Stevie D wrote:
Lets say you are heading from the Ashley Green to Tring - the A41 is a mile (4.7 v 5.8) shorter than the other A road route (though there's a 5.5 mile route that avoids central Berko). There's also less of a hill - from Berko to Tring is a slight uphill (which you have to go down a steep hill for), whereas the A41 is a gradual decline with a short steeper bit.
Edge cases don't make for good laws. Yes, you can always find a possible journey that would be more convenient but that doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be allowed. There are other examples where the shortest and easiest cycle route would involve a motorway. It means nothing.
If we were talking about a significant flow, on the other hand, then there may be a case to discuss.
The point I was addressing (and clearly so - I quoted it) was
The Tring--Watford section of the A41 and much of the A14 are cases in point. I don't see what a cyclist would gain by using the A41(M) as was rather than going through the town, unless the straight-through route in the town is particularly infested with obstructions. At normal cycling speeds, the direct route is generally still faster than a bow-shaped bypass.
Read the context rather than grabbing a paragraph out of my post and ignoring all the stuff around it - the bit of Fosse Way that I quoted and was clearly responding to was "I don't see what a cyclist would gain by using the A41(M) as was rather than going through the town ... At normal cycling speeds, the direct route is generally still faster than a bow-shaped bypass."
My point was that you need to take into account contours (though I guess that they count as obstructions), and also journeys that use half the bow and are thus shorter via the bow-shaped bypass, rather than "the direct route" through the town (and on bypasses around the country the specific stuff I said about the A41 Berko bypass applies - hardly a edge case). The argument for banning cycles seems to be based on the edge case that the cyclist will cause a hazard - there's facilities for them to not do so at slip roads and other than being a slow moving vehicle that cars can overtake safely while barely crossing into the next lane (and the A41 has good sight-lines and is free-flowing enough for that not to be a problem) there's not a problem.
Far from meaning nothing, I blew the "cyclists will take another, easier, route" out the water. As for it being quicker to use the motorway in some occasions, making my point moot, there's a radical difference - you have never been allowed to cycle on the motorway and no right of way exists for cyclists - there's a difference between not ever allowing something and removing a pre-existing right. Add to the mix that there's cycle facilities on the A41 and you have a bigger case that, despite how stupid it is, cyclists have the right to use the A41 if they want.
That the flows are insignificant is important - you are right to point it out, however wrong in your conclusion - why spend the money on TROs banning them if it's not a problem! Of course, when the road was first built is a different question...
And you missed off the second half of my post that adds all the clarifying caveats that address some of the points you make about my comments.
I, in a bit that you ignored, wrote:
That said, I'd strongly recommend not using the A41.
There's some narrow country lanes that the A41 roughly follows - I'd probably take them.
While it may be practical to cycle on the A41, and while it should be legal (though I didn't even address that in my original post - simply talking about practicality) as making it illegal is a waste of resources, I certainly wouldn't say it's sensible to do so.