Lets blame the Victim again

nmac_2011

Whilst I have sympathy with the loss of a loved one, is this MP actually doing anything to bring about a change in attitude to prevent a future occurrence?

http://road.cc/node/31078

Initialised

Sending totally the wrong message. Think of the CO2 targets you need to get cars off the road not bikes. Nutter.

nation

There doesn't seem to be any other road between Doveridge and Uttoxeter.

The logical thing to do would be to reduce the speed limit.

I've got to say though, most of my near-misses have always been on (usually 30-limit) urban roads. A roads and the like with big roomy lanes are nowhere near as frightening to ride on. The consequences of getting hit are more severe though, I suppose.

Specialized Needs

I find it difficult to see how the MP could react in any other way.

He has been approached by the father of the dead cyclist who has latched onto one thing that he (in my opinion wrongly) thinks might have saved his son. It seems, from the report, that it is the father demanding the ban. The MP has called for an investigation into the safety of the A50, and the involvement of local cycling groups. He also said that he would ask the cycling groups what would make cycling on the A50 safer. What's to deplore?

Obviously, the logical extension to the father's argument is to ban cycling on all roads; then you would never hear of a cyclist dying on any road.

Kieran_Burns

Ummm.... there's a cycle path right next to the A50 between Doveridge and Uttoxeter. I've used it any number of times myself.

You can also cycle on the OLD A50 route which is now a quiet backwater through Sudbury and on through Doveridge to get to it. It's actually one of my favourite routes as it's so quiet.

You leave Foston on the old A50 route again which is now an access road to the farm there and hop onto the pavement, then turn left at the roundabout, then right towards Sudbury.

That stretch of the A50 should really be called the A50M - it's the main M1/M6 link and I would NEVER cycle on it.

I can honestly not see any reason why any would need to cycle on that stretch myself - it's a bloody awful surface as well.

nation

If there is decent alternative provision then my outrage is tepid.

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

I believe there are planning restrictions that go with that "M" though, so that might be why it happens.

rolf_f

You don’t hear about cyclists being killed on the M1 or the M6 because they are banned. Why should the A50 be any different?

Because it isn't a motorway dipwit........ :roll:

Although, ironically I'd have thought that motorways would be about the safest multilane roads to cycle on (assuming you were allowed the hard shoulder).

Still, +1 to what Specialized Needs said. MPs aren't there to determine the best way to run the country. They are there to agree with what the public say and then do what their less intellectually challenged advisors tell them to do. It only goes wrong when they actually do what the public say.......

Specialized Needs

nation wrote:

If there is decent alternative provision then my outrage is tepid.

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

I believe there are planning restrictions that go with that "M" though, so that might be why it happens.

My understanding (which may be poor) is that the A2 around the Dartford/Gravesend area is only not an M road due to opposition by the local farming community (their vehicles would be banned).

nmac_2011

nation wrote:

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

Nail on head.

In the meantime is banning cyclists from them the answer or, given planning permissions/land capacity raised within this thread educating drivers that because a road does not have Motorway status they can expect to come across vulnerable road users ie. cyclists, horse riders & pedestrians & no matter how convenient a short cut it may be you need to drive within the designated status of the road in the first place.

shouldbeinbed

Agree with KB its a motorway in all but name but this Would only be the start as the car centric and misguided do gooders push for bans on safety grounds without enforcement or education for drivers considered too.

Absolving motorists of any need to take responsibility for their actions vs other road users

nmac_2011

Specialized Needs wrote:

What's to deplore?

Obviously, the logical extension to the father's argument is to ban cycling on all roads; then you would never hear of a cyclist dying on any road.

You don't need any help from me to answer your own question do you?

Lets however start with the lack of mentioning by the MP of introducing or enforcing traffic calming measures on the designated A road in question.
A consultation with local cycling groups whilst admirable does not however in my mind negate the " or ban it altogether " statement put forth.

A statement such as " well after consulting with partys local to the scene in question & with acknowledged expert input a decision has been made to apply to the secretary of state for transport to upgrade the road to motorway status." Would however explain a considered necessity as opposed to a knee jerk reaction.

Pedantic as it may seem given the tragic circumstances present it would appear all to easy to to abdicate responsibility by shifting the blame.

Drysuitdiver

nation wrote:

If there is decent alternative provision then my outrage is tepid.

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

I believe there are planning restrictions that go with that "M" though, so that might be why it happens.

its not as easy to classify an A road as a motorway as you think.

there needs to be grade separated junctions for a start, which cost significantly more to construct. ( and are by their nature larger so need more of a land grab )

there are many many other conditions which must be met.

daviesee

nation wrote:

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

I

There is a lot more sense to this than first appears.

I have the horrifying memory of doing a south west tour and finishing off from Swanage to the other side of Southampton. Following the road signs took me onto an "A" road that was 3 lanes wide and that was full of lorries tearing along at (a legitimate) 60 mph. Believe me, you can do 35 mph + on a bike to the next slip road if you have to :shock: There was no warnings and as a stranger to the area I was none the wiser. This was 15 years ago and the roads may have changed since then.

Locals should be aware though and choose appropriate routes IMHO.

Kieran_Burns

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway
2. Point 1 does not in any way abdicate responsibility for being aware of other road users from anyone


Ironically the gentleman killed on the A38 just outside of Burton on Trent recently also cycled on the A50 (I passed him a number of times in my car) and I always worried about his safety.

Which brings me on to: nmac - I'm not sure what traffic calming measures you would think appropriate on a 40 mile stretch of dual carriageway going between the two busiest motorways in the UK.

There are roundabouts along it's length, but it is a VERY fast piece of road. People know this (I've done some highly illegal speeds down there myself) so anyone from the area would know to avoid it on a bike.

I've just gone the full length of the A50 from the M1 to Stoke (in my mind) and there is not one stretch that you cannot use a fast alternative route on a bike. To be absolutely fair it's possibly one of the best provisioned routes you can parallel on a bike without needing to use the actual carriageway at any point.

keyser__soze

Doesn't have to be designated a motorway, merely a Special Road : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_road

Specialized Needs

nmac_2011 wrote:

Specialized Needs wrote:

What's to deplore?

Obviously, the logical extension to the father's argument is to ban cycling on all roads; then you would never hear of a cyclist dying on any road.

You don't need any help from me to answer your own question do you?

I presume you mean my question 'what's to deplore?'.

Perhaps I am being unnecessarily charitable to the MP; however, I recognise that he was in a difficult situation. It is difficult, politically if nothing else (imagine the newspaper headlines), to turn around to the father of a cyclist who has been killed and challenge his views on what regulations might have saved his son. In my opinion it would have been easy for the MP to jump on the 'bandwagon' and agreed with the father.

Of course, the proof will be what happens next. The MP might have been taking the approach you seem to be suggesting and biding his time, so as to be able to propose a ban in what would be presented as a considered necessity after a 'consultation'. (I could point out that it presumably would be just as convenient for him to use the consultation as a basis for moving away from the idea of banning cyclists, without risking his popularity). You appear to be concerned at the MP's, as you see it, unnecessary mention of a ban as a possibility. I put this down to a diplomatic inclusion, given the father's view.

We have differing views on the reported situation. I suggest to you that both of our views are consistent with the account given, and it will be the MP's future actions that will show which, if either, was closest.

nation

Drysuitdiver wrote:

nation wrote:

If there is decent alternative provision then my outrage is tepid.

I do think that the UK needs to be better about classifying A roads that are de facto motorways, as motorways.

I believe there are planning restrictions that go with that "M" though, so that might be why it happens.

its not as easy to classify an A road as a motorway as you think.

there needs to be grade separated junctions for a start, which cost significantly more to construct. ( and are by their nature larger so need more of a land grab )

there are many many other conditions which must be met.

I didn't think it would be easy.

I do think it's a problem that A roads become through gradual expansion, or are originally constructed in a manner, indistinguishable from motorways. It seems that an A-road should be designed in such a way that it can be safely used by all traffic.

Especially if (as in this case) it is the only obvious road between two places.

Kieran_Burns

nation - I have to stress: In this case it most certainly NOT the only obvious road. It really isn't.

Kieran_Burns

Well,
I decided I'd email the MP to (I hope) politely put an alternate point of view across:

Andrew,
I read with interest the following article: http://road.cc/node/31078 where you moot the idea of banning cycles from the A50 between Doveridge and Uttoxeter.

As a keen cyclist and ex-resident of the area who used the cycle path between Doveridge and Uttoxeter reguarly, I agree that there is no need for a cyclist to be on that stretch of road. I also agree that using the available cycle route is a far safer choice. I do however feel that you are trying to fix the wrong problem.

The accident was caused by an inattentive lorry driver, not by a cyclist; and while I applaud your concern for the safety of road users, banning the people at possible risk is the wrong approach.

Your approach parallels the misguided notion that legislating that cyclists wear helmets because it is safer presently being debated in Northern Ireland. Cyclists get injured in accidents with cars; so rather than ensure safer driving you legislate that cyclists wear some expanded polestyrene on their heads. Madness.

Clear punitive measures against people breaking the laws of the road is the correct approach. It seems to me that there is an endemic attitude of discourtesy and lack of consideration at present. The link between action and consequence has been broken. Road traffic laws are not being reguarly enforced; and this clear case of the lorry driver texting while driving shows this.

Have the traffic police clamp down on using Mobile phones while driving. If you were to stand in Parliament and demand that this hugely anti-social and dangerous activity is made as unwelcome as drink driving is: I would publicly applaud you. People continue to flout the law because it is not enforced, the risk of being caught is minimal, so larger fines and greater punishment is not the answer: increasing the perceived risk is. Would it not be a more cost effective use of Police time to catch and punish people using the phone while driving, than chasing a cyclist using a dual-carriageway?

I have to add that I have complete sympathy for the bereaved family of the cyclist and fully understand that they want to see something done; but please fix the real problem: Poor Driving, not innocent cyclists.

In this case and the tragic death of Patrick Kenny, I genuinely feel that they *should* not be on the dual-carriageway, but in both cases it was the actions of the driver not the cyclist that caused the fatality.

You may as well ban ALL cars and ALL lorries from ALL roads as there are far more fatal accidents involving just them. Reductio ad absurdum may well highlight how your argument to ban cycles is incorrect.

Finally, and on a positive note: you could also promote the use of the quiet roads and cycle lanes in the area. I really miss living there as the roads were excellent for cycling and I had a lovely loop from Hatton through to Uttoxeter, past the race track and away. Educating people who wish to cycle to where these truly wonderful roads are would help allow them to choose the FAR safer option when cycling for fun or commuting.

Thank you for your time and I hope this communication is of use and interest.


Yours

Drysuitdiver

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Doesn't have to be designated a motorway, merely a Special Road : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_road

but still needs the grade separated junctions , which the A50 does not have on that section . and other sections for that matter. Toyota factory goods exit /entrance is a good example.

the A38 junction is a great example of grade separated .

tailwindhome

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway

How would this apply to time trials?

nation

Kieran_Burns wrote:

nation - I have to stress: In this case it most certainly NOT the only obvious road. It really isn't.

I appreciate your local knowledge, but looking at the area on a map, if I was planning a route in the area I'd probably plan to use that road.

Maybe we need a better classification system for roads, since the "A" designation seems to apply to an extremely broad range of road types.

I mean, I cycle to work along an A road with two lanes in each direction, a speed limit of 30, and no central reservation. The only thing it has in common with this road is that it's multi-lane.

Kieran_Burns

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway

How would this apply to time trials?

How is that question relevant?

millimole

Kieran_Burns wrote:

nation - I have to stress: In this case it most certainly NOT the only obvious road. It really isn't.

It may or may not be - I can't judge (and can't be a**ed to look at the map) - the problem is the way in which routes for cyclists are signed (very local destinations, or not at all) or mapped (badly or not at all).

Before we head down the French route of banning bicycles from great sections of our 'motor roads' we need to have adequate alternatives. By adequate I mean direct, safe and usable by all classes of cyclist.

There are some local 'A' roads that terrify me, but they do not include the psuedo-motorways. And like another poster my worst experiences have not been on these types of roads, they have been on urban streets and, for me, in country lanes.

El Gordo

nation wrote:

Maybe we need a better classification system for roads, since the "A" designation seems to apply to an extremely broad range of road types.

I mean, I cycle to work along an A road with two lanes in each direction, a speed limit of 30, and no central reservation. The only thing it has in common with this road is that it's multi-lane.

I'd agree with that. Even some non-urban dual carriageway A-roads are absolutely safe to ride on. The A50 at Uttoxeter is most certainly not, nor is the A38 at Burton or the A52 from Derby to Nottingham. I've seen cyclists on all of them at rush hour and it is incredibly dangerous for everyone concerned. I'd happily see cyclists banned from roads like this (decent alternatives exist). The problem is though, who makes that judgement? What I consider 'safe' someone else certainly wouldn't and vice versa.

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway

How would this apply to time trials?

How is that question relevant?

Coz that's where a large number of time trials are held. By their nature, time trials need straightish flatish roads without lots of junctions, crossings and so on, which tends to lead them towards rural dual carriageways.

rhext

Reading the article.....

"...discuss......with local cycling groups"

"...tie in with cycle paths"

...the MP has a proposal, he wants to discuss it with local cycling groups and is prepared to explore ways in which the problem of 'how to get from here to there quickly and easily on a bike' can be resolved without having to share road space with cars and trucks driving at 80MPH+. Can't see what's wrong with that myself.

Seems to me that there are some places where it's desirable to have roads capable of taking very large numbers of vehicles at very high speeds, and to be frank I don't think that cycles have any place on those roads. I do think that local authorities ought to have a responsibility to make suitable (and I mean suitable) alternative arrangements available.

I know these roads well and they're simply not suitable for cycles. I'd not even consider cycling on them: like Kieran_burns, I'd be on the perfectly acceptable local roads or possibly the segregated cycle paths which already run uninterrupted for miles along these routes. It happens that the lorry driver who hit this poor chap was using his mobile....but to draw the conclusion that cyclists on these roads are only at risk from people who are driving recklessly is nonsense.

tailwindhome

Kieran_Burns wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway

How would this apply to time trials?

How is that question relevant?

FIrstly I misread/ only half read your post and thought you were saying what the law should be rather than just your own opinion on what cyclists should do.

I realised this just before I posted and couldn't be bother rewording/deleting.

The relevance is that clubs throughout Britain run time trial events along busy dual carraigeways....should they stop doing that or be banned from doing it?

This may be of no relevance but I've a cold and don't care

daviesee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Just to clarify my position:

1. A cyclist (for safeties sake only) should not cycle on a non urban dual carriageway

How would this apply to time trials?

How is that question relevant?

I would imagine along the lines of the A92.

A double carriageway that is legitimate to cycle on and used for time trials but I wouldn't dare using it on the bike. It can be dangerous enough in the car.

Kieran_Burns

The MP is unable to directly respond to my email as I am not in his constituency but his assistant did respond very quickly; and mentioned a relevant point of fact to one of my questions:

I mentioned that I am very much in favour of stricter enforcement of existing laws by the Police rather than banning the innocent 3rd parties. This is in relation to the lack of perceived risk when using a mobile phone (don't increase the fines, just apply them more readily)

The assistant made it very clear to me that the MP spoke directly to Police about this and stressed the very same thing. He also stressed that the MP's primary concern is cyclist safety.

Make of that what you will, I'm repeated what was communicated to me.

hmbadger

Rolf F wrote:

You don’t hear about cyclists being killed on the M1 or the M6 because they are banned. Why should the A50 be any different?

Because it isn't a motorway dipwit........ :roll:

Although, ironically I'd have thought that motorways would be about the safest multilane roads to cycle on (assuming you were allowed the hard shoulder).

Still, +1 to what Specialized Needs said. MPs aren't there to determine the best way to run the country. They are there to agree with what the public say and then do what their less intellectually challenged advisors tell them to do. It only goes wrong when they actually do what the public say.......

I think that cycling on the hard shoulder of a motorway would be incredibly dangerous. You're strongly advised to get out of your car to somewhere safer if you end up sat on the hard shoulder.