I’m sorry, have I been asleep? When did the speed limits change on our roads? As far as I’m aware the speed limit for trucks on motorways is in fact 60mph is it not? The fact that the majority are limited to 56 is irrelevant. I’ve been on the limiter plenty times and been passed by trucks as if I’m standing still, happens most nights in fact. The national speed limit is still 60mph isn’t it? Don’t recall it going upto 70+ for cars recently. And for trucks it’s still 50mph on dual carriageways or has that changed and nobody told me? The fact that drivers don’t take much notice of limits, or that you don’t feel they are correct does not take away from the fact that they are the law in this country. Because they are flouted daily does not take away from the fact that they are the law. It’s a choice made everyday by drivers, in the case of truckers by poor time management by office staff, but it’s still the drivers responsibility to be aware of any hazards on the road. The very fact that , when driving on a dual carriageway, you should be aware that there might be slower moving traffic and drive accordingly not just pretend it’s “almost a motorway” and go flat out.
Oh how about me driving one of those ride on mowers the council use? They are allowed on the duals aren’t they? How about our travelling friends, don’t see many of them getting hit when out on their pony express trotting machines do we? Why is that?
Slackbladder:
I’m sorry, have I been asleep? When did the speed limits change on our roads? As far as I’m aware the speed limit for trucks on motorways is in fact 60mph is it not? The fact that the majority are limited to 56 is irrelevant. I’ve been on the limiter plenty times and been passed by trucks as if I’m standing still, happens most nights in fact. The national speed limit is still 60mph isn’t it? Don’t recall it going upto 70+ for cars recently. And for trucks it’s still 50mph on dual carriageways or has that changed and nobody told me?
Yes you’ve obviously been asleep or you didn’t listen as a learner driver when you were told what the national speed limit is for cars on so called ‘dual carriageways’ it’s just the same as motorways.The fact that trucks are fitted with speed limiters set at 56 mph isn’t irrelevant it’s a fact and as I’ve said they ‘should’ be allowed to run at the actual limit which is actually 60 mph just as it ‘should’ be on dual carriageways like the A3.Which just leaves the issue of getting cyclists and tractors etc etc off of such roads at least.However it seems strange to me,how someone who thinks that they’re good/perfect enough to never get caught out by a stupid suicidal cyclist,riding on a dual carriageway,doesn’t even seem to know that there’s no difference between motorways and dual carriageways in terms of speeds for cars .Hopefully you’ll remember that next time you pull out into lane 2 at less than 20 mph to overtake a cyclists who you’ve had to anchor up for to maintain seperation distance so as not to flatten the lemming. 
alamcculloch:
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.
You seem to think that driving tractor on duals is dangerous but cycling on them and using the public highway for competitive purposes is ok.Typical cyclist thinking in action.
FarnboroughBoy11:
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 wrongIt’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.
Blimey at least there is someone on here who is actually sane. 
Ironically I didn’t hear about the latest tractor episode but it doesn’t suprise me at all with the suicidal bonkers logic being applied to Britain’s roads by too many people. 
Carryfast… You do understand that a speed limit is just that: a limit. It’s not a target!!! just because somewhere has a speed limit doesn’t mean to say everybody has to travel at that speed.
alamcculloch:
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.
it depends on how fast the tractor goes
stevieboy308:
alamcculloch:
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.it depends on how fast the tractor goes
funny you should say that!!! I did actually think to myself that you looked like you was motoring!!! well cool!!!
Carryfast:
FarnboroughBoy11:
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 wrongIt’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.Blimey at least there is someone on here who is actually sane.
Ironically I didn’t hear about the latest tractor episode but it doesn’t suprise me at all with the suicidal bonkers logic being applied to Britain’s roads by too many people.
A 7.5 tonner went up the back of a tractor and and put it on its roof, tractor driver was taken to Tooting and southbound A3 was closed all day, didnt hear anything more about it after that.
chester:
Carryfast… You do understand that a speed limit is just that: a limit. It’s not a target!!! just because somewhere has a speed limit doesn’t mean to say everybody has to travel at that speed.
Maybe all the bonkers cyclists and/or their supporters who seem to be driving trucks can tell the law and the potential victims firstly that the national speed limit for cars on dual carriageways is 60 mph and then even that isn’t a target when they’re informed otherwise,if/when they collect a car that was approaching at normal motorway type speeds thereby throwing it through the barriers into oncoming traffic having changed lanes into it’s path at less than 20 mph which was the speed they had to come down to to maintain seperation distance from the cyclist in lane 1.But who cares just so long as the suicidal,ignorant,selfish,stupid zb cyclist is ok.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Carryfast:
FarnboroughBoy11:
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 wrongIt’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.Blimey at least there is someone on here who is actually sane.
Ironically I didn’t hear about the latest tractor episode but it doesn’t suprise me at all with the suicidal bonkers logic being applied to Britain’s roads by too many people.
A 7.5 tonner went up the back of a tractor and and put it on its roof, tractor driver was taken to Tooting and southbound A3 was closed all day, didnt hear anything more about it after that.
Seems to justify everything said about idiots driving unsuitable vehicles,let alone cyclists,on roads which are effectively motorways in all but name.While it also seems to show yet again the distance to the nearest decent medical facilities from around here.
Carryfast:
.But who cares just so long as the suicidal,ignorant,selfish,stupid zb cyclist is ok.
It’s pretty clear who the ignorant and selfish are,
You are not willing to share the roads with anyone!!
chester:
Carryfast:
.But who cares just so long as the suicidal,ignorant,selfish,stupid zb cyclist is ok.It’s pretty clear who the ignorant and selfish are,
You are not willing to share the roads with anyone!!
It’s not a case of sharing the roads with cyclists it’s all about the ignorance and selfishness of cyclists.In which case it’s obvious that the law needs changing to force the stupid zb’s to keep off of roads where they don’t belong at least in the case of dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit and then the whole road network regardless where shared pedestrian/cycleways can be provided.If that means cyclists having to take resonsibility for a change in regards to others tough it’s been long overdue.
I’d like to see a ban on cyclists on roads that allow any vehicle to legally travel more than 30mph. This would mean the government pulling its finger out and setting sensible speeds for rural roads, rather than just throwing up a national speed limit sign. Too many drivers (of all types of vehicle) take liberties with safety when traveling on such roads.
They should act and be treated like every other road user, no special rules. They should be traveling in the middle of the road too, so that other vehicles don’t try and squeeze past them.
I’d also liked to see fixed penalties given to cyclists who undertake standing or slow moving traffic. In these cases, the cyclist should either wait like every other vehicle or dismount and walk along the pavement.
I wish I had a pound for every time I’ve seen a cyclist disobey traffic lights. Another thing that should (if it doesn’t already) result in a fixed penalty being issued.
Call for a ban all you like, none of you are going to do anything about it. So until then your going to have to share the roads with a variety of different road users.
That’s just a simple fact.
Malky80:
I’d like to see a ban on cyclists on roads that allow any vehicle to legally travel more than 30mph. This would mean the government pulling its finger out and setting sensible speeds for rural roads, rather than just throwing up a national speed limit sign. Too many drivers (of all types of vehicle) take liberties with safety when traveling on such roads.
That doesn’t make sense.First you’re saying ban cyclists from all roads subject to more than the 30 mph limit then you’re saying reduce or remove the national speed from such roads.In addition to which many urban roads limited to 30 mph are just as dangerous,for cyclists,as dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit.It’s just that the reasons are different.In the case of urban roads it’s the risk of collision by excessive proximity of the two totally incompatible types of road users and in the case of dual carriageways it’s mosty about the speed differentials.
The fact is the government have already reduced the sensible national speed limits on loads of roads to ridiculous levels in many cases such as 40 mph on single carriageway roads and 50 mph on roads which were subject to the national dual carriageway limit.While at the same time leaving the 60 mph national limit on small narrow country lanes.The only liberty taking there is all on the part of the government.Then to add insult to injury the cyclists want roads like the A3,which were built at a massive cost for high speed use,to be limited to ridiculous speeds so thay can use them as their own private race track for so called ‘time trialling’ etc.
chester:
Call for a ban all you like, none of you are going to do anything about it. So until then your going to have to share the roads with a variety of different road users.That’s just a simple fact.
No until then cyclists will continue to get flattened and drivers will continue to face the consequences for something which is the simple result of the selfishness and suicidal stupidity of cyclists and the government.Many of those unfortunate drivers being truck drivers owing to the nature of the types of vehicle they drive…That’s the simple fact.
Carryfast:
No until then cyclists will continue to get flattened and drivers will continue to face the consequences for something which is the simple result of the selfishness and suicidal stupidity of cyclists and the Goverment
If drivers drove in the manner of what the Highway Code dictates then this would not happen surely?
Easy there Chester, you cannot expect carryfast and his like to slow down on any road for anything other than a squeaky clean trucker. He doesn’t believe in the law of the land because he doesn’t agree with it. End of. Heaven forbid that a trucker of his type should look ahead to spot a potential problem, blend in with other traffic and pass it safely. Oh no, you have to speed up to it on the limiter, slam on the brakes and then pull out.
As a driver I don’t consider myself lucky or perfect, just like the majority of drivers that take a little care what ever road they are on. So far I’ve managed not to become one of those unfortunate drivers, " unfortunate! Are you taking the ■■■■? I would say the cyclist crushed by a speeding trucker not doing their job properly could be classed as unfortunate. They shouldn’t be charged on suspicion of dangerous driving its should be manslaughter at the minimum. Maybe that would smarten up their driving technique.
By the way they are not “so called” dual carriageways, they are dual carriageways.
chester:
Carryfast:
No until then cyclists will continue to get flattened and drivers will continue to face the consequences for something which is the simple result of the selfishness and suicidal stupidity of cyclists and the GovermentIf drivers drove in the manner of what the Highway Code dictates then this would not happen surely?
Quite right, but we all can’t be albion!!
We all know there are bad drivers about and good drivers who make mistakes every now and then, this is never going to change. Everyone knows this, don’t they? So knowing that, why would any want to go anywhere near a dual carriageway on a push bike?
Slackbladder:
Easy there Chester, you cannot expect carryfast and his like to slow down on any road for anything other than a squeaky clean trucker. He doesn’t believe in the law of the land because he doesn’t agree with it. End of. Heaven forbid that a trucker of his type should look ahead to spot a potential problem, blend in with other traffic and pass it safely. Oh no, you have to speed up to it on the limiter, slam on the brakes and then pull out.
As a driver I don’t consider myself lucky or perfect, just like the majority of drivers that take a little care what ever road they are on. So far I’ve managed not to become one of those unfortunate drivers, " unfortunate! Are you taking the ■■■■? I would say the cyclist crushed by a speeding trucker not doing their job properly could be classed as unfortunate. They shouldn’t be charged on suspicion of dangerous driving its should be manslaughter at the minimum. Maybe that would smarten up their driving technique.
By the way they are not “so called” dual carriageways, they are dual carriageways.
No as I’ve said there’s a simple issue of speed differentials to think about.50 mph or 56 mph makes no difference in the case of trucks using dual carriageways the problem would be the same.Because there’s simply no way that even you with all your,what seems to be imagined,driving perfection being that you don’t seem to know the national speed limit for cars on dual carriageways,can supposedly just pull out and then ‘blend’/merge with traffic that’s overtaking in lane 2 at typical acceptable speeds for the roads in question.Assuming that is you’re as good as you think you are and you’ve slowed down to the required speed to maintain your seperation distance from the cyclist travelling at around 20 mph or probably less ahead of you.Then add to that the possibility that you’ve been unsighted by a vehicle/s ahead that aren’t as good as that that have maintained there speed and pulled out at the last second to miss the idiot lemming.
Usually the type of drivers who think that they’re good enough to never be in that situation are the ones who think that it’s ok to maintain their speed and just indicate and then rely on the driver at the side of them to have to give way and/or take avoiding action to/from the truck that’s trying to force it’s way into lane 2 to save the idiot cyclist,or tractor driver,ahead in lane 1 who’s caused the problem.Although that’s obviously to be expected from those who’s priorities are with those who want to ride cycles,or drive tractors,on totally unsuitable roads and possibly who seem to also have a truck licence. 