"Cyclists Prohibited"

esuhl

boliston wrote: »

Otherwise if your own home was on a trunk road (remember that many truck roads are still just ordinary single carriageway roads) you could have the unusual situation where the only legal way to leave or return to your own home would be by car!

Argh! That reminds me of my time travelling the country as a hardware engineer. Dodgy hotels were one thing... but there was nothing more depressing than being dropped off at a motorway Travelodge at 6pm, and left without a car to enjoy... a Little Chef (with a two-drink-limit-even-if-you're-ordering-food), a pleasant stroll round the car park and an early night... No bar, and not even a receptionist to talk to... just a phone on a wall.

Richard53

esuhl wrote: »

Argh! That reminds me of my time travelling the country as a hardware engineer. Dodgy hotels were one thing... but there was nothing more depressing than being dropped off at a motorway Travelodge at 6pm, and left without a car to enjoy... a Little Chef (with a two-drink-limit-even-if-you're-ordering-food), a pleasant stroll round the car park and an early night... No bar, and not even a receptionist to talk to... just a phone on a wall.

Oh, don't remind me. This post has made me so depressed! I spent a few years in that scenario, thankfully only for a few days at a time, and it's the closest I have come to topping myself. The lowest point came when Little Chef were offering a free newspaper with breakfast, so I took it with some excitement (amazing how important little things can be when you are desperate) but the paper appeared on the bill - and my manager made me resubmit my expenses *without* the newspaper included. I left that company soon afterwards, but I will never forget the sheer miserableness of having to spend a night in a chain hotel without transport. (I had a pool car, but the company was very strict on mileage, and all cars were GPS tracked. No option for even a few personal miles. Jeez.)


Sorry, way OT, but I had to unload.

Oldfatgrumpy

Not knowing the road which is the subject of this thread, does the banning of cyclists cover every possible access to the road? Otherwise, if you start cycling on the road from before the non-accessible slip roads, could you end up cycling along the banned stretch of road and never know you shouldn't be there?

Johno100

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

Not knowing the road which is the subject of this thread, does the banning of cyclists cover every possible access to the road? Otherwise, if you start cycling on the road from before the non-accessible slip roads, could you end up cycling along the banned stretch of road and never know you shouldn't be there?

Well if it is signed correctly then there should be signage along the lines of "cycling prohibited from this point onwards, please leave at the next junction on your left". From what I can gather we are talking about what is to all intents and purposes a motorway, so it is not like you are going to have minor roads and farm tracks every few hundred yards that require signage.

brat

I've taken a few cyclists off the hard shoulder of the motorway before. Only one of the dozen or so I've removed were British.

I'm sure anyone found cycling on this dc would be sympathetically dealt with if they didn't realise their mistake.

One of the arterial routes through our county is a cycle unfriendly D/C. It's an ideal commuter route and some cyclists choose to brave it, because the 20 mile route which might take one hour to commute would be a 29 mile two hour hilly commute on the rural alternative.

Marco_Panettone

If only there was the space to build protected cycle paths alongside. Oh...

GingerBob_3

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

Not knowing the road which is the subject of this thread, does the banning of cyclists cover every possible access to the road? Otherwise, if you start cycling on the road from before the non-accessible slip roads, could you end up cycling along the banned stretch of road and never know you shouldn't be there?

I started this thread, so maybe I can clarify some detail in the light of further observations on my part:


There are indeed signs on the A19 itself prohibiting cyclists from entering the "banned" stretch, so signage does appear to be complete and correct (my original thought was that signs on the road itself, rather than the slip roads, were not in place).


Maybe I could just re-iterate the main point of my original argument. Yes, the A19 is a dangerous road for cyclists, as are most dual carriageways and major roads without specific accommodation for cyclists, but where does this banning process stop? I see this as the thin end of the wedge. Increasingly, orders will be placed banning cyclists from ever more roads until such time as they are banned from most major roads .... or am I being too pessimistic?

Marco_Panettone

GingerBob wrote: »

I started this thread, so maybe I can clarify some detail in the light of further observations on my part:


There are indeed signs on the A19 itself prohibiting cyclists from entering the "banned" stretch, so signage does appear to be complete and correct (my original thought was that signs on the road itself, rather than the slip roads, were not in place).


Maybe I could just re-iterate the main point of my original argument. Yes, the A19 is a dangerous road for cyclists, as are most dual carriageways and major roads without specific accommodation for cyclists, but where does this banning process stop? I see this as the thin end of the wedge. Increasingly, orders will be placed banning cyclists from ever more roads until such time as they are banned from most major roads .... or am I being too pessimistic?

You're being pessimistic, although people on bikes are de facto banned from these roads already. What is needed is high quality separate cycling infrastructure to provide an alternative that's more attractive than staying (or straying) onto these types of roads. Sadly we're regularly told that all our roads were built during the middle ages so there can't possibly enough space for bikes. Cars, buses and HGVs all take up much less space than bikes do...

alderpoint

GingerBob wrote: »

, but where does this banning process stop? I see this as the thin end of the wedge. Increasingly, orders will be placed banning cyclists from ever more roads until such time as they are banned from most major roads .... or am I being too pessimistic?

There is a major dual carriageway near here which has three-lanes in each direction, white lines at the edge of the road, grade-separated junctions and a number of parking laybys. I have cycled on it in the past, as it is a quick flat route rather then the alternative minor road which has some small hills and is a bit further.

About 10 years ago, there was a fatal cyclist accident on this road, and subsequently blue "Not recommended for cyclists" information signs were installed together with a signposted alternative route (the minor road I've already mentioned). You do still see some cyclists on it occasionally - usually a old bloke on a sit-up-and-bag - but there haven't been any proposals to actually implement a ban.

Richard53

alderpoint wrote: »

About 10 years ago, there was a fatal cyclist accident on this road, and subsequently blue "Not recommended for cyclists" information signs were installed together with a signposted alternative route (the minor road I've already mentioned).

I wonder, if you rode on this section and were hit by a car, if the 'not recommended' sign would count against you in any court case? "M'Lud, the plaintiff was clearly the author of his own misfortune, as he deliberately and recklessly ignored a sign put there by the authorities which was plainly intended to protect him from this kind of incident. I move the case be dismissed."