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!

But there’s two lanes - you can overtake cars easily and safely with enough room on a dual carriageway, it’s nonsense to say there’s no room to overtake bikes. It’s like saying there’s no room to overtake a lorry on a motorway.

Maybe there are not two lanes on this particular dual carriageway.

If that’s the case, passing would be difficult because it would be impossible to move over on the the other side of the road because of the central reservation.

Let’s be real in the uk the vast majority of dual carriageways are two lanes
per side.

Legally you’re supposed to assume cyclists are occupying as much space as a car and treat them the same when/ if overtaking.

A wide disparity of speeds between road users isn’t ideal but it is a shared space. Perhaps the dual carriageway could be made single lane and a cycling lane put in? You could always raise support for this with your local council and councillors if you’re concerned for cyclists?

No they shouldn’t be on the pavement putting pedestrians at risk.

edit: removed ideally ideal 🙄

The bottom line is today's cars and roads do not mix with cyclists. May have done 50 years ago but now there is more traffic, faster cars and also much BIGGER cars.

Until there are cycle lanes everywhere (and I hate how they're being squeezed in) there is no answer other than tolerance and consideration. Which is sadly lacking on both sides IMO

Whereas if cyclists aren't allowed on dual carriageways (most of which do, as you describe, have more than one lane each way even though there's some exceptions) then that still may be busy 60mph roads, with all the motorised vehicles having to wait till they can overtake which is often a lot riskier all round.

@PeppercornAnn not all dual carriageways have two lanes 🙄

This is a car driver issue not a cyclist issue.

The default speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70mph.

I think it's more that many roads aren't really fit for purpose anymore. There are more cars now, they're also bigger and it's much harder than it used to be to find roads where it's safe and practical to cycle on.

So you have too many people sharing the space and it just becomes too dangerous.

A dual carriageway is one where there is a central reservation between the traffic travelling in opposite directions. They don’t necessarily have two lanes in each direction. You can have single lanes dialled .

Simple question. Have the cyclists been provided with an alternative? A route that is no further than the dual carriageway (ie not on endless winding country lanes!) that is as well surfaced as the dual carriageway (ie not on muddy bridleways), is equally separated from pedestrians so you aren’t endlessly dodging out of control dogs and has as few traffic lights / pedestrian crossings as the dual carriageway? If not, then they have no meaningful alternative and will be on a dual carriageway.

I cycle regularly, but my big bugbears are cycle path that are twice the length of the road option, or where you are expected to go off road, or on shared paths with pedestrians who expect you to slow up to pass them. These ‘cycle paths’ are of no use to someone who needs to get from a to b quickly, and therefore the cyclist is forced to use busy roads which is not pleasant for anyone.

There's a short stretch of dual carriage way that I drive every day. Single lane each side and on a B road that goes between B roads. Shame I've already been to do my horse this morning or I'd take a photo. It would blow some people's minds on here

Yep, have to agree.

So much cyclist v car driver, that’s what causes accidents.

Stop the aggression on both sides and things will be better.

Wrong. A dual carriageway has a central reservation. Not necessarily two lanes.

It's not the vehicles or the roads that cause the problems it's the knobheads using them.

Even on this thread there is open aggression and animosity between cyclists and motorists. Goodness knows what happens when they're on the roads

It doesn't matter how old the road is if there is space for 2 cars abreast no matter how tight, there is space to pass a cyclist safely.

What people don't like is that often you have to wait a while for that space to materialise and in the meantime a queue builds behind the cyclist.

But that doesn't cause accidents. It's frustrating but it's not the cause of accidents, the accidents are caused by people overtaking when they shouldn't.

I use this one occasionally. 70mph limit.

But in which case cars simply shouldn't be overtaking cyclists then until they reach a section of road where it's safe to do so? You can't say cyclists cannot use any single lane road 😳

I think it's a mixture of both.

Yes, ultimately it's people who are responsible for their own actions but if you put vulnerable cyclists on a 70mph road with loads of traffic, there are bound to be accidents even if everyone is doing what they're supposed to be.

@Emanresuunknown there are roads where space never materialises unless the cyclist pulls over. And yes, that includes on dual carriageways!

there’s a pavement (always empty, no pedestrians) that they could easily ride on
Cyclists should never use the pavement.
I’m guessing that as a motorist you are annoyed that they are slowing you down but your solution is to put pedestrians at risk - I know you said there aren’t any but there must be, otherwise there wouldn’t be a pavement.

So in which case they still should not be overtaking the cyclist.
Yes their journey will be a lot slower - and that's a separate issue.
But it still remains the case that the accidents are caused by drivers overtaking when it is not safe to do so.
The fact that a safe opportunity to overtake has not arisen doesn't mean that it's ok to overtake unsafely.

@Emanresuunknown I never said otherwise, I'm just trying to point out that lots of roads are totally unsuitable for cars and cyclists to share, even if they're legally allowed to do so.

To be fair. I didn't learn this until my son started driving lessons. We weren't taught the difference.