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.

We have an A-road here (the A720) that is a dual carriageway with a 70mph limit. Cyclists and small mopeds are not allowed on it.

The A720 is one of a small number of restricted dual carriageways, where motorway restrictions apply. You can spot these roads as the speed limit is indicated by actual 70 signs instead of the NSL sign.

Is cycling on a DC with excellent visibility more dangerous than cycling on a B road with corners, high hedges and poor straight line visibility? where cars travel routinely at 50 to 60mph.

Nobody slows to 10mph to overtake a cyclist on DC, just as they don't slow to 30 - 40mph to overtake a lorry on a DC hill, perhaps you need some driving lessons?

If you can't see a cyclist a mile away without hitting him/her, you shouldn't be on the roads yourself or get your eyes tested.

Motorists have gone to jail for running down a cyclist on a DC, there really is no excuse.

X are to dangerous to let Y on Z
Or
X isn't safe to be on Y

When your entire proposition is based on everyone else being at fault, you probably shouldn't be on the road.

After I had passed my driving test my instructor told me three truths
1/ You have passed your test now go learn how to drive.
2/ Treat everyone else on the road like they are tossers.
and
3/ You are the one in control of the vehicle, think about everything you do before you do it.

KazzyHoward - perhaps I’ve not spent as much time as you in the Netherlands - and I have only travelled there as a visitor - by train and cycle and not by car. So I ant comment on congestion , as I havent experienced any. Trains were good though —and the rail network isn’t as arterial as ours, and getting city to city by train is quite easy. For commuter cycling, probably distance (and time and physical ability it takes to travel it by bike ) is a big factor in whether people chose to cycle it or not. But as people have been saying on this thread - sometimes even short distances (under 10 miles) can’t be safely travelled by bike in the UK

Although legal, not very safe to do. Can be hazardous for drivers of large vehicles that come up on them and have to give a wide berth. i.e. commercial vehicles, large vans, HGV's, buses, coaches, And that means occupying at least half of the outside lane. Much to the annoyance of Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms get outer my way, I'm in a hurry. I use the A13/A 127 transporting students from Thurrock to Southend every school day using an eight seat Vivaro. Doing this run almost a year now, never seen any on the A13, but a few sensible ones using the cycle path on the A127

Tractors are more dangerous than cyclists on dual carriageways. I’ve cycled lands end to John o groats and I didn’t enjoy the dual carriageway bits (A30 Devon and Cornwall). However living in the West Country, tractors driving on dual carriageways (when there are other road options) are 10 x more dangerous albeit they have a bit more protection!

I cycle on dual carriageways often, but hardly ever in the dark. If you can't see me then it's you in the wrong! Selfish drivers everywhere on this thread (and fat/obese no doubt)

Cycle helmets are not mandatory by law. They also do nothing to help motorists see the cyclists. I wear one, but I don't see why some PPs are getting uptight about them. They really only help in low-speed accidents, which is why there's a big controversy over them in the cycling community.
Why do people keep saying that cyclists are 'pootling'? Because they're going at less than 70mph? It's bloody hard work cycling at 20mph+. I'm quite shocked at the negative attitudes on here towards cyclists. We reduce congestion and pollution, and you constantly hear that we should all be introducing exercise into our daily lives by walking or cycling more. I have to cycle on an A road to get to the station to get to work - it's not a dual carriageway - and there aren't any cycle lanes. Why should I be banned and not people who speed/cut me up/drive on their own in a massive 4x4?

If you as a driver come up on a slow moving vehicle so fast that you can't slow down or brake in the required amount of time, then you were driving too fast for the road conditions, be that lighting, bends in the road, other traffic etc.

This ^

On country lanes, drivers should be stopping in the distance they can see so they are unlikely to be doing the speed limit for much of the time. It's very different from long straight dual carriageways where most vehicles are doing above 60.

It clearly is more dangerous for cyclists to be on roads where the majority of vehicles are going so much more quickly and dual carriageways have a lot more in common with motorways than country lanes.

There's a long straight dual carriageway close to where I live that has regular cyclist deaths on it. I know drivers could be more careful and keep those cyclists safer but I am really beginning to wish that they would ban cyclists and save some lives.

Being both a driver and a weekend cyclist (plus @lostpigeon for the record I am neither fat nor obese - tho I admit not a champion racer) I can see two sides to the arguement. Lots of cyclists especially the "Boris Bike torists" have no road proficiency and providing them with huge heavy bikes to ride London's dangerous roads without any training seems total madness to me. Also, many drivers are unobservant and road greedy, however the arguments over who's to blame will not save lives. Clearly marked and designated cycle lanes, trained and tested drivers and cyclists and better laid out roads with better lighting all help. I think we are coming to a stage where licenses should be harder to obtain and cycle courses should be made available as part of our school education system along with other life skills such as cooking, healthy eating and managing finances. No doubt I will be ripped to shreds but I think everyone needs more education on road safety from both perspectives. And as for distracted "zombie phone" pedestrians.....

If you are cycling on what is basically a motorway {no traffic lights or roundabouts on the section I drive on, cars going 70mph can not see a cyclist on a busy road until they are almost just behind the cyclist. What you see as a driver is cars in front very suddenly braking from 70mph down to 10 mph. On actual motorways you get flashing warning signs overhead if there is a problem ahead that is going to slow down the traffic even to 40mph.

Nothing will convince me that this is safe. And totally different frm country roads.

Motorists won’t be happy until all the green spaces are paved over and everyone’s salaries are paid directly to the oil companies.

Guns are not fundamental to our economy and are designed to kill. Cars are absolutely essential to our economy and are designed to get people from A to B.

The war on the motorist has gone far enough.

Selfish drivers everywhere on this thread (and fat/obese no doubt)

Lots of very rude cyclists too. 🙄

The war on the motorist has gone far enough.

😂😂😂

Motorists won’t be happy until all the green spaces are paved over and everyone’s salaries are paid directly to the oil companies.

Don't be ridiculous.

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

That 5 a day will not always be the driver's fault either.

I do agree with you OP. While having two lanes theoretically makes it safer for cyclists because you have somewhere to go to overtake them, in practice you have Mr Moronic (insert name of German branded car] driver in lane 2 who isn't going to take his foot off the gas to let you into his lane to overtake safely.

That said, there are so many dual carriageways where a cycle path could be added very easily.

The war on the motorist has gone far enough

Years of a fuel tax freeze?

Years of rail fares going up despite a shocking service?

Years of bus services being cut?

I think the war is on the public transport user, personally.

That 5 a day will not always be the driver's fault either.

Most will be, even if there isn't enough evidence for prosecution.

Regardless, the numbers killed on the UK roads is the equivalent of 6 x 737 Max;s crashing every year, who'd fly with those odds?

Let alone the 20k left with very serious injuries, the cost to the economy is huge as well.

But so long as drivers don't have to look where they are going or slow down for a few seconds for a cyclist, all is good.

jasjas1973 no one is saying car drivers dont have to look.

However car accidents aret always the car drivers fault. If you think pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists etc are all perfect road users, you are very naive

There's an A road I have to use frequently. A local cycling club uses it every Sunday, unnerving. At one point, it bypasses a small market town which has spread out to both sides of the road. Occasional pedestrians loom. Even worse, school children cross the road. It's terrifying.

That 5 a day will not always be the driver's fault either.....Most will be, even if there isn't enough evidence for prosecution.

Not "most" at all. Look at the published statistics. Less than half involve driver fault, and even where driver fault is a factor, there are also other factors, such as pedestrian fault or road surface fault. It's well established that there are usually multiple contributory factors in collisions.

Eg if a pedestrian gets hit by a car, the "fault" could be equal, i.e. the car driver could have made mistakes, but the pedestrian could also have made mistakes, and the collision wouldn't have occurred if both hadn't made mistakes..

Much as some people would love to, you can't always blame drivers for everything!

Regardless, the numbers killed on the UK roads is the equivalent of 6 x 737 Max;s crashing every year, who'd fly with those odds?

Fewer people fly on fewer days, whereas most people either walk, cycle or drive every day, so your figures are deeply flawed and comparison meaningless.

**I only ever overtake when I can do so safely, ie giving them the same room as I would a car
This is no guarantee of safety. My friend was safely overtaking a cyclist, signalled and left loads of room, was just pulling level with him when he decided to turn right without signalling or looking over his shoulder - he swerved straight in front of her car and was killed. Imo the only safe way to overtake a cyclist is to slow to a speed where you won’t kill them if they swerve in front of you.

^^
This happened to me at a traffic light, I was taking off SLOWLY and a cyclist cut in front, if I had been even slightly faster it would have been fatal. But no drivers are still to blame!