To think that cyclists shouldn’t be allowed on dual carriageways

[Cappuccino5]

Considering they’re not allowed on motorways!

There’s one dual carriageway in particular near us where cyclists on it are not only dicing with death re: their only lives, they’re also putting motorists at risk too. It’s a notoriously dangerous road - 60mph with very sharp bends, hill sections and narrow lanes. It’s like a race track. There have been many serious crashes and fatalities over the years (sadly including one involving a family member) - I genuinely can’t understand how a cyclist thinks it’s safe or appropriate to drive on a road like this, especially considering there’s a pavement (always empty, no pedestrians) that they could easily ride on. There simply isn’t enough room for cars to safely pass them!

Isn’t it illegal to cycle on the pavement?

The accidents are not caused by the cyclist though. They are caused by impatient drivers going too fast and overtaking when they don’t have enough visibility for it to be safe.

I live in the arse end of nowhere, every road round here is a bendy country road with a 60 limit. We have loads of horse and cyclists. We don’t have loads of accidents because locals know not to drive like dickheads (obviously we still have the odd idiot driver).

There are good and bad cyclists.
There are good and bad car drivers.

You can be hit by either anytime, anywhere.

Duel carriageway near me does not allow cyclists. Cant speak for all of them of course, but perhaps some people misinterpret the no cycling sign.

Genuine question, how is there not enough room to pass them if it's a dual carriageway?

If it’s a dual carriageway isn’t there another lane to pass them in? Or do you mean an A-road?

I’m assuming it’s a practical issue? Like when motorways become A roads for a bit for tractors etc? Maybe there is no other way for cyclists to go?

But I agree - cars doing 70mph and cyclists is a bad mix.

Genuine question, how is there not enough room to pass them if it's a dual carriageway?

This! It’s possibly the easiest road to pass a cyclist on as there is a whole other lane to move into that won’t have oncoming traffic. It just involves reading the road ahead and being aware of what’s going on behind you so you can pick your gap into the next lane (which I accept is an ever dwindling skill on the British roads). Cyclists and Horse Riders really do expose the unskilled behind the wheel, make them feel inadequate, and cause them to either get irrationally angry or feel the need to disguise it as feigning worry for the ‘poor cyclist on the dangerous road’

If the cyclists used the pavement you can bet your bottom dollar that people would be angry about that and there’d be another thread on here complaining about how they are breaking the law and could endanger pedestrians.

If there is not an alternative cycle route, how are cyclists meant to get from A to B?

If it is a road where cycling is allowed, then cyclists have a right to use it and it’s incumbent on drivers to drive carefully and sensibly. Tractors are also annoying on fast roads and so are learner drivers going at 20 mph or very slow lorries, but as a driver it is my responsibility to be patient and avoid doing anything risky. Personally I wouldn’t choose to cycle on a road like that, because loads of drivers are impatient dicks and I’d rather be alive than have the moral high ground. But those who are cycling there likely have good reasons to want to and why should they be pressured to stop because a bunch of drivers don’t know the Highway Code. And as others have said, a dual carriageway is a lot safer than a single lane country road where everyone is doing 60 round the blind bends.

It’s a very old one - private property and houses either side so it can’t be widened to keep up with modern cars and increased traffic.

If it's a dual carriageway by definition there is an entire lane cars can use to overtake.

A dual carriage way is a road with a central reservation, it doesnt always have 2 lanes on each side

That said, this is a motorist issue, not a cyclist issue.

And a town planning/highways issue, there should be more cycle lanes/paths.

@rainylake I regularly drive on an A road that tractors use and the amount of impatient and dangerous overtaking I see is beyond belief. Came too close to a head on collision for comfort last week when someone appeared from behind an oncoming tractor without leaving much time to pull back over. These people probably hate me but I won't overtake unless I'm certain it's clear enough on there.

I don't understand. If it's a dual carriageway, surely it's easier to overtake cyclists because there's an additional lane for drivers to move into?

obviously not ideal.

the newish dual carriageway near me has a cycle route parallel and therefore you never see cyclists on the actual carriageway. But assuming the cyclists you see are commuters not sportspeople perhaps the dual carriageway is the only/ best way for them to get where they need to be?

instead of complaining about cyclists we need to build proper infrastructure for them and encourage more of them, and consequently have less cars on the roads

@Cappuccino5

I think you are confusing the term, dual carriageway is when there's two lanes in each direction with a central divide of some kind, thus easier to pass than a single carriageway road which is one lane in each direction. National speed limit (so unless stated otherwise) is 70mph for dual carriageway and 60 mph for single carriageway

Maybe you should campaign to get the pavement converted to be shared pedestrian/cyclist path then.

There may not be a sensible alternative route for the bikes - Small roads are often horribly unsafe for cyclists too because of impatient drivers. Whereas on a dual carriageway there should be room to pass, obviously the cars need to overtake them properly in the other lane.

Dual carriageways aren't always high speed. There are 30mph dual carriageways, doubtless even some 20mph ones though I can't think of any. Meanwhile there are plenty of single carriageway roads with speeds up to the national speed limit.

Dual carriage way does not mean 2 lanes. Single lane dual carriage way is common. Dual carriage way means there is a physical barrier between your direction and the oncoming traffic.

I'm really hoping those who think dual carriage way means 2 lanes aren't drivers 🤦‍♀️

Amazing how many posters on this thread dont know that there are dual carriageways that only have 1 lane on each side, its the central reservation that makes something a dual carriage way

But OP hasnt specified either way.

Still a problem with the motorist though and not the cyclists.

Are you not a driver? Surely it's obvious 🤷🏻‍♀️

If your driving at duel carriageway speeds and in the inside lane you are going to approach a cyclist very quickly! If there is traffic in the outside lane overtaking you, then you have nowhere to go!

Cycling on Duel carriageways is neither safe nor smart and should absolutely be banned.

Highway Code 136-138:
A dual carriageway is a road which has a central reservation to separate the carriageways.

ie. It can have one, two, three or more lanes in each direction.
Photo shows an example of single lane dual carriageway (although the lane is quite wide)

Nope, I’m not confused - it’s a dual carriageway, albeit a very old one.

Depends on how busy a dual carriageway is, and how many on and off slip roads there are