"Cyclists Prohibited"

esuhl

DaveF327 wrote: »

So the signs must be working well, then!

Either that or it's a bit like the lion-deterrent powder I sprinkled in my garden. I haven't seen a single lion in the garden since, so it must be working well!

Rotor

esuhl wrote: »

Either that or it's a bit like the lion-deterrent powder I sprinkled in my garden. I haven't seen a single lion in the garden since, so it must be working well!

Yes, I'm planning to live forever and it's currently going great.

Tobster86

I've got to say that this, and its proximity to the North York Moors, are literally the only two good things I can say about Middlesbrough, but:

In my opinion that area has a generally very good road network. I know this because I always wanted to leave quickly, and was usually able to. There are plenty of quieter, alternative routes for cyclists than the major trunk roads, which usually flow relatively fast since they have the capacity to.

JP08

Generally, despite the perception, dual carriageways are a safer place to cycle than most A roads. Yes the speeds are higher, but the sight lines for drivers are generally far longer; there is a lane for drivers to overtake in without oncoming traffic; there's no blind bends for oncoming traffic to be on the wrong side of the road of; there's generally a wide shoulder on the road and wide lanes so even overtaking within lane should be less risky; they are more often than not streetlit.

The biggest risk comes from cars entering the dual carriageway from sliproads ...

daivid

JP08 wrote: »

Generally, despite the perception, dual carriageways are a safer place to cycle than most A roads...

I used to share that opinion, but am not so sure any more. 1st I believe the 'surprise' that a cyclist is there is one factor, secondly I think many motorists switch off somewhat on segregated carriageways. Its all to easy to do daft things like watch dvds, read a book, play on ones phone on dual carriageways or simply neglect the need to properly scan ahead for danger. The A roads, at least the ones round me have far to many twists and turns for such behaviour to be feasible, although a few still try no doubt - plenty on phones at least.

brat

JP08 wrote: »

Generally, despite the perception, dual carriageways are a safer place to cycle than most A roads. Yes the speeds are higher, but the sight lines for drivers are generally far longer; there is a lane for drivers to overtake in without oncoming traffic; there's no blind bends for oncoming traffic to be on the wrong side of the road of; there's generally a wide shoulder on the road and wide lanes so even overtaking within lane should be less risky; they are more often than not streetlit.

The biggest risk comes from cars entering the dual carriageway from sliproads ...

Dual carriageways are more dangerous for cyclists. Motorists expect less obstructive hazard on a dual carriageway than a single carriageway. That's the reason why agricultural vehicles not capable of exceeding 25mph need to have an illuminated beacon on a dual carriageway.
I wouldn't cycle on any NSL dual carriageway unless absolutely necessary, they are terrifying places to cycle, especially if there is no road edge line to cycle inside.

Sliproads are extremely dangerous, I agree, and cyclists need to manoeuvre through them very carefully indeed. A friend of mine lost his life at a slip road about 4 years ago now, despite being illuminated like a christmas tree.

JP08

brat wrote: »

Dual carriageways are more dangerous for cyclists.

Do you have any stats to back that up ? - I'm not disagreeing with you, after all, you're in a position to know , but I'd be interested in figures.

wiltsguy_2

have to agree with dual carriageways being dangerous, the speed limit is either 60 or 70 depending on central reservation. Have you ever broke down on a motorway and seen how fast 70mph when your not in the car?

i wouldn't want to cycle with cars passing me at that speed.

Im not a cyclist but it must come down to common sense plus dual carriageways must be prettyy boring as not much scenery etc

JP08

wiltsguy wrote: »

the speed limit is either 60 or 70 depending on central reservation ... i wouldn't want to cycle with cars passing me at that speed.

That speed differential is common to most out of built up area roads in practice (if not in law - too many people like to have a good thrash along some wide but curvy B road !). And the sight lines for spotting the cyclist / the overtaking room (especially if the late spot coincides with someone coming the other way) are generally significantly worse.

... plus dual carriageways must be prettyy boring as not much scenery etc

True, but a) not all cycling is for leisure, and b) sometimes they are simply the best route for a couple of miles between two areas that are scenic / great cycling ...

custardy

DaveF327 wrote: »

If cyclists are prohibited, they won't be there to see the end of the restriction, will they? They should be more concerned to notice the start of the restriction. I'm sure that will be clearly signed.

So the signs must be working well, then!

As you drive along a road. Do you drive up all the slip roads to check the signs?

GingerBob wrote: »

I noticed recently on the A19 (Durham and North Yorks) that "Cyclists Prohibited" notices have appeared on a number slip-roads. What's the legal basis for this? Who, if anyone, has obtained an order - or whatever - to ban cyclists? How are such orders obtained and are they valid?


Interestingly, there are no signs to show where the prohibition ends. Anyone got any info on this sort of (unnecessary) prohibition.