Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"The thin end of the wedge" - Cycling UK slams Highways England's proposed A63 bike ban

Charity says move to stop people riding on road near Kingston-upon-Hull is “entirely unreasonable and lacks both evidence and analysis.”

The charity Cycling UK has said that a proposed ban on cycling on a road that is one of the most popular time trial courses in the UK is the “thin end of the wedge” and that it is “entirely unreasonable and lacks both evidence and analysis.”

As we reported last month, Highways England plans to ban cyclists on safety grounds from a 15-mile stretch of the road near Kingston-upon-Hull, which forms part of the fastest time trial course in the UK, the V718.

> Highways England wants to ban cyclists from the UK’s fastest time trial course

The road is where Marcin Bialoblocki set a 10-mile time trial record of 16 minutes 35 seconds in 2016, and Sir Bradley Wiggins also rode a time trial there in 2014 while preparing for his successful UCI Hour Record attempt.

The ban would apply between North Cave Interchange and Daltry Street Interchange, including slip roads onto the A63.

According to Highways England, during the past five years there have been six collisions involving cyclists on the road, including one fatality, when Christopher Auker, aged 65, crashed into a stationary caravan while participating in a time trial in 2013.

> Accidental death verdict after rider hit stationary caravan in Good Friday time trial

But Cycling UK, which has made an official response to the proposals, says they run contrary to government and Highways England policy and set a dangerous precedent.

It also says that other measures such as reducing the speed of motor vehicles and providing warning signs about cyclists being present should be considered.

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity, commented: “Highways England’s approach to the A63 is entirely unreasonable and lacks both evidence and analysis.

“It’s hardly surprising cyclists can’t keep up with motor vehicles on an A-road, but it is ludicrous to use that as one of the reasons for banning them.

“If cyclists are banned from the A63 because they’re unable to hit high speeds, then where will it stop?

“It’s the thin edge of the wedge and shows a complete lack of reasoning,” he continued.

The charity also expressed concerns that no detailed risk analysis had been conducted, meaning there was no evidence of the number of cyclists using the road which would enable a casualty rate to be calculated.

“There have been hundreds of collisions involving motor vehicles on the A63 over the last few years,” Dollimore continued.

“Following Highways England’s rationale, that would be enough to justify banning driving as well as cycling.

“Cycling UK would urge Highways England to re-consider their plans and stop going against both their own and the Government’s cycling policies,” he added. 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
700c | 6 years ago
3 likes

Still completely opposed to a ban. If its really about safety then just get drivers to slow the f* down!

But it's not is it? Hardly any cyclists use roads like these and why would you unless you want a fast tt time and if so you accept the risks.

What I can't understand is people on here still arguing that these roads are safer than single carriageway A and B roads!! Do you really feel safe when traffic is flying past you 50+ mph faster, giving you about an inch because there's something already in lane 2 ?! and they can't or won't slow down to 20mph or give you room by overtaking safely? How many times do you see a little shunt on a major 70mph dual road which, for a car driver is may just be an inconvenience, for cyclists easily fatal. That's the reality of these kinds of roads and imposing a blanket 30mph limit to bring down speeds to a safe level for a few time trialists is unrealistic as surely everyone realises.

I wouldn't touch these roads with a barge pole but I'd defend any cyclists' right to use them, as the consequences of this policy could affect us all if rolled out to all dual carriageways.

Avatar
Yrcm | 6 years ago
0 likes

This isn't the thin end of a wedge, it's something that's already well established. There are already cycling prohibitions on a number of fast unsuitable non motorway dual carriageways, the A630 into Sheffield being just one example. The only reason there is an outcry about this particular bit of road is that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a TT on it, anywhere else and I suspect we'd just shrug our shoulders and think "well I wouldn't cycle there anyway".

Avatar
RobD replied to Yrcm | 6 years ago
3 likes

Yrcm wrote:

This isn't the thin end of a wedge, it's something that's already well established. There are already cycling prohibitions on a number of fast unsuitable non motorway dual carriageways, the A630 into Sheffield being just one example. The only reason there is an outcry about this particular bit of road is that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a TT on it, anywhere else and I suspect we'd just shrug our shoulders and think "well I wouldn't cycle there anyway".

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 6 collisions in 5 years is a lot better than some of the supposedly safer 40mph country roads around here, and you can't really say it's due to numbers if it's a TT course, it's likely to be being used more frequently than some of the ways I commute, and still there manage to be some pretty serious accidents.

As has been said, why don't they try lowering the speed limit a little, put up some signs to alert drivers (they could even be ones that light up during an event) or maybe if drivers stopped driving so selfishly and actually thought about other people a little bit then things would likely be a lot better.

Avatar
Yrcm replied to RobD | 6 years ago
0 likes

RobD wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 

Personally speaking, knowing the road and having driven it regularly

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Yrcm | 6 years ago
3 likes

Yrcm wrote:

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

Are they not restricted to 56 mph and subject to the same rules as everyone else?

And this is not about "playing chicken" (inappropriate use of emotive language) it's about establishing a worrying precedent.

As for it being a continuation of a motorway, it isn't. It's a dual carriageway. When you come off a motorway do you always continue to drive the same way regardless of the signage etc (e.g. absence of a hard shoulder)? Have you seen that road when a time trial is taking place - the signs, the hi-viz, the additional people in the area? Would those not be clues that you need to pay attention?

Depending on how you interpret the stats, it can be argued that dual carriageways are safer than single carriageway roads. So should TTing on SC roads be banned? After all, there is no shortage of HGVs on those too. And while the majority of drivers are considerate it only takes one 32-tonne roadhog / texting c**t to flatten a cyclist (whether they are racing or just getting from A to B on a bicycle).

Once you've stopped TTers then the next logical step, in the name of "safety", is to stop anyone on a bicycle using these "dangerous" roads. Hence the very real concern.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Yrcm | 6 years ago
2 likes

Yrcm wrote:

RobD wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't cycle there? 

Personally speaking, knowing the road and having driven it regularly

a) It's the direct continuation of the M62 heading into Hull with the same speed limit, one less lane and no hard shoulder

b) There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve playing chicken with 40t artics travelling at 70mph.

What is the hourly count rate at the start of the M62 so we have a proper comparison?

As I've said, on that stretch of the A63 the count averages out at 691/ hr, that's one vehicle every 5 secs in either lane, how does that compare to single laned roads with poor sight lines, multiple exits from minor roads every few seconds, static obstacles and drivers who going by the stats crash into each other and other people on a massively greater rate than on the A63 and certainly more so between themselves than people on bikes?

If you know the roads so well how about comparing how shit is to cycle down say Beverley road from the town centre or Holderness Rd, what about the A1079, should we ban cyclists from that road too because you know it's a 'race track' and high speed (and again a bypass road with no fecking cycling facility), how about the A1035 Tickton road, that's an absolute shocker but allows 60+mph on a narrow single lane, shall we ban cycling there too, what about the A164, that's a load of crap as well, where does it end precisely?

Having the dual lane and good sight lines on a pretty much level road gives ample time for motorists to overtake slower moving vehicles safely, it's just that they can't be arsed/incapable/dangerous. Even when the other vehicles are motorised they crash into one another with massively greater regularity.

The safest solution for all is to reduce the limit to 50mph from the outskirts of Hull that being Clive Sullivan Way all the way to the M62 and put in place average speed cameras with a zero tolerance approach.

That way you increase how many vehicles can use the road at peak times thus better traffic flow and people have significantly greater time to react to incidents and more able to avoid them or correct their own problem.

As a driver and bike rider it's far far easier to navigate issues on multi laned roads than it is single laned particularly if everyone is doing what they should, the number of hazards presented by motorvehicle drivers and their weapons in lower speed/higher density highways is far greater than on a D/C.

Clearly your interpretation is different, just like Highways England.

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to Yrcm | 6 years ago
0 likes

Yrcm wrote:

This isn't the thin end of a wedge, it's something that's already well established. There are already cycling prohibitions on a number of fast unsuitable non motorway dual carriageways, the A630 into Sheffield being just one example. The only reason there is an outcry about this particular bit of road is that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a TT on it, anywhere else and I suspect we'd just shrug our shoulders and think "well I wouldn't cycle there anyway".

Agreed.

On occasion, in the past, I have cycled a short section of the A404 to link up 2 B-roads - Hurley Lane and Bradenham Lane, partly when I was commuting, as the alternatives add more miles and different dangers, but also sometimes on a Sunday ride.

It's 0.2 miles of flat-out heart-in-mouth sprint because that road is a motorway in all but name - it links the M4 to the M40 and gets treated as an extension of the A404(M) by pretty much everyone on it, with speeds of up to 90mph. I've heard various people refer to it as a "racetrack"!

I don't think I'll ever ride that bit again on my own, because, to me, it is just too dangerous - I probably wouldn't care if cycling was banned on that road.

However, I'm not keen on the principle of this ban and the bizarre logic behind it.

Avatar
rct replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
0 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

On occasion, in the past, I have cycled a short section of the A404 to link up 2 B-roads - Hurley Lane and Bradenham Lane, partly when I was commuting, as the alternatives add more miles and different dangers, but also sometimes on a Sunday ride.

It's 0.2 miles of flat-out heart-in-mouth sprint because that road is a motorway in all but name - it links the M4 to the M40 and gets treated as an extension of the A404(M) by pretty much everyone on it, with speeds of up to 90mph. I've heard various people refer to it as a "racetrack"!

I don't think I'll ever ride that bit again on my own, because, to me, it is just too dangerous - I probably wouldn't care if cycling was banned on that road.

However, I'm not keen on the principle of this ban and the bizarre logic behind it.

 

Also part of a local TT course, never felt unsafe on that section though, although time of day would probably be a factor as it is normally early morning starts.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
4 likes

Personally I deliberately choose the more direct route to wherever it is I'm going, if that means a dual carriageway or bypass road that has never being an issue for me. Sure motors are genrally going faster than ever with more knobs wanting to go 70/80 oin a 60 limit but it 's still less scary than some single laned routes that have poor sight lines, undulate, can have standing water, foliage and not much of an escape to the left in worst case scenario. You only have to see what happened with that wanker and his trailer/boat a little while back as a perfect example as to how some single carriageways are simply not designed to allow motor vehicles to use them above 20mph.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
3 likes

Valerie is more dangerous, too much smack!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
6 likes

Highways England are a fecking disgrace, they even lied about the numbers of vehicles paer hour between the two count markers that almost replicates the entire TT course.  They gave a figure of 2,500/hour when the actual figure is only 691/hr, that figure comes directly from DfT where it shows that the total 24 hour figure is much less than many single lane roads in the area of similar speeds which in fact is far more 'dangerous'.

I started a thread on the CUK forum and some were questioning the fact that it would be the thin end of the wedge and that it'd just be a one off. 

Just shows you how even some experienced cyclists are blinkered, then again some on there don't see restricting timetrailling or even being able to use main roads as a problem they need to worry about.

Decreasing the speed limit to 50mph and putting in average speed cameras would have a far greater effect on the safety of the road users at peak time when the crashes occur between motorvehicles. Decreasing the limit increases capacity also.

Avatar
Valbrona | 6 years ago
1 like

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

Most dual carriageways in the UK are too dangerous for cyclists/horse drawn vehicles/mopeds. They worked this out a long time ago in lots of other countries, and his has doubtless saved countless lives.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
6 likes

Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

Most dual carriageways in the UK are too dangerous for cyclists/horse drawn vehicles/mopeds. They worked this out a long time ago in lots of other countries, and his has doubtless saved countless lives.

 

If it's "doubtless" then I assume you can provide some supporting evidence?

 

In reality, in most other countries, just as here, people worked out that cycling on any road was too dangerous, so they don't do it, and this undoubtedly has cost a great many lives.

 

(And what on earth do level crossings have to do with anything?  Cyclists are not banned from using them).

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
7 likes
Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road.

That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways.

Cars can also steer, trains can't.

As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there.

Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately).

As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists.

A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to Canyon48 | 6 years ago
1 like

wellsprop wrote:
Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road. That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways. Cars can also steer, trains can't. As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there. Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately). As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists. A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

Not really the same thing because of the nature of the roads, the speed differential isn't really what you've said. Most people dawdle about at 45-50 in the 60s and annoying people in Hondas or Toyotas with hat in the back do 35, causing everyone else to do that speed. I average 30 if I drive to work, I average about 16-17 if I ride and about 3/4 of that is 60 zones. 

Cyclists are generally expected to be on these roads which counts for something given cyclists really aren't expected on dual carriageways. You can say drivers 'should' see us but it's not really very often someone does take to the dual carriageway. And more fool them. 

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
4 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

wellsprop wrote:
Valbrona wrote:

And you stupid people also think that trains should be made to stop at level crossings for cyclists?

No, because trains take miles to stop. There is no suggestion that cyclists are stopping cars, or even preventing them from using a road. That's also why cyclists and motorists are separated from trains. Similarly, cyclists and motorists are separated from aircraft on runways. Cars can also steer, trains can't. As far as I can tell, dual carriageways are safer than many country lanes. I do a lot of my cycling on narrow country lanes which have a 60mph speed limit. A couple of these roads are accident black spots, many motorists (including one of my school mates) and a few cyclists have died there. Some roads are more dangerous than others (due to humans being hopeless at driving appropriately). As cyclinguk pointed out, there are no significant stats to suggest that road is particularly dangerous for cyclists. A typical tt speed is 24mph, assuming the cars are travelling 70 mph, the speed differential is 46mph. My average speed on one of the hills on my commute is below 10mph, the speed limit is 60mph giving a greater speed differential. Which is more dangerous?

Not really the same thing because of the nature of the roads, the speed differential isn't really what you've said. Most people dawdle about at 45-50 in the 60s and annoying people in Hondas or Toyotas with hat in the back do 35, causing everyone else to do that speed. I average 30 if I drive to work, I average about 16-17 if I ride and about 3/4 of that is 60 zones. 

Cyclists are generally expected to be on these roads which counts for something given cyclists really aren't expected on dual carriageways. You can say drivers 'should' see us but it's not really very often someone does take to the dual carriageway. And more fool them. 

 I know what you mean about the cars with the hat in the back!

To be fair, I do drive the same route occasionally, my car has a telemetry box which feeds back to my insurance, so I drive at 60mph (speed limit) - I very often get overtaken on my commute (when driving) by cars travelling in excess of 60 mph.

My cycle commute involves 1k of dual carriageway, I avoided going that way for a long time as I thought it would be dangerous. I gave it a go and it is far safer than the 60mph a-road which is my alternative - owing to having two lanes, so cars can overtake much more easily, it's also got very good line of sight compared to the a-road (plenty of blind corners/summits).

I don't think drivers are anymore surprised to see me on a dual carriageway than they are to see me on the a-road I occasionally ride on my commute.

Avatar
SteppenHerring | 6 years ago
4 likes

Isn't banning cyclists from certain roads - because drivers aren't looking out - a bit like banning single women from taking cabs because John Worboys?

Re. time trialling, I'm just guessing that in 2017 was around 112 (up from 73 in 2016).  I'd also suspect that there were around 3 fatalities - which makes it not a good year. In context, I'd estimate that there were probably something like 170,000 rides in CTT events.

In, even a fairly busy district, I reckon you might see 7 reported accidents in a year which could break down to:

3: Rider not concentrating/bad road surface

3: Driver not concentrating at a roundabout

1. Deliberate assualt with a vehicle

only the last of which resulted in serious injury. I would estimate.

 

A lot of people ride TTs and a lot of them are on dual carriageway courses. Yes, the cars are moving fast but there tend to be good sight lines and plenty of room. Contrast that with single-carriageway roads where drivers could easily get tempted into an unwise overtake 

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 6 years ago
5 likes

Ok so 6 accidents and one death in 5 years and cycling get’s banned as it’s dangerous.

According to BBC in 2015, there had been 23,000 accidents and 80 deaths in the same time frame in London. No ban of cycling.

Makes sense to me.......

Avatar
emishi55 | 6 years ago
6 likes

“Following Highways England’s rationale, that would be enough to justify banning driving as well as cycling.

 

At the very least take a lane away from motors, reduce the speed limit to something approaching civilised - create a two way segregated cycle with the remainder.

The road sounds abominable.

What kind of cretinous response is it to ban people when they are injured or killed by execssive and unchecked motor car use?  

 

Avatar
SteveAustin | 6 years ago
2 likes

is this the right place to ask if timetrailing is racing and if this should be happening on public roads anyway?

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Avatar
burtthebike replied to SteveAustin | 6 years ago
3 likes

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
6 likes

burtthebike wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
4 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

I'm very confused where the figure of 160mph comes from.

Regardless, they would be banned because they were breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit.

There is no suggestion that the cyclists have broken any laws.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
3 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

[/quote]

Why would they be doing 160mph?  The whole point of a time trial is that it is perfectly legal, no laws broken, so if a driving equivalent was run, it too would have to obey the law.

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Why would it be banned?

Because they'd be doing 160mph?

Why would they be doing 160mph?  The whole point of a time trial is that it is perfectly legal, no laws broken, so if a driving equivalent was run, it too would have to obey the law.

[/quote]

If it was a driving time trial, then it would be pointless, as it would be purely a test of who could accelerate up to the speed limit fastest and stay there.

Bikes are not subject to speed limits (because they don't have calibrated speedometers) - and most riders can't hit them anyway.

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to SteveAustin | 6 years ago
6 likes

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

If they were breaking the law by doing so, then yes, they would.

Regularity rallying is a motorsport sometimes held on public roads. Cars are timed over a point to point course and they are scored on how closely they match an average speed. Cars drive within the law, so it's fine - it's also quite interesting to watch all the varied vintage cars that take part!

SteveAustin wrote:

Is this the right place to ask if timetrailing is racing and if this should be happening on public roads anyway?

I think that is a question worth asking, to make it clear to the uninitiated, what a time trial is exactly.

Similar to a sportive, a time trial isn't a race. If what you are suggesting is banning any form of cycling which is timed, then every cyclist using a ride computer would have to be prevented from cycling.

If people are time trialling on public roads and doing daft things/breaking the law, such as drafting cars, riding three abreast, not following road regulations - then this should be addressed.

However, time trialling seems to be one of the safest forms of cycling (I've never time trialled myself - but I've done recce's of the local routes ahead of this season), most the routes are wide roads with very good lines of sight. Moreover, CTT rules make it very clear that riders should obey the law at all times. In addition to this, riders are set off at intervals of 1 minute, at 24mph this gives a rider-to-rider spacing of 60m (I know people cycle at different speeds so this isn't perfect) - vastly safer than the crowds of cyclists seen during sportives.

 

 

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to SteveAustin | 6 years ago
2 likes

SteveAustin wrote:

If cars were doing the same, point to point timetrialing on the a5 it would be banned without a blink of an eye

And there is the point I made on the previous article covering this story. Banning time trialling on a stretch of road is one thing, banning all cycling (which is what appears to be proposed here) is quite another. 

You wouldn't ban ALL cars from the A5 to stop them time trialling. 

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
8 likes

"But Cycling UK, which has made an official response to the proposals, says they run contrary to government and Highways England policy....."

Nothing new there then, in fact their policy seems to be to ignore all their own policies.

I have asked my MP and local authority councillors many times why they ignore their own policies about transport and cycling specifically, but you never get any kind of rational answer.  I've asked the same of HE and had the same response.

We need a total root and branch reforming of transport, starting with the authorities following their own policies.  Deeds not words.

Avatar
ktache | 6 years ago
9 likes

Well done CyclingUK.

Latest Comments