 personally but some may feel more confident to do so. That being said I have cycled on the A1 before by Berwick and it was fine.

Agreed Dan, better lighting would have helped, though i wouldn't cycle any dual carriageway during the hours of darkness.....ever.....purely for my own personal safety.

 

[MattyKo]

I would imagine that although you can afford to own and fuel a pedal cycle, the same cannot be said of the 44 tonne Heavy Good Vehicle that you and everyone else in a similar drivers cabs consider themselves to be professional drivers. Whilst you may drive for a profession that does not make you a professional driver.

The fact remains that the cyclist was not contravening any road traffic act / legislation, and I would suggest that it was the responsibility of all other road users to modify their behaviour to accommodate the cyclist. It is often suggested that the strength of any team is determined by the weakest link; in this case pedestrians or cyclists. Therefore all vehicles on the road should make allowances for all possible occurrences and modify their behaviour to enable them to effectively respond to actions undertaken by these weak member of the team. I would suggest that a disproportionate volume of adverse road traffic incidences involves commercial vehicles (including company cars). As in the cases involving tipper trucks in the capital. I return to the stance that whilst these people may driver for a profession that does not make them professional drivers.

 

[classic33]

Does this really belong here, in Cyclist Down?
Its not what it Cyclist Down, was started for.

 

[outlash]

I would imagine that although you can afford to own and fuel a pedal cycle, the same cannot be said of the 44 tonne Heavy Good Vehicle that you and everyone else in a similar drivers cabs consider themselves to be professional drivers. Whilst you may drive for a profession that does not make you a professional driver.

The fact remains that the cyclist was not contravening any road traffic act / legislation, and I would suggest that it was the responsibility of all other road users to modify their behaviour to accommodate the cyclist. It is often suggested that the strength of any team is determined by the weakest link; in this case pedestrians or cyclists. Therefore all vehicles on the road should make allowances for all possible occurrences and modify their behaviour to enable them to effectively respond to actions undertaken by these weak member of the team. I would suggest that a disproportionate volume of adverse road traffic incidences involves commercial vehicles (including company cars). As in the cases involving tipper trucks in the capital. I return to the stance that whilst these people may driver for a profession that does not make them professional drivers.

Sorry, but what? The definition of a professional is being paid for an activity. How do you define it?

Whilst you're right the cyclist wasn't breaking any laws, it's clear that any sensible person with any sense of self preservation wouldn't ride on a dual carriageway road unless they've taken a wrong turn. The town I live in runs alongside the A1 and while another CC runs TT's along a stretch of the A1, none of our club runs go along it, with good reason. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.


Tony.

 

[srw]

There are dual carriageways and dual carriageways. Some - including the A1 - are motorways in all but name. Others are very lightly used, and are very safe.

 

[totallyfixed]

I despair at the length some people will take the literal meaning of being within their rights to ride on any road, motorways excepted. It isn't about the right to ride where you want, it's about plain common sense. You may well be lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree, but riding on a busy A1 at night is not a good idea and the point is this, drivers do not expect to encounter a cyclist any more than they would a horse on this road at night, it doesn't matter a jot that some on here think they damn well should be aware, the reality is that driving a dual carriageway encourages many drivers to switch to autopilot simply because there is less perceived danger as everyone is travelling in the same direction. This is why DC's are dangerous for cyclists.

 

[Smurfy]

Farm Traffic? On the A1? Surely not! It's almost a motorway!

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3502103

The farmers are entitled to use it, and no doubt do so!

 

[andrew_s]

I've seem someone cycling on that stretch of the A1 too, in traffic that was nose to tail at 70-80 mph in both lanes, no shoulder at all. Rather him than me, I thought.
It is however possible that he had no option other than sitting at home. Because it's just an upgraded ordinary road, there are houses & farms that open directly onto it with no alternative at all other than hiking across fields.

 

[screenman]

Maybe some of the people writing on here have never driven on that section of the A1 at night, having raced on the A1 many times I would certainly not ride on it in the dark. Trying to pick a single slow moving rear bike light out amongst all the other lights going on would be difficult, not impossible but difficult. I do know of some people who use the A1 as a training road, as it is what they race on weekly.

 

[Matthew_T]

I think it all comes down to this:

There are many things in this world which are 'legal'. Going to the shops in your underwear is legal (dont give me this decency rubbish, its not natural to wear clothes). Riding down the A55 (I am using my local motorway as an example) is legal.
But is going to the shops in your underwear going to get you brownie points? Maybe if your mates have dared you to, but everyone else will be disgusted and you will probably be arrested (for a law which I have no understanding of how it came to enforcement).
And is riding down an effective motorway going to get you brownie points? Maybe it will show people you have balls of steel but in the case of any collision, you will die.

I myself have cycled down the A55 (albeit only a 1.5 mile stretch downhill (I reached 45mph and was doing over 30mph for the whole road). The feeling of speed when you get over 30mph with 60mph traffic passing you is not much different than cycling 10mph and having 40mph traffic passing you.
The time I cycled on one though was in bright daylight sunshine in the morning with little traffic on the road. I was also right over to the left of my lane and traffic was passing me with ease. I would never think to cycle down it in dark, especially as dozy drivers might not be paying attention.

N.B. I know comparing underwear with motorways isnt the best example but the basic principal is the same.