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

[LEE]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

[teethgrinder]

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

How much were the stakes raised by and compared to what alternative?

[Regulator]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

[AikenDrum]

The A30 is subject to high side-winds.

I know - it's on my doorstep. The section that this happened on is quite sheltered though (unlike the road bridges between Hayle and Redruth), and the wind was moderate SW that day - got a nice tailwind on the way to work in Truro.
 

[jogler]

Dreadful news, but depressingly regular amongst those who ride LEJOG.

I will admit that our first consideration was something like "how do you get from LE to JOG without A30, A74 and A9". None of them are places I would choose to be (or more precisely none of them are places I would like to share with the vehicular traffic).

I avoided all those roads on my E2E.

I  travelled the lenght & width of the country for over 25 years,doing more than 1000 miles per week.This gave me a "local knowledge" of alternative routes to the major trunk roads,without being a local.
A definate advantage IMO.

The ace up the sleeve for me was the owner of the map shop in Truro.Not only did a I benefit from his very local knowledge; he sold me a cyclist map of Cornwall.A real gem which has been used by others otp.

[andyoxon]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

Reg, I don't agree with this.  The driving and road conditions at the point you turn on to that dual cwy are what they are.  Would you cycle all day on the A30 dual cwy?  *

*  Not a comment on the choices made by the two in the tragic incident...

[Regulator]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

Reg, I don't agree with this.  The driving and road conditions at the point you turn on to that dual cwy are what they are.  Would you cycle all day on the A30 dual cwy?  *

*  Not a comment on the choices made by the two in the tragic incident...

I don't know _ I'll find out if I ever get round to doing a LEJOG.  But I regularly cycle on the A14.

[LEE]

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

You're talking about potential martyrdom.  I don't see that as my role.  I'm just after a quiet ride on quiet roads where possible.

You're more than welcome to reclaim the A30 for cyclists on my behalf though.

[contango]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

Asking why there are places where cyclists are less safe is an easy one. If you're sharing the road with traffic moving 20mph in town you're relatively safe, not least because you're not going much faster than the traffic. When you're sharing the road with traffic moving 70mph you're less safe, simply because if anyone makes a mistake you, as the cyclist, are the one who takes most of the damage.

I don't see it as being anything to do with "capitulating to tyranny" and more about staying alive. Some activities are riskier than others, and at some point we make a decision not to take the risk. At motorway speeds all it takes is one inattentive driver, one driver who is blown off course by a side wind, one mistake from the cyclist, and the end results can be tragic.

[Greenbank]

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place...

Where did someone (specifically Paul) say that the cyclists were in the wrong place?

and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

"less safe" == "more dangerous"

I don't see how what you're saying isn't exactly the same thing as LEEPaul is saying.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

A major problem is that the Brits build roads with skinny lane widths. Aussie and US roads with similar road speeds and traffic distributions have wider lanes. All these countries' trucks are the same width.

[hellymedic]

Population density is higher in the UK so there's less land available for use as road.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

There are countries with higher population density and wider main roads. It is a deliberate choice.

[Pickled Onion]

With the best will in the world the driver of an articulated lorry can't always prevent the trailer getting blown off course. 

And artic trailers are constantly being blown into other vehicles on the road?
When overtaking you should be in the other lane - whether you're overtaking a lorry, car, cyclist, horse or pedestrian.

When you're sharing the road with traffic moving 70mph you're less safe, simply because if anyone makes a mistake you, as the cyclist, are the one who takes most of the damage.

As is everyone - a whole family from my son's school was killed when an artic driver failed to look where he was going on the M6 and went straight over their car. Whatever mode of transport you're in, if someone cocks up in a 40 tonne lorry it tends to be fatal.

I'm with Regu on this, I'm fed up with people saying a road is dangerous, they will say it about whatever roads they use: the trunk road because of the speeds, the roads in town because there's so much traffic, the country lanes because of the bends, single track roads because there's not room to pass, yada yada yada it's all the same crap. Basically everywhere is too dangerous to cycle because people in their cars don't want anyone else on them.

[LEE]

We all know WHY a road is dangerous.  We all know it's cars and lorries that make a road dangerous.
I'm not sure why people are being so deliberately obtuse about understanding why some roads can be construed as more dangerous than others.

We all wish we lived in Regulator's ideal world, where cyclists and motorists lived side by side on the Piano keyboard but we don't.

Some roads are nice and quiet and lovely.  Cars pootle by at 30 mph with a toot and a wave. 
Some roads are busy and cars pass by very close, but they are only doing 20mph. 
Some roads are extremely busy with hardly any passing room.  Traffic passes by at over 70mph and the inside lane is full of Lorries, all stuck behind one another as they try to climb over Bodmin Moor.

The A30 is a road like that.  I know that it's traffic that makes it dangerous so that's why I called it a dangerous road.

OK, if it helps bridge the semantics gap, how about this...

The A30 is not a dangerous road.  It's a long strip of benign tarmac.
However, that benign strip of tarmac is full of cars going 70-90mph, trucks doing 50-60mph in the inside lane.  The trucks are liable to be driven by someone doing the crossword or just having a nap at the wheel.
As a cyclist you will be sharing that inside lane with these lorries.  Many will see you at the last second as they are tailgating 6 feet behind another lorry.
If it's windy then they will be swerving about , sometimes even crossing the white line to the left, so there's nowhere to hide.

So, if you are planning a LEJoG, you should do a serious risk assessment of the TRAFFIC on the otherwise benign piece of tarmac that is the A30. Does that clear up the confusion about a road being dangerous?  Yes..it's the traffic, who knew?

If you are adamant that you wish to teach those dozing lorry drivers a lesson by cycling on the A30, showing them that you have a perfect right to your little bit of it, then be my guest.  That's what I did after all,  spent all day on the A30.  I'm sure hundreds of cyclists use it annually for LEJoG without incident.

Just thought I'd mention that I felt lucky to get away with my life.  I doubt the traffic has decreased or got any slower in the last 11 years.  Maybe the standard of driving improved, strange things do happen.  I wouldn't know, I'll never cycle on it again.  I expect it's still full of dangerous TRAFFIC.

[Chris S]

I think that most cyclists know what I mean when I say that some roads are dangerous. 

We all recognise that moment when the stakes just got raised, as you turn on to that busy dual carriageway.

We may recognise that - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept it.  And by not turning onto that road that is eactly what you are doing.  You are capitulating to the tyranny of the motorist and allowing yourself to be bullied off the road.

Let's stop saying the cyclists were in the wrong place and start asking why there are places where cyclists might be less safe and what we're going to do about them...

Reg, I don't agree with this.  The driving and road conditions at the point you turn on to that dual cwy are what they are.  Would you cycle all day on the A30 dual cwy?  *

*  Not a comment on the choices made by the two in the tragic incident...

I don't know _ I'll find out if I ever get round to doing a LEJOG.  But I regularly cycle on the A14.

Just because you could, doesn't mean you should!

We pass cyclists occasionally, on trunk routes - A11, A14, A1, A5, A6 to name a few recently. We always say the same. "You'd have to want to..."

Riding on trunk routes is nuts. They're motorways by any other name, and whilst you have the right to ride there, why the fuck would you?

I have every sympathy for the A30 casualties - and their families. I've driven along the A30 a lot - and not once did I think "This would work as a cycle route". Instead, I was always thinking "What routes are there around here to keep me away from this road - for here lies danger and death...".

[teethgrinder]

When I last cycled on the A30 in 2006, the trucks were the least of my problems. They all managed to use the overtaking lane to overtake me, unlike a lot of car drivers.

These trunk roads sure are like motorways. Very efficient for getting around the country by bicycle, especially when you don't have time to plan meticulous routes, want to get the miles done and not faff around with lanes, maps, busy town centres etc. Which is why I use them. Very handy for getting to and from Audax events when you don't have a car. I'm sure I'd have missed the start of a few events if I never used trunk roads on some occasions.
Sometimes the alternative route is a very lengthy diversion.

LWAB is right too. After touring in the USA, even major trunk roads in England felt tiny compared to even minor desert roads, which often have a shoulder as wide as the hard shoulder of a motorway.

[drossall]

Riding on trunk routes is nuts. They're motorways by any other name, and whilst you have the right to ride there, why the fuck would you?

Because you want to get from A to B, and someone built a dual carriageway on top of the direct route.

No comment on the A30. It's off my patch. However, for the cyclist simply trying to get somewhere a long way away by a reasonable, short route, the options can vary.

Years ago I did North Herts to Cheshire (or back) as a day ride up the A6, a number of times. At that point little or none of it was dualled. A few years later I did some of it again and they had "improved" whole sections with no thought to cyclists.

Getting north up the A1 from here used to be a problem. There is a back-road route (sometimes there isn't), but someone slapped the dualled A1 in the way at Blunham, and blocked it. Cyclists had little option but to ride up the dual carriageway and turn right across it It's been fixed by more recent improvements.

Further up, as the A1 has been "improved", a fairly continuous parallel old road has been left between Huntingdon and Peterborough. There's no reason to use the new road on a bike (you can't - it's motorway anyway). Further north, I'm not clear that there are parallel roads nearby.

When I rode to Staffordshire up the A5 some years back, again there was no nearby, direct alternative. I could have found a route around, but I was riding at my limit distance and didn't want anything that added miles. The A5 (then) was bearable, but some sections were not fun.

It's different if you're touring. If you're simply using the bike for travel, adding 10% for safety means that some places cease to be reachable in a day, especially as it probably adds another 10% of time in hills and navigation. Try telling a driver that they had to take every bypass, even where they knew that traffic was light and going through town would save 25% of time.

And that, as someone says, assumes that back roads are safer. If motorists are still doing 70mph but round blind corners, they may not be.

[Martin]

I'd rather be alive than in the right when it comes to roads like this;

I've ridden on a few DC A roads recently; apart from very early in the morning or at night whilst lit up like a Christmas tree I personally think they should remain the preserve of the motorised

[Hummers]

From the news report last night, it happened on a straight, fast and flat section just after the Newquay turn off at the bottom of the descent from Carland Cross. God knows what the lorry driver was doing not to have seen them - browsing his twitter feed, chatting on his mobile, asleep at the wheel... it'll come out eventually.

Every morning during the Summer, I see End to Enders dicing with death on the eastbound A30 during rush hour, and there's really no need. A recommended route would be a good idea. Here's mine, for the first 120 miles or so:

A30 to and through Penzance sp Redruth. After Canonstown, take the estuary road through Hayle (B3301), then at the Loggans Moor Rdb follow the road through Connor Downs - Camborne (A3047) - Redruth - Chacewater - Truro (A390) - Tresillian - Ladock Valley (B3275) - Fraddon - Indian Queens. Next, take the parallel "old road" over Goss Moor through Victoria to Bodmin. From Bodmin tough the dual carriageway out as far as Launceston (some moorland sections can be used between Temple and Bolventor, but these take you further onto Bodmin Moor), and then take the old A30 through Lewdown, Okehampton, Sticklepath, Whiddon Down, Crockernwell, Tedburn St Mary to Exeter.

Or, skip the A30 altogether and from Fraddon head up the Atlantic Highway (A39) through Wadebridge, Stratton, Holsworthy, Okehampton to Exeter.

We did this ^^^

Worked for us.

September we will be riding a more scenic version.

H

[teethgrinder]

I'd rather be alive than in the right when it comes to roads like this;

I've ridden on a few DC A roads recently; apart from very early in the morning or at night whilst lit up like a Christmas tree I personally think they should remain the preserve of the motorised

Quiet DCs may not be safer than other roads, especially at times of day or night when people would be more prone to falling asleep or being drunk while driving and even more so on a road that is more sleep inducung than a winding country road.

[andyoxon]

Without getting into the whole 'pros' and cons of segregated cycling and cycle path jucntions - something lile this  http://goo.gl/maps/G1rJt  (perhaps with enhanced spec and special attention paid to junctions)  may have been good for the A30 DC sections; especially given the tourism aspect of long distance cycling in the county, and historic use of the A30.  Probably still wouldn't be a terribly pleasant experience though.

[phil d]

When overtaking you should be in the other lane - whether you're overtaking a lorry, car, cyclist, horse or pedestrian.

Picture this.  You are driving a 35 foot artic at 50 mph along a busy dual carriageway.  Let's imagine you are following a panel van.  You can't easily see past him even from your lofty driving position.  In the outside lane is a steady stream of cars, vans etc streaming along at 70, many of them rather closer together than normal highway code advice would suggest.  Suddenly the van in front indicates right, and skips into the minimal space alongside him.  The car now behind him brakes, and almost instantly the gaps between the vehicles in that outside lane have decreased dramatically.  And now the van is not in front of you you can see two cyclists in your lane.  They are doing 10 mph.  You eased off as soon as the van signalled, wondering what was happening, so you're "only" doing 40 now.  But there's a solid line of traffic on your offside travelling 30mph faster than you are - there's no way you're going to get a 35 foot artic into that space.

Now what?

It's all very well saying there should be enough stopping distance to be able to stop in the visible space.  For a laden artic at 50mph that would need to be a very large space.  But we all know that if you leave that sort of space, someone will move into it.  It's what happens.  So few drivers leave as much space as they should.

If we take "road" to mean a strip of tarmac, Reg is right - there's no such thing as a dangerous road.  I think most of us take "road" to mean the whole environment connected to that strip of tarmac.

[Regulator]

When overtaking you should be in the other lane - whether you're overtaking a lorry, car, cyclist, horse or pedestrian.

Picture this.  You are driving a 35 foot artic at 50 mph along a busy dual carriageway.  Let's imagine you are following a panel van.  You can't easily see past him even from your lofty driving position.  In the outside lane is a steady stream of cars, vans etc streaming along at 70, many of them rather closer together than normal highway code advice would suggest.  Suddenly the van in front indicates right, and skips into the minimal space alongside him.  The car now behind him brakes, and almost instantly the gaps between the vehicles in that outside lane have decreased dramatically.  And now the van is not in front of you you can see two cyclists in your lane.  They are doing 10 mph.  You eased off as soon as the van signalled, wondering what was happening, so you're "only" doing 40 now.  But there's a solid line of traffic on your offside travelling 30mph faster than you are - there's no way you're going to get a 35 foot artic into that space.

Now what?

It's all very well saying there should be enough stopping distance to be able to stop in the visible space.  For a laden artic at 50mph that would need to be a very large space.  But we all know that if you leave that sort of space, someone will move into it.  It's what happens.  So few drivers leave as much space as they should.

If we take "road" to mean a strip of tarmac, Reg is right - there's no such thing as a dangerous road.  I think most of us take "road" to mean the whole environment connected to that strip of tarmac.

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.

[Jaded]

Accepting that HGVs don't need to consider thinking and braking distance is accepting that the HC and its enforcement is a crock of shit and that the roads have been ceded to the whim of the motorist.

However the HGV drivers do consider the environment - they drive very, very, very close to each other to save fuel.