Scanner:
Cycling, by definition cannot be legal on a motorway, for it is exactly that. A motor-way. A carriageway is also exactly that, a carriageway, a way for carriages. Obviously bicycles were invented after carriages and thence allowed to use them.
With progress came motor vehicles which were than allowed to share carriage-ways with carriages and bicycles. Later motorways were built exclusively for motors.
I would agree with that. So then motor vehicles came along and carriageways were widened and made smooth with Tarmac and now we are at the bigoted opinion. That anything slower which have been using these carriageways much longer then any trucks now should be banned from using these roads.
Why? just because trucks are bigger and faster?
I know a lot of you are saying cyclists mixing with vehicles traveling at high speeds is dangerous, maybe then we should start lowering the speed limit on dual carriageways for motor vehicles!
We’re actually talking about fast dual ‘carriageways’ which have only recently been built with the obvious single design purpose of being used for high speed motor vehicle use not cycling.In just the same way that motorways weren’t built for use by cyclists.Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to see their local mental health advisor.
albion1971:
hipsway nice to read a logical an unbiased post I agree entirely with what you say.It saddens me that so many have a bad attitude towards cyclists.
There are to many with the attitude that they should not be there.
It is also a shame the cycle haters can never give a proper explanation of their views without resorting to abuse.You can just imagine what their driving is like.
Actually I can just imagine what anyone who thinks that fast dual carriageways are the right place for cyclists would drive like.Obviously never above 30 mph on any road including motorways just in case one of the eco warrior nutcases decides to use one of those too.
Lorn trakta:
and for the record trucks preceded cycles by hundreds of years, they were powered and drawn by ox and horses, they evolved, whereas cyclists?.
A horse and cart in 2013 is still a horse and cart as it was in 1813.
Please sir, may I use a slow dual carriageway? I regularly cycle on the felling bypass through Gateshead, speed limit 40mph. Where does all this Eco bike warrior crap come from? Most cyclists I know just want to get to work & back safely. There’s always some socialist worker type trying to make cyclists out to be people that are trying to bring our way of life to an end, good grief man give your heads a shake. Do you really think cyclists set off everyday with a mantra such as" I must go on the fastest, most dangerous roads I can find, because I can" £15 for a loaf of bread! I think some are losing the plot.
I suppose I could start churning out the old standby, if all drivers kept to the speed limits then there wouldn’t be any " fast" dual carriageways. I don’t see many sticking to a max of 50mph and as for 40mph on a single track A road, like the A1 north of Morpeth, don’t make me laugh.
Lorn trakta:
and for the record trucks preceded cycles by hundreds of years, they were powered and drawn by ox and horses, they evolved, whereas cyclists?.
A horse and cart in 2013 is still a horse and cart as it was in 1813.
But we don’t now use horses or oxen pulling wagons to carry out mainstream haulage and horsedrawn ‘carriages’ and stagecoaches for passenger transport on modern day dual ‘carriageways’ subject to the national speed limit.Which to all intents and purposes are no different to motorways in their design criterea.
Slackbladder:
Please sir, may I use a slow dual carriageway? I regularly cycle on the felling bypass through Gateshead, speed limit 40mph. Where does all this Eco bike warrior crap come from? Most cyclists I know just want to get to work & back safely. There’s always some socialist worker type trying to make cyclists out to be people that are trying to bring our way of life to an end, good grief man give your heads a shake. Do you really think cyclists set off everyday with a mantra such as" I must go on the fastest, most dangerous roads I can find, because I can" £15 for a loaf of bread! I think some are losing the plot.
I suppose I could start churning out the old standby, if all drivers kept to the speed limits then there wouldn’t be any " fast" dual carriageways. I don’t see many sticking to a max of 50mph and as for 40mph on a single track A road, like the A1 north of Morpeth, don’t make me laugh.
So like albion you don’t seem to have a clue concerning the issue of speed differentials on dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit and what it takes to firstly maintain seperation distances behind a cycle travelling at typical cycle type speeds and then overtake the thing from that type of speed with traffic in lane 2 travelling at up to 70 mph + not just trucks.
Cars are actually ( rightly ) allowed to do the same speed on dual carriageways,subject to the national speed limit,as on motorways and trucks are limited to a very similar speed on dual carriageways as on motorways too and that’s the relevant issue in the case of the type of dangerous obstruction created on such roads by selfish ignorant cyclists who don’t give a zb about any other road users except themselves.
I understand this is a truckers site but a cyclist or cyclists have been killed by a truck… most of the truck drivers would see the danger and approach with caution and if they are along side you and you ain’t seen them thats because you are not checking your mirrors enough.
at the end of the day there are some silly truck drivers on our roads smoking weed driving and driving to close also not concentrating, we are supposed to be professionals lets act like it instead of blaming the cyclist. at the end of the day they don’t do a driving test we do so so WHO IS WRONG ■■?
these are big machines we need extra care when driving them. THE BIKE WAS HERE BEFORE THE TRUCK.
Totally agree with albion 1971. move over to the second lane if on a dual carrageway. slow right down due to drag. basically think what the cyclist may do thats the whole point…
Back in 1958 when I was 10 years old,I used to visit my aunty who lived in Darrington by the old A1.I remember my old grandad,after a long day cutting hay, wobbling 5 miles up the old A1 on his bike, with his sythe over his shoulder. I also remember getting my own bike,and the great pleasure I got from it.
Move on 50 odd years,and the world,incuding the roads,have changed beyond all recognition.Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions,I Dont believe in the “nanny state”,and I dont avocate wrapping people in cotton wool or trying to remove all risk from daily life.
We are stuck with the dangerous world we live in,and as others have said there are lots of things we ought to be able to do safely,but the fact is we cannot.I Sincerely believe cycling on the roads is one of them.It is not “right” or “fair” but in my humble opinion it is so.
My young grandaughter wants a bike,and it is with great sadness,that although I will get her one,she will not have the pleasure I did from riding it on the road.
She would not be safe even cycling in the quiet cul-de-sac where we live,because even here,we get the odd boy racer who thinks its clever to drive as fast as he can and try to perfect his hand brake turn to impress his mates,again not something you had in my day.
We have to take enough risks to get through life in this dangerous world,I just think taking a bike out on the road is now,sadly a risk not worth taking,it really should not be like this,but I honestly believe it is
Regards John
sweeper1gg:
I understand this is a truckers site but a cyclist or cyclists have been killed by a truck… most of the truck drivers would see the danger and approach with caution and if they are along side you and you ain’t seen them thats because you are not checking your mirrors enough.
at the end of the day there are some silly truck drivers on our roads smoking weed driving and driving to close also not concentrating, we are supposed to be professionals lets act like it instead of blaming the cyclist. at the end of the day they don’t do a driving test we do so so WHO IS WRONG ■■?
these are big machines we need extra care when driving them. THE BIKE WAS HERE BEFORE THE TRUCK.
but there are good and bad in all walks of life, there always will be, saying stuff like - we’re supposed to be professionals ect isn’t going to change that. of course we can strive to get better and closer to perfection, but perfection 100% of the time, in every single driver is not going to happen and anyone who thinks it’s achievable is deluded, so mistakes or just bad driving are always going to be around.
it doesn’t really matter who’s in the right and who’s in the wrong, because the chances are when any vehicle hits a cyclist on a dual carriageway the the cyclist is going to be dead or in a bad way. i’m not interested in being right but dead.
More drivel carryfast. You don’t know me but are happy to jump to another conclusion, you must be fit with all that jumping. Trucks may be limited but the drivers don’t appear to be. When was the last time you drove a truck on a dual? I do it daily and I can tell you, if I stick to 50 i am being overtaken by trucks all the time. As for single track roads try driving at 40mph, the max speed for trucks on a single track road, for a couple of miles. Your trucking colleagues will give you a friendly two fingered wave as they pass you. It’s mainly because vehicles tear arse around the place that causes most accidents isn’t it.
I’ve been riding a bike for over 50 years so I might have learned a tiny bit about speed differentials, especially as I’ve had a truck licence since 1980. I’ve never even come close to hitting a cyclist or a slower car or pedestrian or even a horse so I must be doing something right.
You can howl at the moon as long as you like, just because you don’t like something in this countries laws they aren’t going to change anytime soon.
old 67:
Back in 1958 when I was 10 years old,I used to visit my aunty who lived in Darrington by the old A1.I remember my old grandad,after a long day cutting hay, wobbling 5 miles up the old A1 on his bike, with his sythe over his shoulder. I also remember getting my own bike,and the great pleasure I got from it.
Move on 50 odd years,and the world,incuding the roads,have changed beyond all recognition.Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions,I Dont believe in the “nanny state”,and I dont avocate wrapping people in cotton wool or trying to remove all risk from daily life.
We are stuck with the dangerous world we live in,and as others have said there are lots of things we ought to be able to do safely,but the fact is we cannot.I Sincerely believe cycling on the roads is one of them.It is not “right” or “fair” but in my humble opinion it is so.
My young grandaughter wants a bike,and it is with great sadness,that although I will get her one,she will not have the pleasure I did from riding it on the road.
She would not be safe even cycling in the quiet cul-de-sac where we live,because even here,we get the odd boy racer who thinks its clever to drive as fast as he can and try to perfect his hand brake turn to impress his mates,again not something you had in my day.
We have to take enough risks to get through life in this dangerous world,I just think taking a bike out on the road is now,sadly a risk not worth taking,it really should not be like this,but I honestly believe it is
Regards John
I find it very frustrating how some cyclists are oblivious to the danger that they are in, they all to often substitute common sense with their “Right” to be on the road.
Slackbladder:
More drivel carryfast. You don’t know me but are happy to jump to another conclusion, you must be fit with all that jumping. Trucks may be limited but the drivers don’t appear to be. When was the last time you drove a truck on a dual? I do it daily and I can tell you, if I stick to 50 i am being overtaken by trucks all the time. As for single track roads try driving at 40mph, the max speed for trucks on a single track road, for a couple of miles. Your trucking colleagues will give you a friendly two fingered wave as they pass you. It’s mainly because vehicles tear arse around the place that causes most accidents isn’t it.
I’ve been riding a bike for over 50 years so I might have learned a tiny bit about speed differentials, especially as I’ve had a truck licence since 1980. I’ve never even come close to hitting a cyclist or a slower car or pedestrian or even a horse so I must be doing something right.
You can howl at the moon as long as you like, just because you don’t like something in this countries laws they aren’t going to change anytime soon.
You can howl as much bs as you like too.However that won’t change the fact that there’s no way that it can be unsafe to ride a cycle on a motorway but safe to do so on a dual carriageway subject to the national speed limit.So until the law has the sense to treat both types of road the same,from the point of view of allowing cyclists on them,expect to see lots more cyclists being hit by all types of motor vehicles on them not just trucks in the long term.The sad thing is that many of the unlucky drivers who will inevitably end up being charged for the ‘offence’ of hitting them in many cases won’t be those with your arrogant views because of luck more than judgement.While as for me I also drove trucks from 1980,including some awkward specialist types on all sorts of roads including in town and never once came close to hitting a cyclist.
However the difference is I’ve never been arrogant enough to believe that was all down to my own skill and that sometimes a combination of circumstances can possibly arise which can catch out even the best drivers,and one of the best ways to do that is to allow cyclists to use dual carriageways which ( should ) be subject to the same regulations as motorways,from the point of view of their use by cyclists amongst other slow moving traffic like tractors and JCB’s etc.While the other type of hazards,concerning the mixing of trucks and cycles in town,is also often just another unviable situation from the point of view of road safety,especially considering the suicidal nature of many cyclists in the case of riding cycles along the nearside of trucks in addition to riding the things on dual carriageways,just because the law is stupid enough to allow them do it.
jay0:
I find it very frustrating how some cyclists are oblivious to the danger that they are in, they all to often substitute common sense with their “Right” to be on the road.
In this case the unbelievable thing is that truck ( and car ) drivers aren’t directing the issues where they belong in campaigning for a law change which at least removes cyclists from dual carriageways which are subject to the national speed limit.
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
You’re still effectively abdicating responsibility for your own personal safety to the eccentricities of the British statute book without offering any real evidence that doing so is prudent or wise.
In the case in question the journey wasn’t necessary, although obviously a worthy one, it’s effectively a recreational activity so, similarly with horse riding, there is a perfectly reasonable choice not to go on to busy roads if you feel it’s unsafe to do so.
You only have to have a few flakes of snow in this country and the enforcers of your beloved laws are announcing to everyone not to make journeys unless they are necessary.
It does frankly worry me that you’re probably not the only one out there, after the introduction of new laws and the over-zealous enforcement of various road traffic offences, has badly confused the laws of this country with some sort of all purpose health and safety risk assessment for the safety of citizens.
I think that ultimately this is a case of risk homeostasis. You and others are more scared of more things than I and others.
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
You’re still effectively abdicating responsibility for your own personal safety to the eccentricities of the British statute book without offering any real evidence that doing so is prudent or wise.
In the case in question the journey wasn’t necessary, although obviously a worthy one, it’s effectively a recreational activity so, similarly with horse riding, there is a perfectly reasonable choice not to go on to busy roads if you feel it’s unsafe to do so.
You only have to have a few flakes of snow in this country and the enforcers of your beloved laws are announcing to everyone not to make journeys unless they are necessary.
It does frankly worry me that you’re probably not the only one out there, after the introduction of new laws and the over-zealous enforcement of various road traffic offences, has badly confused the laws of this country with some sort of all purpose health and safety risk assessment for the safety of citizens.
I think that ultimately this is a case of risk homeostasis. You and others are more scared of more things than I and others.
I don’t understand your last paragraph.
Not really but, since you like big words, I’d say yours is a case that hasn’t stood up well to a counter-argument of reductio ad absurdum.
