FosseWay said most of what I would, particularly the comment on targets. I don't think cyclists can probably be banned from such roads, but they should not be encouraged to think they're appropriate to use.

I did once see a cyclist on the side of the A14 in one of the sections where there is similar signage, and found it quite a distraction. It would not surprise me at all if an accident was caused by a vehicle moving right out of lane 1 to give a cyclist more space and hitting another in lane 2.

NCN Route 15 - doesn't look too bad does it? Well it's about 50-60cm wide, and every time it rains gets completely flooded, then about 200m further on you have a dog leg to climb the flood defences, then try and navigate some bollards as you zig zag onto the road!

I've noticed in the US, authorities are carrying out "road diets". Essentially this involves turning D4 urban routes into a D2 and a centre turning lane which is common in the states and using the extra space at the edges to paint bike lanes.

Just google "road diets" and there are many examples and images.

At first glance it appears that the road butchery mentality has travelled over to the US, but I can't fail to be quite impressed on how well these schemes are carried out on US urban streets.

Instead of ugly hatching the centre turning lane, a continuous lane marked by solid and dashed yellow markings and turn arrows, is provided to allow turning vehicles to pull off the main traffic lanes. The bike lanes are also painted with a solid line and are contunuous throughout, instead of the intermittent way that lanes are marked out here and the way they end at narrow pinch point that put cyclists into conflict with motor vehicles.

In the US where space is tight, "sharrows" (google it and see) are used instead of cluttering up streets with horrible advisory markings. A sharrow is simply a symbol of a cyclist painted on the road with two chevrons above the cyclist pointing in the direction of travel.

In short even the US, a place whish is accused of always putting the car first, compared to our overly political pandering to everything else but the car, does cycle facilities much better when we do in the UK when they try. We're just simply crap at it, and I suspect most schemes are implemented in the UK with a politically led anti-car agenda instead of doing a professional job of actually making cycling more attractive and easier.

If you explore google you'll see what I mean.

Some Sabristi familiar with my views on cycling may be surprised at what I have to say here, but I actually don't see why cyclists can't be banned from certain roads. I absolutely don't mean a blanket rule (e.g. no cycling on any DC, for example) but there are numerous roads that aren't Special where cycling is clearly perverse. 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.

We as a nation are rather too wedded sometimes to the word of the law at the expense of its spirit. Yes, there exists the concept of public right of way, which IMO is an excellent custom and in the vast majority of cases something well worth hanging on to. But that shouldn't preclude the possibility that restrictions in right of way for certain classes of user on certain stretches of road should be brought in for the general safety and comfort of all concerned.

To take an analogy with Sweden: here we have Allemansrätten, which basically entitles you to walk anywhere that isn't under crops or in someone's garden. You can also camp (for one night in any given place), pick berries, mushrooms etc., light fires to cook food, and catch fish in the same areas. This is basically a universal concept enshrined in law, but that doesn't stop TPTB restricting aspects of it where they deem it necessary. You can't pick stuff and camp in certain nature reserves, for example, and other places are completely off-limits during the bird nesting season or for other ecological or military reasons. No-one has a problem with sensible restrictions sensibly targeted and enforced. I presume the situation is similar in Scotland, which has something akin to allemansrätten, but I don't know the details.

Roads like that are much rarer in this country, in America virtually every main road seems to be that wide. It may well make things better for cyclists but such roads are still in the minority over there and they don't do anything for junctions. The lanes don't look all that wide either, and the USA still has a lower rate of cycling than us!

I feel I must say it again. If we're going to look abroad for best practise when it comes to reconstructing roads and helping cycling, it seems sensible to me that we look to a much closer neighbour with far more similar urban geography etc, which has the world's highest cycling rate (and the world's best cycling infrastructure): the Netherlands.

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with banning cyclists from high speed dual carriageways either, although in the case of on-line upgrades or where the old road is removed it would be nice for an alternative to be provided rather than lengthy detours along other country roads. The bridleway alongside the Newark-Widmerpool A46 upgrade is a step in the right direction.

Here is the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Similar to Sweden but not the same (e.g. it doesn't apply to fishing, and you can walk through crop fields as long as you don't trample the crops themselves).

At lot of the roads where cycling is suicide (e.g. the A50, A43, A34) really should be motorways - and I dare say in many countries would be (with the odd improvement anyway). What is open along the A46 seams to be reasonably well done, although it remains to be seen how sensible the junctions will be (will probably ride the Bingham to Widmerpool stretch over the bank holiday after the works are supposedly complete to see what it's like!)

I passed two cyclists on the A52 earlier (between A60 and A606), thankfully I was already in the right hand lane (because muppets usually sit in the left lane at 50) but come on... there's a local access road parallel to most of that section with no cars on.

I see the logic but I would beware of slavish implementation of something that works well elsewhere. For the purposes of this post I'm presuming the system in the Netherlands is similar to that in Sweden, as I'm familiar with the latter but not the former.

The Swedish system works because of a number of features of road use and regulation peculiar to Sweden, which don't necessarily apply in the UK. Cycle paths have the same right of way across side turnings as the cars alongside do. Drivers can turn across a cycle lane that has green providing there are no cyclists present. Drivers are educated societally and through the test to behave very differently around cyclists compared to the situation in the UK. Unless you change all of these to match the Swedish model, implementing the Swedish model in the UK won't have the intended consequences.

Conversely, there are aspects of the UK system that work in the UK context but are seldom encountered here and therefore more likely to provoke a problem. Confident cyclists using the roadway in a courteous fashion are generally treated well by UK motorists, whereas here there tends to be a presumption that cyclists will use the off-road/shared-use path so motorists won't expect them on the road or know how best to react.

For the UK context, therefore, I'd advocate an encouragement of cycling on relatively lightly trafficked roads, rather than a drift towards letting cyclists use the pavement (if provided) or spending money on off-road routes that don't meet cyclists' needs in terms of route or convenience but take money away from more worthwhile schemes. On roads like the A14 the obvious solution (if the number of cyclists involved warrants any kind of solution) is to build a parallel segregated cycle track. These are infinitely preferable to wandering around a load of cul-de-sacs and country lanes that run vaguely parallel. The other day I used such a cycle path sandwiched between the tram line and a D2 with 110 km/h speed limit (cycles prohibited though it's not a motorway, note) and was keeping up with the tram all the way (i.e. 50-60 km/h). The only way you'd manage that over any distance in the UK would be to cycle on a trunk road with few give ways -- the number of off-road cycle paths that would be suitable for such sustained speeds is vanishingly remote.

The UK's main problem is that it sees providing a safe (ish) and legal means of cycling from A to B as an end in itself, without considering the time involved, relative both to cycling on the road and to using other forms of transport. A cycle lane has got to be useful as well as useable.

Alas that does mean crossing the A52 twice (assuming you have used Ruddington Lane and Landmere Lane from the Trent to the A60 junction - and trying to get across it at the A60 end is a right nightmare - the trees on the roundabout destroy visibility.

Then again if they can sort the underpass out at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.90 ... 7&layers=M and surface Footpath No. 33 (ideally extended to Landmere Lane instead of going up hill and across there is a fully off-road alternative.

Then you would extend it to the Landmere Lane / Loughborough Road junction (or on the southside to Wilford Lane)...

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.

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.

I think the question comes down to "what's the point?" ... are there significant enough problems arising from the current situation to merit a change? And the answer is almost certainly going to be "no". Putting a TRO on a road banning cyclists from using it is not going to be a trivial process that can be wrapped up in half an hour. Yes, it can be done, but it will take time and effort, and that means money. Who benefits? A handful of putative cyclists who may have been daft enough to cycle on a d/c with motorway characteristics. The chances of it preventing accidents are slim, because the number of accidents that involve cyclists on those kind of roads is very, very low.


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.

To me, the National Cycle Network should be for cyclists what motorways are for motor-vehicles. They should be properly surfaced with tarmac and with wide lanes which can cope with speeds up to 50mph. There should be GSJs at intersections so that cyclists do not have to dismount everytime they hit a road. There should be full lighting particularly in more urban sections of the carriageway. Pedestrians, horse-riders and mopeds should be probibited, enforced with high mounted cameras. Forget the on-road and detour sections and focus on the former railway lines and the trunk corridors which are actually useful.

NCN at the moment is just yet another example of a half arsed job which doesn't provide a real alternative to the A-road for commuters.

Have to agree with you there, Papsie, though prehaps a design speed of 50mph is a little OTT. The clear differences in such paths are extremely apparent in my area of north Devon, where you have the Tarka Trail (which carries NCN 27) along several old railway lines which provide safe, fast, flat, traffic free cycle routes (though of course you still get the utter dimwits who insist on holding up traffic on the A361 instead). Then there's a 'gap' between Braunton and Mortehoe where cyclists need to use single track country lanes, which are completely unsuitable. The result - the completed sections of cycle track are well used, but prehaps not as much as they could be if cyclists could safely complete the Braunton to Ilfracombe journey.

The only slight drawback with the Tarka Trail for cyclists is that a lot of pedestrians also use it, and one particular problem I find is dog walkers who don't keep their dogs on a lead, which I'm certain will one day lead to someone being seriously injured. This prevents the Tarks Trail being the 'cycle motorways' that would be ideal. I think that an ideal solution would be to have cyclists on a two-way 'road', with pedestrians using a segregated footpath. Prehaps this will make dog walkers adjust to a more cautious approach with letting their dogs doing what the hell they like, whilst still allowing pedestrians to use a popular facility.

The problem is that nice straight well-surfaced roads are just what time-triallists like - I've had them on bits of the A21 and the A2 effectively squeezing everyone else into one lane.

In a different vein, despite special cycle facilties for cyclists the lycra mob use the quite narrow and busy roads used by cars in Richmond Park - and as the speed limit is 20mph it is very dangerous to try to pass them - indeed, many of them exceed the limit on the downgrades.

There are already a fair number of non-special all-purpose dual carriageways where cyclists are prohibited, such as, for example, the A5300, the southern end of the A5103 Princess Parkway and the A62 Oldham Way.

The point I was addressing (and clearly so - I quoted it) was 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.
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.

Not just time-trialists: anyone wanting to get from A to B is going to prefer a route which is both shorter and can be cycled with greater speed and comfort. The reason you're only seeing the more "professional" cyclists is that they have the confidence to cycle on the busier roads, and the speed/comfort differential is far greater for them.

The real problems along these lines are that there is a vast range in both cyclist capabilities and bicycles, and often no good one-size-fits-all solution. Shared footpaths are fine for the slower or less confident cyclist who aren't hindered so much by the poorer surface and frequent stops. But with an effective top speed of typically 10-12mph (due to surface and the need to be safe round pedestrians) they're not attractive to a decent amateur cyclist like me who can maintain 15mph on the road on my hybrid, or those on road bikes who are looking at 20mph.

There's also a difference between the commuter (wants to get to work as fast as possible) and the leisure cyclist (there more to enjoy the ride), so there's a conflict for NCN routes which try to cater for both. So there's a need for good fast routes in towns and cities, but so much out in the middle of the countryside which aren't being used for commutes: B roads and below are perfect provided they have a reasonable surface.

The other problem is that councils seem to think that only the slower cyclists exist (or that faster cyclists should put up with facilities aimed at them), whereas cycle advocacy groups tend to be full of the keener cyclists and appear to be arguing for only their own kind. Some truth in this to be fair, but a lot of it is trying to overcome the other bias: particularly if you want cyclists to commute to relieve pressure on rush hours, then most who are going to do so any distance are either going to be, or become, keen cyclists, or not do it at all if they're only going to progress at 8-10mph.

There are, but as both Stevie and Si allude to, it takes time, money and resources to establish this, so it isn't done as often as it might be. Yet again, we're back to the ridiculous paper-go-round that seems to be required in order to do anything to the roads. What we should have is a competent person or group of competent people who have the authority delegated to them by the elected council to implement whatever rules they professionally think are worthwhile in order to reduce congestion, improve journey times or safety, or whatever. Of course they should consult with the people likely to be affected, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. But the daft amount of time spent and money paid to penpushers to achieve something that is technically extremely simple, such as changing a speed limit, painting or removing a yellow line or mandating a pavement as acceptable for cycling on, all of which require minimal physical resources, is frankly boggling and embarrassing.

On NCRs: I'm not sure these should be the priority for development to the cycling equivalent of motorways, tbh. Their real point is for leisure use, and leisure cyclists, as several people have said, are often happy to pootle along the scenic, rambling route that many such cycle ways follow. How many cycle commuters actively follow an NCR specifically because it's signed as such? I used to use bits of NCR 6 to get to work, but only where they coincided with my assessment of the best route (i.e. yes along the old A6 between Quorn and Rothley, but no south of the A46/A6 junction, where the NCR wombles around rather than going straight down the A6).

They are similar in terms of what you say (apart from in the case of traffic signals, modern junction design generally avoids any traffic signalling conflicts like that in NL). I'm not hugely familiar with Sweden but I think there are significant differences in the design standard of routes, the way in which free-standing cycle routes are designed into new residential areas, the design of residential streets, etc. Roundabouts will also have continuous cycle paths around them at a distance, in a low speed urban context the path will have priority over entering and exiting traffic. Mark Wagenbuur's blog shows many different types of Dutch infrastructure, with videos from his youtube channel.



In the Netherlands the use of a path alongside a road (shared-use paths don't exist) is not just expected but mandatory. I'm not sure it would be worth trying to apply that in the UK. However, you often see UK cyclists reacting to that fact on the internet with horror, without necessarily understanding the context. The design of modern Dutch paths is of a very high standard and they can easily be ridden fast, and allow you to overtake slower cyclists. I don't think there's any popular desire for the right to ride on the road instead. Most people will ride fairly slow, cheap, low maintenance bikes with baskets/panniers etc for short everyday journeys and, as in the UK, the proportion of the population using lightweight racing bikes at high speed is very low, so presumably would be any uptake of a right to ride on the road. As far as I know, the Dutch have very firm principles of road design to reduce conflict and increase safety ('Duurzaam Veilig Verkeer). Part of this is ensuring that the users of any given road space are homogeneous in terms of mass, speed and direction (the latter mostly at higher speeds). So despite the fact that few if any cyclists would want to ride on the road, presumably allowing them to would be considered a breach of this key safety principle. The same reason that residential roads are designed for very low speeds and have 30km/h limits.

Whilst most UK drivers don't give you any grief, it happens often enough to demonstrate that this conflict is real, sometimes to a terrifying extent. Almost all Dutch drivers are also cyclists, so they know how to react to each other in their Dutch context.

Of course there are differences and the implementation would need to be different, especially with training road users as you mentioned. Bike paths have existed over there for much of the 20th century, certainly since the rise of the car, so cycling never declined as much. In the 1960s and 70s road design became very car-oriented, I think some bike paths were even removed as part of this before things started to turn around in the 80s. However, our countries do seem similar enough that we could take an awful lot from them if we wanted to get our nation cycling.

Havant to Chichester, I have 4 main choices:
B2178 & co
A27
A259
South Coast Cycle Route

The B2178 route is nice and hilly and windy. Done it, not much fun.
A27: Yeah, that's not happening
South Coast Cycle Route: If I wanted to get there the next day, I'd use this
A259: Nice fairly straight run.


The SCCR seems to want to explore EVERYTHING along the way.