Dual carriageways and the like

[Cab]

Was thinking about this over the weekend. I really resent it when roads are 'dualled', what tends to happen is that a busy A road becomes something more like a motorway. Look at, say, the A14. You can cycle on it in principle, in practice you wouldn't. It just isn't safe. Those sections where a cycle lane is painted on the narrow tarmac at the edge of the road are a complete joke, they just add insult to injury.

So, what we need when roads are dualled is parallel cyclable routes. It should be the absolute minimum requirement that every time an A or M road is widened or upgraded to a dual carriageway that there must be parallel segregated cycle paths, otherwise in effect we're being needlessly excluded from routes we could otherwise cycle.

Said requirement would create a real national network of cycle routes, right along the routes that we need them on. It would make un-cyclable routes once again useful to us.

Now... Am I speaking rubbish here or would such a campaign stance be appropriate or valuable?

 

[bonj2]

No, it's a very sensible idea. And as an aside, there's a disadvantage in building roads anyway. The rise in the number of cars on the road is only proportional to the rise in the amount of roads.

One of my more radical wishes is that roads would be unbuilt, and either turned from roads into just cycle paths, to cut congestion.

But mainly, cycle paths should be proper smooth cycle paths, like roads, but just without cars allowed on them. Not going up and down dropped kerbs and over islands every 10 yards.

 

[TheDoctor]

Couldn't agree more, Bonj. I've got no gripes with cycle paths as such - the Dutch ones are excellent, and even most of the Stevenage ones aren't too bad. It's the sort that are a green stripe down the side of the road, or a footpath with a few signs on, that really get my goat.
A nationwide network of properly constructed and maintained paths would be great.

 

[Cab]

A nationwide network of properly constructed and maintained paths would be great.

So would a good way of achieving that be to require that any new dual carriageway/motorway, or 'improvement/upgrade' thereof, require a parallel cycle lane?

 

[bonj2]

So would a good way of achieving that be to require that any new dual carriageway/motorway, or 'improvement/upgrade' thereof, require a parallel cycle lane?

Yes. So write to your MP.

 

[magnatom]

A good idea in theory Cab, but I can't see it happening (I must be in Victor Meldrew Mode!)

One problem I can think of is environmentalist concerns . Seriously think of the amount of times that environmental groups have complained and protested about trees being cut down, bog land lost, sites of special scientific interest ruined etc. Tarmacing more land would probably just result in more protests etc, especially if the cycle routes were as wide as we would like them

Better to just use the existing roads as cycle lanes and ban the cars

 

[Cab]

Yes. So write to your MP.

Little point, he's a liberal

Just bouncing this idea around in here first before writing to our MP, thought it might be worth mulling this over, see if anyone has any good objections to this that I haven't thought of.

 

[Cab]

Better to just use the existing roads as cycle lanes and ban the cars

Nice

I get what you're saying about widening roads and tarmaccing the countryside being a valid environmental issue, but I wonder whether having this kind of restriction on what happens when roads are widened would actually lead to less road construction, less road widening. The cost would of course be higher, because more space is needed... We'd get some facilities out of it, but I wonder whether we'd also get less road works.

 

[spen666]

Was thinking about this over the weekend. I really resent it when roads are 'dualled', what tends to happen is that a busy A road becomes something more like a motorway. Look at, say, the A14. You can cycle on it in principle, in practice you wouldn't. It just isn't safe. Those sections where a cycle lane is painted on the narrow tarmac at the edge of the road are a complete joke, they just add insult to injury.

So, what we need when roads are dualled is parallel cyclable routes. It should be the absolute minimum requirement that every time an A or M road is widened or upgraded to a dual carriageway that there must be parallel segregated cycle paths, otherwise in effect we're being needlessly excluded from routes we could otherwise cycle.

Said requirement would create a real national network of cycle routes, right along the routes that we need them on. It would make un-cyclable routes once again useful to us.

Now... Am I speaking rubbish here or would such a campaign stance be appropriate or valuable?

Great - just what we want=- to be taken off the roads and to reinforce the belief of many motorists that we have no right to be on the road.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

The trouble is, cycle facilities next to dual carriageways tend to look something like this

 

[snorri]

Great - just what we want=- to be taken off the roads and to reinforce the belief of many motorists that we have no right to be on the road.

Why not just concentrate on your campaign to permit cycling on motorways and leave the rest of us to get from A to B in a relaxed frame of mind

 

[Cab]

Great - just what we want=- to be taken off the roads and to reinforce the belief of many motorists that we have no right to be on the road.

On motorways we don't have a right to be on the road. And on major trunk-road dual carriageways we're basically excluded anyway.

 

[Cab]

The trouble is, cycle facilities next to dual carriageways tend to look something like this

Ahh, yes, that. I know, that one is shocking. To be worthwhile the cycle paths would have to be wider and at least passably well maintained.

 

[snorri]

Yes. So write to your MP.

Not in the first instance.
When you become aware of proposals involving major road works, write to the authority responsible, ask to see the plans, inspect the Cycle Audit. It is after you find the proposals fail to comply with current legislation and are getting no satisfactory answers from the authority that you engage with elected bodies. It is unlikely that elected officers will bother to research the rights and wrongs unless there are complaints from a lot of individuals.

 

[bonj2]

Not in the first instance.
When you become aware of proposals involving major road works, write to the authority responsible, ask to see the plans, inspect the Cycle Audit. It is after you find the proposals fail to comply with current legislation and are getting no satisfactory answers from the authority that you engage with elected bodies. It is unlikely that elected officers will bother to research the rights and wrongs unless there are complaints from a lot of individuals.

No but I mean to implement a policy of not building new roads in the first place.
If everyone on this forum writes to their mp about not building new roads, or just building new cycle lanes, then quite a lot of MPs might start to get the impression that we people don't want new roads springing up over the place all the time only to be filled with bloody renault meganes each containing one selfish idiot on his way to his job 200 yards away, or humungous great range rovers ferrying spoilt brats to school when they should be walking.