Cycle races on dual carriageways !

[Jonnas]

I've seen this on the A11 and it is easily one of the most dangerous things I've seen on the road in over 20 years of driving. The speed differential alone is just too much but I witnessed a single cyclist in the middle of lane 1 and a faster cyclist having to go to the outside of lane 1 to go past him. Quite why they seem to think they have a moral force field around them is beyond me. People driving at the speed limit just don't appreciate the speed difference between them and a bike and just don't expect to see them on a dual carriageway. My opinion, it just shouldn't be allowed, it's far too dangerous......

[saaby93]

Dont most modern dual carriageways have a space to the left of the left carriageway solid white line for cyclists and low powered motor bikes to use?

Theres something called Due care for other road users, that means tractors etc should pull over if a queue builds up, cyclists keep over to the left to allow faster trafficto pass, pedestrians keep over to one side, don't hog the outside lane if the nearside one is clear.

Does this have to be written down or is it common sense and courtesy?

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 13th April 18:54

[anonymous-user]

Jonnas said:

I've seen this on the A11 and it is easily one of the most dangerous things I've seen on the road in over 20 years of driving. The speed differential alone is just too much but I witnessed a single cyclist in the middle of lane 1 and a faster cyclist having to go to the outside of lane 1 to go past him. Quite why they seem to think they have a moral force field around them is beyond me. People driving at the speed limit just don't appreciate the speed difference between them and a bike and just don't expect to see them on a dual carriageway. My opinion, it just shouldn't be allowed, it's far too dangerous......

I'm sure there were signs in place advising an event was in progress, that there were marshals in hi-vis jackets that were also possibly an indicator that something was occuring on the roads that might not be wholly typical on a sunday morning.... possibly you failed to spot these things?! what makes me laugh is the fact that people assume this is a new thing, time trials have been taking place on public roads for decades, in fact they were far more popular in the 50s, 60s and 70s than they are today.

[deltashad]

Rich_W said:

Yeah everyone should just get off the road just for you! What if it was a C63 AMG or a Bus doing half the speed in the same space? I daresay you wouldn't have even posted this thread.

Its not it's a push bike approx 1ft wide travelling at 24 mph.
If a car or bus was taking up a full lane of the road at this speed it would be pulled over by the police.

Rich_W said:

Apparently it's a dual carriageway and YOU managed to negociate the slower traffic just fine. So what's the problem again? It's called driving responsibly. You managed it. Sounds like many others there couldn't so aim your ire at them.

Riding responsibly would be keeping left to let the faster traffic join the raod in a safe manner.

Rich_W said:

As above (and we've done this to death on PH recently) they are ALLOWED by LAW to be there. So they aren't "taking up lanes" they are USING the ROAD.

Its also legal to jog in the middle of the road but you would need to be even more suicidal, and jogging speeds are much closer to cycling speeds than cycling speeds are to the slowest of moving vehicles

Rich_W said:

And the swerving HGV drivers are at fault for not looking at the road and then panicking and swerving lanes without checking mirrors. Again aim your rage at the right people

All it takes is something ahead to happen which can cause a knock on effect, the truck drivers view being limited until the last moment, which can be avoided, by cyclists being more considerate and not taking unnecessary risks.

JDMDrifter said:

This carries on for 5-10 miles and I also witness a cyclist swerving around causing the car behind to take evasive action whilst trying to overtake.

Rich_W said:

Wasn't there. But did the cyclist veer across to the second lane? Seems odd. Pretty stupid even. But can't comment specifically. Or are you now talking about a road that wasn't a Dual Carriageway?

Imagine 5-10 miles of groups of C63's doing 24 mph on a dual carriageway.

JDMDrifter said:

My question really is why is this allowed on such busy/dangerous roads?

Rich_W said:

Cause they pay Council Taxand the law of the land allows Time Trials on the road for
bikes.

Because they can

Rich_W][- said:

On a side note. A fair chunk of London today couldn't drive around today because 40K runners had taken over the place. Notice how most people there realise the world doesn't revolve around them and just make adjustments accordingly

This would have been a properly organised event, possibly contributing to charities too? Joggers are required by law to keep to pavements when possible, this was also a 30mph limit, not a dual carriageway.

I see plenty of cyclist who completely ignore cycle lanes, because it's beneath them.

[groomi]

Honestly, if you can't safely overtake cyclists with two lanes of dual carriageway, then you should get off the road.

[jimbop1]

wolves_wanderer said:

xRIEx said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimbop1 said:

cyclists have more rights than drivers now do they?!

They can use the roads without a licence clever clogs.

And drivers have licences. That's why they're, y'know, drivers.

So cyclists have a right drivers don't then? You could almost say they have more rights I guess

No, you really couldn't!

[Rich_W]

pablo said:

Jonnas said:

I've seen this on the A11 and it is easily one of the most dangerous things I've seen on the road in over 20 years of driving. The speed differential alone is just too much but I witnessed a single cyclist in the middle of lane 1 and a faster cyclist having to go to the outside of lane 1 to go past him. Quite why they seem to think they have a moral force field around them is beyond me. People driving at the speed limit just don't appreciate the speed difference between them and a bike and just don't expect to see them on a dual carriageway. My opinion, it just shouldn't be allowed, it's far too dangerous......

I'm sure there were signs in place advising an event was in progress, that there were marshals in hi-vis jackets that were also possibly an indicator that something was occuring on the roads that might not be wholly typical on a sunday morning.... possibly you failed to spot these things?! what makes me laugh is the fact that people assume this is a new thing, time trials have been taking place on public roads for decades, in fact they were far more popular in the 50s, 60s and 70s than they are today.

THIS!

BTW "in 20 years" you've NEVER seen anything more dangerous than a handful of cyclists on a dual carriageway? You must live a very sheltered life. I've seen far worse than that on the roads near me in the last month! Silver A3 doing around 100 in a 30 (yes really) A transit of travellers that was going about 50 down the wrong side of the road overtaking line of traffic then forcing it's way into the main road. Causing multiple cars to anchor up. Yeah those cyclsits are just awful aren't they!

saaby93 said:

Dont most modern dual carriageways have a space to the left of the left carriageway solid white line for cyclists and low powered motor bikes to use?

Theres something called Due care for other road users, that means tractors etc should pull over if a queue builds up or cyclists keep over to the left to allow faster traffic to pass

Yep, there it is. The hypocritical anti cyclist "point" of choice. The old highway code says this argument. I bet it says you should keep to the speed limit too. Of course YOU never go above that do you? Or is it only cyclists that have to obey the laws? Like I dunno ride on a dual carriageway legally

[xRIEx]

wolves_wanderer said:

xRIEx said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimbop1 said:

cyclists have more rights than drivers now do they?!

They can use the roads without a licence clever clogs.

And drivers have licences. That's why they're, y'know, drivers.

So cyclists have a right drivers don't then? You could almost say they have more rights I guess

No.

To call a person a 'driver' is to assume they already have a licence, otherwise they would be e.g. a pedestrian. A licence has no bearing on the rights of the groups 'cyclists' and 'drivers' to use the roads, because a licence is a prerequisite to join the 'drivers' group.

Cyclists and drivers have the same rights.

[deltashad]

saaby93 said:

Dont most modern dual carriageways have a space to the left of the left carriageway solid white line for cyclists and low powered motor bikes to use?

Theres something called Due care for other road users, that means tractors etc should pull over if a queue builds up or cyclists keep over to the left to allow faster traffic to pass

Rich_W said:

[Yep, there it is. The hypocritical anti cyclist "point" of choice. The old highway code says this argument. I bet it says you should keep to the speed limit too. Of course YOU never go above that do you? Or is it only cyclists that have to obey the laws? Like I dunno ride on a dual carriageway legally

WTF?????? Keep on topic

[Jonnas]

pablo said:

I'm sure there were signs in place advising an event was in progress, that there were marshals in hi-vis jackets that were also possibly an indicator that something was occuring on the roads that might not be wholly typical on a sunday morning.... possibly you failed to spot these things?! what makes me laugh is the fact that people assume this is a new thing, time trials have been taking place on public roads for decades, in fact they were far more popular in the 50s, 60s and 70s than they are today.

No, I didn't fail to spot anything. I came on at a slip road and arrived at total carnage of people braking hard and having to take avoiding action into lane 2. No signs, no marshals, nothing. Everyone in the car at the time was shocked.

Where I live they have time trials regularly on my local A road. Totally appropriate, well indicated, organised and marshalled. On a dual carriageway, in my opinion it's just too dangerous as I've already said. It's not a lot of good preaching from the moral high ground when you're brown bread. You'll never find me in Lycra in lane 1 of a D/C but I don't particularly want to be part of killing anyone either.....

[The Wookie]

Rich_W said:

Victim blaming is not really the answer.

And of course many things are not the wisest thing to do, but so long as the laws of the UK allow it. I'm happy to live and let live. Most drivers can deal with a bike on the side of the road. The ones that can't should be removed from the road IMO.

Out of interest what is the answer? How do you wish to remove these drivers from the road? Ban them after they've killed a cyclist?

[saaby93]

Rich_W said:

saaby93 said:

Dont most modern dual carriageways have a space to the left of the left carriageway solid white line for cyclists and low powered motor bikes to use?

Theres something called Due care for other road users, that means tractors etc should pull over if a queue builds up or cyclists keep over to the left to allow faster traffic to pass

Yep, there it is. The hypocritical anti cyclist "point" of choice. The old highway code says this argument. I bet it says you should keep to the speed limit too. Of course YOU never go above that do you? Or is it only cyclists that have to obey the laws? Like I dunno ride on a dual carriageway legally

Its not anti cyclist - it's pro cyclist and anyone else that wants to use the road, as a road.
Why equate one illegal thing with another illegal thing and say therefors it's legal lol

[JDMDrifter]

Caused abit of a stir here

I appreciate it's their sport and they have the right, but IMO it seems very dangerous. Bare in mind this stretch of road has a very busy lane 2 90% of the time and pulling across to overtake isn't that easy, this combined with poor drivers can only end in tears. I believe it should be banned on this particular stretch of road due to the volume of traffic and the disruption it causes.

Edited by JDMDrifter on Sunday 13th April 19:16

[0836whimper]

Jonnas said:

I've seen this on the A11 and it is easily one of the most dangerous things I've seen on the road in over 20 years of driving. The speed differential alone is just too much but I witnessed a single cyclist in the middle of lane 1 and a faster cyclist having to go to the outside of lane 1 to go past him. Quite why they seem to think they have a moral force field around them is beyond me. People driving at the speed limit just don't appreciate the speed difference between them and a bike and just don't expect to see them on a dual carriageway. My opinion, it just shouldn't be allowed, it's far too dangerous......

Ok. Can I then drive along any road at the speed limit ('cos that means it's safe), create a big speed differential, fail to be able to stop in the distance I can see and then demand that slower road users are removed in order to ensure I don't hit them ?

[Rich_W]

deltashad said:

Its not it's a push bike approx 1ft wide travelling at 24 mph.
If a car or bus was taking up a full lane of the road at this speed it would be pulled over by the police.

No they wouldn't. And if you can negociate past a 1ft wide bike giving 3 foot clearance then you must be properly crap in a car.

deltashad] said:

Riding responsibly would be keeping left to let the faster traffic join the raod in a safe manner.

Why faster traffic? There's no hierarchy based on speed to the roads. Or have they changed the law recently?

deltashad said:

Its also legal to jog in the middle of the road but you would need to be even more suicidal, and jogging speeds are much closer to cycling speeds than cycling speeds are to the slowest of moving vehicles

I run at circa 7-9mph. I ride at circa 25ish (highest can be 60 slowest can be 10 depending on the road gradient). What's closer to 30 again? Again. There is NOT more right to be on a road depending on how fast you are going. Something you seem to have imagined

deltashad said:

All it takes is something ahead to happen which can cause a knock on effect, the truck drivers view being limited until the last moment, which can be avoided, by cyclists being more considerate and not taking unnecessary risks.

What? A truck drivers view is limited how exactly? High up. Big screen. That doesn't even make sense

deltashad said:

Imagine 5-10 miles of groups of C63's doing 24 mph on a dual carriageway.

And? It doesn't matter that YOU don't want them there.

jimbop1 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

xRIEx said:

wolves_wanderer said:

jimbop1 said:

cyclists have more rights than drivers now do they?!

They can use the roads without a licence clever clogs.

And drivers have licences. That's why they're, y'know, drivers.

So cyclists have a right drivers don't then? You could almost say they have more rights I guess

No, you really couldn't!

But YOU could lose your right to drive on the road if a court decided. AFAIK you can't be barred from riding a bike.

Though this is a case of semantics. EVERYONE has EQUAL share of the roads. Slow, Fast, big small. EVERYONE should just try and get on and accept the others are allowed to be there and ffs try not to hit each other

The Wookie said:

Out of interest what is the answer? How do you wish to remove these drivers from the road? Ban them after they've killed a cyclist?

I don't know.

IF a driver/cyclist/whoever is responsible for the killing of another road user or pedestrian, maybe lengthy bans or imprisonment would help. Thinking 10years. It's draconian but it might make people remember they are driving around in something that can kill. And may give it a bit more concentration. We are blasé about safety once we get in a car. It's the same the world over.

But it seems that whilst we convict for manslaughter we are unwilling to take away a road users vehicle for some reason. Seems more palatable to be branded an "accident and it's not your fault" I could kill someone in the street and get 10 years. Put me in my car and have me run them over on a crossing because I didn't see them and I'll get maybe a 2 year ban? What did 10penceshort get? And I'm not sure that's helping.

Edited by Rich_W on Sunday 13th April 19:20

[Jonnas]

Rich_W said:

pablo said:

Jonnas said:

I've seen this on the A11 and it is easily one of the most dangerous things I've seen on the road in over 20 years of driving. The speed differential alone is just too much but I witnessed a single cyclist in the middle of lane 1 and a faster cyclist having to go to the outside of lane 1 to go past him. Quite why they seem to think they have a moral force field around them is beyond me. People driving at the speed limit just don't appreciate the speed difference between them and a bike and just don't expect to see them on a dual carriageway. My opinion, it just shouldn't be allowed, it's far too dangerous......

THIS!

BTW "in 20 years" you've NEVER seen anything more dangerous than a handful of cyclists on a dual carriageway? You must live a very sheltered life. I've seen far worse than that on the roads near me in the last month! Silver A3 doing around 100 in a 30 (yes really) A transit of travellers that was going about 50 down the wrong side of the road overtaking line of traffic then forcing it's way into the main road. Causing multiple cars to anchor up. Yeah those cyclsits are just awful aren't they.

If you're going to quote me, please do it properly. I said 'one of the most dangerous things I've seen in 20 years of driving' not that I've NEVER seen anything more dangerous. Look, it's up there.....

It could easily have ended up in two cyclists killed and maybe a bit of a pile up to boot. I'm not anti cycling, far from it. I'm just anti people getting killed needlessly.....

[saaby93]

Rich_W said:

Though this is a case of semantics. EVERYONE has EQUAL share of the roads. Slow, Fast, big small. EVERYONE should just try and get on and accept the others are allowed to be there and ffs try not to hit each other

no they dont have equal shares - where did you get that from?
You'd get people walking towards you on the outside lane of a dual carriageway saying 'I have equal shares'.
Everyone has to take due care of other road users and help faster traffic on its way pulling over if necessary, holding back to allow an overtake to proceed etc.

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 13th April 19:17

[xRIEx]

JDMDrifter said:

Caused abit of a stir here

Always going to happen

JDMDrifter said:

this combined with poor drivers can only end in tears. I believe it should be banned...

Just to spin this around, why not ban the poor car drivers (hypothetically, if it were possible)?

As stated before, if a safe driver can negotiate such a hazard.

[saaby93]

xRIEx said:

Just to spin this around, why not ban the poor car drivers (hypothetically, if it were possible)?

As stated before, if a safe driver can negotiate such a hazard.

Obviously they were all safe drivers today as they did manage to negotiate the hazard but why unnecessarily create a hazard to test them?

[xRIEx]

saaby93 said:

Rich_W said:

Though this is a case of semantics. EVERYONE has EQUAL share of the roads. Slow, Fast, big small. EVERYONE should just try and get on and accept the others are allowed to be there and ffs try not to hit each other

no they dont have equal shares - where did you get that from?
You'd get people walking towards you on the outside lane of a dual carriageway saying 'I have equal shares'.
Everyone has to take due care of other road users and help faster traffic on its way pulling over if necessary, holding back to allow an overtake to proceed etc.

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 13th April 19:17

Everyone has equal right to use roads, that's why they're called rights of way (the only exception being motorways).

As someone stated before, "right" isn't the same as "invulnerability". Some cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and drivers don't realise this in certain situations; in other situations, they do (such as pedestrians realising they would be daft to walk down the outside lane of a dual carriageway).

I agree with you about duty of care; unfortunately no one has a duty of consideration to others, it would just be nice if they were considerate anyway, even if they don't have to be.