What is it with people riding on dual-carriageways?
Discussion
This thought popped into my mind this morning watching some bloke wobbling his way slowly up the flyover where the A316 dual-carriageway crosses the A312, being moved randomly around the left hand lane by the wind.
Yes, legally he had every right to be riding there, but doing so seemed pretty bloody daft! It surely can't be a pleasant experience riding on a section of road like that, so why wouldn't you just plan a side road alternative?
Just because it's legal to ride on a dual-carriageway doesn't mean I'd ever want to trust in the people approaching my arse at 50mph or more than I'm doing to notice that I'm there!
Yes, legally he had every right to be riding there, but doing so seemed pretty bloody daft! It surely can't be a pleasant experience riding on a section of road like that, so why wouldn't you just plan a side road alternative?
Just because it's legal to ride on a dual-carriageway doesn't mean I'd ever want to trust in the people approaching my arse at 50mph or more than I'm doing to notice that I'm there!
Maybe there wasn't a suitable side road equivalent? I can think of some journeys I do fairly regularly where it would literally be a 10+ mile detour to avoid relatively short sections of 'unfriendly' roads.
Anyway, weren't dual carriageways invented for the benefit of time triallists?
Anyway, weren't dual carriageways invented for the benefit of time triallists?
Less dangerous than city riding IMHO (assuming you can hold your line and aren't being blown all over the place by the wind).
Yes, the traffic is fast but visibility is good and the lanes are plenty wide enough for them to pass without any hassle (for you or them). Sure, there are more pleasant places for a Sunday jaunt, but I wouldn't avoid them if they are the fastest route to get me somewhere.
Yes, the traffic is fast but visibility is good and the lanes are plenty wide enough for them to pass without any hassle (for you or them). Sure, there are more pleasant places for a Sunday jaunt, but I wouldn't avoid them if they are the fastest route to get me somewhere.
They build a jeffing great single carriageway by-pass round the town I work in. The pavement has a fully functioning cycle path all the way around, with proper dropped kerbs for road crossings too. But the cycle mongs still trog down the road, most of them barely lit/hi-vizzed too, even in the depths of winter. Why?
This by-pass is simply not wide enough for cars to safely pass bikes, let alone HGVs, so the cyclists are putting the other road users in needless peril.
This by-pass is simply not wide enough for cars to safely pass bikes, let alone HGVs, so the cyclists are putting the other road users in needless peril.
Digga said:
They build a jeffing great single carriageway by-pass round the town I work in. The pavement has a fully functioning cycle path all the way around, with proper dropped kerbs for road crossings too. But the cycle mongs still trog down the road, most of them barely lit/hi-vizzed too, even in the depths of winter. Why?
This by-pass is simply not wide enough for cars to safely pass bikes, let alone HGVs, so the cyclists are putting the other road users in needless peril.
That's an easy one - on the cycle path the cyclist will have to give way at every side-road crossing; if they are on the bypass the side-roads will have to give way to the cyclist. The riders you've seen have prioritised maintaining momentum over the increased risks on the bypass.This by-pass is simply not wide enough for cars to safely pass bikes, let alone HGVs, so the cyclists are putting the other road users in needless peril.
That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes. Most of the time it appears the planners have this rosey-eyed picture of a family tootling along the cycle path, not a cold and wet commuter trying to get to work/home as quickly as possible.
Cyclists being badly lit is just stupid though - that said, being stupid on the roads is not limited to cyclists; I watched a Mini pull away from a parking space at 5pm yesterday happily oblivious to their lack of lights
Kermit power said:
This thought popped into my mind this morning watching some bloke wobbling his way slowly up the flyover where the A316 dual-carriageway crosses the A312, being moved randomly around the left hand lane by the wind.
Yes, legally he had every right to be riding there, but doing so seemed pretty bloody daft! It surely can't be a pleasant experience riding on a section of road like that, so why wouldn't you just plan a side road alternative?
Just because it's legal to ride on a dual-carriageway doesn't mean I'd ever want to trust in the people approaching my arse at 50mph or more than I'm doing to notice that I'm there!
Is there a reasonable side road alternative? It doesn't sound like the sort of place I'd want to ride, so I'd only be there if the alternatives were unreasonable for my journey.Yes, legally he had every right to be riding there, but doing so seemed pretty bloody daft! It surely can't be a pleasant experience riding on a section of road like that, so why wouldn't you just plan a side road alternative?
Just because it's legal to ride on a dual-carriageway doesn't mean I'd ever want to trust in the people approaching my arse at 50mph or more than I'm doing to notice that I'm there!
I've abandoned rides where I've found myself on 70mph dual carriageway - just a dangerous place to be, despite good visibility. The A31 out of Emery Down is an example. It's basically a motorway. I'll ride almost anywhere in any traffic & weather conditions but that was a step too far.
You might find cyclists on there for the same reason - it seemed like a reasonable and legal option at the time, and maybe there wasn't an alternative.
You might find cyclists on there for the same reason - it seemed like a reasonable and legal option at the time, and maybe there wasn't an alternative.
That was me that you saw !
Only joking but I have seen plenty of guys on that stretch of dual carriageway and never understand why they are there, I go underneath the A316 one junction up and know of 3 or 4 routes by bike which are not much further sometimes shorter and as you say they are always in black without lights.
Only joking but I have seen plenty of guys on that stretch of dual carriageway and never understand why they are there, I go underneath the A316 one junction up and know of 3 or 4 routes by bike which are not much further sometimes shorter and as you say they are always in black without lights.
ewenm said:
That's an easy one - on the cycle path the cyclist will have to give way at every side-road crossing; if they are on the bypass the side-roads will have to give way to the cyclist. The riders you've seen have prioritised maintaining momentum over the increased risks on the bypass.
That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes. Most of the time it appears the planners have this rosey-eyed picture of a family tootling along the cycle path, not a cold and wet commuter trying to get to work/home as quickly as possible.
IMHO, where a cycle path is provided an the busy trunk road not wide enough to allow safe progress of bicycles and other vehicles, it should be mandatory to use the cycle path (the road should effectively also be a clearway to stop dunces parking to take 'phone calls) and bikes therefore excluded from that particualr bit of road, otherwise, what's the point? They'd be better with a narrower pavement and wider carriageways.That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes. Most of the time it appears the planners have this rosey-eyed picture of a family tootling along the cycle path, not a cold and wet commuter trying to get to work/home as quickly as possible.
Digga said:
MHO, where a cycle path is provided an the busy trunk road not wide enough to allow safe progress of bicycles and other vehicles, it should be mandatory to use the cycle path (the road should effectively also be a clearway to stop dunces parking to take 'phone calls) and bikes therefore excluded from that particualr bit of road, otherwise, what's the point? They'd be better with a narrower pavement and wider carriageways.
Not a bad idea, if the cycle path and the road are both well-designed. From your description of the road you use, the cycle path is not well-designed and as you say, having a wider carriageway would probably be better (but doesn't fit the planners' "happy family bimbling along separated from the traffic" vision).I'm not saying that the cyclists are right (or wrong) in chosing to use the main carriageway, merely suggesting a reason they may have decided to do so.
ewenm said:
That's an easy one - on the cycle path the cyclist will have to give way at every side-road crossing; if they are on the bypass the side-roads will have to give way to the cyclist. The riders you've seen have prioritised maintaining momentum over the increased risks on the bypass.
That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes.
Indeed - ever tried going along one of those cyclepaths at speed, especially the ones where there are residents' driveways exiting onto the highway that all have dropped kerbs? Up and down like a mountain bike trail, plus, like you say, with side roads having priority they are almost impossible to ride and maintain any sort of progress.That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes.
There's one such route near me that I forgo to ride on the road which amuses and annoys me in equal measure that the main road itself is a 20mph road yet no matter what speed I choose to do drivers still insist on overtaking at every opportunity. But I digress, sorry.
ewenm said:
Is there a reasonable side road alternative? It doesn't sound like the sort of place I'd want to ride, so I'd only be there if the alternatives were unreasonable for my journey.
If nothing else, it would've been safer to go under the flyover and over the roundabout than wobbling over the raised section in high winds!ewenm said:
Not a bad idea, if the cycle path and the road are both well-designed. From your description of the road you use, the cycle path is not well-designed
Not so. For the purpose of disambiguation, this by pass is very good and consists of three, very long and uninterrupted sections. The sole hinderance is a bady sited road sign, but it is all rideable and smooth. Just that not every cyclist bothers to avail themselves of it.I've regularly ridden dual carriageways, no different to any other ride in my oppinion- you look after yourself and keep it sensible, if it's the shortest route then I will take it. I always use decent lights and if it begins to rain I will turn these on even in the day to give some awareness.
If there is a hard shoulder lane I will keep into that but otherwise I behave as any other vehicle would, you HAVE to be careful with exit and entry slips though!
If there is a hard shoulder lane I will keep into that but otherwise I behave as any other vehicle would, you HAVE to be careful with exit and entry slips though!
ewenm said:
Digga said:
MHO, where a cycle path is provided an the busy trunk road not wide enough to allow safe progress of bicycles and other vehicles, it should be mandatory to use the cycle path (the road should effectively also be a clearway to stop dunces parking to take 'phone calls) and bikes therefore excluded from that particualr bit of road, otherwise, what's the point? They'd be better with a narrower pavement and wider carriageways.
Not a bad idea, if the cycle path and the road are both well-designed. From your description of the road you use, the cycle path is not well-designed and as you say, having a wider carriageway would probably be better (but doesn't fit the planners' "happy family bimbling along separated from the traffic" vision).I'm not saying that the cyclists are right (or wrong) in chosing to use the main carriageway, merely suggesting a reason they may have decided to do so.
serious: http://voleospeed.blogspot.com/2011/07/1934-moment...
less serious: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
Apart from the design issues with priorities and junctions/crossings etc, my experience of cycle paths adjacent to fast/busy carriageways is that they tend to be littered with all sorts of crap either thrown from or having fallen from vehicles. Often to the extent that they become hazardous to use...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Quite.The road I'm on about has a 50mph limit but is no wider than most urban 30mph roads. Cycle lases are pretty good and have just three necessary interruptions - all for traffic roundabouts - in just under 3 miles. There's no litter or drop kerbs for access to any property. I cannot see why riders would risk mixing it with other road traffic when this is available: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=A51&daddr=...
ewenm said:
That's an easy one - on the cycle path the cyclist will have to give way at every side-road crossing; if they are on the bypass the side-roads will have to give way to the cyclist. The riders you've seen have prioritised maintaining momentum over the increased risks on the bypass.
That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes. Most of the time it appears the planners have this rosey-eyed picture of a family tootling along the cycle path, not a cold and wet commuter trying to get to work/home as quickly as possible.
100% agree That sort of thing is something that council planners very rarely take into account when "designing" cycle routes. Most of the time it appears the planners have this rosey-eyed picture of a family tootling along the cycle path, not a cold and wet commuter trying to get to work/home as quickly as possible.
The cycle paths near me are entirely pedestrian paths with paint on. It means that my journey is hugely interruped by giving way to side roads, drives, major roads, buses disembarking, and in many cases simply having to slow down because the paths are quite uneven. However, in these dark winter months I continue to ride these paths purely because I feel 10000 times safer than I do on the road - even fully lit/hi-vis'd up (which I am on both cycle paths and roads, anyway).
You're right - it's simply painted there to increase the miles of cycle path that the council has. It's not a bad thing - I'm glad it exists, and I'm glad they're doing things to aid cyclists. I don't claim to know the solution; the roads around here would not take kindly to dedicated cycle paths without majorly disrupting car traffic, and I'm not naive enough to believe that should happen. Like the article that someone above linked to, it's an inherent build up over time of the importance of cyclists vs traffic that has caused where we are now.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff