Judge wants us banned from dual carriageways!

[subaqua]

How about some rigorous enforcement of speed limits so even 40MPH urban dual carriageway doesn't get used like Santa Pod.

who sets the forces "priority target" ?

as much as North Wales Police Brunstrom got stick for the taliban style enforcement of traffic offences you knew exactly where you stood (or drove) when it came to breaking the law in a vehicle. sadly the rate of catching other criminals such as burglars wasn't as good.

 

[Davidc]

There's a better way to reduce road casualties - for all users including cyclists (and pedestrians and HGV drivers)

It's for our JUDGES ETC to start giving appropriate sentences to traffic offenders, particularly those who kill and injure others.

 

[GrasB]

I've been reading a long series of accounts with comments from road traffic officers & the one thing that comes up time & time again is how frustrated they are when they catch someone clearly driving in a careless manner only for them to told by the CPS they can't prosecute or for them to be handed a minimal fine & no driving ban. Also mentioned over & over again is the phrase "this driver shouldn't be let back on the road".

Anyway back on topic. I can't see how this can work. In many cases I can't get from 1 place to another place without a long & complicated diversion or riding on a short stretch of dual carriageway.

 

[RaRa]

I would have thought taking cyclists away from more roads would only make matters worse. Drivers need to be more aware that they share the roads, removing cycle traffic just makes it less and less likely that they will expect to see someone on a bike so they drive accordingly.

 

[Mugshot]

Not going to , but I do think it would be the thin end of the wedge.

The speeds quoted by the judge are not are not only seen on dual carriageways and motorways, the national speed limit for single carriageways is 60mph, roads without the luxury of an additional overtaking lane. If the roads cyclists are allowed to use is to be determined by the speed of the motorised traffic then it would indeed be the thin end of the wedge.

 

[steve52]

why when we widen or biuld new roads, do we not biuld a decent cycpath alongside, i must be fairly sheap to do it at this stage? then cool ban us from the roads where we have a viable alternative.

 

[martint235]

I think people are being a bit harsh on the judge. All he is doing is saying that there is an increased risk to cyclists in this particular environment (which I don't think anyone can deny). He then goes on to suggest a way of removing this risk. There are other ways of removing this risk (better prosecution of offenders, lowering speed limits etc) but that doesn't take away his valid point that on some dual carriageways the risk of injury to a cyclist increases.

And yes I would probably ride on a motorway if it was allowed. I ride on large A roads frequently. I feel it's about evaluating the risk to yourself, doing what you can to mitigate it and then deciding whether it's worth taking that risk on.

 

[mcshroom]

I would suggest to the supposedly learned judge that the removal of motor vehicles form dual carriageways with speed limits higher than 40 mph would have a significanlty greater impact on the number of KSIs experienced on that road, both in absolute and relative terms, than removing cyclists.

 

[MontyVeda]

without being patronising (unlike your good self) did you read it and understand it? Do you understand the ramifications for cyclist and the future removal of our rights? Did you miss the subtext that apportions blame to the cyclist for being on the road on a cycle instead of the driver who is inattentive and as such should not be on the road? Or do you think SMIDSY is a valid argument?

are we not talking about dual carriageways with a speed limit of 60mph rather than roads in general?

It may currently be my right to cycle on such roads but I'd always choose not to.

 

[MontyVeda]

The speeds quoted by the judge are not are not only seen on dual carriageways and motorways, the national speed limit for single carriageways is 60mph, roads without the luxury of an additional overtaking lane. If the roads cyclists are allowed to use is to be determined by the speed of the motorised traffic then it would indeed be the thin end of the wedge.

a good point well put.

however dual carriageways do tend to have a much larger volume of fast moving traffic including loads of HGV's. Maybe the quote in the OP was thinking more along the lines of bypasses which are specifically constructed for motor vehicles.

 

[benb]

I don't think cyclists should be banned by law from these roads currently but would be fine with a future ban on some stretches of duals carriageway if high quality and well maintained cycle lanes were built alongside the newly banned section.

Just my thoughts. Don't shoot me.

If they did ever manage to build high quality and well maintained cycle lanes alongside dual carriageways, then they wouldn't have to ban cyclists: we'd all use the cycle lanes anyway.

 

[VamP]

In today's Times Letters, a judge showing all the usual victim blaming tendencies of the judiciary.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article3556175.ece
Improving road safety for cyclists

Published at 12:01AM, October 3 2012

Sir, As one who has the painful duty of sitting on cases involving the death of or serious injury to cyclists caused in road traffic accidents, several (but not all) of which have been accepted or found to have been caused by dangerous or careless driving of motor vehicles, I have seen the devastating consequences of such accidents. My support for the calls for action to make life safer for cyclists, most recently highlighted by your article “More cyclists are seriously injured on Britain’s roads” (Sept 28), is therefore whole-hearted and heartfelt.
One immediate remedy, suggested in the light of hearing much evidence about such cases, is to remove all cyclists from any dual-carriageway which is not subject to a speed limit of 30, or possibly 40, mph. This would not prevent cyclists from using dual-carriageways in urban areas but would take them away from some of our more dangerous trunk roads where traffic is both heavy and fast moving. Any cyclist, particularly a lone cyclist who is not wearing high-visibility clothing, is at huge risk on such roads from vehicles approaching from behind at a (legal) closing speed of up to 60 mph. At such a closing speed a relatively small and very vulnerable “object” is coming into view at the rate of 60ft per second and in a moment’s inattention irreparable damage is done.
Lest it be said that cyclists have a right to use such roads and it is up to other road users to be vigilant, the fact is that no cyclist, or even motorcyclist with a machine of small capacity, is permitted to use any motorway. As a matter of logic and realism the same should apply to dual carriageways where the speed limit is not significantly restricted.
His Honour Judge Simon Tonking
Stafford Crown Court

Well that's the UK time trialling scene down the pan

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

yikes - round here they are some of the safest roads to cycle - open wide and with room to be overtaken. A serious improvement to the backroads which wind around left/right/up/down with not enough room for people to even see if they can overtake let alone overtake and only 10mph slower. 60mph or 70mph verses whatever hits me and I'm still dead. I'd go for the extra space any day!

 

[martint235]

Unless the cycle path is the width of a road I doubt I'd use it cos they tend to be full of cyclists some of whom tend to be, shall we say, unpredictable. I feel much safer travelling at speed on your average A road.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

round here the cycle path is usually full of pushchairs or walkers because the walking section is badly maintained and the surface is not something you would want to ride on anyway that and a cyclist trying to maintain 20mph on the flat is not going to happen... it is also full of tiny speed bumps, badly repaired holes and man hole covers and impractical to ride seriously. Oh and currently flooded in many places becuase it is lined with grass banks on either side and it can't drain away.
great maybe for kids and less experieinced cyclists, but if you actually want to get somewhere, then the road is a better option!
And that does not even cover the stupid constant give way lines, cyclist dismount, lack of priority at simply things like driveways, the constant on/off the road when it fancies and the lack of decent dropped curbs to aid transition.