Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways

MSeries

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.

Just zis Guy, you know?

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

James Annan

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/

James Annan

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/

Steven Briggs

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

Steven Briggs

In message <33gn1kF4023rcU1@individual.net>, MSeries
<skankmartin@hotmail.com> writes
>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.

Indeed. I often ride that bit of the ex-A1. Quite like it really.
The traffic does tend to be fast (70+ not unusual due to the generally
straight alignment & wide carriageway), but there's not much of it,
often a couple of minutes between vehicles.
In several years time it should be possible to get from Scotch Corner to
Bramham (40-50 miles?) uninterrupted on the ex-A1 "local access road".
100 mile time-trial anyone ?
--
steve

JLB

James Annan wrote:
> 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.

I once needed to get from the middle of Dublin to Dublin Airport early
on a Sunday morning. Could I hell find that alternative non-motorway
route (it does exist, but for some reason it was particularly well
hidden on this occasion). Every damned sign led to to the bloody
motorway. So I cycled to the airport along the hard shoulder of the
motorway. Got there, too, and was not arrested.

Had a similar experience once at Heathrow; could not find an alternative
to that horrible tunnel that all the motorised traffic off the M4 uses.
Head down, keep the speed up, it'll be ok...

Why are cyclists presumed to be almost psychic when it comes to working
out the appropriate non-motorway route?

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

Andy Morris

JLB wrote:
>
> Why are cyclists presumed to be almost psychic when it comes to
> working out the appropriate non-motorway route?
>

If they were signposted, lots of traffic would use it instead of the
motorway when the m-way got jammed.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

Peter Headland

There are sections of motorway local to me (I280, San Mateo county,
south of San Francisco) that may be used legally by cyclists. This is
the result of vigorous lobbying by the (extraordinarily numerous) local
riders. The permitted sections never span junctions - you have to go on
at one junction and leave at the next. Their raison d'etre is that no
reasonable alternative routes exist.

I have ridden these sections on occasion. There really is no problem -
the shoulder is plenty wide enough to avoid the slipstreams of large
lorries. The only nasty bits are the exit slip-roads - these are
narrow, have kerbs, and people leaving the highway are generally still
travelling at nearly 70mph. However, I have not heard of any cyclists
being hit on these slip roads this past 4 years (since I have been
living here), so I assume the risk is more imagined than real.
--
Peter Headland

Pete Biggs

Peter Headland wrote:
> .......There really is no problem -
> the shoulder is plenty wide enough to avoid the slipstreams of large
> lorries.........

But is it clean enough to avoid punctures?

~PB

Kit Wolf

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, 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.

AIUI one of the major dangers when there's fast traffic about is that you
can be sucked under HGVs. IIRC Bicycling Science (Wilson, MIT press 2004)
says that a lorry passing close can have the same effect as a 25N shove,
which is quite a lot.

Another risk is being hit by vehicles entering or joining the roads via
the sliproads. On the local (Newcastle) dual carriageways, the cycle-lanes
cross the sliproads at 90 degrees (cyclists give way).

> 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.)

I have no idea what the real reasons are... HGVs and buses have lower
speed limits on these roads than they do on motorways. Consequently the
suction effect is considerably less. There are so many of them that it
would be a real inconvenience not to be able to cycle on dual-carriageways
- at least for the occasional short stretch - but not being able to cycle
on motorways doesn't really bother me.

> 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.

It's both rare and (generally) fatal for cyclists to be hit by cars from
behind; they say you should always get out of your car if you have to stop
on the hard shoulder, as you're very likely to be hit by someone who is
daydreaming that the shoulder is the slow lane. To me, it _feels_ safer to
cycle on dual carriageways than on most A-roads and some B-roads, where
visibility is poor and people seem to feel pressured to overtake at daft
places. But I worry that drivers may be less alert on the bigger roads.

Kit

>
> --
> Akin
>
> aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
>
>
>
>
>

Peter Headland

There are sections of motorway local to me (I280, San Mateo county,
south of San Francisco) that may be used legally by cyclists. This is
the result of vigorous lobbying by the (extraordinarily numerous) local
riders. The permitted sections never span junctions - you have to go on
at one junction and leave at the next. Their raison d'etre is that no
reasonable alternative routes exist.

I have ridden these sections on occasion. There really is no problem -
the shoulder is plenty wide enough to avoid the slipstreams of large
lorries. The only nasty bits are the exit slip-roads - these are
narrow, have kerbs, and people leaving the highway are generally still
travelling at nearly 70mph. However, I have not heard of any cyclists
being hit on these slip roads this past 4 years (since I have been
living here), so I assume the risk is more imagined than real.
--
Peter Headland

mark

"Peter Headland" wrote...
> There are sections of motorway local to me (I280, San Mateo county,
> south of San Francisco) that may be used legally by cyclists. This is
> the result of vigorous lobbying by the (extraordinarily numerous) local
> riders. The permitted sections never span junctions - you have to go on
> at one junction and leave at the next. Their raison d'etre is that no
> reasonable alternative routes exist.
>
> I have ridden these sections on occasion. There really is no problem -
> the shoulder is plenty wide enough to avoid the slipstreams of large
> lorries. The only nasty bits are the exit slip-roads - these are
> narrow, have kerbs, and people leaving the highway are generally still
> travelling at nearly 70mph. However, I have not heard of any cyclists
> being hit on these slip roads this past 4 years (since I have been
> living here), so I assume the risk is more imagined than real.
> --
> Peter Headland
>

Quite a few of the western American states permit cycling on rural
Interstate highways (motorways), and I've taken to using a short stretch of
Interstate 70 to cycle to work when I'm in a hurry or conditions on my
normal route are unsafe. In many parts of the American west, the Interstate
Highways are the only paved roads around for quite a few miles, which is why
cycling is permitted on these roads. It is standard practice to exit and
re-enter at each junction, and cycling is not permitted at interchanges
between two Interstates or in urban areas.

My own observation is that American Interstates are more likely to have
wide, paved shoulders than are motorways or their continental European
equivalents. This alone would make cycling on an American Interstate much
safer than cycling on a British motorway.
--
mark

Pete Biggs

Kit Wolf wrote:
> AIUI one of the major dangers when there's fast traffic about is that
> you can be sucked under HGVs. IIRC Bicycling Science (Wilson, MIT
> press 2004) says that a lorry passing close can have the same effect
> as a 25N shove, which is quite a lot.

The largest lorries travelling 60 mph, and vans going faster, have passed
me close many times, and they rarely go much faster than that anywhere.
It is enough to wobble the front wheel but it's not enough for any
competent cyclist to loose control or be sucked under. You just steer
into the draft or against the "shove". It's never been a major concern of
mine. The driver not seeing me is!

> Another risk is being hit by vehicles entering or joining the roads via
> the sliproads. On the local (Newcastle) dual carriageways, the
> cycle-lanes cross the sliproads at 90 degrees (cyclists give way).

Sliproads can be nasty, especially where there are many lanes, but at
least you can always turn off and rejoin at every junction.

~PB