Forum home Road cycling forum Amateur race

TT A46 Dual Carriageway WTF?

24

Posts

  • DavidJBDavidJB Posts: 2,019
    Pretty sure you're the one looking silly here.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Imposter wrote:
    What does it cost? Before you disregard it as an option,if it makes sense, then why not? If it's prohibitively expensive, then maybe not.

    I guess it varies, but my 'local' race circuit can be hired for the day for around £1500. So yes, it is prohibitively expensive. As someone pointed out earlier, I would rather see driver behaviour change, not rider behaviour. You seem to think different, which is unusual.
    So, assuming £750 for a half day, and 75 riders, that's £10 per rider. This seems reasonable to me, and would require fewer marshalls. What's a normal TT? About £7-8.

    So, by your response, you seem to think that it's all the drivers' fault, which is probably usual for a cyclist.

    the prob here is that there are not that many ccts around the place, MOD land is scarce, motor ccts are used for motor racing and as far as im aware there is maybe a handful of those, compare to the numbers to DC 's?

    yeah it is the car drivers fault, DC's are not m/ways, learner drivers, mopeds and agri machinery can all use them, if a car driver cannot moderate his/her speed to consider a cyclist/tractor then they are at fault.

    you had a bad experience, next time, why not direct your anger at the club involved? and then offer to help put out signage and even marshal at their next event? moaning on here is a complete waste of time, in what is something that really bothers you.
  • There have been organised TT events on open roads for decades. They happen every week up and down the country and We hear of very few casualties or fatalities as a consequence. Yes you get the occasional one but there is no evidence to suggest they are any more dangerous than commuting or club riding on open roads. If anything the nature of TT rides means you get less bunching of riders. So long as drivers and cyclists all adhere to the rules of the road there should be no need to worry. As was previously argued drivers see things last minute. To this I say it's still the drivers fault. Driving too close to the car in front. Lack of awareness and anticipation of traffic etc. Again, even with these supposed problems I hear of very few incidents of injury or deaths put down to riders on Dual carriageways.

    FS24 you do seem to offer no real solution except to say it shouldn't happen. Airfields or racing tracks are not a solution be it costs or geographical. Not every club is located close to either. In fact I would wager very few do or have the resources to pay for them. Plucking figures out of the air to fit an argument is not realistic. £750 pounds is an estimation based on nothing more than guess work, so it participation numbers for any given event. The weekly club 10 will be lucky to get 75 people and they still keep happening week in week out throughout the year with very few incidents. So why not just accept that this is how it is and we will not be forced off the roads due to a few overly concerned or outraged drivers.
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    Driving standards are shocking. How people can drive almost blind a few feet off the car in front is crazy.
    And that's not to mention the ones texting at 70mph on the M6.
  • It is generally agreed that the standard of driving is poor compared to the standard we'd like to see on our roads, and DAs exacerbate these low standards by allowing high speeds with a wide variety of traffic, including tractors and learners. It is also generally agreed that a TT is the 'race of truth' and that competitors are close to their physical limits, particularly at the end of the race. Putting these factors together seems, to me anyway, to be unnecessarily dangerous considering there are alternatives.

    There is no imperative to TT on the road. There is a right to, but no imperative. There is certainly no reason to put tired riders close to speeding drivers that aren't paying attention, and to do so at a time when the traffic density isn't at its lowest is a blatant failure to minimise the risks to competitors, something that the organisers should be doing.

    Assuming we consider that drivers are normal people, acting normally and rationally and not purposely trying to drive like idiots, poor driving standards are the exact reason that TTing on DCs is dangerous and putting the blame on drivers is missing the point. I'm pretty sure that most drivers on the A46 on Saturday thought the riders were selfish and stupid, but I'd argue that the drivers had a better reason to be there.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    poor driving standards are the exact reason that TTing on DCs is dangerous and putting the blame on drivers is missing the point.

    So blaming drivers for poor driving is missing the point?
    I'm pretty sure that most drivers on the A46 on Saturday thought the riders were selfish and stupid, but I'd argue that the drivers had a better reason to be there.

    So you think someone going to visit their nan, or going shopping is a better, more valid use of the A46 than someone riding a TT..?? Get a grip, FFS...
  • Yes, because we're all drivers and we all drive below the standards expected at some point. It's human nature so a sensible organiser would seek to minimise the effect of poor drivers.

    I didn't say 'more valid', I said 'a better reason' because there are safer alternative venues to host a competition than a busy DC.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Yes, because we're all drivers and we all drive below the standards expected at some point. It's human nature so a sensible organiser would seek to minimise the effect of poor drivers.

    I didn't say 'more valid', I said 'a better reason' because there are safer alternative venues to host a competition than a busy DC.

    what "safer venues" ? already been pointed out that traffic free alternatives dont exist.

    is a twisty B road with no clear line of sight, with over taking cars on the wrong side of road and on coming traffic safer?

    Perhaps what is needed is drivers to realise they have to share the road (any road) with pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc etc roads to be policed and to behave a little more responsibly?
    the alternative is that cyclists shouldnt be on the road at all and bad driving is excusable - which tbh seems to be your pov.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 6,807
    I'm pretty sure that on the whole single carriageway courses are safer than dual carriageway - there may be exceptions but it does seem to me a disproportionate amount of the fatalities we have had have been on dual carriageway courses. I don't know if CTT have done a statistical analysis of this at all - you'd think it would be pretty simple if time consuming to look at major incidents per mile ridden on different types of courses.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • supermurph09supermurph09 Posts: 2,471
    I'm pretty sure that on the whole single carriageway courses are safer than dual carriageway - there may be exceptions but it does seem to me a disproportionate amount of the fatalities we have had have been on dual carriageway courses. I don't know if CTT have done a statistical analysis of this at all - you'd think it would be pretty simple if time consuming to look at major incidents per mile ridden on different types of courses.

    It doesn't matter though does it, the CTT don't make people ride on DC's, it's the riders choice. I know plenty of testers that won't ride on DC's because they feel it's too dangerous, that's their choice, there are enough options elsewhere if you feel that way.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,498
    @FineSilver24

    The people who make riding the roads unsafe are the drivers who can't be arsed to look beyond the boot of the vehicle in front - Dual Carriageways or Single Carriageways make no difference - they are stupid drivers who shouldn't have a licence (IMHO!).

    If you believe the signage was inadequate - then please contact the club involved and talk over your concerns with them.
    If you're just ranting because a dual carriageway was used for a Time Trial then get a grip - just because you don't believe it to be safe doesn't mean it isn't. Yes - I said I won't race DCs - I'm not alone in that - but there are plenty of those who do race DCs.
    Around here anyway, Time Trials date, location & times have to be agreed with the local police and local authorities - we can't just decide to hold one on the Axx on Wednesday and off we go - so the organisations with experience of these events are the ones deciding where and when they will be.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 6,807
    I'm pretty sure that on the whole single carriageway courses are safer than dual carriageway - there may be exceptions but it does seem to me a disproportionate amount of the fatalities we have had have been on dual carriageway courses. I don't know if CTT have done a statistical analysis of this at all - you'd think it would be pretty simple if time consuming to look at major incidents per mile ridden on different types of courses.

    It doesn't matter though does it, the CTT don't make people ride on DC's, it's the riders choice. I know plenty of testers that won't ride on DC's because they feel it's too dangerous, that's their choice, there are enough options elsewhere if you feel that way.


    I agree it's the riders' choice but you can't make a real choice without the relevant information. There is a simple way to provide riders with that information and given we are talking about human life I would say it does matter.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • Slowbike wrote:
    @FineSilver24

    The people who make riding the roads unsafe are the drivers who can't be arsed to look beyond the boot of the vehicle in front - Dual Carriageways or Single Carriageways make no difference - they are stupid drivers who shouldn't have a licence (IMHO!).
    So, riding on the roads is unsafe? You have agreed with my main point. So why make it more dangerous by using fast roads in the middle of the afternoon?
    Slowbike wrote:
    If you're just ranting because a dual carriageway was used for a Time Trial then get a grip - just because you don't believe it to be safe doesn't mean it isn't. Yes - I said I won't race DCs - I'm not alone in that - but there are plenty of those who do race DCs.
    I'm not ranting, just pointing out the blindingly obvious.
  • DavidJBDavidJB Posts: 2,019
    Lol this guy.

    God forbid you ever see a road race taking place...you'd have an aneurysm.

    Riding on the road isn't "unsafe". You're a serious tool.
  • mamba80 wrote:
    Yes, because we're all drivers and we all drive below the standards expected at some point. It's human nature so a sensible organiser would seek to minimise the effect of poor drivers.

    I didn't say 'more valid', I said 'a better reason' because there are safer alternative venues to host a competition than a busy DC.

    what "safer venues" ? already been pointed out that traffic free alternatives dont exist.

    is a twisty B road with no clear line of sight, with over taking cars on the wrong side of road and on coming traffic safer?

    Perhaps what is needed is drivers to realise they have to share the road (any road) with pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc etc roads to be policed and to behave a little more responsibly?
    the alternative is that cyclists shouldnt be on the road at all and bad driving is excusable - which tbh seems to be your pov.
    Traffic-free venues DO exist, they just cost money.

    Providing a choice between two unsatisfactory options is silly. Can you honestly not think of another option that isn't obviously dangerous?

    Your solution appears to be to educate EVERYBODY ELSE rather than expect us to change our own actions. How do you propose this solution happens? The first rule of being an adult is to take responsibility for ones own actions and not expect everybody else to accommodate our selfishness. The first rule of safety is to remove the individual from the risk.
  • DavidJB wrote:
    Lol this guy.

    God forbid you ever see a road race taking place...you'd have an aneurysm.

    Riding on the road isn't "unsafe". You're a serious tool.
    Your 2 contributions have been utterly pointless. Do you have a point that you can actually present?

    If it's insults you want, I regularly road raced until 2013, and criteriums, and TTs, and cyclocross, and MTB. I'm a BC level 3 coach (Road Race and TT). If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why do organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* censored .
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why to organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* censored .

    Risk assessment does not imply that an activity is inherently risky - even children's soft-play areas have standing risk assessments. If you're a BC coach (L3 or otherwise) then I'm astonished you don't already understand this. It is simply a document to demonstrate that any likely risks have been identified, mitigated or accepted.
  • DavidJBDavidJB Posts: 2,019
    DavidJB wrote:
    Lol this guy.

    God forbid you ever see a road race taking place...you'd have an aneurysm.

    Riding on the road isn't "unsafe". You're a serious tool.
    Your 2 contributions have been utterly pointless. Do you have a point that you can actually present?

    If it's insults you want, I regularly road raced until 2013, and criteriums, and TTs, and cyclocross, and MTB. I'm a BC level 3 coach (Road Race and TT). If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why do organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* censored .

    Triggered much? You "regularly TT'd" but earlier said you'd done a couple? Now you're a coach but think cars have more to be on the road over cyclists? You don't sound like any cyclist I know.

    In fact anyone who was as much into cycling as you "apparently" were would know TT's are held on DC's and anyone knows club TT's normally run into 20's in their number so it's impossible to "hire out an airfield".

    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    DavidJB wrote:
    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.

    Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.
  • Imposter wrote:
    If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why to organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* censored .
    Risk assessment does not imply that an activity is inherently risky - even children's soft-play areas have standing risk assessments. If you're a BC coach (L3 or otherwise) then I'm astonished you don't already understand this. It is simply a document to demonstrate that any likely risks have been identified, mitigated or accepted.
    All activities have a risk. The soft play area is actually a risk mitigation as much as it's an activity. Another mitigation would be to race away from traffic that has repeatedly been referred to in this thread as driven by 'stupid drivers'.
  • Imposter wrote:
    DavidJB wrote:
    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.

    Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.
    OK, I'll call that. I'll send you a photo of my qualification and you post a photo of your aforementioned ar5e with 'sorry' written on it. Deal?
  • DavidJB wrote:
    Now you're a coach but think cars have more to be on the road over cyclists? You don't sound like any cyclist I know.
    I have never said cars have more [did you mean to type 'right'?] than cyclists? Where did I say this?
    DavidJB wrote:
    In fact anyone who was as much into cycling as you "apparently" were would know TT's are held on DC's and anyone knows club TT's normally run into 20's in their number so it's impossible to "hire out an airfield".

    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.
    Have you been drinking? Why should my 'apparent' knowledge of cycling affect my judgement on whether cycling adjacent to 70+mph traffic is dangerous or not? My wife (a less regular cyclist and not a BC coach) also thought it dangerous and also commented on the actions of the drivers. She also thought that separating drivers and cyclists was a good idea. But what does she know?

    Just so I'm clear, was that your point? I was expecting one, was that all you had?
  • Imposter wrote:
    DavidJB wrote:
    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.

    Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.
    OK, I'll call that. I'll send you a photo of my qualification and you post a photo of your aforementioned ar5e with 'sorry' written on it. Deal?
    How long does the offer hang before this gets awkward? If I can't provide my qual certificate, I'll post a photo of my ar5e with an apology on it. Accept or retract.
  • secretsqizzsecretsqizz Posts: 424
    Good advert for BC coaches
    "I'm right , you are fu ckin wrong"
    Keep it up Shane
    My pen won't write on the screen
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    Imposter wrote:
    DavidJB wrote:
    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.

    Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.
    OK, I'll call that. I'll send you a photo of my qualification and you post a photo of your aforementioned ar5e with 'sorry' written on it. Deal?

    If you're interested in setting the record straight, then post the qualification on here, so that everyone can see it. I've called you out publicly, so you can set me straight publicly if you like. It's going to be very difficult to verify anything you do post, however, unless your real name is actually the same as your username, which is unlikely. For comparison, my real name is not 'imposter', so you can see where the confusion might set in.
  • Good advert for BC coaches
    "I'm right , you are fu ckin wrong"
    Keep it up Shane
    Please take a breath and read the whole thread. My point is that riding at maximum effort next to cars travelling at 70+mph is dangerous, as proven by the deaths. I accept that people can make up their own minds about what they do, but that doesn't suddenly make it safe. I also, correctly, point out that there are safer alternatives. These are indisputable facts.
  • Imposter wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    DavidJB wrote:
    I call some major BS here from a disguised angry car driver.

    Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.
    OK, I'll call that. I'll send you a photo of my qualification and you post a photo of your aforementioned ar5e with 'sorry' written on it. Deal?

    If you're interested in setting the record straight, then post the qualification on here, so that everyone can see it. I've called you out publicly, so you can set me straight publicly if you like. It's going to be very difficult to verify anything you do post, however, unless your real name is actually the same as your username, which is unlikely. For comparison, my real name is not 'imposter', so you can see where the confusion might set in.
    I'll post a photo of my qual with a post-it note with FS24 (or anything else you like) written on it covering up my surname. When I do, you can then post the photo of your ar5e with 'Sorry FS24' written on it (just to make sure you don't get a photo off the internet as we're in 'no trust' territory). Deal?
  • Am I the only secretly holding out in hope that Imposter is really Rachel Riley?
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    A better answer (and one more becoming of an L3 coach) would have been "I have nothing to prove to anyone here". I'm embarrassed for you mate.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,256
    Am I the only secretly holding out in hope that Imposter is really Rachel Riley?

    :lol: Hope not, or I'd have to go out with that russian guy off strictly...
Sign In or Register to comment.