Dual Carriageways

[martint235]

I did a big chunk of it from Honiton to Shaftesbury, and there it was fine. But avoid it west of Exeter - in effect it's a two-lane, hard-shoulderless extension of the M5, and is driven in such a fashion, all of the way down to nearly the end of Cornwall. There are far better choices, not least the old A30 road, which runs parallel for a lot of the way. As keen as I am to preserve cyclists' rights, and against all my libertarian principles, I'd ban bikes from this type of road: they are worse than real motorways, as there's even less margin for error on anyone's part. And the consequences of a mistake are almost always going to be fatal or extremely serious.

I think you have to allow for choice. From what you say, it sounds very similar to the A2 in Kent where the M2 joins it to become basically an extension of the motorway with an 'A' prefix. I don't mind cycling on it but I wouldn't take a group of cyclists on it. It is still the fastest way of getting between A and B if you're in a hurry though.

 

[briantrumpet]

So not that keen then?

Would it be tenable to argue for allowing bikes on the hard shoulders of motorways? If that's not tenable, I'd suggest that these quasi-motorways (which in most cases don't even have hard shoulders) shouldn't allow bikes either. Of course a true libertarian would argue for allowing bikes on motorways, so I'm not that keen, no.

 

[HLaB]

Although exposing you to a greater amount of potentially puncturing road debris.

If your exposed to Debris you've went too far left but I must admit I'd rather be towards that area and potentionally get a p'ture (touch wood its never happened on a slip) than be dead

 

[briantrumpet]

I think you have to allow for choice.

Society tends not to allow choice when the exercising of that choice carries risks which society considers are too high, and outweigh the benefits of allowing freedom. An obvious example would be speed limits: if there were no speed limits on motorways, most people would get to their destinations faster, but there would be a significant rise in the number of people who would never get to their destination, because they'd be dead. Personally I think that speed limits are a loss of liberty which are justifiable. I certainly wouldn't argue for a blanket ban on cycling on dual carriageways, as people have pointed out examples that appear to be safe. But we have developed a type of road in this country which in effect lies somewhere in between motorway and A-road status, and I don't think that our legislation has kept up with this development. The A30 west of Exeter (for example) would be one such road which I think should be considered for a classification different from the section east of Honiton. Call the A30 west the "A30(M)", say, and the job's done - ditto the A38 south of Exeter. They are motorways in all but name.

 

[HLaB]

Where you are guided to cross over the bit between carriageway and the slip road tends to be debris littered because cars don't go there to grind their debris up.

Not disputing that and it can be damm slippy too etc, if you are ending up in that you are pulling across too soon you don't have to be in it to ride safe

 

[briantrumpet]

Motorways are not roads, so the comparison is not valid.

Chambers dictionary definition: "Motorway - a trunk road". We can go down the word game route, if you like.

 

[HLaB]

You haven't seen any of the instances where a little cycle lane is painted across this no man's land then?

Nope, other than in books and I wouldnt follow them literally

 

[briantrumpet]

A roads on the other hand are part of our road network and we have that right.
Equating not arguing for something both unrealistic and unreasonable with not wishing to surrender something already reasonably held is nonsensical.

If you are saying that the A30 west of Exeter is the same in essence as the A30 east of Honiton because it has the same name on the map, then I shall not attempt to argue my point with you. For what it's worth, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to ride on the A30 west of Exeter. Especially when there's a perfectly good road for cyclists (which used to be called the A30) running parallel to it most of the way.

 

[martint235]

It doesn't really matter what you, or indeed I, would do. It is just yet another example of the bollocks we get asked to put up with "for our own good", which is of course no such thing.

I must admit I've never seen one of these little cycle lanes either but I must confess that when I am crossing slip roads onto A roads I tend to be wholly focussed on what's heading towards me.

 

[Aperitif]

I must admit I've never seen one of these little cycle lanes either but I must confess that when I am crossing slip roads onto A roads I tend to be wholly focussed on what's heading towards me.

There are a select few who have attained true 'Mouseketeer' status - and that involves the A12, plus looking at what is coming at you from behind...as you seek sanctuary on the other side of the entry slip! I do agree about the 'London end' of the A30 though. I am a bit like you in some small way...

 

[gambatte]

duals, not great, but not all bad. Bits of my commute
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4

Hmm.. only just realised how much of it is DC

Much prefer the offroad route though

 

[benb]

If most drivers over took cyclists like I do, then I would ride on duals.

But they don't.

I overtook a cyclist on the A1079 near Shiptonthorpe a few weeks ago, saw him about a 1/4 mile in front, got closer, mirror (car closing on me but not too quick) indicated (car closer but not so much as to be too near), pulled out and started to pass the cyclist - car behind now closing rapidly. Next thing I know, I am passing the cyclist, but the car behind has gone......

...oh yeah, top move...

.....undertook me to get past and gave the cyclist a 90mph punishment pass in the process.

Sometimes I will straddle the lanes when overtaking a cyclist in this situation, to (hopefully) discourage the car behind from squeezing through.

 

[Wobblers]

Society tends not to allow choice when the exercising of that choice carries risks which society considers are too high, and outweigh the benefits of allowing freedom. An obvious example would be speed limits: if there were no speed limits on motorways, most people would get to their destinations faster, but there would be a significant rise in the number of people who would never get to their destination, because they'd be dead. Personally I think that speed limits are a loss of liberty which are justifiable. I certainly wouldn't argue for a blanket ban on cycling on dual carriageways, as people have pointed out examples that appear to be safe. But we have developed a type of road in this country which in effect lies somewhere in between motorway and A-road status, and I don't think that our legislation has kept up with this development. The A30 west of Exeter (for example) would be one such road which I think should be considered for a classification different from the section east of Honiton. Call the A30 west the "A30(M)", say, and the job's done - ditto the A38 south of Exeter. They are motorways in all but name.

What you fail to appreciate is that this would very rapidly spread to other roads. As soon as there was an accident on another national speed limit DC we'd see calls to ban cyclists and other vulnerable road users on all such roads - "for their own good" of course. (Whilst conveniently omitting that the actual motive behind such a ban is stop the poor beleaguered motorist from having to worry about such things as actually looking at where they're going... ) Yet someone posted figures on the CTC forum that showed KSI figures for rural dual carriage ways to be less than that for rural single lane A roads. The inevitable end state of what you're suggesting is the exclusion of vulnerable road users on all A roads.

 

[fabregas485]

Which bit of the A30? It's quite a long road. As I said earlier I've ridden it at night and a nicer way to leave London westwards would be difficult to find. I've ridden it as far as the A303 with no difficulties

London bound section, Heathrow airport sort of area.

 

[400bhp]

What you fail to appreciate is that this would very rapidly spread to other roads. As soon as there was an accident on another national speed limit DC we'd see calls to ban cyclists and other vulnerable road users on all such roads - "for their own good" o f course. (Whilst conveniently omitting that the actual motive behind such a ban is stop the poor beleaguered motorist from having to worry about such things as actually looking at where they're going... ) Yet someone posted figures on the CTC forum that showed KSI figures for rural dual carriage ways to be less than that for rural single lane A roads. The inevitable end state of what you're suggesting is the exclusion of vulnerable road users on all A roads.

You might be right. You might not. It's not a given that is where we would end up.

For one, the low KSI for DC could be for several reasons, not least because you need to allow for volume of cyclists on each type of road, which KSI as a number doesn't do.

Perhaps certain roads could be a different classification of road.