Silly bugger

Adrian Boliston said:

There are quite a few A roads in london that have m-ways that lead onto them, such as the A4(M4),
A316(M3) etc. Perhaps cyclists should not use these roads for the first mile from the m-way
junction?

But then you are making the first mile a de facto motorway, so then next mile will be just as
dangerous.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

Tony W said:

Just as I came off the end of the M40 where it becomes A40 (just to the west of Northolt Airport
-- but before I had actually realised the road was no longer motorway (its one of those places
where only the colour of the signs change) -- I become aware of lots of braking, bunching and
swinging out in the inside lane (I'm in the middle lane).

I have used this exact bit of road (A40 past northolt airfield), although in the other direction,
early on a sunday morning as it is the quickest way to ride out to denham and the amersham road TT
courses. I cant say I'd like to try this at 5pm on a friday for example but still its a perfectly
legal bit of road.

Quoted message said:

A cyclist, 50's, male, longish grey hair, lycra and a reasonable machine -- is pedalling along the
inside lane. I presume he came down the slip road and he may even be allowed on that piece of road
(it is not, as I said above, motorway at exactly the point I say him.

Not me guv 🙂

Quoted message said:

Total madness. If he intended to be there he is a fool (assuming he is still alive). If he made a
mistake he will have to wash his shorts very carefully this evening !!

Of course he intended to be there. Is it likely he will want to make an enourmous detour to avoid
using a bit of A40?

Quoted message said:

Generally I believe we should cycle on the roads that are allowed to us

The A40 for example then.

--

-Alex

----------------------------------
[email hidden]

alexpg.ath.cxcycling.phpOpen ↗ westerleycycling.org.ukwesterleycycling.org.ukOpen ↗
----------------------------------

"Adrian Boliston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No -- indeed I regularly use a section of busy 2 lane dual NSL road. It

was

Quoted message said:

the proximity to the motorway that made it seem so bad....

There are quite a few A roads in london that have m-ways that lead onto them, such as the A4(M4),
A316(M3) etc. Perhaps cyclists should not use these roads for the first mile from the m-way
junction?

I was on the A4 yesterday, from the end of the motorway all the way into London. I thought it was
fine. I was regularly catching up cars that had passed, and I think over 5 miles or so, there was
nothing in it. Then we hit London traffic, and I was away. They expect cycles, as there's even a
sign before the flyover which says 'flyover unsuitable for cycles'.

I was more concerned about the pollution than the traffic hitting me, and not one person objected.
The only time I was a bit concerned was when a car was joining from a slip road. Everyone in the
car, except the driver, saw
me. Fortunately, at least one of us was paying attention.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tell that to any RTTC racer! FWIW, dual carriageways are the safest roads for cyclists in terms of
accidents per mile. Cycle tracks are the most dangerous.

Odd - I would have though motorways (where cyclists aren't supposed to be) would be by far the least
dangerous simply in terms of accidents to cyclists per mile. We should therefore mount a campaign to
allow cycling on the motorway! <g>

If you choose your statistics carefully, you can 'prove', not quite *anything* you want to, but
pretty close. (As that 'FWTW' suggests that you know.)

Pete Barrett

Pete Barrett said:

Odd - I would have though motorways (where cyclists aren't supposed to be) would be by far the
least dangerous simply in terms of accidents to cyclists per mile. We should therefore mount a
campaign to allow cycling on the motorway! <g>

I'm sure there are some militant elements of the CTC who would actually like to see that...the same
ones who think we shouldn't have to use lights at night because drivers shouldn't be driving faster
than they can see to stop!

Zog The Undeniable said:

Pete Barrett said:

Odd - I would have though motorways (where cyclists aren't supposed to be) would be by far the
least dangerous simply in terms of accidents to cyclists per mile. We should therefore mount a
campaign to allow cycling on the motorway! <g>

I'm sure there are some militant elements of the CTC who would actually like to see that...the
same ones who think we shouldn't have to use lights at night because drivers shouldn't be driving
faster than they can see to stop!

Well, they shouldn't. The HC is quite clear - and it does not say you shouldn't drive faster than
you are able to see is clear of high-visibility reflective illuminated things, does it? Relatively
few fallen telegraph poles or tree limbs (to chose two examples from my experience) show clearly
visible red lights to approaching traffic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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

Quoted message said:

I was on the A4 yesterday, from the end of the motorway all the way into London. I thought it was
fine. I was regularly catching up cars that had passed, and I think over 5 miles or so, there was
nothing in it. Then we

hit

Quoted message said:

London traffic, and I was away. They expect cycles, as there's even a sign before the flyover
which says 'flyover unsuitable for cycles'.

Not the Hammersmith Flyover surely? I used that quite a lot when I lived in London late '80's and it
seemed safe, as by the time you hit the slip road at the end you are normally flying along so are
less at risk from joining traffic. I'd use that *anyday* compared with the tedious Hammersmith
Broadway circulatory system.

In article said:

Well, they shouldn't. The HC is quite clear - and it does not say you shouldn't drive faster than
you are able to see is clear of high-visibility reflective illuminated things, does it? Relatively
few fallen telegraph poles or tree limbs (to chose two examples from my experience) show clearly
visible red lights to approaching traffic.

The CTC, and the HC, do require lights at night though. They don't like nearside lights for some
reason, though on a recumbent I'd place a light each side of the seat.

Interestingly they note that lights are not required whilst stationary or pushing the bike, though I
remember Cambridge police being quite pedantic, handing out on the spot fines, to people even
pushing a bike without lights. One person I remember was carrying the bike and a double bass - so no
way they could argue that she was about to ride off.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.