Some people deserve to be taken out of the gene pool !!!!

always_tyred

I don't, been riding 65 years, yadda, dadda

aracer

Not an excusable mistake though. Drivers should learn how to drive better, then they might not make these "mistakes". It is generally possible to avoid killing somebody with a car, it's just that an appalling low standard of driving is seen as acceptable.

If it really was a freakish unusual accident then fair enough, but the implication from the assertion that he's putting himself in danger is that it's anything but, and the danger is simply due to very poor driving standards.

Rich158

So let me get this right, by your assertion most car drivers are poor drivers and therefore to blame for the majority of accidents :shock: :shock: irrespective of the action of the cyclist, who is clearly not to blame no matter how dangerous his actions :roll:

By cycling at 15-20mph on a four lane road with a max speed of 70mph, you are putting other road users at risk irrespective of the standard of driving. There is a reason cycling is illegal on motorways, because the speed differential between a car and a bike is so great, the car drivers have a much smaller time to react to the slow moving bike, and this therefore puts them and all other road users at risk. This has nothing whatsoever to do with bad driving. This doesn't extend purely to bikes, and any vehicle moving significantly slower than the traffic on a motorway is liable to prosecution for careless driving or some other similar offence.

Put it this way how much time do you think you have to react to a small, partially visible cyclist, when the speed differential between you is 50-60mph. Take out thinking time, reaction time etc and before you know where you are you either have a cyclist on your bonnet, or an artic trying to rear end you as you hit the brakes. That's not bad driving as you assert, but a consequence of finding a small, difficult to see, unexpected slow moving object where you would least expect to find it, and exactly why cycling is illegal on motorways.

My assertion is that purely because it is legal to ride on a four lane A road with a max speed of 70mph, it doesn't make it safe or advisable to do so, and if an accident occurs due to you being a slow moving oject on a fast moving road, other people have to deal with the consequences of your poor judgement.

And before anyone berates me for sticking up for drivers, I see just as many examples of bad cycling as bad driving on my daily commute, and in general 90% of other road users don't give me a problem at all. Everyone remembers the one bad driver that cut's then up, but ignores the hundreds of other motorists that pass them by without incident.

Antony_de_H

I don't buy the "speed differential" argument at all. As other people have alreayd tried to point out, it's potentially the same or even more on a single cariageway. If you're cycling at 10mph on a country road, and a driver is doing 60, is that an argument for cyclists not to use single lane roads too?

singlespeedexplosif

If you're cycling at 10mph on a country road, and a driver is doing 60, is that an argument for cyclists not to use single lane roads too?
shhhh. don't let reason get in the way of a groundless rant.

jedster

don't buy the "speed differential" argument at all. As other people have alreayd tried to point out, it's potentially the same or even more on a single cariageway. If you're cycling at 10mph on a country road, and a driver is doing 60, is that an argument for cyclists not to use single lane roads too?

Take the point but I think there is a slight difference. Drivers really don't expect to see cyclists on dual carriage ways - makes them less likely to take account of you. Also most drivers do more than 70mph on dual carriageways - I know that's illegal but that's not much consolation if you are dead!

Personally I avoid roads with a 70 "limit".

J

Rich158

Antony_de_H wrote:

I don't buy the "speed differential" argument at all. As other people have alreayd tried to point out, it's potentially the same or even more on a single cariageway. If you're cycling at 10mph on a country road, and a driver is doing 60, is that an argument for cyclists not to use single lane roads too?

Tbh i don't buy the 60mph argument on country lanes, 99% of cars I encounter in the country lanes are doing no more than 40, maybe 50 tops and give me a wide bearth. However it's reasonable to expect all sorts of slow moving traffic on minor roads, which is perhaps the crux of my argument, you don't expect to find a slow moving cyclist on a road that to all intents and purposes is a motorway, irrespective of it's classification.

btw it's not just a pointless rant but merely my opinion, I'm perfectly entitled to argue my point. If you don't agree with it then fine, we're all entitled to our own opinion.

Antony_de_H

I don't think you have a point at all to be honest. You're arguing that people shouldn't be cycling on a piece of road that they're legally entitled to use. If there's a safety risk that is their decision not yours. If you were driving at a known accident black spot, and happened to be involved in an accident, does that mean it was your fault for being there?

Lots of drivers don't expect to see a cyclist on a dual carriageway. In fact a lot of them are under the impression that it's not legal for cyclists to use any dual carriageway. But as you can see from this thread, cyclists do use them, albeit in small numbers. If more cyclists used them, drivers would no doubt start to expect cyclists and would adjust their behaviour accordingly. So the problem is one of ignorance on the part of drivers, coupled with the fact that cyclists don't want to use these pieces of road because they are frequented by people with the same attitude as you!

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

Antony_de_H wrote:

I don't buy the "speed differential" argument at all. As other people have alreayd tried to point out, it's potentially the same or even more on a single cariageway. If you're cycling at 10mph on a country road, and a driver is doing 60, is that an argument for cyclists not to use single lane roads too?

Tbh i don't buy the 60mph argument on country lanes, 99% of cars I encounter in the country lanes are doing no more than 40, maybe 50 tops and give me a wide bearth. However it's reasonable to expect all sorts of slow moving traffic on minor roads, which is perhaps the crux of my argument, you don't expect to find a slow moving cyclist on a road that to all intents and purposes is a motorway, irrespective of it's classification.

btw it's not just a pointless rant but merely my opinion, I'm perfectly entitled to argue my point. If you don't agree with it then fine, we're all entitled to our own opinion.

I don't know what country roads you cycle on, but the speeds I've experienced can be anything from 30 to 80, depending on the circumstances.

But you ARE right that the mode of driving on a dual carriageway is different from normal A roads. People don't expect to brake, people don't expect to have to steer, people are more preoccupied with the occupants of the lane next to them.

Its all about expectations.

So, if you can ride on a dual carriageway without causing other road users to put themselves in danger by unexpectedly braking or changing lanes, then its probably safe. You only need a halfway decent shoulder to achieve this, providing you aren't freaked out by articulated lorries hammering past.

passout

Could be worse......

Phil92

nwallace wrote:

The 50/60mph traffic isn't anything different from what you get on country roads.

60 mph Volvo's an inch from your handle bars are just as bad. Even then, on country roads you have blind corners etc. At least on an open road people don't have the cocky confidence some have with their cars and an "open" country road.

Mrs_Ragbrutty

Never met me on a country lane. been pulled, though never done, for speeds in excess of 100mph. Oh and I tend to obey speed limits on major trunk roads.

Now I always consider who or what maybe around the next bend regardless of the road type.

I do not consider the A2 as being off limits to cyclists. I have ridden that road on my mcycle many a time. Can't actually remember the last time I was able to do more than 55 during rush hr though.

Those fol;k that live on country lanes deem them to be dangerous. Fast moving traffic, narrow lanes, heavy traffic - certainly where I live, hills and bends and blind junctions, drivers who will only do 30mph being overtaken by those who want to make progress or speed.

I still feel safer on a dual carriage way with wide lanes than on a narrow country lane. Being passed with inches to spare, no matter what the speed diffrential, is more dangerous than being passed with a couple of feet to spare.

Maybe the real issue is, roads are dangerous because car drivers do not consider cyclists. They know little about the speeds that cyclists can travel at. they know little about the distances we need to brake safely. They know little about the highway code, their legal responsibilities as drivers toward other road users and pedestrians. Too many drivers don't look, don't think, don't care. This is unacceptable.

nwallace

When you change from the M90 to the A90 after the Friatron bridge near Perth there is a nice big sign telling drivers they are now on an All-Purpose Dual Carriage way and there is likely to be slow moving Agricultural vehicles.

Next you will be telling us that it is unsafe for Agricultural vehicles with their 20 mph speed limit to use a Dual Carriageway with a 70mph speed limit because of the speed differential.

singlespeedexplosif

Saw an old person walking this morning, must have been going all of 1mph. Now when I'm walking on the pavement, I don't expect to see slow-moving pedestrians. The speed differential between my 5mph and their 1 is enormous. For their own sake, they should stay off the pavements and keep to the grass verges.

Rich158

Ok, so this has degenrated into an argument regarding dual carriageways. My original point was in relation to a section of road with four lanes, but why let that simple point get in the way of taking the piss :roll:

nwallace, I think you shot your own argument down, there is a sign that alerts drivers to slow moving vehicles, therefore they are considered such a hazard that drivers need to be warned of their presence.

Personally I don't feel safe on dual carriageways and prefer to stick to country roads. That may be due to the fact that I've been riding a road bike for just under a year, having ridden an MTB for years, so I'm not fully aclimatised to traffic passing me at speed. I guess everyone has a different perception of danger, and if you've spent the last 10 years riding on major roads you'll have a different perspective of it to me.

I still stick to my assertion that just because it is legal to ride on a section of road, it doesn't neccesarily make it safe to do so.