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!

This! Plus fling in traffic trying to exit and enter slip roads with a cyclist slowly making their way along the path of entry or exit.

They should turn one lane into a cycle lane and ban the cars.

No, a dual carriageway can be single lane. It’s called a dual carriageway because it has some sort of central reservation separating the lanes going in each direction, not because there are two lanes in each direction. A dual carriageway can be single lanes in each direction with a central reservation separating them.

No, it isn’t. A dual carriages doesn’t need to have two lanes in each direction. It can be single lanes in each direction. A dual carriageway is defined as having a central reservation separating traffic flowing in opposite directions.

Worrying levels of ignorance about what a dual carriageway is on this thread.

Did all these people actually have driving lessons?

Motor vehicles such as cars, vans lorries etc have brakes and a number of wide tyres making good road contact, and are driven by people with a legal minimum level of eye sight plus a legally required licence and testing process to comply with - which includes hazard perception and the awareness of other road users

If you are driving on a single lane dual carriageway then you must drive in a manner in that you can see as far as you need to react to anything you encounter ahead. (This includes around corners, at the crest of a hill etc)
Equally on a multi lane dual carriageway you cannot rely on the potential to change lane, though it is an alternative to changing speed / stopping

Drivers who are unable to do so are neither safe nor smart and should be banned from driving

Why?

I agree.

I missed my exit on a local dual carriageway once because as I came round the bend to the exit there were 5 cyclists, trundling along, spread out in a nice long line, completely blocking it. There was absolutely nothing I could do, I had to keep going another 8 miles to the next exit before I could turn round.

Don’t think OP knows what a dual carriageway is.

So knowing you were coming up to an exit on the left, you were coming along in the overtaking lane and couldnt come over to the left hand side because of cyclists

Thats terrible driving, you were clearly in the wrong lane going too fast.

I’m a 53 year old driver, so I’ve certainly had driving lessons, albeit a long time ago, and I never knew that a dual carriageway could have one lane. Possibly I knew back then but this is before the times of having a written exam, you were just asked a handful of questions about the Highway Code. Where I learned to drive they were all 2 lanes.
Not knowing this, however, has not impacted by ability to be safe driver.

I'm sorry what? Where did I say I was in the overtaking lane? Or are you one of those posters who just waits for someone to say something you can leap on and deliberately misconstrue because you're angry about something else that's going on in your life and need a way to vent?

I was at an appropriate speed for preparing to exit, approaching in the left hand lane (I have never in my life approached an exit in the overtaking lane!), and the cyclists were in a long line along the outside left hand edge of the lane thus making it impossible to exit. They weren't in the middle of the lane, they were right at the edge (like where they'd be if there was a cycle lane, but there wasn't a cycle lane!). The only way I could have done it was by nipping between two of them, but as I hadn't been able to see them for more than a few seconds I wasn't confident that would be safe as I hadn't had time to judge their speed properly. I definitely wouldn't have nipped between two cars in a similar situation, and I was taught to give cyclists the same room as a car. I couldn't slow down enough to wait for them to clear the exit because you know...dual carriageway, fast traffic etc. I can draw a diagram for you if it would help?

I couldn't see them until I was almost on top of them because there's a gentle bend to the left in the road at that point. You can't see the exit until you're pretty much there. Perhaps that's poor road design, idk, but I can't be held responsible for that.

60mph is the limit not the target. All road users should adapt their speed and driving according to the road, weather conditions and amount of traffic. So, driversxshould be aware of cyclists and vice versa.
You clearly have an issue with cyclists; which roads should they be allowed on? Because I don't want them on the footpaapth thanks very much.

I really hope people that are championing to have bike lanes on a dual carriageway arnt drivers! What an odd response, I think speed on a dual carriageway is the concern. Cars are going too fast which makes it unsafe for cyclists. Sure you can time overtaking another motorist going at 60mph - but we all know that slow moving vehicles become dangerous on dual carriageways and motorways. It leaves very little time to react and we shouldn’t put drivers in positions where they need to constantly use the emergency break!

There are a few dual carriageways near me and there are actually bike lanes on the pavement. If there isn’t a pavement I would expect a cyclists to find another safe route. That’s what I do.

Because there are no rules for cyclists (I am both a cyclists and a driver) it means that cyclists are doing whatever they want - which can be both dangerous for them and drivers. As drivers we have rules and we do our very best to follow them, but us and cyclists coexisting works on roads where we are going at similar speeds - 20-30 mph roads. I think you me neighbourhood should lobby for a cyclist lane on the pavement of the dual carriage away.

Eerm, that's the definition of a dual carriageway. Two lanes on each side....

Oh dear, it is not!!

As I said, I wonder how many driving lessons people have had

Actually 70mph is the limit for cars on a standard two lane dual carriageway.

If cars are driving too fast for the conditions and other road users that's the car driver's fault, not the cyclist. If a car can't safely overtake a cyclist how does it have space to overtake a lorry?

The A12 in Essex and A14 in Suffolk has two lanes in places but hell would freeze over before l cycled along there - all those lorries in the slow lane. - they wouldn't necessarily move over. I agree op and l am a cyclist

https://www.drivingtheory4all.co.uk/difference-between-dual-carriageway-and-motorway

Then you simply sit behind them as with any vehicle waiting for your exit, it might have been a tractor or another car turning into the exit, you dont have to go nipping in between them, that would be dangerous

As you came round the bend you saw them and should have slowed right down to sit behind them for your exit.

OP specifically says it was a 60 limit which means its a single lane dual carriagewayd

Although they havent been back

I don’t think it’s very safe either I live close by the A9 which has bits that are dual and bits that are single. Sometimes you get a cyclist with a mile long queue behind them on a single part. There is a cycle path that was put in alongside for much of it. That’s rarely used as it doesn’t get cleaned so gets covered in sticks/ leaves/ debris.

There might not be an alternative or the alternative to get them where they need to go is a lengthy detour. They are almost certainly commuting or travelling somewhere they need to go & not out for a bit of exercise on a dual carriageway.

It's illegal to cycle on a pavement or footpaths so they cannot do that

It's the vehicles that pose a risk to the cyclist & not the cyclists 'behaviour' that results in injuries & fatalities.

It is the driver's responsibility to pass cyclists safely & to be aware of & follow the highway code.

I cycle & horse ride along a short stretch of dual carriageway & believe me I don't do it through choice. There is no alternative as the dual carriageway cuts through the bridleway & quieter roads network.

A dual carriageway doesn’t need to be 2 lanes but the reference to cyclists not being on motorways indicates the OP is referring to multilane.

I have no problem with cyclists riding wherever they like legally. The suggestion they should go on the path would rile others. They can’t win