chester:
Own Account Driver:
Why aren’t cyclists petitioning the government to be allowed on motorways then?
Why would cyclist want to use motorways when they can Use dual carriageways.
A motorway is for motor vehicles only.
It’s obvious that it’s going to take a lot more casualties,before many of those who support the idea of cyclists using roads which are effectively ‘motorways’ in all but name,start to understand that fact.
Having said that JCB’s and tractors are also so called ‘motor vehicles’ too and they should also be banned from fast dual carriageways in just the same way that they are already banned from motorways.Which blows the bs argument,concerning motorways being for so called ‘motor vehicles’ only,out of the water. 
Carryfast:
It seems obvious that cyclists need to be banned from such roads.
Are you actually going to campaign this or just tell like minded cycle haters on a truckers forum?
Carryfast:
Which blows the bs argument,concerning motorways being for so called ‘motor vehicles’ only,out of the water.
Name somthing without a motor which is allowed on a motorway?
With motor I obviously mean an engine or power source.
chester:
Carryfast:
Which blows the bs argument,concerning motorways being for so called ‘motor vehicles’ only,out of the water.
Name somthing without a motor which is allowed on a motorway?
With motor I obviously mean an engine or power source.
I’ve pointed out at least two things which are powered by a motor/engine which aren’t allowed on a ‘motorway’ and yet,just like cyclists,they are allowed on roads,which as I’ve said,are effectively motorways in all but name. 
chester:
Carryfast:
It seems obvious that cyclists need to be banned from such roads.
Are you actually going to campaign this or just tell like minded cycle haters on a truckers forum?
There’s obviously a difference between hating the type of blind suicidal stupidity which results in drivers ending up charged with causing death as opposed to ‘cyclists’ according to the content of the posts of ‘cyclists’ on at least one cycling forum.
Carryfast:
I’ve pointed out at least two things which are powered by a motor/engine which aren’t allowed on a ‘motorway’ and yet,just like cyclists,they are allowed on roads,which as I’ve said,are effectively motorways in all but name.
A petrol generator is powered by an engine do you seriously think I want them in lane 1 on a motorway.
I think you need to back track some posts.
chester:
Carryfast:
I’ve pointed out at least two things which are powered by a motor/engine which aren’t allowed on a ‘motorway’ and yet,just like cyclists,they are allowed on roads,which as I’ve said,are effectively motorways in all but name.
A petrol generator is powered by an engine do you seriously think I want them in lane 1 on a motorway.
I think you need to back track some posts.
So you’re saying that a tractor or JCB is the same thing as a generator when it’s propelled along the road by it’s ‘engine’.
Although the speed differential between a generator in lane 1 of a motorway and a truck would actually be around the same as,if not less than,that between a car travelling at around 70-79 mph and a cyclist on a dual carriageway.Or for that matter between the car and the truck when the truck pulls into lane 2 to overtake the cyclist having slowed down to less than the speed of the cyclist to maintain seperation distance before attempting to overtake it.So why the double standards in the case of the generator as opposed to the cyclist.
For those just tuning in.
Ownaccountdriver asked why cyclists ain’t campaigning to use motorways!!!
I replied why would cyclists want to use motorways when they can use dual carriageways.
Motorways are for motor vehicles only.
Carryfast now argues tractors can’t use motorways and they have a motor 
WTF
Carryfast:
chester:
Carryfast:
I’ve pointed out at least two things which are powered by a motor/engine which aren’t allowed on a ‘motorway’ and yet,just like cyclists,they are allowed on roads,which as I’ve said,are effectively motorways in all but name.
A petrol generator is powered by an engine do you seriously think I want them in lane 1 on a motorway.
I think you need to back track some posts.
So you’re saying that a tractor or JCB is the same thing as a generator when it’s propelled along the road by it’s ‘engine’.
Although the speed differential between a generator in lane 1 of a motorway and a truck would actually be around the same as,if not less than,that between a car travelling at around 70-79 mph and a cyclist on a dual carriageway.Or for that matter between the car and the truck when the truck pulls into lane 2 to overtake the cyclist having slowed down to less than the speed of the cyclist to maintain seperation distance before attempting to overtake it.So why the double standards in the case of the generator as opposed to the cyclist.
Self propelled vehicles (be it human or animal)can not use motorways, everything on a motorway has a engine or power source does it not?
chester:
For those just tuning in.
Ownaccountdriver asked why cyclists ain’t campaigning to use motorways!!!
I replied why would cyclists want to use motorways when they can use dual carriageways.
Motorways are for motor vehicles only.
Carryfast now argues tractors can’t use motorways and they have a motor
WTF
Exactly which means that the idea that ‘motorways’ are for ‘motor vehicles’ and therefore all other roads are suitable for cyclists,is just bs.Just like the argument that cyclists ( and tractors ) should be able to use roads which are effectively ‘motorways’ in all but name.Although it’s not surprising that anyone,who thinks it’s ok to ride a cycle ( or drive a tractor ) on a dual carriageway,subject to the national speed limit,wouldn’t be able to understand the connections.No surprise that the government seem to fit into that barmy army category.
chester:
Carryfast:
chester:
Carryfast:
I’ve pointed out at least two things which are powered by a motor/engine which aren’t allowed on a ‘motorway’ and yet,just like cyclists,they are allowed on roads,which as I’ve said,are effectively motorways in all but name.
A petrol generator is powered by an engine do you seriously think I want them in lane 1 on a motorway.
I think you need to back track some posts.
So you’re saying that a tractor or JCB is the same thing as a generator when it’s propelled along the road by it’s ‘engine’.
Although the speed differential between a generator in lane 1 of a motorway and a truck would actually be around the same as,if not less than,that between a car travelling at around 70-79 mph and a cyclist on a dual carriageway.Or for that matter between the car and the truck when the truck pulls into lane 2 to overtake the cyclist having slowed down to less than the speed of the cyclist to maintain seperation distance before attempting to overtake it.So why the double standards in the case of the generator as opposed to the cyclist.
Self propelled vehicles (be it human or animal)can not use motorways, everything on a motorway has a engine or power source does it not?
As I’ve said not ‘every’ vehicle that’s powered by an engine can use a motorway nor can cyclists,for exactly the same reason that not every vehicle that’s powered by an engine,nor cyclists,should be able to use roads,that are motorways in all but name.
A dual carrigeway is not a motorway and should not be driven such.
(Yes I know cars may be traveling the same speed as a motorway)
A dual carriageway has severe junctions, different signage, Hardly any refuge area for emergencies.
Carry on treating them as motorways if you want. Although its wrong to do so.
Reason on this thread is that two cyclists were not seen on a open straight road with clear visibility. If you can’t see cyclists in those conditions then what chance do city centre cyclists have?
I’m just tuning out. It’s disappointing when people run out of ideas and instead either start theorising wildly or moving away from the original point onto points about the way others present their points of view.
It is also direspectful to two recently deceased people, who after all are the subject of this topic and were acting within the law to take the whole discussion to the realms of absurdity. Let us not forget the driver involved either, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.
The entire point of the thread has been lost to egotism and pettiness.
chester:
A dual carrigeway is not a motorway and should not be driven such.
(Yes I know cars may be traveling the same speed as a motorway)
A dual carriageway has severe junctions, different signage, Hardly any refuge area for emergencies.
Carry on treating them as motorways if you want. Although its wrong to do so.
Total bs.
There’s not always a refuge area on all motorways while there can be a hard shoulder on dual carriageways.While in the case of junctions it is possible that junctions can be a lot less severe than many motorway ones.
The fact is the speed limit is the same for cars and close as makes no difference for trucks,there’s a hard shoulder just the same and the junctions are better planned than on motorways.But that doesn’t stop the fact that cyclists can,and it’s not unheard of for them to do so,ride in lane 1 of this road.
maps.google.com/?ieUTF8&ll=51.34 … 4,0,13.73
Carryfast do you not think why dual carriageways are named as such and motorways are motorways. Or have the Highways agency got this one wrong
Scanner:
I’m just tuning out. It’s disappointing when people run out of ideas and instead either start theorising wildly or moving away from the original point onto points about the way others present their points of view.
It is also direspectful to two recently deceased people, who after all are the subject of this topic and were acting within the law to take the whole discussion to the realms of absurdity. Let us not forget the driver involved either, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.
The entire point of the thread has been lost to egotism and pettiness.
Or maybe there’s another way of looking at it maybe the driver in question thought that there’s nothing wrong with cyclists using fast dual carriageways because it’s within the law and that he was a good enough driver to never get caught out by the stupid idea.Until now.While just maybe the two fatalities might still be here now if they’d had the intelligence to stay of of roads not suited to cycling.In which case it’s nothing to do with ego but everything to do with trying to prevent the same thing happening again and again.
chester:
Carryfast do you not think why dual carriageways are named as such and motorways are motorways. Or have the Highways agency got this one wrong
It’s obvious that from the point of view of riding cycles on the two types there’s really no difference whatsoever.In just the same way that the road I’ve posted there taught me how to drive on ‘motorways’ as a learner driver who wasn’t allowed on so called ‘motorways’ but was allowed to drive on so called ‘dual carriageways’.It’s also why I see absolutely no difference between the two types of road from the point of view of tractors etc using them or cyclists.
Carryfast:
chester:
Carryfast do you not think why dual carriageways are named as such and motorways are motorways. Or have the Highways agency got this one wrong
It’s obvious that from the point of view of riding cycles on the two types there’s really no difference whatsoever.In just the same way that the road I’ve posted there taught me how to drive on ‘motorways’ as a learner driver who wasn’t allowed on so called ‘motorways’ but was allowed to drive on so called ‘dual carriageways’.It’s also why I see absolutely no difference between the two types of road from the point of view of tractors etc using them or cyclists.
There is no difference at all between the A3 and a “motorway”, and look what happened to the tractor a few weeks back near Ripley on the A3
And then you the A3 M at the pompey end and the A1 M where in parts is only 2 lanes but classed as a “motorway”… its just all wrong.
I used to ride time trials on dual carriageways about 35 years ago.The D.Cs.are usually wider than single carriageway roads so I dont see the problem with sharing road space with cyclists.I think that driving tractors on duals must be one of the most dangerous jobs going.
