Why shouldn't cyclists be able to use the motorway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
and motorways already have in-built cycle lanes called the hard shoulder
Click to expand...

34pf9jl.jpg
 
So a page 3 summary of this thread so far.

Arguments in favour of allowing cyclists to use the motorway:

- It works in other countries where it is legal
- There's more room for cyclists if they were allowed to use the hard shoulder
- Cyclists regularly use NSL dual carriageways where the speed limit is the same as motorways

Arguments in favour of maintaining prohibition of cyclists using the motorway:

- It's against the law and we don't like change
- It's more dangerous than an NSL dual carriageway for unspecified reasons.
 
scorza said:
So a page 3 summary of this thread so far.

Arguments in favour of allowing cyclists to use the motorway:

- It works in other countries where it is legal
- There's more room for cyclists if they were allowed to use the hard shoulder
- Cyclists regularly use NSL dual carriageways where the speed limit is the same as motorways

Arguments in favour of maintaining prohibition of cyclists using the motorway:

- It's against the law and we don't like change
- It's more dangerous than an NSL dual carriageway for unspecified reasons.
Click to expand...

LMAO !

That's got be the best example of confirmation bias I've ever seen. Did you even read the reply's to your original post ? You seem to live in a fact condom. The truth just cannot penetrate. :rolleyes:
 
when cyclists [i'm not talking normal folk here, i mean the hemp shirt and lycra brigade] start actually obeying the highway code when they're on the road, i'll start treating them like cars with the same respect. i recall coming up to a small roundabout and making the [flawed] assumption that the cyclists coming the other way would give way, y'know like a car would do, and getting a look of death as they just rolled on to the roundabout.

i treat motorcyclists with respect because they treat me with respect [at least as much as you'd get from a car].

also, assuming someone has a breakdown, like maybe a brake failure, and has to use the hard shoulder to freewheel to a halt to prevent an accident, how does the cyclist on the hard shoulder fit in?
 
scorza said:
So a page 3 summary of this thread so far.

Arguments in favour of allowing cyclists to use the motorway:

- It works in other countries where it is legal
Click to expand...

Which comparable countries? We have a large amount of infrastructure in the UK which allows cyclists to not use the Motorway when going from A to B. Why would they need to use the motorway? Many cyclists go from one end or one side of the country to the other without using motorways, this isn't possible in backwaters like Turkey or rural US states (In the US case they are more comparable to single carriageway A roads than motorways IMO).


scorza said:
- There's more room for cyclists if they were allowed to use the hard shoulder
Click to expand...

What if the hard shoulder is blocked or ceases to exists as you would find under older sections of motorway due to bridges, What would be the scenario for a cyclist having to cycle a door length around the wagon?

The HA want us to exit stranded vehicles and wait on the hard shoulder because it is deemed unsafe to wait in the vehicle. How can you calculate the risk is acceptable for cyclists but not for stranded motorists?


scorza said:
- Cyclists regularly use NSL dual carriageways where the speed limit is the same as motorways
Click to expand...

Motorways and A roads are different kinds of roads and with that bring different rules and regulations on what is acceptable for traffic speed and other risk factors such as the number of junctions and length of the sliproad/junction join the carriageway. Why have you glossed over the difference in road type to support your argument?

Can you take us through why you think an A road is the same as a Motorway and preferably include references to Civil engineering rules and regulations to ensure we all understand the specific points we're discussing, thanks.
 
Last edited:
I don't think many of us cyclists would want to, tbh.

I make a habit of avoiding all main roads, even when I'm doing medium distance (60 miles or so). B-roads and U-roads are where it's at!
 
Its absolutely terrifying having a car go past a 70mph not to mention lorries. Not a safe place to be and given the choice i would imagine most cyclist wouldn't go near a motorway even if it was legal. There would have to greater separation with the traffic than just a white line of the hard shoulder.
 
Muffin` said:
Which comparable countries? We have a large amount of infrastructure in the UK which allows cyclists to not use the Motorway when going from A to B. Why would they need to use the motorway? Many cyclists go from one end or one side of the country to the other without using motorways, this isn't possible in backwaters like Turkey or rural US states (In the US case they are more comparable to single carriageway A roads than motorways IMO).




What if the hard shoulder is blocked or ceases to exists as you would find under older sections of motorway due to bridges, What would be the scenario for a cyclist having to cycle a door length around the wagon?

The HA want us to exit stranded vehicles and wait on the hard shoulder because it is deemed unsafe to wait in the vehicle. How can you calculate the risk is acceptable for cyclists but not for stranded motorists?




Motorways and A roads are different kinds of roads and with that bring different rules and regulations on what is acceptable for traffic speed and other risk factors such as the number of junctions and length of the sliproad/junction join the carriageway. Why have you glossed over the difference in road type to support your argument?

Can you take us through why you think an A road is the same as a Motorway and preferably include references to Civil engineering rules and regulations to ensure we all understand the specific points we're discussing, thanks.
Click to expand...

A sensible reply consisting of reason and logic at last. Muffin' wins the thread :) Of course this thread was a bit tongue-in-cheek, shame on anyone who didn't pick up on that. I was attempting to raise awareness of the faulty logic used by people defending dangerous cycling.

However I do think I've indadvertedly raised a good point, why, if it's dangerous for cyclists to use motorways is it safe for them to use NSL A-roads. To take an example the A3 is to all intents and purposes a motorway running from SW London to Portsmouth yet cyclists may use most of it (think they're banned from Hindhead tunnel). I just don't see how that's safe? The only reason I think we don't see a tonne of cyclist deaths on NSL A-roads is because cyclists agree that it's not safe and don't go on them. It really is time that the government sorted out Britain's roads and road laws to make them more cyclist friendly imo. Our record on cyclist safety is a national disgrace.
 
I've been passed by a lorry before at high speeds in my car and it's made it judder. Now imagine you where on a little tiny peddle bike.

Go ahead, try it, natural selection and all that.
 
A mate of mine used to cycle on the A50 between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge roundabout if anybody knows it and lets just say he is now 2" smaller after 5 crushed vertebrae.
There's no way I'd cycle on a motorway and I'm a daily cyclist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom