A34

Simon said:

Driving back along the A34 (I *did* cycle 50 miles yesterday) from a family get together in Oxford
today I noticed small lanes, painted with bicycle symbols, before each slip road. The lanes take
cyclists directly across the slip to avoid problems crossing the end of the lane. The odd thing
about this is that there didn't appear to be cycle lanes alongside the road itself, just a narrow
band of tarmac between the painted edge of the inside lane and the verge. Surely this isn't
intended to be a cycle lane? A pretty poor concession to cycle lane provision if it is.

Anyone else noticed this?

I don't know the A34 but these things sound exactly the same as the ones on part of the A10
(although I haven't noticed them for a while because I rarely bother using them - but I think
they're reasonable if you need them).

They are purely for assisting cyclists at slip lanes and are not necessarily part of any cycle lanes
on the main carriageway, and they are optional. Cycling is legal on A-roads unless specifically
prohibitted, and the band of tarmac and white line is just the normal hard shoulder or excess road.
Cycles are supposed to use the lane proper there.

Better to have some facility provided than none at all, in this particular case, I think.

~PB

It'd be better if the government admitted that the A34 (and A14, A55, A12,
A2 ..) is practically a motorway, and should be upgraded to motorway standard with an alternative
route provided for non-motorway traffic.

That's what I was thinking. I can't believe it's classed as a simple A road.

Who in their right mind would cycle along that?

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It'd be better if the government admitted that the A34 (and A14, A55, A12,
A2 ..) is practically a motorway, and should be upgraded to motorway standard with an alternative
route provided for non-motorway traffic.

Simon said:

That's what I was thinking. I can't believe it's classed as a simple A road.

Who in their right mind would cycle along that?

No comment on whether I'm in my right mind or not :-) - but I do like to use large dual carriageways
sometimes. They can be much flatter and more direct than alternative routes: something different for
a change if fancy some continuous fast cycling (good with a tailwind, I find). 70mph ones with 6+
narrow lanes do bother me, though!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It'd be better if the government admitted that the A34 (and A14, A55, A12, A2 ..) is practically
a motorway, and should be upgraded to motorway standard with an alternative route provided for
non-motorway traffic.

Would cost a 'ole 'eap of money (widening, full hard shoulder, etc). In the meantime, I'm grateful
that we are at least *allowed* to cycle on them.

Ironically, I reckon it might actually be safer to cycle on motorways than most trunk A-roads if
ones stays to the extreme left-hand side of the hard shoulder. I have accidentally cycled on a
couple of motorways before (Hold on! I can explain! Well, give some excuses anyway*) and felt as
safe as houses - just ultra-wary of getting nicked.

* Due to me getting lost & confused + road works + bad or non-existent signage. I did a bit of the
M25 when a certain stretch was first opened, bit of A40(M), and the entire length of the M41!

~PB

In message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

They are purely for assisting cyclists at slip lanes and are not necessarily part of any cycle
lanes on the main carriageway, and they are optional. Cycling is legal on A-roads unless
specifically prohibitted, and the band of tarmac and white line is just the normal hard shoulder or
excess road. Cycles are supposed to use the lane proper there.

Better to have some facility provided than none at all, in this particular case, I think.

I do know the A34, and yes, the cycle lanes only appear at to "assist" cyclists at the slip lanes,
on the principle that these are the most dangerous points. They do this by taking the cyclist to a
position where
s/he has to give way to traffic coming on via the slip road, rather than vice versa. The theory is
that this reduces accidents caused by dozy motorists ploughing into (sorry, "in collision with"😉
cyclists as they come onto the A34. I think no facility at all would be better. It's just another
example of transport planners treating cyclists as second-class citizens, who should be channelled
out of the way of "proper" road users. And I'm not aware of any evidence that this facility
reduces accidents.

At one junction south of Newbury, the cycle lane actually takes cyclists up a hill then down again
just to avoid the slip road.

But you'd have to be insane to cycle up the A34. Or a time triallist...

--

Pete Biggs said:

Simon said:

That's what I was thinking. I can't believe it's classed as a simple A road.

Who in their right mind would cycle along that?

No comment on whether I'm in my right mind or not :-) - but I do like to use large dual
carriageways sometimes. They can be much flatter and more direct than alternative routes:
something different for a change if fancy some continuous fast cycling (good with a tailwind, I
find). 70mph ones with 6+ narrow lanes do bother me, though!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It'd be better if the government admitted that the A34 (and A14, A55, A12, A2 ..) is practically
a motorway, and should be upgraded to motorway standard with an alternative route provided for
non-motorway traffic.

Would cost a 'ole 'eap of money (widening, full hard shoulder, etc). In the meantime, I'm grateful
that we are at least *allowed* to cycle on them.

Ironically, I reckon it might actually be safer to cycle on motorways than most trunk A-roads if
ones stays to the extreme left-hand side of the hard shoulder. I have accidentally cycled on a
couple of motorways before (Hold on! I can explain! Well, give some excuses anyway*) and felt as
safe as houses - just ultra-wary of getting nicked.

I seem to recall somewhere (australia? canada?) trialling allowing cyclists onto motorways where
there was a full width hard shoulder. IIRC the cyclists had to leave at each sliplane and rejoin so
they were never crossing/being crossed by motorway traffic.

I did do a quick search to see if I could find it again (I couldn't) but I did find the following
from trl.co.ukTRLNews mar02.pdfOpen ↗

"Each year more than 500 people die in the UK from hitting trees, lampposts, signs and other
roadside hazards."

Who said drivers could pick a safe speed for the conditions?

Regards,

Tim.

Quoted message said:

* Due to me getting lost & confused + road works + bad or non-existent signage. I did a bit of the
M25 when a certain stretch was first opened, bit of A40(M), and the entire length of the M41!

~PB

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I did a bit of the M25 when a certain stretch was first opened, bit of A40(M), and the entire
length of the M41!

Respec' :-)

--
Dave...

Andy Key said:

Quoted message said:

They are purely for assisting cyclists at slip lanes and are not necessarily part of any cycle
lanes on the main carriageway, and they are optional. Cycling is legal on A-roads unless
specifically prohibitted, and the band of tarmac and white line is just the normal hard shoulder
or excess road. Cycles are supposed to use the lane proper there.

Better to have some facility provided than none at all, in this particular case, I think.

I do know the A34, and yes, the cycle lanes only appear at to "assist" cyclists at the slip lanes,
on the principle that these are the most dangerous points. They do this by taking the cyclist to a
position where s/he has to give way to traffic coming on via the slip road, rather than vice
versa. The theory is that this reduces accidents caused by dozy motorists ploughing into (sorry,
"in collision with"😉 cyclists as they come onto the A34. I think no facility at all would be
better. It's just another example of transport planners treating cyclists as second-class
citizens, who should be channelled out of the way of "proper" road users.

The ones on the A10 (and I suspect A34 too if they're similar) are designed to help cyclists who are
already on the main carriageway and would otherwise have to cross the slip lane at a shallow angle
to continue on, NOT those cyclists who are joining it. This can help because getting stranded in
no-mans land and waiting for a never-appearing gap in the traffic can be a nightmare.

Quoted message said:

And I'm not aware of any evidence that this facility reduces accidents.

There are so few cyclists on these kind of roads that any stats would be meaningless.

~PB

Andy Key <[email hidden]> wrote:

: But you'd have to be insane to cycle up the A34. Or a time triallist...

You beat me to it. See threads passim.

Of course, for better or worse, TT'ers don't use the painted strips.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

Pete Beggs,

Quoted message said:

No comment on whether I'm in my right mind or not :-) - but I do like to use large dual
carriageways sometimes. They can be much flatter and more direct than alternative routes:
something different for a change if fancy some continuous fast cycling (good with a tailwind, I
find). 70mph ones with 6+ narrow lanes do bother me, though!

I have a special licence to ride a bicycle on the freeways of New Jersey. It's legal to ride on some
or all freeways in a good many states in the USA, especially in the west, where there are few
alternate roads, and traffic is lighter.

New Jersey is the only place I've herard of that requires a licence, though. To get one, just write
in and ask. Once you have it it's good for life.

The licence is not good on every freeway. The immediate approaches to New York City and Philadelphia
tend to be forbidden, and so are the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.

As for those bike bypasses on British slip roads, I'm not too impressed with them. As with things
done at roundabouts their main purpose is to delay cyclists and convert any accident into "the
cyclists fault". I will concede that the insane design of British slip roads is pretty dangerous,
but so it is for motorists as well.

Jeremy Parker

Arthur Clune said:

Andy Key <[email hidden]> wrote:

: But you'd have to be insane to cycle up the A34. Or a time triallist...

You beat me to it. See threads passim.

Of course, for better or worse, TT'ers don't use the painted strips.

Not even the ones in the middle of the road ;-)

John B

Jeremy Parker said:

As for those bike bypasses on British slip roads, I'm not too impressed with them. As with things
done at roundabouts their main purpose is to delay cyclists and convert any accident into "the
cyclists fault". I will concede that the insane design of British slip roads is pretty dangerous,
but so it is for motorists as well.

Hi Jeremy

Aren't our UK slip roads the same as your US on and off ramps? My point is that using either
countries' solution, if you are cycling straight on, you have to cycle across a lane where other
traffic is possibly moving at speed in front of or closely behind you.

Hope that makes sense. I doubt it.

I appreciate you're talking about the bike bypasses so: What's the US solution to the problem of
bikes having to ride across the on/off ramps?

James

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

In "]news:[email hidden], Arthur Clune <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Of course, for better or worse, TT'ers don't use the painted strips.

....and one TT'er, Rachel Glaister, was killed on the A14 at Cambridge by a car joining the dual
carriageway :-(

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:

: ....and one TT'er, Rachel Glaister, was killed on the A14 at Cambridge by a car joining the dual
: carriageway :-(

I'm afraid that I view TT'ing on roads like the A14 as tantamount to suicide anyway. It's pure luck
as to wether you get killed or not.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

Since they replaced some nice Berkshire countryside with the A34 Newbury bypass I've never seen a
single bike on that bit of the dual carriageway.

I suppose if you don't know where your going you might want to share the road with loads of HGVs
but a quick look at an OS map will reveal some really pleasant cycling a few hundred yards either
side of it.

I suppose some lobby has made the DOT add cycle lanes to big new roads so that they can prove
they're supporting sustainable transport.

blagger <[email hidden]> wrote: ( Since they replaced some nice Berkshire countryside with the A34
) Newbury bypass I've never seen a single bike on that bit of the dual ( carriageway.

I suppose that just goes to show how easy it is not to see the cyclists.

Jeremy Parker said:

I will concede that the insane design of British slip roads is pretty dangerous, but so it is for
motorists as well.

Jeremy Parker

British ones are insane? Try German autobahn junctions and you'll never complain again...

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

blagger said:

I've never seen a single bike on that bit of the dual carriageway.

Cyclists are well-known to be invisible ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

Hi Jeremy,

[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments] Jeremy Parker wrote in uk.rec.cycling:
about: Re: A34

Quoted message said:

As for those bike bypasses on British slip roads, I'm not too impressed with them. As with things
done at roundabouts their main purpose is to delay cyclists and convert any accident into "the
cyclists fault".

Well, I have to say *I* tend not to fancy cycling 'across' ~200m of sliproad 'flare' to continue in
a straight line while various fast-moving vehicles debate (and hopefully do not fail) to decide
whether they should pass behind or in front of me at 70mph as the exit or merge onto the dual
carriageway!

On the rare occasions I've had to cycle on high-speed dual carriageways I've always informally
practiced the manoeuvre of crossing straight across onramps and then remerging, and depending on the
volume of traffic, the same on offramps too..

Quoted message said:

I will concede that the insane design of British slip roads is pretty dangerous, but so it is for
motorists as well.

Out of curiosity, what in particular do you find insane about them compared to other slip roads
(ignoring the fact that high-speed junctions are dangerous for slower-moving vehicles and people
in general)?

--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> | Glasgow, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] |
web.viewport.co.ukweb.viewport.co.ukOpen ↗ | Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |

Quoted message said:

I scorefile posters who don't quote in traditional interleaved style.<

begin Once upon a time, there was a badly-broken newsreader program...