Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
cars.

My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them use
their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside fast moving
cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such roads even without
a ban.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote in message
news:33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net...

> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

There is a pseudo-ban on the A3 .... I'm not going anywhere near it .. not
even on the cyclepaths.

Epetruk wrote:
> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
> the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
> cars.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>

Why ? If one considers the route too dangerous one doesn't have to use
it. Are you seeing this from a bikes shouldn't inconvenience drivers
point of view ? Ban the bikes so drivers have less to worry about. You'd
have to ban agricultural vehicles and small motorcycles and pedestrians
too. Those farmers know a thing about protests.


> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them use
> their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside fast moving
> cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such roads even without
> a ban.
>
> --
> Akin
>
> aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
>

At times when cycling on i-70 in the USA i felt safer than on roads
which were not motorways. Only if we could use the hard shoulder though.

"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote in message
news:33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net...
>I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
> the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
> cars.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

Country roads have speed limits of 60 mph with single carriageways and blind
bends with little room for traffic behind to overtake. I commute on a dual
carriageway docks road and there is plenty of room for the traffic behind to
pass me, so the speed of vehicles to my rear has little to do with safety.

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Epetruk composed the following ...
> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing
> that the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast
> moving cars.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>
> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them use
> their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside fast
> moving cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such roads
> even without a ban.

Why ban anything?

Negative waves, man, negative waves.

If you don't want to ride on a road, don't. Pretty simple really.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ... ;)
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Simon Mason wrote:
> "Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote in message
> news:33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net...
>> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm
>> guessing that the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being
>> injured by fast moving cars.
>>
>> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
>> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway
>> roads where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often
>> exceeded - examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>
> Country roads have speed limits of 60 mph with single carriageways
> and blind bends with little room for traffic behind to overtake. I
> commute on a dual carriageway docks road and there is plenty of room
> for the traffic behind to pass me, so the speed of vehicles to my
> rear has little to do with safety.

Oh dear - it seems the point I was trying to make is not being understood.

My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
/inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic roads.
Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists from motorways.

"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote in message n
>
> Oh dear - it seems the point I was trying to make is not being understood.
>
> My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
> /inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic
> roads.
> Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists from motorways.

I can see what you mean. For example, the A1 has several sections where it
becomes the A1(M). You can cycle on the A1, but not the A1(M) and there is
no discernable difference, except the signs are blue and there may be an
extra lane.

Dunno mate, it's like a lot of things in this country. Someone writes a bit
of paper saying you can or can't do this or that - and that's it!

I wouldn't cycle on the A1 anyway, so I won't lose much sleep over it ;-)

--
Simon M.

Epetruk wrote:
> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm
> guessing that the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being
> injured by fast moving cars.

The main intent is to increase convenience for motorists. They can drive
faster and less carefully if they don't have to watch out for cyclists.

> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway
> roads where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often
> exceeded - examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>
> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them
> use their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside
> fast moving cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such
> roads even without a ban.

I'd rather have that if we have to have one of your two options.... but we
don't. However, cycles are already banned from bits of /some/ A roads,
sadly.

I find certain short stretches pseudomotorways convenient to cycle on and
even fun sometimes.

~PB

Simon Mason wrote:

> I wouldn't cycle on the A1 anyway, so I won't lose much sleep over it ;-)

It's quite nice just south of Alnwick...

"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote:

> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm
> guessing that the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being
> injured by fast moving cars.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway
> roads where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often
> exceeded - examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>
> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them
> use their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside
> fast moving cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such
> roads even without a ban.

I don't mind cycling on the "traditional" style of d/c where you have a
hedge and curb, and then two traffic lanes (eg parts of the A38 in
somerset), but I'm not so keen on using the "new style" d/c roads where you
get a sort of mini hard shoulder which is covered in glass, manholes and
cat's eyes, as it's almost like having a stealth cycle lane, and obviously a
true motorway is an even worse example with their hard shoulders strewn with
parts of cars and large amounts of glass and shcrapnel.

Epetruk wrote:

> My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
> /inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic
> roads. Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists
> from motorways.

Is your "problem" anything more than an academic one? Does it really
matter if regulations are inconsistent if they happen to suit us?

~PB

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> I don't mind cycling on the "traditional" style of d/c where you have a
> hedge and curb, and then two traffic lanes (eg parts of the A38 in
> somerset), but I'm not so keen on using the "new style" d/c roads where you
> get a sort of mini hard shoulder which is covered in glass, manholes and
> cat's eyes, as it's almost like having a stealth cycle lane, and obviously a
> true motorway is an even worse example with their hard shoulders strewn with
> parts of cars and large amounts of glass and shcrapnel.
>
>
I think the A12 through Essex is probably the 9th circle of hell for
cyclists as far as legal roads go. The older, "traditional" d/c parts
are more like a racetrack than a road, with traffic whistling past the
front doors of houses, shops and pubs at a legal limit of 70mph (which
obviously means 85mph to most drivers, because the law doesn't actually
apply to them). And that's just on a Sunday.

Epetruk wrote:
> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
> the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
> cars.

Nothing in transport policy is done for the benefit of cyclists, unless
by accident. The ban is for the benefit of motorists, who are spared the
inconvenience of either swerving around the cyclists or wiping the
remains off their vehicles.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

Motorways were a new phenomenon and it was not difficult to create new
rules for them. Other roads, even A roads, have a long history and
various rights associated with them. It would be contentious to remove
the established rights of a class of road users; although some A roads
have been re-classified as motorway (e.g. the A1(M)) to achieve this result.
>
> Or alternatively, lift the ban on cyclists on motorways and let them use
> their discretion and decide whether they want to ride alongside fast moving
> cars. I'm sure most cyclists would happily stay off such roads even without
> a ban.

Indeed. But vehicle drivers would resent their privileges being infringed.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

The message <33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net>
from "Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> contains these words:

why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that for a road to be
classified as a motorway there must be a practical alternative route for
non-motorway traffic meaning cycles (and learners, mopeds, tractors
etc.) can still get where they are going. Often this means leaving the
original road (eg A40, A4) and constructing a new motorway from scratch.
So it is cheaper and easier to create pseudomotorways (A34?) than to
offer a choice of comparable distance motorway and non-motorway routes
between the same A and B.

Nik

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Epetruk wrote:
>
>> My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
>> /inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic
>> roads. Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists
>> from motorways.
>
> Is your "problem" anything more than an academic one? Does it really
> matter if regulations are inconsistent if they happen to suit us?

Yep - just academic.

I wouldn't be entirely happy with an inconsistent law even if it suited me -
the mere fact of the inconsistency would make me wonder how long such a
condition would remain.

nik wrote:
> The message <33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net>
> from "Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> contains these words:
>
> why not extend the ban to
>
>>pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
>>where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
>>examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)
>
>
> My understanding (which may be wrong) is that for a road to be
> classified as a motorway there must be a practical alternative route for
> non-motorway traffic meaning cycles (and learners, mopeds, tractors
> etc.) can still get where they are going. Often this means leaving the
> original road (eg A40, A4) and constructing a new motorway from scratch.
> So it is cheaper and easier to create pseudomotorways (A34?) than to
> offer a choice of comparable distance motorway and non-motorway routes
> between the same A and B.
>
> Nik
Thats my understanding too, here in Yorkshire they are building new
parts of the A1M rather than simply modifing the A1, the old road
remains in most places as an alternative. I am thinking of the part near
Boroughbridge.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:56:53 -0000, "Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com>
wrote in message <33gd10F40hh3aU1@individual.net>:

>I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
>the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
>cars.

Motorways are restricted roads closed to a variety of slower-moving
traffic including horses, low-power motorcycles and learners. They
are generally designed and built as restricted roads. This is done
almost entirely for the benefit of car drivers.

>My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
>pseudomotorways?

Because that would mean removing the right of way from a number of
road users, as opposed to the case with motorways, where those users
never had the right to use them in the first place. I have no doubt
that car drivers would like to exclude lots of other traffic from
these roads as well. My understanding of the average car driver is
that they would prefer all other traffic (especially other car
drivers) to be excluded by law...

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Epetruk wrote:

> I know that cyclists are forbidden to cycle on motorways. I'm guessing that
> the intent here is to prevent cyclists from being injured by fast moving
> cars.
>
> My thinking is, if this is the case, why not extend the ban to
> pseudomotorways? (I define a pseudomotorway as a dual carriageway roads
> where the speed limit is 50-60mph but in reality is often exceeded -
> examples in London are the A13 and parts of the A3.)

Because there is sometimes no decent alternative route for non-motorway
traffic (including, but not limited to, bicycles).

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Epetruk wrote:


> Oh dear - it seems the point I was trying to make is not being understood.
>
> My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
> /inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic roads.
> Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists from motorways.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, if it is drawn at all. Personally, I
would have no particular problem with cyclists being allowed to cycle on
motorways, I find it hard to believe that roads which are generally
britain's safest would uddenly turn into death traps if bikes were
allowed. Junctions would require some thinking about, but at least they
are generally a long way apart. 20 miles on an empty hard shoulder with
a mile of visibility can hardly be especially hazardous.

By their nature, MWays have an alternative route for non-MWay traffic.
Many major A-roads do not.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

In message <OAednbhLGZFym07cSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk>, Simon Mason
<simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote in message n
>>
>> Oh dear - it seems the point I was trying to make is not being understood.
>>
>> My problem isn't with cyclists riding on pseudomotorways - it's the
>> /inconsistency/ of the regulation of cyclists riding on fast-traffic
>> roads.
>> Note where I suggest the alternative of unbanning cyclists from motorways.
>
>I can see what you mean. For example, the A1 has several sections where it
>becomes the A1(M). You can cycle on the A1, but not the A1(M) and there is
>no discernable difference, except the signs are blue and there may be an
>extra lane.
>
>Dunno mate, it's like a lot of things in this country. Someone writes a bit
>of paper saying you can or can't do this or that - and that's it!
>
>I wouldn't cycle on the A1 anyway, so I won't lose much sleep over it ;-)
>
>--
> Simon M.
>
>

I dunno.
I was cycling up and down the _fast_ lane of the A1 on Monday.
Perfectly safe.




























OK this was the bit just north of Wetherby. A new 6 lane A1M section,
200 yards over there >>>>>, opened last week.
The old road will eventually be converted to a single carriageway local
access road, but just now each direction is coned down to a single lane,
and sees maybe one vehicle every 2-3 minutes.
I rode down on the wrong side of the cones (i.e. in the old fast lane),
just for the very novel experience.

--
steve