UKH

Anybody else concerned by the plan to ban cyclists from a fifteen mile stretch of the A63. The justification appears to be that the road is dangerous so the ban is to 'protect' cyclists. Obviously if this becomes the norm for cycle protection we can look forward to being asked to leave off riding altogether at some point.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/comment-banning-cyclists-a63-road...

This is a good link for info and what can be done

https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/20163/action/1?ea.tracking.id=CLIPS

Obviously??

Perhaps some of this anger should be directed at the cyclists using it as a race-track rather than a road as they seem to have caused the problems?  A sensible would be  a segregated bike path and a ban on bikes on the highspeed cariageway, although of course that costs money.

Here's a report on the fatal accident:

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-study/cyclist-killed-during-time-trial-a...

It sounds to me like it was an unfortunate accident as opposed to the practise causing contention between riders and drivers.

It doesn't seem particularly related to that stretch of road, I agree. Isn't racing on (open) roads illegal in itself?

It isnt racing. 

The fatality was " V718 time trial course." 

Exactly. It’s a time trial, not a race. 

.......... Isn't racing on (open) roads illegal in itself?

Nope, but you generally need a police permit, which British Cycling will either source for you, or assist with. 

Time trials are races  (here for example "How to Race" https://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/articles/view/28 )

Anyway, clearly they are somehow legal as the coroner noted that, I see.  I'd suggest banning cycle racing (which is clearly going to result in people not focusing on safety) but allowing cycling would be wise.

There's a long and interesting history to time trialling and road racing. the reason us Brits are such keen testers is that back in the day, when cycle racing was banned, the way around it was for men to meet up very early on a Sunday morning, and ride along a measured circuit. a 2 minute gap ensured that they could claim they were out on a jaunt and not "racing". 

Organising a cycle race is quite a protracted exercise. The risk assessment is pages long, then you add in the necessary signage, accredited and red flag marshalls, escort bikes, commissaries cars, first aid car yadda yadda. 

and fatalities are very rare. 

While your at it, why not ban people going in to,the hills as there is lots of accidents and fatalities which cause a great drain on rescue teams and the emergency services.

Are you Victor Meldrew.

Do you think this collective responsibility/punishment will catch on? So every time a fatality occurs when motorists use a road as a race track, cars get banned from another 16 miles of A road.

Umm, I was suggesting the exact opposite.  But carry on in your normal blind rage towards any other road user.

I meant racing on open roads, clearly.

Most of the cycle racing in the UK is on open roads. Just listen to the complaints they get when they shut the roads for Ride London. Can you image if they shut the roads for a small club race in East Yorkshire.

There are strict rules that British Cycle, RTTC and others have to adhere to in order to get police approval for a race to run.

Well good. I'm guessing from the sophistry above, this stretch has quite a few accidents beyond the fatality due rac.. sorry timetrials without what you outline in place. No authority is going to do this for the hell of it.

As far I am aware there has been only one serious accident. It’s a bit like your good self “ Outraged of Tumbridge Wells” racing on the A63 “ good god man that’s needs banning”

According to the application it's 6 recent accidents.  And yes,  racing on roads is obviously dangerous to both cyclists and others. Cyclists obviously know this too or they wouldn't need to pretend they weren't racing.  Would you be happy with cars racing?

It is not a bunch race. It is individual competitors riding alone with 2 minute gaps.

Don't confuse it with a road race.

I recall the fatality in question was caused by the rider not seeing a towed caravan that was parked in lane1

They are not pretending to race, they are racing in a time trial. It’s an organised event put on by one of the local Cycling clubs under the rules of the Cycling time trials.

I'm aware of that. The point is it's people trying to go fast rather than trying to be safe. The poor guy killed is an extreme example. The report says he was so focused on his speed, he can't have looked ahead for at least 45 seconds. Even moderate examples will result in recklessness, which is why such racing is a bad idea.

I know. You'd better sort this out with posters above who are pretending it's not a race.

Are you really a climber as people going up rocks or mountains clearly are taking risks. I always thought the idea of a race was to go fast and yes they are taking risks just like you when you go bumbling up some HVS. I suspect that you are just  taking the p*ss however.

Stats are totally against you. Accidents in TTs are incredibly rare.

With my life, not other people's. If people want to cyclec race, fine, but don't mix it with other road users.

Well six on this stretch recently (to be fair not all.may be race related).

And 300 car crashes on the same stretch in the same time period.

Made up, I assume. But if true, the answer isn't to do nothing. 

True actually. You could assume or you could do a bit of research and stop posting bollox.

Oh FFS exactly how do I find that out even if II wanted to? Suggesting roads arent suitable for racing is entirely reasonable.  

Well it isn't reasonable if you have no statistics whatsoever that back you up.

Thinking outside the box a minute, why don't we just, you know, fix the road so the road's less, like, dangerous and that?

Cheers,

BB, aged 28 and three quarters.

Do you think pootling along that stretch of road on a "sit up and beg" bike would be safer?  

I did suggest that in my first post by apparently it's a bollox idea.

That I think focusing on safety not speed is sensible?

Ah, sorry. I'm bollox at reading you see. 

I think in general paying full attention to the road would be safer. There is another thread (rightly) bemoaning distractions in modern cars. Something tells me cycling mafia would be screaming blue murder if an accident resulted from that.

TT's happen in the 100's each week.

Road races probably around 50 each week through spring and summer.

Fatalities are really very rare.

I have 3 road races to organise this year. My risk assessments are substantial, very detailed documents. It's not something you chuck on on a whim.

Then with limited resources the focus should be addressing driver behaviour not cyclists.

What an absurd article.  The relevant authorities want to bar cyclists from a small stretch of high speed dual carriageway and they're basically applying the 'thin end of the wedge' argument to say that all cyclists will be banned from all roads in the near future. Maybe, just maybe, they've got a point and mixing cyclists and a high speed dual carriageway isn't actually a good idea.
The linked article from that one is even worse.  The main argument there is that the road should be kept open because it's good for Time Trialing and that it has a rich history of said Time Trialing. Times change and the road network has got busier.  As a suggestion, why not accept the ban generally but do so with the proviso that Time Trialing can be done when traffic is almost certainly going to be light. For example, do it in the Summer at 0500 on a Sunday. 

But you were implying that they are unsafe because they are "racing". It is probably safer to ride as part of an organised time trial, held when the traffic is light, with warning signage, and motorists prepared for cyclists at intervals in the slow lane, than as lone slower cyclist in heavy traffic on a dual carriageway, no matter how attentive you are. 

Road races, even by their nature, with maybe a bunch of 60 riders riding at 28mph are much safer than time trials. Road races are held on quiet country roads with a lead car and Marshalls at every junction.
Crashes in a road race result in smashed bikes lost skin and maybe if you're unlucky a broken shoulder.

Time trials in the UK are crazy. Why would anyone want to bomb down a dual carriage alongside lorries, coaches and cars towing caravans? You need to get across a roundabout? You go for the gap because if you slow to let a car through a 23m02s sounds worse than a 22m58s..........
Ever tried getting down from your cheap sticks to your brake levers in an emergency??

In my 30 years on a bike I probably know of at least half a dozen testers who have died, mostly by going into the back of something and just one guy who died in a road race. Testers ride with their heads down, it's remarkably easy to lose concentration even at 25mph. I know one guy from Selby who went into the back of a tractor on a straight section of dual carriageway, took him a year to learn to walk again .

W

As soon as people start concentrating on something other than theirs and others safety - like phones, arguing with their passenger,  or getting the fastest time , then accidents happen. This wilful blindness around timetrials, and the insistence that it isn't a race is only going to see further legislation

I've been cycling, TTs, Audaxes etc and climbing since the mid eighties. I know of far more people who have died climbing and mountaineering. Why is no one on here calling for climbing to be banned ?

I’m not sure why. It would be one of the least effective road safety measures among a range of measures that could be taken to prevent KSI. 

Bad cases make bad law. And regardless of data, intransigence and obstinacy riles law makers/enforcers. There is a problem. It may or may not be a big problem, but its a visible problem and easy and cheap to fix (in their eyes)

Climbing has been banned in numerous places where it poses a threat to non-climbing members of the public. For example, the seasonal restrictions at Cheddar, Pen Trwyn and the blanket ban at Chapel Cove.

You should pay more attention to the news after every bad winter. Be grateful it wouldbe expensive to enforce and complicated to legislate

That isn't climbers calling for the ban, it's normally idiot Daily Mail readers  without a clue of any actual figures - just like those on here frothing about the dangers of TTs without any stats to back up . This whole thread is about a stretch of road that over a period of years has had 6 cycling accidents and 300 vehicle accidents and yet the problem that needs addressing is the cyclists. You couldn't make it up.

Despite your whataboutery, no one is suggesting doing nothing about car accidents.   The road will have myriad restrictions (speed for one) and safety features (e.g. lighting) that restrict what cars can do.  No one other than out-and-out petrol heads complain.  Yes when it is suggested that cycle races should be restricted, cyclists go beserk.

One day you'll make some sense. There have been loads of TT courses that cyclists have voluntarily stopped using over the years due to safety concerns without anyone going beserk. I don't ride dual carriageway TTs anymore but riding on a dual carriageway early in the morning in light traffic on an event what is well signed and marshalled is probably safer than my morning commute which normally involves several close car passes and emergency stops from myself.. Traffic can see cyclists on a dual carriageway from a long way off and have a lane to overtake in. Most on this thread are commenting from a position of 'That looks dangerous' without any knowledge or experience to back up their statements.

Isn't there an equivalent of belay glasses for TTers so they can see where they're going with their head down?

So prevent a couple of cyclists dying (at least on that stretch of road) by pissing cyclists off while merrily ignoring the issues that kill hundreds?

You seem to have difficulty in understanding that cycle races are restricted, courses have to be risk assessed and approved. What is happening here is they are trying to withdraw course that currently is approved for use and has been raced on by the London Olympic Champion and given his then commitments, he was unlikely just to ride on any old MickeyMouse course.

No, I understand that I just think its an entirely reasonable thing to do.  

Edit to say that at a guess the formal races are, as others have said, probably well-organised. I'd suspect here we have lots of informal racers doing dangerous things that have caused the authorities to act.  In general though the mindset that it is OK to race on roads is just asking for trouble.

for a climber, I don't really understand your take on this., 

Road races: They are not probably, they very definitely are well organised. They're each subject to a British Cycling and Police permit. You can't race on the road without one. There is a strict policy and protocol to follow in terms of risk assessments - the road book covers every junction, hazard bend etc. There's a marshalling plan, a race vehicle plan, full insurance cover, National Escort Group motorcycles (often) and a final Police sign off. 

The mashalls at many of these races, (and hopefully  soon 100%) are Accredited, so they have the power to stop traffic, much like a lillipop man

The commissaries (of which I am one) are subject to extensive training, and riders are sanctioned for anything deemed dangerous or irresponsible. 

It takes weeks to get one sanctioned and approved. 

TT's

These are less tightly controlled, mainly because what you have is  punters  in pointy hats riding a course for 10, 25, 100, 24 hours, whichever. They're spaced by 2 minutes, run a flashing rear light and the junctions are marshalled. 

TT courses are all approved by the police. The last one I marshalled was on the A5, and I was kept company by two of West Mercia's finest Black Rats, who were happy to see the event run (on an early Sunday morning). 

Yes, some accidents do happen, mainly target fixation - staring at the power meter and not looking up. Much like running it out instead of backing off. Operator error. 

Finally, this is one of 3 courses in the UK that has seen the national 10 mile record broken.  It's an important course. Worth bearing in mind that Marcel Biabolcki, who set the record for he 10 on this course, was sanctioned and disqualified from a record breaking 25 later that year, because he strayed too far into the carriageway. It is quite well policed. 

The problem with cycle racing/time trials on roads is that it doesn't just put cyclists at risk, it puts other road users at risk as well.

I posted on another thread of some dangerous actions I witnessed by cyclists racing over the Hard Knott Pass last year, for example.

If climbing was taking place over a public road (say) and gear or rocks were being dropped on drivers causing accidents, I'd see a case for it to be banned in that specific place...isn't that why the rules in Cheddar Gorge are there?

Was this actually a race, or a sportive (Fred maybe) or just some cyclists?

I ask because they're very different. 

As far as I know, Hardknott* is not a sanctioned circuit, so it cannot be used for racing. 

*It has been used in the ToB, but that's a closed road race so not directly comparable. 

Spot on.

Clearly not if the many triathlons and TTs that occur around the country are anything to go by.

Slateman in Llanberis for example. Roads open to traffic while the cycle phase conducted.

TT is a race (just not a bunch race) but it isn't illegal.

Except the events are formal and sanctioned by police.

They want to ban all cycling.

It was a large organised event.  Possibly a sportive, but people were treating it as a race, which a sportive isn't really meant to be.

For clarity, the specific bad behaviour I saw, and I saw it more than once (twice, I think), was where I had, as the Highway Code says, stopped to give way to traffic coming up the Pass, I was overtaken by a cyclist at excessive speed who weaved past me and into a blind corner and had a close pass with the car I had given way to.  That was incredibly dangerous behaviour.  There are very few places on the Pass where an overtake is safe, and this wasn't one of them; had he thought I was pulling in to let him overtake he should have overtaken slowly and safely and ready to stop well before he saw any possible oncoming vehicle.

FWIW at the same time there was some kind of organised classic motorcycle run going on (nightmare day on the Pass! ) and their behaviour was impeccable.

Careful. Sounds like a good reason to ban all cyclists from all 'high speed dual carriageways' and areas of heavy traffic. Which brings me back to my original concerns.

dangerous for the cyclist but not for you sitting in a 1 tonne metal box.

No, dangerous for everyone on the road.  What if the other car had swerved to avoid him and left the road?  What if in doing so he had collided with another pedestrian or cyclist?

Scaring other road users by that kind of conduct is not acceptable.  If you want to belt down a hill fast (but attentively) on a pushbike, go find something wide and straight like the Woodhead down on the Yorkshire side.  Descending the Hardknott it is barely sensible to do any more than 15-20mph in most places, often slower, and NEVER acceptable to overtake on a blind bend or summit, ever, on any road, in any kind of vehicle, unless there is an obstruction fully blocking your side of the road in which case you pass it carefully and attentively at very low speed until you can see again.

Its a free country, he would have to live with the consequences of his actions, something most motorists are oblivious to while driving around in their padded cells.

You're going on about ONE event that you thought was a race which wasn't a race and you are using this experience as your massive knowlegde of road racing (even though this wasn't a race.)

Basically my view is roads are dangerous, shared, expensive resources.  Given this, all users should try to be as safe as they reasonably can and as inconvenient to others as they reasonably can.    If people are racing on them they are not doing either because they will be focusing on speed instead of safety and consideration of others.  If in some cases the safety and convenience issues mean a minority of users are affecting the majority, some way of managing this is needed.   I don't think the arguing that a road can no longer be used as a race-track trumps this need.

This is different to almost all climbing situations because rock is not normally a shared resource (or at least only between climbers).  Exceptions, such say Salisbury crags in Edinburgh where pedestrians would be at risk from climbers, or some bird restrictions are fine by me for the same reasons as restrictions on road racing.

Sounds like a muppet. 

But then again, muppets are not reserved for cycles. The roads are awash with muppets, who frequently kill themselves and others in their tin boxes. 

For some reason, it's ok to ignore these, and focus on "pushbikes". 
 

I would not disagree with much of that, except that bunch racing is tightly controlled and managed. The peloton (and breakways) are protected within the race convoy, and road users are equally shielded. 

On a time trial, I bet many drivers pass one in progress and don't even register it happening.  It's little or no impact (no pun intended). 

If a rider puts their head down and ignore what's going on around, then it's operator error. 

So would anyone he hit.  Do you not think a motorist who killed a cyclist might be just a little bit shaken up, even if it were not his fault?  Train drivers who hit people often never work again, and it is by definition not their fault.

I get utterly fed up of this anti-motorist, anti-cyclist, anti-runner, anti-whatever stuff.  (Anyone who reads here regularly will know I'm just as critical of motorist behaviour when it is due).

I am a cyclist (as a mode of transport, mainly).  I am a motorist.  I am a pedestrian.  I travel by bus and train.  I fly.  I travel by boat.  The only common one I don't do is motorcycling, but given that I'm heading dangerously for middle age I wouldn't rule that one out either.

It does NOT have to be one against the other.

EVERYBODY on the road has to behave with safety and consideration of others, whatever their vehicle (or none).

This thread is about cyclists.  You will be well aware (use Google if not) that I am often very critical of motorists' actions as well on other threads, most notably in the context of excessive speed (people who think it is OK to do 100mph on the motorway for instance), overassertiveness (no point being right and dead, or worse being right and killing someone else) and inattentiveness.

I am using it as an example, yes.  It is a valid example of an organised cycle event in which I witnessed what is quite serious misconduct.  I expect a "furious cycling" charge would have stuck had one been attempted.

I was suggesting a pragmatic approach by cyclists.
Accept the inevitable ban on cycling on that particular stretch of road for 99.99% of the time, but ask if it's possible to run Time Trials at known quiet periods.  Maybe the relevant authorities will accept that compromise and not everything will be lost.
However, I feel that cyclists will stamp their feet, demand that everything and everyone changes to suit them as per normal and end up losing everything.
 

We're discussing road racing and time trialling on Police sanctioned courses.

The fact that you saw someone ride like a knobhead on the Hardknott Pass once isn't relevant, much the same as the VAG white goods tailgating me on the way to work this morning isn't relevant.

But you brought it up, and it's not relevant. 

That post started well- had compromise and everything, but then it all went wrong and you spoiled your paper. 

Try reading some of the posts on here and in the various linked articles.
Cyclists don't want compromise.  They're not even happy with saying why they think cycling is safe enough to continue on this stretch of road.  Instead, they say that other road users should adjust their behaviour, that other road users are the ones that are the ones causing all the problems, that they as a cyclist are quite prepared to accept the risk and on their head be it, etc.
I haven't seen many, if any cyclists suggesting any sort of compromise and I don't think they will.

It is very relevant (not least because it seems the cyclists, in an organised event, were motivated to do something other than cycle safely and considerately and enjoy the view - and I find motorists on that particular stretch of road are near universally sensible and considerate, probably not least because it is quite a nice "good quality driving" challenge where the thing to be enjoyed (other than the view) is to be safe, considerate, well-planned and smooth in your driving despite very challenging road conditions - anyone wanting to get to Ambleside in a rush is going to go round and avoid it).

It all relates to the wider issue of road use where the user has a strong motivation to pay attention to something other than safety as their primary motivator (other than, obviously, getting where they are going).

You mention white-van man.  A lot of these are couriers, paid (an insufficient sum) per drop.  They therefore drive aggressively and park inconsiderately and dangerously.

TBH I can see a strong case for banning any drivers from being paid in that kind of manner (i.e. directly or indirectly based on the speed of their road use).  The motivation is simply way off.  It'd be like docking a bus driver's wages if he ran late.  (Dock them if he runs early by all means, that is inexcusable, at least to the next safe place to wait for time).

(Though what is notable is that now fuel is getting a bit pricey MK's taxi drivers now no longer bomb around at 70+mph but tend instead to go at about 40, and that's where the prevailing limit is 60/70 in most places).

We're discussing sanctioned road events and potentially losing a historic course, an over reaction by certain authorities and if it can be made safer . 

You're talking about someone riding like a dick on a sportive. 

and I didn't mention a white van man, VAG White goods is a name for a cooking spec German car. This one happened to be driven by a knob. 

They're everywhere - but it's not relevant to road racing. 

I've read the thread, and looked at the links, am a qualified BC commissionaire and CTT timekeeper and course manager and I think this is an over-reaction. 

TT's on this type of course are invariably run at 7am on a Sunday morning. Each course is reviewed and if deemed unsafe on the day then the event is cancelled. 

To be honest, it's like the Daily f*cking Mail in here at times. 

You make it sound as though you are an elderly over cautious Sunday driver who was startled by an overtaking cyclist! 

Well, I was somewhat startled by such an incredibly dangerous act.  Not half as startled as I suspect the driver coming up was, faced with a cyclist "head on" going far too quickly to stop, though, and I bet he didn't enjoy his unnecessary hill-start on a steep section of the road, either.

I'm not elderly (only just edging on middle-aged, really), though I am known for a very strong view in favour of road safety.  Unusually, this isn't because of a family member being involved in a serious collision, it's just the way I think.  One of my fundamentals is that you can put yourself in as much personal risk as you like, but it is not acceptable to put others at unnecessary risk unless they freely choose to accept it, and it is impossible to use the roads without others being involved unless you arrange a closure, and also impossible to ask them whether they do accept it or not.  (Think: responsibility to others *before* your rights).

FWIW that extends to climbing, where I am a big opponent of sloppy and lackadaisical belaying which you see all too often at walls, though the advantage of climbing is that most of the time your climber is going to know how you belay, and by climbing they accept that.  The roads are different because you can't ask, and that's why we need strong road safety laws and practices (and people to take their responsibility seriously whatever it is they drive or ride) but not so much laws on recreational outdoor climbing.  It's also why we need strong H&S at work laws - otherwise unscrupulous employers would pressure employees into acting dangerously, or would have other employees putting them at risk unwillingly by themselves doing so.

You do love to go on don't you.

Well, to be fair, this isn't f*cking Twitter.

I agree and both sides of the discussion are as guilty as each other for voicing their opinions in a very one sided fashion.

Indeed although some focus on the topic at hand combined with a certain clarity of expression is nice.

You managed it!!

It's a discussion forum.  How about countering my points with some rational discussion or just ignoring them if you don't want to?

I'm yet to have that overall point countered with anything but "but you are an evil car driver" or "but you are an evil cyclist" depending on the basis of the thread.  Yet my point is equally for and against all road users - it is that all road users need to act primarily defensively and with safety a high priority, and no road user of any kind should be against the clock to the level that seconds or even a few minutes matter that much and that speeding/reckless/inconsiderate/selfish/overassertive road use isn't OK.  I haven't yet seen any proper attempt to counter any of that.

That is, in the event of seeing something dangerous begin to unfold, no road user should ever be motivated by the clock or any other factor to do anything other than reduce their speed or stop in order to avoid that thing causing a more serious accident (or any accident), regardless of cause or fault of the initial problem.  So "I could do with being in London in about 3 hours but if I'm a bit late it's OK" is fine, but "I must be in London at 15:00 and it's now 14:15 and it takes 45 minutes to get there on a good run" isn't, nor is a timed event (car or bicycle) on the open public road.

I'll counter it by saying you don't know what you're talking about. 

A time trial is not the Gumball rally. 

By your reckoning, the club through and off tempo rides up and down the country would be banned as well. 

If they involve a ride where time is more of a priority than safety, yes, they would.

Go out and enjoy a ride or a drive by all means, but the shared public road ("shared" is the most important thing to remember) is not the place for anything time-pressured where seconds count.  If seconds don't count, why even bother giving people a time, just go for an enjoyable organised ride?

Want to organise a timed event?  Arrange and pay for some road closures, or go for a track day.  There is, for example, a regular event at the Milton Keynes Bowl which is not the public highway.  You can race all you like, and take whatever risks you like, in that setting.

Doing the club 10 on a Tuesday in June does not require the cajones of an Atherton. 

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about, but you're damned well going to make yourself heard. 

That is a personal choice not a ride organiser's choice. 

I've seen shocking behaviour where no clock is involved. 

You seem to be ignoring his point that focusing on speed inevitably reduces emphasis on safety and consideration for other road users.  You may be right that organised races effectively manage this with marshals etc.  However, anyone who has driven behind a peleton of cyclists swerving around each other unpredictably without checking what's behind or signalling, knows that risks and effects on others increase dramatically once speed becomes a central factor.

I assume you'e referring to ad-hoc group rides, because you won't get close to a racing peloton. 

Anyone who swerves or dicks about on one of our club rides will get a warning, do it a second time and find yourself another club (and probably one of those  final warnings that makes your nose bleed). 

..but this thread is not about cyclists per se, it's about an organised, sanction event on a long standing course, and the implications for similar around the country. 

And yet again you post rubbish. The one thing you need in a Peleton is predictable riding. Cyclists in a bunch do not swerve around each other unpredictably, if they did they wouldn't get half a mile up the road before there was one great big crash.

No I am posting my experience of driving most weekends in the Peak District.

A well disciplined chain gang is a thing of beauty. like a well drilled yacht crew. 

youtube.com/watch?v=kWEoBFkwsc0&

youtube.com/watch?v=f1rXCcNG1GM&

it also means the group is easier for motorists to pass. 

but we're going a bit off topic. 

We are getting off-topic to extent, but, as above, this hasn't come out of the blue.  The history the stretch of road suggests that focusing on speed is a problem there too.

You're posting drivel. Nearly all adult cyclists are also car drivers. It's strange how I never come across groups of these unpredictable cyclists when I'm driving. It's strange that it's only people with incoherent anti cyclist agendas that do. I'm not doubting you come across groups of cyclists but how about take a deep breath, overtake when it's safe to do so and carry on to the hold up at the next junction or set of traffic lights that will inevitably be due to the amount of cars on the road and nothing to do with cyclists.

No you are

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=peloton+crash&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB766GB76...

Now you really are a moron. Every one of those is a proffesional closed road race which is nothing like a Sunday club run in the peak district that you would drive behind. Clicking on that actually made me laugh. Any more straws to clutch at?

I think there are lessons to be learned here. 

The key accident the HA refer to was caused by an inattentive rider - probably looking at his power meter. He should have seen a parked caravan but for some reason did not with sadly tragic circumstances. 

However, this was a rider error, and not something that was inherent within the road. for the same reason collisions happen up and down the country in cars, trucks and motor bikes. 

I am petrolhead, with a garage like a Poundshop Jay Leno. What I see here is unnecessarily bureaucratic. The A63 here, and I've known this stretch of road since we drove to our caravan along it in my dad's Avenger in 1974, is fast, but no faster than many other A roads. 

If drivers maintain an adequate look out, riders learn from the tragedy and it's adequately signed (which they have to be, lots of signs), then it should be allowed. 

The country is becoming sanitised enough.

No you are

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=peloton+crash&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB766GB76...

I'm trying to engage openly and honestly, but that's not really useful - it actually undermines your position, and I thought you were better than that. 

Yes, this.

Even without a peloton, there is a different mindset between "I'm riding along this road for pleasure, the car in front has stopped, I'll stop too until I can properly see what is going on", and "I'm against the clock, maybe I can zig-zag around".

That's why I think simply *having* a clock is an issue.  And as I said that applies to motor vehicles too; there would be a lot of benefit in banning couriers from being paid per drop/for the speed of the deliveries, i.e. requiring them either to be employees or contracted on a per-day basis with a wider measure of performance than being paid per drop.

Said no sane tester ever. 

Yer wot?  Can you quote which bit of my post that replies to?

I'd rather the police were given enough budget to properly enforce our existing road traffic law rather than adding unnecessary red tape to businesses.

The difficulty is that it is rather difficult to enforce against a poor standard of driving that doesn't break any of the strict liability laws like speeding.  Speeding is easy - if you were travelling over the limit you have broken the law, there is nothing to prove other than that you did.  DWDCAA / dangerous driving can be used to prosecute, but the trouble is they are notoriously hard and expensive to prosecute.  That's why, for instance, using a mobile phone got its own specific offence when someone using a phone clearly is driving without due care and attention (as some of that attention is on the phone) and possibly is also driving dangerously - it was just too hard to prosecute that way.

You *could* do it by having swingeing parking restrictions and more 20mph limits, but really when it's a particular subset of road use causing the problem it's a lot easier and more effective to deal with it at source.

What we have in NW and MG is two people who appear to know very little about cycle racing telling everyone how it should be run. I wonder why they also posting on a climbing site as according to their profiles they don’t know much about climbing either

I am a road user.  I am entitled to an opinion about how other road users with whom I share the road behave and on what basis they use the road.  My view is that, other than the emergency services, the roads should not be used on a tightly time-pressured basis, and certainly not for an activity whose primary goal is such a time-pressure.

My profile is out of date, I've been climbing about 8 years now.

This bit

"I'm against the clock, maybe I can zig-zag around".

What kind of "tester" are you referring to, then?  Sorry, don't understand.

That is certainly the mentality of people who are in a hurry.

So, you basically want to ban time trialling on UK roads......

.......even though you clearly have no idea about time trialling. 

Like the types who want to ban climbing everytime there's an accident or avo in Scotland. 

With that post you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about cycling TTs and are commenting from a position of total ignorance. You are posting what you think happens with no experience whatsoever of what actually happens.

Now, this, this I would agree with you. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40574916

but not this 

http://www.midshropshirewheelers.com/club-10-mile-time-trial-competitions/

Organising Time Trials is also a fairly complex operation.

I'm organising our club's time trials this year.  We've got 19 x 10 mile events, and 3 x 25 mile events on our local courses held on a Thursday evening between the beginning of April and the end of August. I'm also organising an 'Open 25' in July.  Each event includes sections of Dual Carriageway 'A' Road. Riders set off at one minute intervals, so as to avoid 'bunching'.  All events have to be risk assessed and notice has to be given to the Chief Officer of Police for the concerned area in writing at least a month in advance the event taking place.  Some courses cross Constabulary Boundaries, so each force has to be informed.  Events can only take place following the granting of Police permission.  Events take place at times when traffic flows are generally expected to be lower than normal.  We have to provide warning signs, Marshals in High Viz jackets ( to direct and warn riders at hazard points / junctions).  Our marshals have no power to direct traffic, but act as observers in the event of incidents.  We regularly have to cancel events due to adverse traffic conditions, / road works  / other events taking place that could impact on rider safety.  

Yes sorry, I'm trying to engage with you seriously by yesbutno keeps jumping in with aggression so I responded in kind.  I'll ignore him from now on.

Your reply wasn't aggressive it was rubbish. As all your posts seem to be. The fact you've apologised for it shows what a sad attempt it was. Maybe if you didn't post such utter rubbish there'd be no need to call you a moron.

Climbing doesn't, by and large, affect non-participants.  Everyone partaking has acknowledged and accepted the risk they are getting into.

Use of the roads on a timed basis does, or has the potential to do so.

Would you also agree if the former article related to bicycles (but otherwise the same) and the latter to cars or motorcycles (but otherwise the same)?

Climbing doesn't affect non participants right up until there's an accident when emergency services and the NHS get involved which the misinformed use as a reason for suggesting banning it.

On the basis my car puts out over 500bhp, and me, in a pointy hat and funny shoes, trundling up and down the A5 at 8am on a Sunday morning put out 0.25hp, then

no

There is no race that goes over the Hardknott Pass. You haven't witnessed a race. You've witnessed cyclists riding up a big hill that's barely suitable for any vehicle!

Don't understand how cyclists are deemed a risk to other road (car) users in this context? 

It appears, from a little research, that it was this triathlon (the cycle part, obviously) given the date.

http://www.tritalk.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1680909

Triathlons definitely include something that the layman would call a "cycle race", i.e. an event on which people using bicycles were competing to complete it in the lowest time possible.  I don't care for technicalities.

I also don't think this race should have occurred on the Hardknott Pass while it was open.  A rolling closure may have been justified as it's a fair way out of season, though obviously there would be a cost.

By their unnecessarily dangerous actions outlined upthread caused by the time pressure.

The problem is that an inattentive cyclist can still cause a serious accident.  They aren't likely to kill anything by hitting it directly with their bicycle, but they can cause, say, a lorry to swerve and take out someone else.  Hence my argument that ALL road users have to be attentive and non-time-pressured, not just users of motor vehicles.

The time of day isn't so relevant, you could use that argument to say it should be OK to race or time-trial motor vehicles on the public road at that time.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

 http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gT9xuXQjxMM/0.jpg

If the ban does go ahead, is there any possibility that time trials could continue on the road with the road closed to traffic?  

I can’t imagine that there can be that many people driving around there at 7am on a weekend.  

Would that be an acceptable compromise, or is it the principle?  

Personally I'd be happy with a road closure (or a partial road closure[1]) at a sensible time. 

[1] It's not unusual on running races to close only one lane or one carriageway for the race, I don't see why either of those should be a problem.

I bet your a laugh a minute down the scout troop. Do they all need a 5 day risk assessment to whittle a tent peg.

It’s bizarre. Most cycling threads consists of cyclists explaining how reckless and dangerous other road users are. Then when someone who is clearly careful and thoughtful about road use suggests how to make things safer, they get laughed at.

its the main road out of Kingston upon Dull.

Isn't there one been run on the V718 Time Trial Course on Good Friday between 0900 and 1200?

But there is a huge difference in danger to other road users between a Sunday morning TT cyclist and a speeding driver trying to meet an impossible deadline or just a careless one (with no time imperative). 

The only two on here making suggestions on changing cycling TTS are the two who have no experience of them whatsoever And are talking from a position of total ignorance.

Fair point. A triathlon, or any 'race', over Hardknott seems ridiculous.

This is a growing problem with the monetisation of events that cash in on the massive growth in cycle sport (and other such stuff like tris, trail racing etc), in that they don't seemingly apply the same rules and governance which more traditional events have fostered over years of experience.

I'm not debating whether or not time trialling on this specific A road should be banned, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the 'racing' won't be a danger to other road users, due to the strict organisation and rules.

Yes, there's been a tragic accident. But that is exactly what it is. An accident. They happen every day on roads up and down the country, and it's not indicative that time trialling as a sport is dangerous to other road users.

I actually think the Time Trial thing in relation to the ban is a red herring and that the Highways Authority have reviewed the status of the road and decided to ban cycling.
The fact that there is a renowned Time Trial there is coincidental and I think that cyclists using the Time Trial as a reason not to ban cyclists en masse is a bad decision as it only leads people to think that cyclists want it kept open as a 'race track'.
It would probably be better if cyclists took the ban on the nose and ask if they could still hold the Trials, either very early on a Sunday morning (before 0900 and certainly not starting at 1000 on a Good Friday), or on a closed road. 

It doesn't seem bizarre to me? Most cyclist have a reasonable idea of what makes them feel unsafe, and time trialling - whether they do it themselves or not - isn't it, so focusing the discussion on time trials seems like a red herring and a distraction from the actual issues. This sort of suggestion also fits in with a general culture that is deeply and seriously concerned for cyclists safety when we're talking about putting arbitrary evidence-free additional restrictions on cycling, but mysteriously not interested when someone suggests anything that might cost money or inconvenience other road users.

As a more general point I think it's certainly possible that if you are heavily involved in a certain activity it can be very hard to look at it objectively, and that includes things like assessment of risk.

As someone who's done a fair bit of cycling which includes some circuit racing, road racing and triathlons/TT I think NW and MG are making some very reasonable points.  When one is racing against the clock, or even just 'racing' when out on their evening chaingang they are a less safe cyclist.  In the same way that the driver who is late, or on their phone is less safe.  And in the same way that a runner chasing their PB, or listening to music running on the road is less safe.  I've done some fairly dangerous rock climbing so don't consider myself *particularly* risk averse but will often choose to drop off the back of a group ride riding downhill in built up areas because people seem to forget that they're on an open road.  And whilst I agree a good group ride is smooth and predictable I've seen some pretty shocking riding and near misses in (very experienced) groups riding for the 'town line sprint' as well as TT'ers riding with their heads down.

I don't think this means riding on the public road should be banned as that's potentially a slippery slope but it's certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and I can't help feeling that you (as well as several others) are displaying the worst of the cyclist communities characteristics that many of public think we have which isn't particularly helpful.

If there's ways we can make things safer then that should be embraced.  As roads get busier and busier, there is only going to be more conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles and we need to find a safe way for everyone to get along.  I know fast A-roads give for good times, and have fewer junction dangers but there is a fairly large and obvious objective danger when there is such a large differential between user speeds.  Perhaps partial bans or restrictions would be best?  Or perhaps banning timed events on that stretch of open road but allowing regular lane closure(s) for events?

I don't know what the right answer is but I fear your dismissive attitude towards people who seem to asking perfectly reasonable questions is just going to alienate cyclists and make blanket bans more likely rather than less.

The TT is a red herring, the bone headed ban on cycling is the problem.

The amount of energy you’re expending on this thread is incredible, based on one experience of a cyclist putting him/herself at risk in your vicinity (in your opinion). Given that racing and time trialling on British roads causes virtually no problems anywhere, yet car drivers cause death and destruction on a widespread scale, perhaps your energy would be better spent on Pistonheads or a similar forum, if you really care about road safety. 

As a car driver, I can’t think of a single incident in 20 years where a cyclist has put me in danger. Car drivers put me in severe danger on average about 3 times every time I go out on my bike. 

Makes me laugh how much car drivers seem to care about cyclists’ safety while keyboard soldiering, yet don’t give a shit while actually driving...

Mentioning spending money and inconveniencing other road users is another red herring though.  The Highways Agency will act on the current situation and not a hypothetical one with new infrastructure and driver training, etc.
Maybe, in the future, there'll be a cycle track running parallel to the banned road and then everyone will be happy.

If that is the case, why does it appear to be of paramount importance to the various cycling websites?  I very much doubt that the Highways Agency really give a stuff about Time Trials per se, because if they did, they'd ban that instead of issuing a blanket ban to all cyclists.
If it's a vital commuter road for cyclists, then that is what should be used to argue against the ban. However, all I'm really seeing is how good it is for Time Trialling and what a loss it would be for that reason.

I think it’s more a “thin end of the wedge” argument, which is right - it will be the thin end of the wedge. 

Because they've never seen a straw man on a bike.

W

I see, it's the start of a conspiracy to rid British roads of cyclists then?
Alternatively, the section of road in question, has reached some criteria that means that the Highways Agency has deemed that is now unsafe for cyclists.
Ideally, the infrastructure would change to accommodate cyclists, but that would be too expensive and until that can be changed, then the decision has been to ban cycling.
By coincidence, it includes one of the best Time Trial sections in the UK and lets face it, that's the real reason why the cycling community is up in arms about it.  Prove that is more than that and that you can satisfy the Highways Agency that is indeed safe for cyclists, then I can't see anyone having a problem if cycling isn't banned.
It's not just cyclists that are having restrictions imposed on them.  Roads are continually having their speed limits reduced, roundabouts are re-configured to slow down approaching traffic, etc.

What criteria?

That would probably help.  I can think of very few (read: "almost no") A-roads on which cycling is actually prohibited.  The only one that comes to mind, indeed, is the North Wales Expressway (A55), which is to all intents and purposes a motorway, and probably only isn't to save money on construction; it is certainly up to French motorway standards (i.e. 2 lanes plus narrower shoulder).  And cycling isn't even banned on all of that, only specific sections e.g. the tunnels.

Even on the A5 through Milton Keynes it is permitted even though that too is to all intents and purposes a motorway and there are much nicer other options that are no further than using it.  (Indeed, you would be forgiven for thinking cycling was not allowed on the latter because I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist on it).

I spend enough time on forums without adding another one, but you must have noticed me posting along similar lines in threads where people talk about dangerous driving-related practices.  One I've made the point about quite a number of times is how there are a few people on here who think driving all the way from Chamonix or similar to the UK in one go with no proper rest other than an hour's kip in a seat on the boat is OK.  I most definitely do not think it is.  In that context, the tachograph regulations applying to commercial drivers are probably a reasonable guideline for what it's sensible to do in a car, and take into account that if you've been climbing all day first what's sensible is probably rather lower than what a coach driver should do after he's had a proper night's kip in a hotel and a decent fry-up first.

But that's got nowt to do with cycling as such, and cycling is the subject of this thread.

It depends what you mean by "at risk".  It is certainly true that I've encountered far more bad behaviour from car drivers (primarily taxi drivers).  But then MK, where I do most of my driving, has a full network of Dutch style segregated cycleways, so very rarely do you see a cyclist on the road, and when you do they tend to be the more highly skilled and confident ones who act sensibly and predictably.

But I do resent almost taking out a cyclist who does something stupid, as regardless of who's fault it is I would find it difficult to live with being party to injuring or killing someone.  So there is still an impact even if the car driver is physically protected by a 2 tonne metal box.  A train driver is protected by a 40 tonne metal box, but some of them who have hit someone (which as I said above is by definition not their fault, as train driving is not, unlike car driving, based on line-of-sight) have never worked again.

I won't claim to be a perfect driver, but if you'd been in a car with me driving you would not think that.

Haven't got a clue about any specific criteria, but it doesn't take much imagination to surmise that there are certain criteria applied to all roads and to all road users.
Road of a certain type surpasses a certain volume of traffic, etc. and safety measures are applied.  In some cases it is lowering of the speed limit and in this case it is banning of cycling.
Maybe they could spend money on improving the road to continue to allow cycling, but in this case they haven't.  That unfortunately is the result of ever increasing traffic and the practicality/cost of improving particular roads such as this.
On the other hand, it could be that people hate cycling/cyclists and they're doing anything they can to get them off any road that they can...

How about you address the issues raised in the thread instead of waffling on about something unrelated (See 90% of what is written above).

Just to remind you (since you seem to have forgotten). Is it reasonable to ban all cycling on a stretch of road to 'protect cyclists'. You claim to be Mr Evenhanded but in reality you've given a non-stop diatribe against what you perceive to be unsafe cycling (based on a couple of anecdotes of your own) when in reality tens of thousands of people are engaging police approved fun and healthy activity in public spaces which you would see stopped.

Yep but he'll bore you into submission if he can.

The narrow issue of the thread is "is it reasonable to ban cycling racing on a stretch of high speed trunk road with a history of accidents, both cycling and car related?".  The answer is clearly yes.

This

No the issue is whether it is acceptable to ban ALL cycling because some accidents have occurred on a stretch of road. 

The fact that those accidents may be specific to TTs on the road only makes the ban more dubious as those events are already sanctioned/controlled by the police and removal of that sanction would clearly be the easiest way to address that if the police felt it was unsafe... which apparently they don't.

So on a stretch of road with 6 cycle accidents and 300 vehicle accidents over the same time period it is clearly the solution to ban cyclists. Clearly!

That the Police have agreed them does NOT mean the Police think they are a good idea.  It just means they have no legal ability to block them.  The Police enforce the law; the law will give them specific criteria to apply.  They can't just decide they don't like something, much as they would I'm sure quite like that ability at times (e.g. some football matches).

And I don't agree with that, though I do think there is a case to ban time trialling there (possibly in general on the public road, but certainly where it is causing specific issues).  It might however be that there is no legal scope to do that.

The consultation may therefore have been an attempt to say "pack in the time trialling or we'll just have to ban cycling on this road as it is all we can do".

The police could just withdraw their approval and the event would have to be cancelled. Same for any TT across the country

This has been an extraordinary tirade. 

You either have a bee in your bonnet, and/or too much time on your hands.

You feel you have the moral justification of the socialist. In fact you are sounding dogmatic and ridiculous.

The simple answer btw the way is that racing ( head to head or against the clock) takes place because it's fun and enough people want to do it. 

What criteria do they have to apply to approve an event?

The Police often have to approve things, but often that just means "do they meet the criteria laid out in law", not "do we like it or not".

Racing motor vehicles (or driving them against the clock) is fun and plenty of people want to do it.  Is it OK to do that on the open public road?

Please stop second guessing everything. You’ve made it obvious you have no idea whatsoever about anything to do with cycling TTS. Police have the power to withdraw approval for TTS and have done on many courses. If you want to know the criteria they apply you’ll have to do some homework because it is far to big to fit on a forum post.

TT Racing on an A road at the weekend unfortunately resulted in a couple of accidents - they do happen!

Report from the organising club:

"The 2018 XXXXIceBreaker 2-up TT took place this morning. On what was a tranquil day weather wise, it sadly didn’t finish in the way it all began.

The race was curtailed to 50 teams by the commissaire team and then cancelled altogether by the police on safety grounds with 2 teams being stopped as they approached mile 9.

Sadly a few incidents took place during the race with 3 riders landing on tarmac, two clipping their wheels of a teammate and another due to a bike mechanical.

Two of the riders were taken to hospital via ambulance, one has a few facial injuries (the helmet took most of the impact) and the other has a broken collar bone, but both are in good spirits."

This was on a dual carriageway, the road was open. The next TT is due there in mid April. The Police are happy to have the next event take place.

Accidents unfortunately do happen.

No. It's illegal.

Cycle racing and TT's aren't. 

The law can be changed, of course, if it is felt appropriate for it to be so.

That's assuming that the sole reason for banning cycling is the number of accidents.  How about if other factors have changed, such as traffic volume, and it is now gone beyond a threshold deemed acceptable for cycling to be safe?

Two out of those three sound like the riders were riding dangerously (too close to another cyclist) for them to have occurred at all.  Would they have been doing so were it simply a club ride and not a time trial?

(FWIW it's not at all unusual for cars to be driven too close to the car in front and that does cause accidents and is something I would like to see much more enforcement of).

Given how few roads actually ban cycling that threshold must be very high indeed.

Back to dogmatic socialism.

That is clearly your point of view - that the law should be changed. It is clearly not the point of view of many many others. Get over it instead of arguing against a brick wall. You'll be happier that way.

This is a discussion forum; unless you are a moderator you have no right whatsoever to tell me what I may or may not post on it.  Either ignore the posts or refute them with rational argument as most people are doing.

The two riders whose wheels clashed are very experienced riders, ride together frequently, both as a pair but also in a bunch on club rides - the fact this accident happened whilst they were partaking in a TT is just chance / bad luck. 

Car / vehicles frequently drive too close together as you say, this is also very dangerous but there is no suggestion of banning cars from driving on roads when it is observed that this occurs - perhaps with "smarter / AI" cars there will be a limit put on how near a car can drive off another cars bumper. 

That may well prove to be the solution as far as cars go.  Enforcement on the face of it seems easy and could be done by camera, but the problem is that a camera would punish someone who was "cut up" rather than the person doing the "cutting up".

A great many car "accidents" are caused by people not driving at a speed where they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear despite the Highway Code making it clear this is what you should do.  It also seems a relatively easy problem to have a car safety system take action[1] against someone not doing this, at least when it comes to position relative to the car in front (i.e. automatically ensuring the "two/three second rule" is complied with).  That coupled with automatic braking systems (as are already fitted to a good many new cars) would stop almost all rear-endings.

[1] Cutting power, most probably, possibly with an override for emergency situations if you were to shove the accelerator past a threshold.

I have, very rational argument. You just don't like it. 

Cycle racing is 

1. fun

2. legal. 

Therefore there is no reason for it not to continue. Lines have to be drawn in life, and in law, as to what is reasonable or not, what risks are reasonable or not,  so that people can get on doing what they want to do within those lines. Life is not risk free, and if the world was set up as such no one would leave their house. 

Cycle racing falls within this 'reason' as something that is acceptable. 

And damn right I will tell you if you are being an idiot and shouldn't post. 

And those lines do frequently change.  Often things that were allowed get banned, and equally sometimes things that were banned get allowed.  This takes place in the face of emerging new evidence and analysis all the time.

You are welcome to tell me I am an idiot, much as I clearly don't agree with that statement.  You are NOT welcome to censor me or anyone else just because you dislike the opinions expressed; on a Web forum only the moderator team have a right to do that (feel free to click the Report button if you like, but you won't find them willing to censor simple opinion).  Please do be aware that making such a statement will encourage me to engage further in the thread.

Is your position the law should never change?  If this order in enforced, cycling here will be "illegal".  

There are plenty of highways where cars are banned, and already some where bicycles are banned.  Adding one to the list is only objectionable to those who see a major trunk road as a race-track.

Well, yes, so why the fuss about this one road then?
If it meets a certain criteria, cycling gets banned.  Cycling is banned on Motorways and quite a lot of non-motorways are fast approaching being as busy as motorways.
If the cycling community can prove it doesn't warrant getting banned, then it shouldn't.
The Time Trial stuff is inconsequential in every respect.  Cycling isn't being banned because of it and cyclists shouldn't be using it as a reason to keep it open.

I have no idea where you have the idea that I believe that I can 'censure you' or 'force' you to stop posting. I have simply pointed out that your ideas and arguments are idiotic. Feel free to post as much as you like. 

Regarding your first point. I refer back to everything else I have said. It's really simple to understand.

I don't care for arguing over this specific bit of road. I am simply taking Neil Williams to task for this blinkered, blanket view, that bikes shouldn't be allowed to race on the road.

You might have a point if that’s what they were looking to do. 

You have no idea what that criteria is (and I don’t know, but I suspect you’ll find there isn’t one), and it shouldn’t work that you ban things unless people can argue against it. Your position is ridiculous. 

Still ignoring  the fact that the ban is for all cycling not just the TTs

Strange really because you were the one who suggested a ban on the races while allowing 'normal riding to continue' or have you forgotten?

No, I'm assuming that in this case 99% of cyclists are either formally or informally racing along the stretch of road so a blanket ban is pragmatic.  Going right back to my first post, in an ideal world, there would be a separate provision for cycling here.

All this will be moot when we have riderless bikes in the near future

I think we are reaching the point of.....

If an aeroplane is on a conveyor belt, will it take off? 

of course it will. But a helicopter on a turntable..?

I have absolutely no idea what the criteria is, but I'm pretty certain that there are certain thresholds for a particular type of road and once surpassed that road use is then reviewed.  Hence lowering of speed limits and in this case the banning of cycling.  I find it difficult to believe that such actions are taken randomly or at a whim of some planner, etc.
It's a proposed ban and is open to consultation.  That's why cyclists/other interested parties can put their case against it and if successful, the ban won't happen.  The same as all such proposals. 

The issue of how to handle those who wish to continue using manually driven road vehicles when most have changed to automated ones is a very interesting question and not one that is easily answered.  It may prove one of cycling's greater challenges.

Not random, but generally, 'must be seen to be doing something' is often a 'reason' for change where none is really needed, or is in fact a detrimental change. 

That certainly is very often true.

Again you are wrong people commuting by bike in to Gotham city from the north bank villages use this road. I might be tempted to enter a time trial on this road but I wouldn’t just ride down it to get in to town, although I have used it many years ago.

What is there in the way of alternatives?  Cycling is permitted on the A5 through MK (there are even markings of where to cross the sliproads) but you never see a bike on there because cycling on a busy 70mph dual carriageway simply is not most peoples' idea of fun.

Yes there are alternatives but they are probably longer and you would be battling with congestion. People make a choice and generally weigh up the risks, we don’t all relish someone as risk adverse as yourself making lifestyle choices for us.

That's unfortunately the way it goes.
With driving for example, they've introduced compulsory seat belt wearing, alcohol limits, testing of drivers and vehicles, introduction of speed limits on motorways, lowering of speed limits on other roads, traffic calming measures, etc.  Motorbike riders have to wear a crash helmet.
The only real option for cyclists is a binary one - allow/not allow and they've decided on this road to not allow cycling.
 

It’s obviously a matter of grave concern given it’s taken 5 years to get round to it after the cyclist died (after colliding with a stationary vehicle...)

Was it actually prompted by that, or by a general periodic safety review?

I think riding on a dual carriageway is too dangerous, but the clear solution is to have separate cycling lanes/paths, so there is simply no reason to cycle on a dual carriageway, then ban it. Got to look for the future, not short-term 'solutions'.

I don’t know. Probably by someone moaning about cyclists. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43162005

A ban on driving down this road seems to be in order.

Not in France Wonderful story of some American friends of mine in Chamonix, strong skiers, getting to the top of the midi and finding it pretty miserable up there. Wanting to head out anyway (they thought they would ski down out of it) they asked the lifties if they could go out. The lifties looked at them like they were mad for asking, and with a 'pfff' and a shrug, said 'your choice, if you want'. 

The American's couldn't believe it (and thought all their Christmas's had come at once.)

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, the consultation has been extended so perhaps people may wish to send their objections or agreements somewhere rather than just on here.  

Indeed. Although hopefully awareness has been raised too.

Wouldn't they be better off banning drink driving instead?

Or banning not looking where you’re going, as a cyclist or a driver?

The example that you used as a comparison to closing the A63 to cyclists involved drink driving.  Poor taste aside, don't you think that using such an analogy is weak as it involves an act that is deemed so unsafe that it carries an automatic twelve month ban?

I think the point he was making is that it wasn't cycling that caused the death on the road but the person involved not looking where he was going.  It wasn't driving that caused the incident above but the drinking with the driving. Probably an overly extreme example but valid.

That road looks plenty wide enough for a Dutch style fully segregated cycle lane on each side.

Exactly. 

Fair enough.
That is of course assuming that the cycling fatality was the cause of the proposed cycling ban though.  The Jury is out on that one... 

That is a good point on that kind of dual carriageway.  Providing it would cost half of naff all compared with the cost of building the road in the first place.

Where I grew up (Ormskirk, Lancs) there is a main dual carriageway, the A59, which has proper Dutch style (about 8') wide segregated cycle lanes (with a separate pavement for pedestrians) on each side for much of its length in that area.  I always assumed that was standard on that kind of road, and was quite surprised to find it wasn't as I grew up.

Why isn't it?

FWIW, looking at an OS map of the stretch under discussion, it appears that there is a near-parallel alternative for all of the proposed length of ban except the section from North Cave to West End.

This being the case I can't see why I'd even want to ride a bike on any section other than that section.

It looks like there is a section of disused railway that could be used to create a surfaced cycle path to lop the corner off through North Cave itself.  Might building that be a reasonable alternative?  Or only putting the ban in place from West End to Hull where there are country lanes I would absolutely use in preference to a 70mph dual carriageway?  Though that section may be the most dangerous bit, with drivers coming off the motorway thinking they're still on one.  Might an alternative be putting a 50mph speed limit on that section to emphasise that it is no longer motorway?