Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Mar 29, 2020 07:32

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
This letter appears in CW by the time trial secretary for Farnborough and Camberley CC.

Not sure if there is a typo .. as the road in question appears to run from Stafford to Ross-on-Wye and it could be he means the fast road between Basingstoke and Newbury per a brief glance through my map books.

Anyway here's the letter. He does not mention which stretch of the road either. :roll:


I suspect the stretch would be NSL dual carriageway with 70 mph speed limit and lots of slip roads.


Quote:

So police have decided the A449 is too dangerous for cyclists! But waht are they doing to make it safe for legitimate road users? How many of the obvious hordes of dangerous speeding drivers have they prosecuted over the last 12 months?


If the road has a 70 mph limit and lots of slip roads and a bye-pass with no other junctions - then clearly not suitable for cyclists.

Quote:

How many mobile speed checks have they performed in the same period? What are local and county councils doing to make this road safe for legitimate road users?



:roll: :roll:

Probably all spped checks and audits would have shown that the drivers were driving to the legal limit and road conditions This same audit work would have led the professional people in charge to conclude that the road would be dangerous if a cyclist decided to use it.

Quote:

Do their highways safety officer just think about keeping speed high and ignore other legitimate road users?




This speed limit would be determined by the road lay-out and type of traffic audited by roadside census checks and some auditing and monitoring of the stretch in question. It may even be that a plan to upgrade to an A449 or A339 (M) status may be being considered. (Am not sure which road he's talking about as the A449 does not even run through Farbborough and Camberley per the AA Road map :wink:

Why on earth does this person want to ride his bike on this fast road anyway? :roll:

Quote:

With such a declaration this road should have a 50 mph limit and speed cameras along its entire length

Anything less is a dereliction of duty by the constabulary, local and county councils


:roll: :roll: :roll:



I would think twice about riding on a 50 mph dual carriageway to be honest.

I have not driven along the A449 road in question aan do not know which bit on its meand from Stafford via Kidderminster/Wolverhampton and on to Ross-on-Wye he means

I still suspect from his locatiion that it's the A339, which I have used and that is NO road to ride a bike. It's like the A14! Busy and fast - with a justifiable NSL limit in place.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 17:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
In Gear wrote:
Why on earth does this person want to ride his bike on this fast road anyway? :roll:



maybe there's a clue in the title of the writer...

In Gear wrote:
This letter appears in CW by the time trial secretary for Farnborough and Camberley CC.


many time trials have for years used DC's.
junctions obviously are bad for TT times.... so a down & back on a slip roaded DC is ideal.
i've done a few, not exactly my idea of excitment.. but people do.. if i recall there's even dispensation in the RTA for them.


at least there is room for the vehicles to pass at speed, unlike many A & NSL minor roads (some of the driving i saw at the national 25 champs locally was shocking).

saw someone cycling up the a46 (3lanes NSL) the other day and thought rather you than me.... there are some lovely alternative lanes.. and all blue signposted too.... but...

unless they actually classify it as Mway.... surely you'd have a hard time justifying pulling someone off it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 18:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I think there's a serious safety issue trying to get cyclists past busy on-slips. In fact putting a cyclist into the middle of the merge point is absolutely frightening.

I suppose one solution is to get the cyclists crossing the on ramp - effectively turning left to cross the on ramp before the merge point. The cyclists would have to give way, I think (i.e. I can't think of a workable alternative.)

I suppose we could ask the cyclists to take the off ramp, do the junction / roundabout and then use the on ramp - but I wouldn't blame them for being pissed off about doing the uphill ramp and the extra distance.

How do we solve this problem?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 18:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think there's a serious safety issue trying to get cyclists past busy on-slips. In fact putting a cyclist into the middle of the merge point is absolutely frightening.


:yikes:

I do not do these very fast roads ... I know where my limits are und I think there ist a knack to this. I know IG has ridden on the A1 stretch where allowed und I know Kriss und the rest of family have cycled along a similar fast road back "home" in Appenzell .

I ask her und my sisters-in law who have ridden on the A580 und not the cycle path to try to work out why riders there seem to prefer the road. Their own opinion was that there was nothing wrong with the cycle path. The only thing they noted was that if the lights were on green .. they had to get off bike und cross the other A roads und then mount up again. If on road .. in flow. But they did not see this dismoutn as issue to them. They were not as happy on the busy road as they had to concentrate a lot harder on traffic.

Where Jan und Julia had problem was where the A580 meet M60. There ist no cycle lane und I gather a very serious incident occurred at this spot on Tuesday last which led to road closure. They said far too many drivers seem to see "slip road" und seem not able to expect cyllist to be continuing on a straight und ist not as if you can go "primary" either.


Quote:
I suppose one solution is to get the cyclists crossing the on ramp - effectively turning left to cross the on ramp before the merge point. The cyclists would have to give way, I think (i.e. I can't think of a workable alternative.)

I suppose we could ask the cyclists to take the off ramp, do the junction / roundabout and then use the on ramp - but I wouldn't blame them for being pissed off about doing the uphill ramp and the extra distance.


If safest option .... und we have to remember we are limited by space und road conditions und engineering.

There ist plan to introduce traffic lights on some slips to fast roads But some cyclists seem colour blind :wink:

Quote:
How do we solve this problem?


Ist a tricky one.

I have not driven on A449 nor A339 as IG seem to think poster mean as this ist in his area und the A449 ist somewhere else.

I think the RTA dispensation does require notification of time trial event if I read correctly by the way. I do not think you can do rthis willy nilly.

No doubt lieber IG will post what it say exactly ..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 21:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think there's a serious safety issue trying to get cyclists past busy on-slips. In fact putting a cyclist into the middle of the merge point is absolutely frightening.


no worse than the occasionaly numpty slow driver... i had to join the a46 that was going at 70-80 having been forced to slow to nearly 40 behind a hesitant driver on the slip... just praying for a big gap.. and then waiting ages behind said numpty till a big enough gap in L2 to accelerate into. grr.

SafeSpeed wrote:
I suppose one solution is to get the cyclists crossing the on ramp - effectively turning left to cross the on ramp before the merge point. The cyclists would have to give way, I think (i.e. I can't think of a workable alternative.)

I suppose we could ask the cyclists to take the off ramp, do the junction / roundabout and then use the on ramp - but I wouldn't blame them for being pissed off about doing the uphill ramp and the extra distance.

How do we solve this problem?


i agree off slip.. give way.. on slip would be cr*p.. and mostly ignored.
but i've seen the cross the slip option on some DCs occasionally coupled with cycle lanes... and dismount signs... and often thought what a PITA that would be.

the solution ... is.... ermmm..... assuming an up and over junction, take the cyclist onto a cycle lane before the slip and off to the left of the slip.... under the slip back adjacent to the carraigeway..... then under the off slip... and back alongside it onto the main road...

factor that cost into your next roadbuilding scheme :wink:
..and lighting, maintenance & sweeping


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 14:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I have driven the A449 from Kiddy to Wolves a few times, but it is not a regular route. It is dual-ed in sections, but that is a slight exaggeration as much of the dual sections have been reduced to single lane each way with an excess of paint, and it doesn't have much in the way of graded junctions. It does have a reputation for accidents though as you get fast sections then twisty bits, and many sections are not as wide as they should be, but almost nothing of it is NSL any more as speed limit reductions appear to happen every other day. I wouldn't say that it was a great road for cycling down however, as it is typically heavily used with traffic avoiding the other congested local roads. It is one of the roads that should have been relieved by the Birmingham Western Orbital link cancelled in 1997 by Prescott.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 20:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
SafeSpeed wrote:
How do we solve this problem?


If they want to race perhaps they could hire a racetrack?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 21:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Homer wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
How do we solve this problem?


If they want to race perhaps they could hire a racetrack?


I wasn't thinking about racing... but I agree we should be concerned about racing on the public highway.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 21:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
Homer wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
How do we solve this problem?


If they want to race perhaps they could hire a racetrack?


its not a race... its a time trial. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 22:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 01:59
Posts: 137
Location: Wolverhamptom (exiled Yorkshireman)
It's not only time triallers. People forget that a bike is, for some of us, a means of transport. I used to commute to Stafford from Wolverhampton (20 miles each way, since you ask), and the A449 is easily the quickest way. It's not so dangerous as you might think either because there's a little hard shoulder which you can treat as your own personal bike lane. Most vehicles can see you in plenty of time too (not all - I did have one or two near misses) and have room to give you lots of space. I prefer cycling on big roads to cycling on hedge - lined country lanes any day.

_________________
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the kerb.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 21:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Rhythm Thief wrote:
It's not only time triallers. People forget that a bike is, for some of us, a means of transport. I used to commute to Stafford from Wolverhampton (20 miles each way, since you ask), and the A449 is easily the quickest way. It's not so dangerous as you might think either because there's a little hard shoulder which you can treat as your own personal bike lane. Most vehicles can see you in plenty of time too (not all - I did have one or two near misses) and have room to give you lots of space. I prefer cycling on big roads to cycling on hedge - lined country lanes any day.


Ah .... but the hard shoulder's for emergencies :roll:

As for time trials - must be other more suitable roads than a 7o mph dual -" pseudo - motorrway. " :roll:

Next.. they'all be wantin' the use the A1M :roll: :yikes:

I am sure the audit on the road will have genuine reasons behind its conclusions and reducing the limit to 50 mph would not make it any safer from a cycling perspective either. Still a speed which causes "seriousl damage" if there was a mishap.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
i've ridden (& raced) down a variety of roads..and for racing i'd rather be on NSL DC than single track to be honest.

the one stretch of DC on the stratford tri course is NSL.... and uphill just to maximise the speed differential..... and is alot less hairy than the winding undulating 50mph A road that follows (not to mention the one way system :shock: oh and sharing access to the leisure centre with tourist coaches)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 19:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:15
Posts: 318
Location: Co Durham
Time trials have historically used straight main roads on an out and back basis to average out the effect of the wind. The most dangerous place is usually the roundabout or slip roads at the turning point because this is where some time-triallers are likely to be reckless to avoid slowing down and hence losing time. Time-trials are often run in the evening or on Sunday mornings to minimise the risks.

However mixing cyclists travelling at 25-35 mph with other vehicles travelling at 50-80 mph is a recipe for collisions and unfortunately injuries and fatalities do occur. I believe that time-triallers are aware of the risks but others may not want them to take these risks.

Personally in the current climate of the least possible risk, I can see time-trials on main roads being banned for the time-triallers "own good".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 19:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 16:24
Posts: 322
We should put a stop to all-purpose high quality dual carriageways; i.e. give them motorway restrictions. Authorities are basically not discouraging cyclists, pedestrians, tractors and horses from using these roads, which is stupid. If there is no alternative route build a cycleway parallel to the road, and then impose restrictions.

I've crossed the A3 before. I had to run across and climb over the crash barrier. It was a very dangerous manoevure, but it isn't illegal. Some high speed dual carriageways even encourage pedestrians to cross, by providing gaps in the crash barrier and putting up signs telling you of the crossing. Gaps in dual carriageways for cars are widely regarded as dangerous, so why not pedestrian gaps?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 08:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
Authorities are basically not discouraging cyclists, pedestrians, tractors and horses from using these roads ...


Paul would, no doubt, use his usual argument that most of this list use the road by right and thus must be allowed access. I happen to think that although he may be legally correct (rights of way etc.) he is morally wrong. If you have the "right" to use the road then you have the related responsibility to use it intelligently and safely. Unfortunately, many of the road users listed have no sense of their duties to others and thus have forefeited their rights.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Unfortunately, many road users ... have no sense of their duties to others ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
..errr.. how does one decide what is 'morally' wrong in terms of road use / road safety ? :? :roll:
can you actually discuss road safety on a moral basis without grinding to a messy halt?


if it is morally wrong to allow people to make their own assesment of risk and own decisions where to ride a bicycle....... the same line of thought follows that it may be morally wrong to set higher speed limits and allow motorists to select their own speed within that.

is there, should there be any difference between legal & moral ?

after our legal & ethical training at work the basic conclusion was if it's legal.. it's ethical :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 13:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Whatever words you use to describe it, my point is that rights should always come with commensurate responsibilities. I was not attempting to discuss the morality of road safety where I think I agree with you that a morass awaits us.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 09:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:15
Posts: 318
Location: Co Durham
From time to time when out riding my bike I elect to cross the dual-carriageway A1 on a permitted crossing from one minor road to another. It is usually very busy and I might have to wait a few minutes for a safe gap in the traffic to cross each carriageway but should I be banned from doing so for my own safety?

There is another crossing on the A19 at the Black Swan which was closed around 18 months ago on a "temporary basis" but the centre crash barrier was made continuous through the junction. Here occasionally I will elect to climb over the barrier with my bike. Is this dangerous? Not if I take proper care of approaching traffic. Why should I be condemned to a diversion of 5 miles to the nearest bridge over the DC? Ironically the next permitted crossing southbound is 2 miles away and is on the level but it leads onto a fast A-road which I don't wish to ride on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 09:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
malcolmw wrote:
Whatever words you use to describe it, my point is that rights should always come with commensurate responsibilities. I was not attempting to discuss the morality of road safety where I think I agree with you that a morass awaits us.


well that knocked that on the head :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.473s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]