I was in the traffic yesterday (long delays, not surprisingly as they got the air ambulance out). Felt sick when I saw a bike abandoned at the side of the road and realised what must have happened. Fingers crossed the cyclist recovers fully.
It was on a section reduced to single lane and hard shoulder due to roadworks I think (although maybe the cones were changed due to the accident). My guess would be the lorry driver was a bit zoned out and drifted onto the hard shoulder.
Very personal thing but I wouldn't cycle along the a38 or a30 dual carriageway sections as it's just not very pleasant. I'm not criticising this cyclist for doing so though, he is perfectly entitled to do so and it may well have been the best practical route for him from a to b.
Another A38 Accident
Re: Another A38 Accident
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Another A38 Accident
Bad news 
Beekeeper, we've had a lot of this in a couple of threads in the past year or so.
Motorways are generally specially built new roads and where they sever existing highways alternate facilities must be provided for those who are inconvenienced. They are an addition to the existing road network for the exclusive use of motor vehicles. That is not the case for all purpose roads, they are generally existing main roads along ancient routes and often forming the most direct and well graded route between major towns. Over time these roads have been widened but often no alternate provision is made for cyclists or other non-motorised road users. If we say cyclists cannot ride on such roads whilst making no attempt to accommodate them we are saying that cyclists have less of a right to a direct journey than motorised road users. In some cases the main road is the only way to access particular villages effectively prohibiting villagers from cycling. In many more cases there are few viable alternatives and this is a huge barrier to cycling in these places. Obviously the road itself is a fairly effective barrier to cycling anyway so I fully support the CTC's calls for good quality cycle facilities adjacent to these roads.
Beekeeper, we've had a lot of this in a couple of threads in the past year or so.
Motorways are generally specially built new roads and where they sever existing highways alternate facilities must be provided for those who are inconvenienced. They are an addition to the existing road network for the exclusive use of motor vehicles. That is not the case for all purpose roads, they are generally existing main roads along ancient routes and often forming the most direct and well graded route between major towns. Over time these roads have been widened but often no alternate provision is made for cyclists or other non-motorised road users. If we say cyclists cannot ride on such roads whilst making no attempt to accommodate them we are saying that cyclists have less of a right to a direct journey than motorised road users. In some cases the main road is the only way to access particular villages effectively prohibiting villagers from cycling. In many more cases there are few viable alternatives and this is a huge barrier to cycling in these places. Obviously the road itself is a fairly effective barrier to cycling anyway so I fully support the CTC's calls for good quality cycle facilities adjacent to these roads.
Re: Another A38 Accident
Bicycler wrote:
Motorways are generally specially built new roads and where they sever existing highways alternate facilities must be provided for those who are inconvenienced. They are an addition to the existing road network for the exclusive use of motor vehicles. That is not the case for all purpose roads, they are generally existing main roads along ancient routes and often forming the most direct and well graded route between major towns. Over time these roads have been widened but often no alternate provision is made for cyclists or other non-motorised road users. If we say cyclists cannot ride on such roads whilst making no attempt to accommodate them we are saying that cyclists have less of a right to a direct journey than motorised road users. In some cases the main road is the only way to access particular villages effectively prohibiting villagers from cycling. In many more cases there are few viable alternatives and this is a huge barrier to cycling in these places. Obviously the road itself is a fairly effective barrier to cycling anyway so I fully support the CTC's calls for good quality cycle facilities adjacent to these roads.
Quite right too!
Personally I would need to be desperate to ride that road (and many others like it),the lack of facilities on such roads is quite ridiculous in the extreme.
I feel for the cyclist's family and friends as I sure we all do but having endure such a disgusting lack of safety for slow moving an vulnerable road users is IMHO a crime frankly.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Another A38 Accident
BeeKeeper wrote:I must stress again I am not speculating about this incident but is there an official CTC view on cycling on busy A roads like the A38? Should the CTC actively discourage it or do they say it is every rider's right?
I must stress again I am not speculating about this but is there an official Women's Institute view on women going out at night? Should the WI actively discourage it or do they say it is every woman's right?
Re: Another A38 Accident
TonyR wrote:BeeKeeper wrote:I must stress again I am not speculating about this incident but is there an official CTC view on cycling on busy A roads like the A38? Should the CTC actively discourage it or do they say it is every rider's right?
I must stress again I am not speculating about this but is there an official Women's Institute view on women going out at night? Should the WI actively discourage it or do they say it is every woman's right?
astonishing?
Re: Another A38 Accident
MrsHJ wrote:astonishing?
TonyR's point is cleverly made. The Women's Institute is a representative organisation for women. The CTC is the same for cyclists. Walking alone at night may be regarded as a 'right' for women, but it may be unwise for the WI to promote it, given the risks involved. The same may be said with regards to any organisation promoting cycling on high speed roads.
Re: Another A38 Accident
DevonDamo wrote:MrsHJ wrote:astonishing?
TonyR's point is cleverly made. The Women's Institute is a representative organisation for women. The CTC is the same for cyclists. Walking alone at night may be regarded as a 'right' for women, but it may be unwise for the WI to promote it, given the risks involved. The same may be said with regards to any organisation promoting cycling on high speed roads.
Actually I think he's making the exact opposite point!
Women's groups (rightly) get very annoyed when advice is given that women can dramatically reduce risk of harm by choosing not to go out at night (or get drunk, or wear revealing clothing etc. etc. etc...) They see it as victim blaming and a diversion from what should be the main priority ie. doing something about those who endanger women.
Whilst I don't think that rape and mugging analogies are particularly wise they do show the need to be careful about how giving advice intended to be helpful can change public perception of the crime. Today's precautionary advice becomes tomorrow's victim blaming. Start a road crash description by saying "ignoring the advice of cyclists' organisations Joe Bloggs was cycling down the A38 - A 70mph dual carriageway road - without a helmet or any high visibility clothing when he came into a collision with..." and you've instantly managed to portray a law abiding cyclist going about his business and hit by a tonne of metal as the guilty party. Personally I feel that organisations giving advice about safe cycling need to be aware of these issues; how they portray cycling as a dangerous activity and how they increase our own obligations (in the eyes of others) whilst failing to tackle the real problem of those people and road designs that endanger us.
Re: Another A38 Accident
Tricky though isn't it? Defending a cyclist's right to ride the road, while at the same time as campaigning for a safer (segregated?) facility which is as convenient as the existing DC, without giving tacit acceptence to the idea that the road is in reality too dangerous for cyclists to use. You can see it is one the CTC might want to discreetly steer clear of.
Re: Another A38 Accident
There are all kinds of continuous improvements which are made in the name of better road safety. That doesn't mean accepting that it is impossible for the existing road to be used safely. Certainly we don't go banning vehicles from roads until that road is up to better standards. The AA calls for safer roads without thinking that conflicts with their members' right to drive.
A cycle path need only be justified by being safer than the adjacent road. It doesn't require the adjacent road to be unsafe. Look at all the perfectly usable roads with cycle paths alongside. Without commenting on the road itself, it is apparent that such a facility would cater far better for a wide variety of cyclists.
In truth I have no objection to councils and the Highways Agency deciding that certain of their roads are not safe enough for use by cyclists. However, I believe they should accept responsibility for the problem and finding an adequate solution to it. If they do accept that their road's design and permitted speed are inadequate for all users of the road then they should seek to provide for those users of the road they have hitherto ignored. If you are designing an all purpose road it should be suitable for all traffic, if it isn't it should be modified.
A cycle path need only be justified by being safer than the adjacent road. It doesn't require the adjacent road to be unsafe. Look at all the perfectly usable roads with cycle paths alongside. Without commenting on the road itself, it is apparent that such a facility would cater far better for a wide variety of cyclists.
In truth I have no objection to councils and the Highways Agency deciding that certain of their roads are not safe enough for use by cyclists. However, I believe they should accept responsibility for the problem and finding an adequate solution to it. If they do accept that their road's design and permitted speed are inadequate for all users of the road then they should seek to provide for those users of the road they have hitherto ignored. If you are designing an all purpose road it should be suitable for all traffic, if it isn't it should be modified.
Re: Another A38 Accident
Bicycler wrote:Actually I think he's making the exact opposite point!
Correct. Deal with the perpetrators and the road designs, not by penalising the potential victims.
-
basingstoke123
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm
Re: Another A38 Accident
Tragically another man was killed this morning in another accident on the A38
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/S ... story.html
But this accident is not reported on the BBC Devon news web site. Car (or landrover? not clear from the report) drivers dying after hitting a stationary vehicle are less newsworthy.
The problem with the A38 is that it should be the M5. However, to be upgraded would require alternative routes for local traffic and traffic that cannot use motorways. It is not only cyclists that are prohibited. Tractors, learner drivers are also not allowed.
In 2009 there was a fatal accident when someone fell asleep and drove into the back of a tractor and trailer. The (car) driver survived but her half brother and her partner were killed. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Cra ... story.html
Ban cycling on dual carriageways? Should also ban tractors. And underpowered cars pulling caravans. Or anything that cannot break the speed limit.
If cycling is banned on dual carriageways, it won't be long before someone notices that most serious cycle accidents happen on ordinary roads. So, logically, cyclists should be banned from these as well 'for their own safety'.
Would a ban apply to all dual carriageways, or just some? Or only when there is an alternative route or cycle path available? A blanket ban would mean that in a town like Basingstoke, cycling would be illegal - you would have a choice of cycling illegally on pavements or illegally on dual carriageways.
I suspect that most of us don't use DCs when there is a viable alternative - I don't like being past at high speed. However, not all DCs are the same, and we all have different ideas of when to use one or take an alternative route. I make different decisions depending on the circumstances.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/S ... story.html
But this accident is not reported on the BBC Devon news web site. Car (or landrover? not clear from the report) drivers dying after hitting a stationary vehicle are less newsworthy.
The problem with the A38 is that it should be the M5. However, to be upgraded would require alternative routes for local traffic and traffic that cannot use motorways. It is not only cyclists that are prohibited. Tractors, learner drivers are also not allowed.
In 2009 there was a fatal accident when someone fell asleep and drove into the back of a tractor and trailer. The (car) driver survived but her half brother and her partner were killed. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Cra ... story.html
Ban cycling on dual carriageways? Should also ban tractors. And underpowered cars pulling caravans. Or anything that cannot break the speed limit.
If cycling is banned on dual carriageways, it won't be long before someone notices that most serious cycle accidents happen on ordinary roads. So, logically, cyclists should be banned from these as well 'for their own safety'.
Would a ban apply to all dual carriageways, or just some? Or only when there is an alternative route or cycle path available? A blanket ban would mean that in a town like Basingstoke, cycling would be illegal - you would have a choice of cycling illegally on pavements or illegally on dual carriageways.
I suspect that most of us don't use DCs when there is a viable alternative - I don't like being past at high speed. However, not all DCs are the same, and we all have different ideas of when to use one or take an alternative route. I make different decisions depending on the circumstances.
Re: Another A38 Accident
Okay - I got that one wrong! But I had my reasons though: If I were a head honcho in the women's institute, I wouldn't dream of encouraging women to walk alone at night. Similarly, if I were influential in the cycling world, I'd never in a million years suggest it's a good idea to go out on dual carriageways. In both cases, such advice would be likely to result in harm.
Although it may offend our sense of rights and equality, some activities are just dangerous, and probably always will be. It may be morally correct to aim our ire at the miscreants who attack women or micro-sleep their lorries over innocent cyclists, but that doesn't help the deceased or their loved ones. If it's that dangerous, swallow your sense of injustice and just don't do it.
Campaigning for good, segregated cycle paths is a sensible line to take. Campaigning against poor driving in order to make fast roads safe for cyclists is straying into King Canute territory.
Although it may offend our sense of rights and equality, some activities are just dangerous, and probably always will be. It may be morally correct to aim our ire at the miscreants who attack women or micro-sleep their lorries over innocent cyclists, but that doesn't help the deceased or their loved ones. If it's that dangerous, swallow your sense of injustice and just don't do it.
Campaigning for good, segregated cycle paths is a sensible line to take. Campaigning against poor driving in order to make fast roads safe for cyclists is straying into King Canute territory.
Re: Another A38 Accident
I think there's a big difference between encouraging something and refusing to actively discourage it. This is a common misunderstanding when debating cycle safety. People come along wishing to dictate what others' behaviour should be and think that anybody who doesn't agree with their stance is trying to dictate the opposite. In reality many people just do not wish to be dictated to. Rest assured, nobody wants helmets or Hi-vis banned and nobody wants to compel cyclists to ride down the A38.
Cyclists aren't blind to the dangers that surround them and I am more inclined to trust the judgement of the individual regarding his own safety than any general assumption based upon road type and speed limits. Even on one stretch of road the conditions can vary significantly at different times of the day. I avoid most of these like the plague during the day but the couple I used were perfectly fine when I was working nights.
Cyclists aren't blind to the dangers that surround them and I am more inclined to trust the judgement of the individual regarding his own safety than any general assumption based upon road type and speed limits. Even on one stretch of road the conditions can vary significantly at different times of the day. I avoid most of these like the plague during the day but the couple I used were perfectly fine when I was working nights.
Re: Another A38 Accident
DevonDamo wrote:Okay - I got that one wrong! But I had my reasons though: If I were a head honcho in the women's institute, I wouldn't dream of encouraging women to walk alone at night. Similarly, if I were influential in the cycling world, I'd never in a million years suggest it's a good idea to go out on dual carriageways.
But that wasn't the question. The question was should the CTC actively discourage it. I suggest that if the WI were to actively discourage women from going out at night all hell would break out.
Although it may offend our sense of rights and equality, some activities are just dangerous, and probably always will be. It may be morally correct to aim our ire at the miscreants who attack women or micro-sleep their lorries over innocent cyclists, but that doesn't help the deceased or their loved ones. If it's that dangerous, swallow your sense of injustice and just don't do it.
There are places, like this bit of the A38 and a dual carriageway near me, which are unavoidable - there are no realistic alternative route. In my case the roads are staggered by at least half a mile where they cross so you either ride only on one side and don't cross it or you have to ride along it to cross it or you have to do a 10 mile detour to the nearest unstaggered crossing.
Remember that about five motorists a day are killed on our roads and another 60 a day seriously injured. Should the AA and RAC actively discourage motorists from using the roads or should we seek to reduce the sorts of driving and road designs that make it dangerous?
Campaigning for good, segregated cycle paths is a sensible line to take. Campaigning against poor driving in order to make fast roads safe for cyclists is straying into King Canute territory.
It would be easy enough to put a speed limit on those sections of dual carriageway that are unavoidable for cyclists, horse riders, moped riders etc and to put up big be aware of cyclists signs, especially if its a well used road for End to Enders. And that would save not only cyclist lives but also far more lives of motor vehicle occupants.