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!

Cyclists baffle me. I see them everyday, obviously committed with all the gear, expensive bike etc, head down weaving through standstill traffic breathing in diesel and weaving around parked cars and buses.. when just a mile or so away is the start of the stunning peak district, hundreds of miles of practically empty roads through stunning scenery. Why are they cycling round busy A roads instead?

@Sallysoup - to get to work of course - theyre commuting. The Peak District is full of cyclists at the weekend.

I think one of the key takeaways from this thread is that people mean different things when they say dual carriageway!

Round here, the dual carriageway is basically like a motorway but with 2 lanes. In fact, 10 miles up from the junction by my house, there's a junction with a motorway that only has 2 lanes - the only real difference is that that the motorway has motorway rules and the dual carriageway doesn't. The dual carriageway is 2 lanes in each direction, and very fast. It's a major trunk road connecting 2 motorways and imo cycling on it is extremely dangerous.

Obviously not all dual carriageways are like this!

I wont cycle on roads, only cycle trails or paths. The roads, even apparent quiet country lanes have the most awful camber and oftne the edge of the road has been tarmaced so many times that it has a really high drop into vegetation, if your wheel went over there, you would fall off the bike into scratchy thorny hedges.
Then there are roads where you might have a bit of green cycle lane, just painted green but its full of drain covers, rubbish, bits of glass etc etc, again with a sharp camber in some cases
Then there is the concept of 'quiet country lanes' which are usually bendy with 60mph limits, cars come whizzing round corners (as seen in this thread, no one seems to have a concept of slowing down to anticipate pedestrians or horses or bikes), its really dangerous
Obviously Im not in the target market for commuting by bike but I would go on roads more often if they were safer. AT present we have to take our bikes on the bike rack, drive them to a safe spot and then get them out to ride them. Ridiculous. Luckily we have long cycle trails round here.

Using a form of transport costing hundreds of pounds that can weave through jams of polluting vehicles which cost thousands? Hm yes baffling.

My point was it’s not practical for lots of people to cycle, particularly given the U.K. weather. The idea of banning cars so the smug, self-satisfied aren’t I great because I can cycle crowd can have easier access is a ridiculous suggestion.

And I’ll repeat what I said in a previous post, I’m a fan of more/better cycle lanes, but the idea of banning cars in favour of cyclists is ludicrous.

So the knife killed him, not the bike? Ok

At risk of being pedantic, I was responding to the comment that no motorists have ever been killed by a cyclist. This infers the person, not the machine. I know what you mean though, so concede the point.

Cyclists can be difficult to see, especially at night and in bad weather and there is a significant disparity in speed and vunerability between a cyclist and a car.

They should be banned on dual lane roads that don't have pavements and the government should do more to ensure proper pavements/cycle lanes are in place for dual lane roads which are useful to cyclists.

Fortunately most cyclists are too smart to cycle on dual lane roads. Because shouting "it's my right" doesn't do you much good when your body parts are plastered all over the road.

So why are you there and not driving in these beautiful areas?

think about it

I had no idea anyone had suggested banning cars.
Have they?

All sustainable transport should be encouraged and those that use it applauded and not vilified.

All sustainable transport should be encouraged and those that use it applauded and not vilified.

Bus wankers! 😂

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

Ah yes.
I must admit, I read that as banning the cars from the cycle lane.

Low uptake of cycling in the UK has little to do with the weather - do you think that it never rains in the Netherlands or Denmark? It has everything to do with the very real possiblity of being killed by an idiot in an SUV.

Which was almost certainly the intention of the person who wrote it - otherwise what were they planning on doing with the other lane if cars would be banned from that one too?

People mean different things when they misidentify road types.

Carriageways & lanes have physical differences - a barrier or lack of a barrier

As you have noted the only difference between the two roads you referenced is ‘motorway regulations’

Both of those roads are physically ‘dual carriageways’. The motorway has additional regulations

There is also a single carriageway motorway in the UK.
The A38(M) has a total of 7 lanes, with no central barrier between them. Overhead gantry signage indicates which lanes can be used - this allows the central lane to be closed off and then reversed to cater for traffic levels

No SUVs in the Netherlands or Denmark then? 🙄

I'm not sure motonormativity has such a strong hold

603 vehicles per 1,000 people in the U.K., 562 for the Netherlands and 542 for Denmark. Not a dramatic difference.

SUVs, yes. Idiots, less so. Most people in the Netherlands cycle at least occasionally, so they know how to behave when driving. Good infrastructure design helps to reduce the human factors further.

There are SUVs, and there are also cyclist fatalities
However their annual cyclist fatalities are below ours, generally at junctions
In the UK

Cycling is more common, and are less likely to be blamed by the motorist for their presence

Motornormativity is a reference to attitudes. Unlike in the UK, Dutch car drivers don't believe that they own the roads.

Any data to back that up?

Well it's both tbh. As a cyclist it is a huge issue because I don't want to cycle on a major road with traffic doing 60mph, approaching me at speed from behind and seeing me quite last minute. I would far rather have safe and efficient cycle infrastructure that takes me where I want to go, separate from the cars and lorries.

As a driver it's also a huge issue because I want to be a safe driver, I never exceed speed limits, I drive to the conditions etc etc, I respect cyclists and other vulnerable road users and give them space. I don't want to kill anyone. Driving on a road where most of the other traffic is doing 60mph means I will probably be travelling at a similar speed because that is generally appropriate. If a cyclist has to also travel on that road it means that as a car driver are approaching them very quickly from behind and have to slow very quickly or make a quick judgement to overtake. That's rubbish too.

It's not the cyclist's fault and for that reason I wouldn't say a ban is the right solution. But far far better cycle infrastructure is and would benefit both cyclists and drivers (of which I am both).