Very sad news coming out of Cornwall - two cyclists killed on A30

[Ham]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

For years people have been saying it's too dangerous to cycle in London.  But by using the 'dangerous' roads cyclists have encouraged others on to the road, got drivers used to cyclists, and this made the whole environment safer throught the safety in numbers effect.  The evidence is clear... London has become safer for cyclists because they wouldn't be bullied off the 'dangerous' roads, because they've on the whole ignored the 'farcilities' designed (largely) by non-cyclists that put them into danger, and because they've reclaimed the streets.  In so doing they've changed the environment.

That's not a good comparison at all.

For many years, people who don't cycle have been saying that its dangerous to cycle in London. It never has been.

Right now, people who cycle are saying it is dangerous to cycle on the A30. It really is.

[Freya]

Hmmmm. A campaign to reclaim high speed dual carriageways for cyclists by belligerently riding on them?Don't think you'll get many takers to be honest.

[Regulator]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

For years people have been saying it's too dangerous to cycle in London.  But by using the 'dangerous' roads cyclists have encouraged others on to the road, got drivers used to cyclists, and this made the whole environment safer throught the safety in numbers effect.  The evidence is clear... London has become safer for cyclists because they wouldn't be bullied off the 'dangerous' roads, because they've on the whole ignored the 'farcilities' designed (largely) by non-cyclists that put them into danger, and because they've reclaimed the streets.  In so doing they've changed the environment.

That's not a good comparison at all.

For many years, people who don't cycle have been saying that its dangerous to cycle in London. It never has been.

Really?  It was only non-cyclists?  You sure about that?  So the cyclists who tell me even now that I'm mad to cycle in London aren't really cyclists?

Right now, people who cycle are saying it is dangerous to cycle on the A30. It really is.

Is it?  The fact that there's been deaths doesn't automatically mean that it's dangerous.  How many people cycle on that road without getting hurt?

[Regulator]

Hmmmm. A campaign to reclaim high speed dual carriageways for cyclists by belligerently riding on them?Don't think you'll get many takers to be honest.

What do you mean 'belligerently riding'?  Why use such silly emotive language?  Is it because you think it will somehow bolster your point of view?

[Ham]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

For years people have been saying it's too dangerous to cycle in London.  But by using the 'dangerous' roads cyclists have encouraged others on to the road, got drivers used to cyclists, and this made the whole environment safer throught the safety in numbers effect.  The evidence is clear... London has become safer for cyclists because they wouldn't be bullied off the 'dangerous' roads, because they've on the whole ignored the 'farcilities' designed (largely) by non-cyclists that put them into danger, and because they've reclaimed the streets.  In so doing they've changed the environment.

That's not a good comparison at all.

For many years, people who don't cycle have been saying that its dangerous to cycle in London. It never has been.

Really?  It was only non-cyclists?  You sure about that?  So the cyclists who tell me even now that I'm mad to cycle in London aren't really cyclists?

Really. Anyone who thinks that London roads are unsafe is inexperienced (specifically inexperience of London roads, maybe) - something that can be helped by training. London roads are demonstrably safe, for the majority of the time your safety is in your own hands.

Right now, people who cycle are saying it is dangerous to cycle on the A30. It really is.

Is it?  The fact that there's been deaths doesn't automatically mean that it's dangerous.  How many people cycle on that road without getting hurt?

Yes, saying anything else is ludicrous. I don't know the A30 in particular, but it is clearly in the class of road where for the majority of the time your safety is in other people's hands. Those are the roads I avoid.

[Freya]

Hmmmm. A campaign to reclaim high speed dual carriageways for cyclists by belligerently riding on them?Don't think you'll get many takers to be honest.

What do you mean 'belligerently riding'?  Why use such silly emotive language?  Is it because you think it will somehow bolster your point of view?

No. It's because the A30 is a fucking dangerous road to ride a bike down & sadly that has just been demonstrated. Might I suggest it is time to get real?

[Jaded]

Some of the country roads round me are fucking dangerous too - especially at school pick-up time and in the late evening when the boys are out in their hatchbacks. They regularly kill themselves against trees.

[Regulator]

Some of the country roads round me are fucking dangerous too - especially at school pick-up time and in the late evening when the boys are out in their hatchbacks. They regularly kill themselves against trees.

Then you shouldn't be cycling on them.  In fact, as any road with motorised transport mean for the majority of the time your safety is in other people's hands, you shouldn't be cycling on any roads.

Perhaps we should just pander to the deepest desire of many motorists and ban cyclists from all roads?  That'd solve the supposed problem of cyclists using 'dangerous' roads....

[Freya]

Nope. As reasonable adults we all have the ability to assess what is and what isn't an acceptable risk. I'll back my own choices thanks very much. You can make your own decisions, but you ain't gonna persuade me into thinking that I will be striking a blow for cyclists rights by doing something which involves me riding down a busy DC with no hard shoulder. Your straw man is fraying slightly in the wind: bikes won't get banned from the roads just  because we keep off those sections of roads which are too hazardous to cycle safely on.

[Ham]

Some of the country roads round me are fucking dangerous too - especially at school pick-up time and in the late evening when the boys are out in their hatchbacks. They regularly kill themselves against trees.

Then you shouldn't be cycling on them.  In fact, as any road with motorised transport mean for the majority of the time your safety is in other people's hands, you shouldn't be cycling on any roads.

Perhaps we should just pander to the deepest desire of many motorists and ban cyclists from all roads?  That'd solve the supposed problem of cyclists using 'dangerous' roads....

Reductio ad absurdum is just that. Real life is a bit different and you make choices. For example, if you are riding on a country road and you hear a car coming loud and fast, you might choose to say I have as much right as the car to be on the road and pedal blithely on inthe middle of the lane, or you might think to take note of the possibility of a knobhead arriving, and adjust your style accordingly.

[rafletcher]

However, for the cyclist simply trying to get somewhere a long way away by a reasonable, short route, the options can vary.

But this is, by any measure, a miniscule part of road traffic - and thus one not greatly considered (understandably IMO) by road designers.

[Euan Uzami]

The difference between trunk roads like the A30 and a single-carriageway road or even one of those urban 40mph dual carriageways, is that on trunk roads there is an expectation among motor traffic not to have to slow down. The slip-road system is at least partly responsible for this. The aim of a slip road is to keep all traffic on the road moving at cruising pace, you don't have to slow down for traffic leaving or joining because they are provided the means to accelerate/decelerate before joining/after leaving.
Whereas on single carriageways I think it is accepted that you will have to slow down for bends, junctions, hazards, ... so traffic is more prepared to have to slow down if necessary to overtake cyclists, as well.
FWIW I can completely see Regulator's point. The prevailing attitude does annoy me and I have found myself starting using the 'safety in numbers' quote to ignorant but well-meaning people who display the 'idiot motorists make roads dangerous for cyclists => therefore don't cycle' attitude, and they've sort of gone - 'oh yeah, I suppose - you've got a point there'. However, I think there is a limit to how far that theory stretches - and I think the line is drawn at trunk roads with slip roads where there is no other reason for traffic to have to slow down to cyclist speed... than a cyclist.

The ideal, obviously, would be for Regulator to persuade enough people to cycle on the A30 that motor traffic gets used to them, and just accepts it as fact that you get cyclists on this road and that you will occasionally have to slow down for them. But have a look at it statistically, I don't think it's ever going to happen, realistically, is it - the critical level just isn't going to be reached.

I think it would be nice if it were mandatory to build a good quality, tarmac cycle path next to all new dual carriageways that are built.

[Jaded]

Some of the country roads round me are fucking dangerous too - especially at school pick-up time and in the late evening when the boys are out in their hatchbacks. They regularly kill themselves against trees.

Then you shouldn't be cycling on them.  In fact, as any road with motorised transport mean for the majority of the time your safety is in other people's hands, you shouldn't be cycling on any roads.

Perhaps we should just pander to the deepest desire of many motorists and ban cyclists from all roads?  That'd solve the supposed problem of cyclists using 'dangerous' roads....

Reductio ad absurdum is just that. Real life is a bit different and you make choices. For example, if you are riding on a country road and you hear a car coming loud and fast, you might choose to say I have as much right as the car to be on the road and pedal blithely on inthe middle of the lane, or you might think to take note of the possibility of a knobhead arriving, and adjust your style accordingly.

...and many may decide to give up cycling altogether.

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

[Ham]

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

Calling it bullying on trunk roads is overstatement.  As BenT pointed out, it is about road provision and design, cyclists weren't considered at all. once the road is in place, it isn't bullying for drivers to use it as intended.

[Freya]

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

Fine words. But if your solution to the problem is to cycle down the A30 then you'll have to excuse me if my support is limited to waving you off as you go.
You really aren't going to encourage people to ride bikes if you point out roads like this and say 'That road isn't dangerous, it is perfectly safe to cycle on.' The average Joe will just think that you are some sort of two wheeled fundamentalist nutter. If all roads were like the A30, too darn right lots of people would give up cycling. The problem is that they create roads like these and then do not put in a cycling friendly alternative, whether that is a quieter, appropriately designed, equally convenient road or a segregated, co-located, well maintained and useable cyclepath.

[Exit Stage Left]

I'd be interested in some statistics on the percentage of riders taking the A30 as part of a LEJOG or JOGLE. There have been a number of high-profile fund-raising events and corporate rides which focus on fast times. Do these set up a presumption against less direct routes? Perhaps we need a well known record-breaker to set a time on a benign route, which is then available for GPS.

[Jaded]

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

Fine words. But if your solution to the problem is to cycle down the A30 then you'll have to excuse me if my support is limited to waving you off as you go.
You really aren't going to encourage people to ride bikes if you point out roads like this and say 'That road isn't dangerous, it is perfectly safe to cycle on.' The average Joe will just think that you are some sort of two wheeled fundamentalist nutter. If all roads were like the A30, too darn right lots of people would give up cycling. The problem is that they create roads like these and then do not put in a cycling friendly alternative, whether that is a quieter, appropriately designed, equally convenient road or a segregated, co-located, well maintained and useable cyclepath.

If you wish to read that into my words then fine. You imagine inside your head what my solutions are and you carry on.

[Freya]

If you wish to read that into my words then fine. You imagine inside your head what my solutions are and you carry on.

Perfectly happy to admit that I may have inferred something which isn't there. .... So in that context: What are your views on cycling on the A30 & how do they tie into what you wrote?

[Pickled Onion]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

For years people have been saying it's too dangerous to cycle in London.  But by using the 'dangerous' roads cyclists have encouraged others on to the road, got drivers used to cyclists, and this made the whole environment safer throught the safety in numbers effect.  The evidence is clear... London has become safer for cyclists because they wouldn't be bullied off the 'dangerous' roads, because they've on the whole ignored the 'farcilities' designed (largely) by non-cyclists that put them into danger, and because they've reclaimed the streets.  In so doing they've changed the environment.

That's not a good comparison at all.

For many years, people who don't cycle have been saying that its dangerous to cycle in London. It never has been.

Right now, people who cycle are saying it is dangerous to cycle on the A30. It really is.

I've been cycling in London for over 30 years, and although I'd not class general cycling anywhere as "dangerous" it's clear to me that London is many, many times safer now than it used to be. Cycling in the London rush-hour 20+ years ago was a constant stream of left hooks, being forced off the road and being pulled out on. You had to be experienced and headstrong to stand any chance of performing a right turn.

The difference in driver attitudes between then and now is immense, like black to white, and that's the reason why so many thousands of less experienced people are now happy to cycle in London.

[Regulator]

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

Calling it bullying on trunk roads is overstatement.  As BenT pointed out, it is about road provision and design, cyclists weren't considered at all. once the road is in place, it isn't bullying for drivers to use it as intended.

Nor is it inappropriate for cyclists to use it as intended (you may assume that cyclists weren't considered at all but you can't state that as a fact - unless you're suggesting that your omniescent). 

And roads are intended to be used in accordance with the law and the Highway Code - which includes an emphasis on such things driving at the correct speed for the prevailing conditions (which may be less that the posted maximum speed limit) and taking care of more vulnerable road users (by overtaking correctly etc).

[Jaded]

If you wish to read that into my words then fine. You imagine inside your head what my solutions are and you carry on.

Perfectly happy to admit that I may have inferred something which isn't there. .... So in that context: What are your views on cycling on the A30 & how do they tie into what you wrote?

This is not about individual roads. This is about one group of individuals given carte blanch to bully others. This is about not enforcing the law. This is about the powerful holding sway over the weak through the simple fact of car ownership.

[andyoxon]

The difference between trunk roads like the A30 and a single-carriageway road or even one of those urban 40mph dual carriageways, is that on trunk roads there is an expectation among motor traffic not to have to slow down. The slip-road system is at least partly responsible for this. The aim of a slip road is to keep all traffic on the road moving at cruising pace, you don't have to slow down for traffic leaving or joining because they are provided the means to accelerate/decelerate before joining/after leaving.
Whereas on single carriageways I think it is accepted that you will have to slow down for bends, junctions, hazards, ... so traffic is more prepared to have to slow down if necessary to overtake cyclists, as well.
FWIW I can completely see Regulator's point. The prevailing attitude does annoy me and I have found myself starting using the 'safety in numbers' quote to ignorant but well-meaning people who display the 'idiot motorists make roads dangerous for cyclists => therefore don't cycle' attitude, and they've sort of gone - 'oh yeah, I suppose - you've got a point there'. However, I think there is a limit to how far that theory stretches - and I think the line is drawn at trunk roads with slip roads where there is no other reason for traffic to have to slow down to cyclist speed... than a cyclist.

The ideal, obviously, would be for Regulator to persuade enough people to cycle on the A30 that motor traffic gets used to them, and just accepts it as fact that you get cyclists on this road and that you will occasionally have to slow down for them. But have a look at it statistically, I don't think it's ever going to happen, realistically, is it - the critical level just isn't going to be reached.

I think it would be nice if it were mandatory to build a good quality, tarmac cycle path next to all new dual carriageways that are built.

Yes, I'd like to see a document/minutes where planners met with civil engineers (or whoever) involved in the construction of the new dual cwy sections of the A30, to see what, if any, discussion there was on the impact of going from single to DC on cyclists.

[Si_Co]

I've ridden sections of the A30 on several occasions, there are those parts I wouldn't dream of doing again. The main problem with the A30 is that the alternatives either require superb navigation / good local knowledge or a helluva lot of climbing.

The real tragedy about this is that for this section there is an alternative through some lovely lanes, its about time someone signed LeJOG through cornwall using cyclists local knowledge.

[Ham]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

For years people have been saying it's too dangerous to cycle in London.  But by using the 'dangerous' roads cyclists have encouraged others on to the road, got drivers used to cyclists, and this made the whole environment safer throught the safety in numbers effect.  The evidence is clear... London has become safer for cyclists because they wouldn't be bullied off the 'dangerous' roads, because they've on the whole ignored the 'farcilities' designed (largely) by non-cyclists that put them into danger, and because they've reclaimed the streets.  In so doing they've changed the environment.

That's not a good comparison at all.

For many years, people who don't cycle have been saying that its dangerous to cycle in London. It never has been.

Right now, people who cycle are saying it is dangerous to cycle on the A30. It really is.

I've been cycling in London for over 30 years, and although I'd not class general cycling anywhere as "dangerous" it's clear to me that London is many, many times safer now than it used to be. Cycling in the London rush-hour 20+ years ago was a constant stream of left hooks, being forced off the road and being pulled out on. You had to be experienced and headstrong to stand any chance of performing a right turn.

The difference in driver attitudes between then and now is immense, like black to white, and that's the reason why so many thousands of less experienced people are now happy to cycle in London.

Our experience is similar, and I agree with you basically. I'd also add that my own attitude to cycling, inclination and proficiency of keeping myself out of trouble has changed over the years, too.

It remains that for the most part the hazards in London can mostly be addressed by you, the cyclist, taking precautions or adapting your riding to take yourself out of harm's way. The degree to which you adapt is a matter of choice, but at the barest minimum things like not going up the inside of an HGV are good ideas. When you ride on a road like the A30 you put yourself in harm's way, there is nothing you, the cyclist, can do about it. That doesn't mean that you should be or will be injured or worse, just that you have put yourself into a situation where that can happen. No amount of hyperbole or overstatement can change that basic truth.

An interesting comparison is one of the only unavoidable incidents I've had in London, when I was rear-ended going around Hyde Park Corner at speed (pinged forward, a brown trouser moment but neither the bike nor I were harmed). In that instance I had put myself in harm's way. I didn't deserve it, but the incident happened.

Unless and until you can remove the human element there will be crashes; drivers less than perfect, situations beyond the competence of a driver, any number of unpredictable reasons. Travel these roads in a car and you are always at risk of a having crash. Travel on it in a car at 25 mph and you are likely to be the cause of a crash, do it on a bike and we all know who comes off worst.

[phil d]

Then let's address the issues of that environment rather than saying cyclists should avoid a particular strip of tarmac...  We don't do that by throwing our hands up in the air saying "It's too dangerous" and cycling elsewhere. 

Couldn't agree more.  Trouble is it takes time, and cyclists are losing their lives right now.

And to Jaded, I hope you didn't think I was condoning that situation?  Just trying to understand it.