To be surprised this is legal?

[jennymanara]

Today I was driving along a dual carriageway where other cars were going at 60-70mph at least, and came across a cyclist on the road cycling slowly along on the left hand lane. The cyclist was not going fast. This seemed incredibly dangerous for the cyclist as they were going so much slower than any other vehicle on the road.

So AIBU for being surprised this is legal? This road in reality was no different from a motorway except that there was no hard shoulder, and cyclists are rightly banned from motorways as it is recognised as too dangerous for cyclists to be on.

ivykaty44 that's 2 issues that you cant compare.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people are on the roads everyday. Doing something that has risk, and is entirely legal. The more people that are on the road, the more deaths there will be.

Driving is a hugely risking activity. Not just because of poor drivers. Driving need lots of attention and skill. It only takes a minor mistake to be catastrophic. Most people on the roads, want to just get where they are going.

Why do people in UK carry guns? Carrying a gun in the UK is not something most people do on daily basis and not a legal activity.

"Dual Carriageway" doesn't mean that there are 2 lanes each way.

You can have a dual carriageway which is only 1 lane in each direction.

Are you arguing that it's too dangerous for cyclists to be on multi~lane roads or on roads with a central reservation?

sara surely the issue is that the cars are doing 70 mph and there's no cycle lane the Central reservation is largely irrelevant.

I'll add to that the many people who cycle round the national speed limit country lanes in my village, dressed in black, with no reflectors and without helmets, driving against the traffic. That should be illegal. If I knocked one of them over, my life would be ruined too.

sara surely the issue is that the cars are doing 70 mph and there's no cycle lane the Central reservation is largely irrelevant.

But on a narrow country lane, with blind corners and high hedges, etc, it's very often a 60mph limit.

If a cyclist is rounding a bend and a car comes behind at speed, it could be far more dangerous than on a straight, well lit, wide multi-lane road.

That's why I mention the "dual" carriageway point.

I'll add to that the many people who cycle round the national speed limit country lanes in my village, dressed in black, with no reflectors and without helmets, driving against the traffic. That should be illegal. If I knocked one of them over, my life would be ruined too.
It's you who's causing the danger though, not them. It's up to you to drive slowly enough not to hit them. Or choose not to drive if you don't think your skills are good enough.

Nasigoreng

I've lived in the country all my life, I've never seen a cyclist dressed all in black with no reflectors, are people particularly suicidal round your way?

We get people riding bikes around here with no helmets, no hi Vis clothing, light, reflectors.

We have a fairly, locally, famous one that screams at anyone overtaking him. In any circumstance. Waves come of his hands all over wobbles etc. Thankfully not the norm. But plenty of them.

It's you who's causing the danger though, not them. It's up to you to drive slowly enough not to hit them. Or choose not to drive if you don't think your skills are good enough.

No, you've also partly responsible if you make it so you cant be seen. Doesnt matter how slow you go, how do you avoid something you dont see?

I dont use my car at weekends, mostly use my bike. All road users have responsibility including cyclists.

Just looking out the window of my bus and saw a cyclist all in black with no obvious reflectors. He is one of 3 that are cycling on the pavement (although one has just moved onto the road as the pedestrian light is now at red.) Pretty much a normal morning in Glasgow. I will get off the bus in 5 mins and have to avoid at least one more cyclist on the narrow pavement. (This one likes to let go of the handlebars and freewheel down the hill I'm walking up)

I can see both sides here. I have a moped which is also banned from motorways. For one week a year I have to go to a village on the other side of town. The only way I can get there includes 300 yards on the sort of road you describe. I hate it but I don't have a choice (no public transport going that way). I would say though that I have had nothing but consideration from the car drivers using that stretch.

avoiding other human beings is a normal part of city life

We often drove along the A19 at 70mph and see cyclists participating in time trial races

I was going to mention this as that time trial seems utter madness. I was horrified the first time I saw it.

That section of the A19 feels very like a motorway/major road and the only saving grace is that it happens on a Sunday morning when the traffic is lighter than normal with fewer lorries. Sadly though there are still fatalities and serious injuries.

But on twisty country lanes with hedges/walls etc the 60 mph speed limit is a red herring because it's rarely safe to go anywhere near that fast and lorries are limited to 40 anyway. The average speed is probably more around 40-45 MPH.

Are you arguing that it's too dangerous for cyclists to be on multi~lane roads or on roads with a central reservation?

Neither. The argument (that I fully garée with, living next to one of those “roads”) is that a road where all the cars are going at the top speed limit if 70mph (as per the lawn) is dangerous for ANY véhicule that is gong that slow.
That is a cyclist or a tractor or whatever else you want to come up with.
people treats it the same as a motorway because it has the same layout, the same speed limits etc..

jenny i have a few of those around where I live. The idea is that it’s not a motorway so people should be ‘extra careful’ and ‘remember they might come across a slower vehicle’. Well yes that’s right. And still drive the same way than on a motorway (I have yet to see cars going slower than 70mph ‘because it’s an A road, not a motorway).
It’s even harder when said road moves from being classified a motorway to an A road and then back to a motorway with no change on the layout as such. Just a vague sign letting you know you are now on A1 or A1(M).

I’ve always wondered if this was creating a particular hotspot for accidents. But as it has been like this for donkeys years, I’m assuming it isn’t (or they reckon saving a few lives isn’t worth the millions to modify the road)

But on a narrow country lane, with blind corners and high hedges, etc, it's very often a 60mph limit.

Yes but no one actually drives at 60 mph down a bendy country lane. On a dual carriageway you actually drive at the speed limit.

It's you who's causing the danger though, not them. It's up to you to drive slowly enough not to hit them. Or choose not to drive if you don't think your skills are good enough.
Actually the law would see that it’s the cyclist that is the danger if they decided to use the motorway. The law also sees that a vehicle, incl a car, that is going too slow is also a danger.
So if it has been acknowledged that slow vehicles can be dangerous, why is it that cyclists cannot be dangerous in a road that is basically a motorway?

FWIW, I don’t know the road is referring to. I know the A1 and the A19 well. The only reason both those roads aren’t motorways is because no one wants to spend the money to make them fully a motorway.
The result is that some of them, like some part of the A19, is a death trap (not just cyclists!), so much so that I know some schools who avoid that road during school trips as it’s seen as ‘a H&S issue to use it’.

But Cadsuane, how did you see him if he was all in black? Maybe it's because it's daylight. I've just been driving for two hours and there were loads of cars that weren't in hivis. Shocking I tell you.

The main reason people aren't seen is because people don't look, rather than any issues with how visible they are. When I'm cycling it makes no difference if I have hivis on. The only reason I wear it is that if some idiot does hit me then they can't try and use it as an excuse.

I completely agree. I find it so dangerous because you can't really tell too far in advance there's a cyclist there if there's a couple of cars in front of you blocking direct view, the first indication sometimes is the car in front pulling into the centre a bit and/or slowing down.

We often drove along the A19 at 70mph and see cyclists participating in time trial races

Same on the A3 south of the Hindhead tunnel. I'm amazed it's allowed really because it reduces the road down to one lane for miles at a time.

Indeed but 5 deaths a day is still to many. If 5 people per day were being shot with guns the British wouldn’t find it acceptable - but kill with a car and it’s ok

You're missing the important point that not all of those 5 per day will be due to driver error/incompetence. Some will be due to pedestrian/cyclist not paying attention, some will be due to mechanical faults, some due to road planning/signage issues.

Whereas 5 gun deaths a day would be due to the person holding the gun.

Yes, because all drivers are dangerous

Well yes, technically we are, by virtue of the fact we move around very fast in a metal box that has the potential to kill.

Any driver that doesn't appreciate this fact is a worry tbh. That doesn't mean that all drivers are equally dangerous, there are some that are definitely way more of a risk than others.

I'm an experienced cyclist who is bored shitless of the constant hostility and general arseholery shown towards cyclists on this board. The overwhelming risk to life and limb arising from our roads comes from cars and car drivers, not bikes.

That said, cycling on a duel carriageway with a 70mph limit is bordering on suicidal. I did it once (by mistake) and it is the most unsafe I've ever felt in my life.

I don't think there is need for blame here. Cars driving at 70 would come up on a cyclist going at 15 so quickly they would struggle to see them whatever they were wearing. The cars have the right to be driving at the speed limit and are not driving carelessly by doing so.

I agree that it should not be legal for bikes and other vehicles that can't go over 40 miles an hour to travel on dual carriageways where the speed limit is 70. It is too dangerous.

I agree with you on this, I'm always surprised when I see cyclists on busy a roads where rhe speed limit is seventy.

A car driver will be fined by the police if they drive too slow as it's considered a danger to other drivers, I fail to see how cyclists are any safer,

As for the poster saying drivers are dangerous, sure some drivers are, as are some cyclists. We have all seen the candid videos. Neither side is blameless here.

The point of the thread is a valid one, the op is surprised it's legal on a dual carriage way with rhe national speed limit where drivers are legally expected to drive at or close to that speed. I'd agree with her, I'm also surprised.

I agree with the OP. A cyclist doing 10-15 mph on a national speed limit road is dangerous, regardless of whether it is actually legal or not (and I don' think it should be). All other vehicles will be driving at 60-70 mph and will not be expecting (quite rightly imo) to suddenly come upon a vehicle in front of them going so slowly - that is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Even the safest of drivers could find themselves caught unawares in that situation. There is more chance of spotting a slow moving but very large vehicle as you approach it (albeit it's still not ideal), but less chance of spotting a cyclist from a distance - especially if it's dark or raining.

ivykaty44 - you are being goady, sorry.

Far2,

There is a country lane where I live that is a short cut to the station from town. It is a one way street and people use it to cycle, jog and walk down it to the station. In the winter it is pitch-black and many school children/ teenagers go down it without any reflectors at all. There are no pavements.

I am a responsible driver, I don't drive fast, I put on full beam when it is dark and even better, I now I don't use it in the dark. Others still do. One of the reasons why I don't go down there any more in the dark is because aside from taking someone else life, I don't want to ruin my own either.

Where I used to live it was illegal not to wear reflectors and a helmet.