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.

A motorway is intended to move large quantities of vehicles at speed. The speed limit and design of the carriageways reflect that, as does the size of the signage and the distances given for warnings.

Yes it is the slow vehicles, and if they were there, cyclists, who cause the danger!

I'm not arguing that drivers aren't responsible. Quite the scariest thing to me on the roads is how I will be responsible (by virtue of being in a 1 tonne killing machine) if a pedestrian's or cyclist's error results in their death or injury, AND if the accident is my fault.

Classic case of what I refer to as "academic delusion".

This is where a person does something which is so monumentally stupid, that it defies all logic, but because its technically legal, they think it's their "right".

You really have to be a special kind of idiot to think that riding a bicycle literally inches from a queue of two ton metal boxes, travelling at 60mph, is a good idea. It isn't. It's just stupid. It will get you killed. But people just wont be told. They are still living in a world of make believe, where cycling is considered a legitimate form of transport and cars are few and far between and travel at 5mph with a man walking in front waving a red flag.

Of course it's all "academic", when you find yourself lying in the middle of a dual-carriageway with a broken spine, the knowledge that what you were doing was "legal" must be of great comfort.

Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

I think you must be unlucky NasiGoreng. I've lives in a few different rural locations and never seen cyclists not wearing reflectors or helmets.

Of course cyclists should be able to be on roads with national speed limits. This covers most roads in the countryside.
This was the A1, and it basically looks like a motorway, but without a hard shoulder. And no I don't think it should be legal for cyclists or other very slow vehicles to be on these roads.

It’s your opinion I’m goady

I value life and can’t accept that just because a drink driver, illegal mobile phone user or illegal close pass driving should end in death and the persons life be dismissed as “oh well cars are legal so it’s part of the risk”

11% of road deaths are due to speeding drivers crashing 13% of deaths are due to drink driving, 25% of crashes are due to hand held mobile phone use whilst driving. I don’t consider these crashes as accidents as the person operating the cars knows that they are behaving illegally and their actions can cause devistation

www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics

11% of road deaths are due to speeding drivers crashing

And 20% are due to pedestrians who fail to look properly, impaired by alcohol, failed to judge vehicle speed, carelessness etc. 8% caused by road defects etc.

Some parts of the A1 are also extremely busy (and fast).....

ivy how many deaths are linked to what has no relation with whether it is safe for cyclists to be on A road with dual carriageway and a 70mph speed limit that basically look like and treated the same as a motorway.

I am no lover of cyclists , as some of them can be a danger on the road
However I would have thought a dual carriage way should be safe for them , as car drivers should be treating them the same as they would a car , i.e giving them ample room when over taking , not driving past in the same lane !

ou really have to be a special kind of idiot to think that riding a bicycle literally inches from a queue of two ton metal boxes, travelling at 60mph, is a good idea. It isn't. It's just stupid. It will get you killed. But people just wont be told. They are still living in a world of make believe, where cycling is considered a legitimate form of transport and cars are few and far between and travel at 5mph with a man walking in front waving a red flag.

It could be argued that the cyclists aren't riding inches away from cars , but that cars are driving inches away from cyclist?

This happened to me a few weeks ago - happily doing 60 down a stretch of dual carriageway, came to my exit, and 3 cyclists in a line were pootling along blocking my exit and making it impossible for me to turn off. I couldn't slow down enough to let them get out of my way due to traffic, it would have been downright dangerous for me to suddenly brake that hard. I couldn't speed up enough to get past them and then safely leave. I had to go another 7 miles to the next exit and then back down. I was fucking fuming and nearly posted about it at the time!

11% of road deaths are due to speeding drivers crashing 13% of deaths are due to drink driving, 25% of crashes are due to hand held mobile phone use whilst driving.

Hmmmmmm I suspect you mean may have been a factor. Because categorically saying 'caused by' is spurious. And have road deaths increased 33% since mobile devices were introduced? Because that would be a better indicator that the deaths were caused by the use of the devices.

I'm not justifying drinking or mobile use BTW, I'm just really suspicious of dodgy statistics being used to 'prove' things.

So if i hit a cyclist with no lights on in dark clothing its my fault?

The issue is not about giving cyclists space. The issue is that a cyclist going at 10-15mph when drivers are doing 70mph, that car drivers would not have much notice that the cyclist was there. That is why you will get ticketed if you drive too slow on a motorway in a car. It is dangerous driving.

However I would have thought a dual carriage way should be safe for them , as car drivers should be treating them the same as they would a car , i.e giving them ample room when over taking , not driving past in the same lane !

A dual carriageway doesn't mean it has more than one lane, it just means that each direction/side is separated by a barrier.

Anyway, on MN, Cyclists are allowed to do whatever they want, wherever they want and however they want. I've even seen them claim it's perfectly fine to cycle on a pavement because it's safer for them (and pedestrians can just shut up)

On the A31 near me groups of cyclists use it for speed trials all through the summer (no hard shoulder).

I wouldn't ban them, it's not illegal but I do think they should be made to put up signs ahead of where they are to warn drivers of the hazard as it's just not something many expect on a dual carriageway.

Should they be allowed to race on a public road though? If you're focussed on going as fast as you can, are you paying enough attention to everything else?

The problem is that “cyclists” includes proper cyclists who signal and wear lights etc, and casual cyclists who bought a cheap bike and just go where they like without obeying the rules of the road. A dangerous cyclist can kill a driver or at the very least ruin their life. There should be rules about not cycling on fast roads without safety gear and a proficiency test.

drivers are to dangerous to let cyclists on motorways

British drivers are some of the safest in the world.

Motorways are statistically speaking relatively safe.

Bicycles are not very safe to ride on motorways, because the purpose of motorways is for cars to drive very fast on without slowing down or stopping very much, so unprotected persons moving slowly on them are in more danger than on other roads. Pedestrians should get off them ASAP for the same reason.

Not sure why people are bringing guns into it either, but since we're talking about British context here, there are a few million legally held firearms of one sort or another in the uk , in the hands of both police and members of the public, and shootings of human beings by either are vanishingly rare.

Hmmmmmm I suspect you mean may have been a factor. Because categorically saying 'caused by' is spurious

I didn’t write caused by.. but whilst 49% of crashes can be linked to illegal behaviour of drivers, you’re concerned about whether the illegal behaviour is the cause of the crashes

Yeah see I'm super considerate of cyclists - I only ever overtake when I can do so safely, ie giving them the same room as I would a car. I don't honk them, I don't crowd them as I pass, I take all necessary care when sharing the road with them.

But what happened on the dual carriageway (two lanes in either direction, national speed limit, just to be clear) the other week was absolutely outrageously dangerous and the danger was entirely caused by the cyclists. I had no warning they were there, I couldn't see them until I was practically on top of them, and I had to then make a 15 mile detour in order to avoid causing an accident. Totally not acceptable use of the road!