Imagine this, not untypical, scenario:

A cyclist decides to ride along a motorway. There is a stream of HGVs doing a steady 56mph in the inside lane. The other two lanes have pretty solid traffic that's doing the normal 65mph to 70mph motorway speed. The stream of HGVs are forced to slow to the 15mph or so the cyclist is doing, as they can only legally overtake when the middle lane is clear. If an HGV does pull out to overtake the cyclist that then slows the middle lane down to the HGV 56mph speed limiter. This then pushes other traffic out into the overtaking lane, as well as causing traffic in the middle lane to back up.

The bunching effect is going to quickly result in congestion tailing back miles behind the cyclist, and in turn that's going to block motorway slip roads, as traffic won't be able to smoothly stream on to the motorway. Slip roads and their feeders aren't designed to cope well with stationary traffic, they very often have roundabouts feeding them and they will get jammed with stationary traffic. That then leads to all the roads leading on to those roundabouts backing up.

Is giving a cyclist the right to ride on a motorway worth that level of congestion? Add in the safety issues of fast moving traffic having to suddenly slow to 15mph or so, along with all the risks this poses (especially at night or in bad weather) and it seems pretty obvious why cyclists are barred from using motorways.

Dual carriageways can be very different. Often they are a lot slower than motorways, don't have the same sort of feeders and slip roads and also generally carry a lower volume of traffic. They can also often have speed restrictions, one stretch not far from us has a long 30mph stretch, for example. There's a big difference between traffic doing 30mph slowing to 15mph or so and traffic doing twice that speed being forced to slow that much.

 

Imagine this, not untypical, scenario:

A cyclist decides to ride along a motorway. There is a stream of HGVs doing a steady 56mph in the inside lane. The other two lanes have pretty solid traffic that's doing the normal 65mph to 70mph motorway speed. The stream of HGVs are forced to slow to the 15mph or so the cyclist is doing...

Well, they wouldn't 'need to' because the cyclist can just use the hard shoulder?

.... Dual carriageways can be very different. Often they are a lot slower than motorways

HGVs do 56 on dual carriageways too, and they have a lot less room to manoeuvre and fewer options with two lanes. I am not sure I understand your logic.

On top of that, there are far more frequent junctions and other hazards to distract road users from noticing cyclists.

What is wrong with just letting a cyclist use the hard shoulder? No need for anyone to slow down. It's not as if they create a hazard and are going to pile in to the back of an emergency-stopped vehicle at 70mph?

For the life of me, I can't see any reason to stop a cyclist from using a motorway hard shoulder if they wanted to, if it is legal for them to have no hard shoulder at all on a dual carriageway.

 

Run them flat, lesson learnt and they won't do it again.

On the motorway that it.
About once every few months you see an e scooter going up the expressway in brum, towards the motorway.

 

Run them flat, lesson learnt and they won't do it again.

On the motorway that it.
About once every few months you see an e scooter going up the expressway in brum, towards the motorway.

You might want to avail yourself of donald's signature-of-dubious-legal-effectiveness, to ensure that any reader is made aware your comments are for the purposes of entertainment, and should not be construed as an incitement to murder.

More seriously, there are sadly a number of drivers who take the stance that cyclists who are in their way (whether on a motorway, dual carriageway, rural road or urban street) should be "taught a lesson" through a dangerously close "punishment pass" or "tap". Personally I think any drivers caught doing that should be prosecuted for attempted GBH, but the police seem disinclined to agree - two-tier policing?

Cycling on the hard shoulder of a (non-smart) motorway is probably a damn sight safer than cycling on the edge of a dual carriageway or along a typical "murder strip" - not least because most drivers won't swerve into the hard shoulder to make a punishment pass, as it might actually endanger the driver themselves.

 

Thats just plain stupid... same as all the city cars doing 50MPH

 

Generally people are less attentive on the motorway I think, on a dual carriage way you are constantly looking out for odd things. It blows my mind that you can have a cross road across a central reservation, or a perpendicular slip road joining a dual carriageway meaning entry speed is basically 0. On the motorway however people put their heads down and follow the car in front.

 

Let the individual cyclist decide within the law.

In the meantime I promise to do my utmost best to not injure or kill them, regardless of how stupid I think they are or how entitled they think they are.

 

On the M25, a bicycle might be quicker.

 

Met a delivery driver who came straight at me whilst on rural single lane road, his attitude was as he was bigger I give way.

With attitude like that can't see riding on motorway would be helpful for my health.

 

Met a delivery driver who came straight at me whilst on rural single lane road, his attitude was as he was bigger I give way.

Was he right?

'Big' wins. I don't argue with vehicles when I am on the bike. World's full of Cnuts .. can't turn the tide of bad driving.

 

Of course not Donald.

 

Priority goes to the vulnerable road user, but no one seems to have read the memo. I will continue to ride defensively and assume motorists want to murder me with negligence.

 

I bike around town a lot, but I can't imagine how terrifying it must be to ride a bike on a motorway, so surely even if it was legal there would hardly be anyone doing it? Why on earth would you? Especially given the generally longer distances between motorway junctions I can't believe there are many places where there isn't a much better way...

 

Motorway hard shoulders are sprinkled with sharp-edged debris. (Police cars on motorway patrol eat tyres as a result.) And on at least some of Britain's motorways, the average time before a broken-down car in the hard shoulder is hit by a wandering vehicle is less than 1 hour. Even if legal, cycling on a motorway hard shoulder would be nasty.

To approach this from the opposite point of view, motorways are generally safe and efficient roads because they have simple, well-designed for cars, junctions and very predictable traffic conditions. Adding any of the classes of traffic at present banned from motorways would make them much less predictable, therefore less efficient and less safe.

I did once get a bicycle puncture in the fast lane of the A1. Perfectly legal, but very off-putting. [That was a Sunday afternoon, what was then a primitive non-motorway section, and I was only on the wretched road for about 400 yards, to cross it. No, there were no other crossing places for miles.]

I should stop feeding the trolls now.

 

Who in their right mind would cycle on the hard shoulder or on a main dual carriageway

 

I cycle for several miles southbound along the A5 dual carriageway. Normally I feel relatively safe, and there are blue signs near exits pointing out to cyclists (and of course attentive drivers) that they must take an exit part way along, then cross the exit road onto the narrow entrance to the carriageway made specifically for cycle riders, should they be continuing along the dual carriageway.

 

They are allowed on dual carriageways, which have no hard shoulders and mostly only 2 lanes, so not nearly as much space for safety as a motorway with hard shoulders and 3 lanes that traffic can easily and safely mix into the outer 2 lanes.
...

• is logical, that it's OK on dual carriageways and not OK on motorways
• pedal bicycles shouldn't be allowed on dual carriageways either
• pedal bicycles are fine on wider motorways if they are OK on dual carriageways of the same speeds

I'd suggest you are analysing the situation from the wrong angle, rather it is that legally and practically motorways are distinct from other road types, they are 'Special Roads' with a different set of legal regulations applying which are based on them being high speed, trunk roads and so they exclude any and all forms of vehicle which cannot travel at high speeds, so not just bicycles but also other slow moving vehicles and pedestrians.

Practically, motorways being main trunk routes that were over-layed on top of the old road network, it was reasonable to exclude certain traffic because they had an alternative.

Dual carriageways are much more common, many are old roads which have been widened, they aren't just long distance trunk roads, they can be found in the centres of towns and cities, you get roads which switch between single lane and dual carriageway running through the countryside, there may be no alternative roads to reach certain destinations, so in practice you could not exclude bicycles, slow moving vehicles or pedestrians.

 

I've ended up cycling on a short section of dual carriageway (largely by not planning carefully). Relatively quiet part, and felt reasonably safe because motorists wouldn't have time to have commenced micronapping and drifting onto the shoulder. In general slower vehicles are allowed on these roads because there isn't necessarily a sensible alternative. So you get tractors etc.

Not something I'd do on a regular basis. Not sure if it is more or less safe than urban roads though. Roundabouts are pretty lethal because there are plenty of drivers that think that you aren't a vehicle and they don't have to give way. Or just aren't paying attention. If I don't see eye contact I assume the driver is about to run me over, but I've had people look straight at me and then try it on anyway.

 

Who in their right mind would cycle on the hard shoulder or on a main dual carriageway

Motorway hard shoulders are sprinkled with sharp-edged debris. (Police cars on motorway patrol eat tyres as a result.) And on at least some of Britain's motorways, the average time before a broken-down car in the hard shoulder is hit by a wandering vehicle is less than 1 hour. Even if legal, cycling on a motorway hard shoulder would be nasty.

I do agree about the road debris issue.

Still, the aspect of just cycling down the 1st lane, still not sure how it is less safe than a dual carriageway. If it is no more nor less safe, then why is one illegal the other legal (if legality is intended to reflect what is safe or dangerous)?

I also take the point about observation. But that begs a different question; why are people so inattentive on motorways, and are they more attentive on dual carriageways?

 

Ok newbie cyclist here and Indo 25km daily on rural roads none wider than a tight pass for two cars. When the tractors pass I stop and pull over when the combines pass I de mount and get into the ditch🤣
Seriously there are a minority of car drivers who have no appreciation whatsoever of the vulnerability of a cyclist generally Parisiens or sadly English tourists sad to say they have no understanding or imagination of how easily a cyclist could be unseated and fall in their path yet the farmers with the heavy machinery seem totally aware🤷‍♀️
To cycle
On any busy main road is a no no for me the noise of the traffic alone is enough to put me off!
Dual carriage ways or motorways are not roads I would even consider cycling on!

 

Yeah, when cycling in general or commuting I zigzag across the countryside linking up all sorts of paths. From deep countryside to city centre I barely touch a road. Can’t bear traffic noise, busy roads, aholes etc. How long it takes is of no relevance, all about happiness.

 

Once again it's a UK culture thing with attitudes to cyclists from entitled motorists. If it can be worked in other countries, like Australia and probably others, the UK could manage it.

 

You have to give them 1.5m now, more if at a higher speed. This makes it a pain at the best of times as in built up areas or lanes you can be trundling along at 15mph (+/- depending on the cyclist) for miles on end waiting for a place to legally pass (and possibly both getting dangerous overtakes from those who don't know or don't care about the updates, because for some reason DfT like to update things so quietly it's like top secret, see also the requirement to stop and let pedestrians who are waiting at junctions cross first)

I'd actually say the hard shoulder is okay if the motorway has one (forget the "smart" ones) and they're happy to deal with the constant whoosh of HGVs battering them. It's sufficiently wide that they can use the left edge of it and everyone be at a fairly safe distance. Edit: Though, fair point about debris and it's certainly not something I'd ever fancy doing. Rather, I'd say they shouldn't really be on dual carriageways instead as they don't have hard shoulders, but then cutting off the dual carriageways generally means cutting off access to the motorway.

The shocking "hot take" I have on the cyclist situation (as well as e-scooters) is to give them their own infrastructure. Yes it'd be a lot of work, a lot of negotiation with land owners etc but the sooner we start the sooner it gets done. A lot of it could probably run parallel-ish to roads, maybe try to give some distance if possible so they're not constantly inhaling tyre rubber even when ICE finally dies off. Have the cycle routes cross roads safely like they seem to manage in other countries. I've always thought trying to cram vulnerable 10-30mph exposed persons in parallel alongside 20-70mph metal boxes is dangerous particularly with as many narrow roads as the UK has (the bigger the difference in speed the more dangerous, like someone leisurely trundling along smelling the flowers at 10 on a 50 road), that requiring them to be given more space is "good intentions but you're dealing with humans here and when they get impatient humans do stupid things no matter how much you lecture them" and that they should just be separated wherever possible with their own cycle paths. And no, not just a "pretty please don't drive on this red stripe on this bit of road that's too narrow to be practical" kind of "cycle path" (there was a truly comical one through Ambleside at one point a few years ago). I mean proper, physically separate paths. We have a country that claims to be trying to be more climate friendly - this would be a much better way to show it than leaving cycling the life-threatening exercise it is now.

 

You have to give them 1.5m now, more if at a higher speed.

That was always the law and sensible driving. Only the wording of the Highway Code changed! It does make enforcing safe passing easier to have this set out plainly, though.

 

A lot of drivers don't even use the inside lane on a motorway😮

 

One of the most annoying driving habits there is, IMHO. Seems to be very prevalent on the Western end of the M27 for some reason.

 

when out this afternoon I had 3 cars and 1 tractor pass. All 3 cars were oncoming on a road where two cars passing have to slow and pull to the verge to pass. 2 slowed as they passed me 1 continued on at 80km blissfully unaware seemingly that if I fell we would collide🙄Surprisingly one of the cars that passed was an English car and the driver actually slowed I put it down to them driving a Mercedes so therefore being a fellow considerate Mercedes driver😉😆
The tractor slowed too and gave me time to slow and dismount which I always do given that tractors take up the entire width of the road, the combines incl the verges!

 

I often cycle on shortish dual carriageways, I wouldn't say it is particularly enjoyable though, but it's the most direct route into my nearest town. There are some cycle lanes, but they are pathetic, mostly shared pavements and you have to give way at every single turning/ roundabout entrance.
Mate of mine was actually run over and seriously injured whilst pushing his bike across such an entrance on a roundabout.
Cycling on dual carriageways is often faster too as they are flat and you also get a useful draft from the passing traffic.
There are also some dual carriageways that cyclists are legally banned from using, the newish A130 in Essex was controversial for this reason, although there is a far more suitable route (the old road which has been "calmed") that runs fairly parallel to it for most of the way.
But I do agree that if they are allowed on dual carriageways then logically motorways are no different.
Some motorways are 2 lanes, and many dual carriageways are 3 lanes, so there isn't really much logic to it.
I presume that it's simply because it wasn't possible to ban cyclists from dual carriageways as historically they started out as widened A roads (so often the only available road to get from A to B), whereas motorways are generally completely new routes so there are usually alternative normal roads more suitable).
When dual carriageways are bypasses arguably the old road is more suitable to use ( shorter route between 2 points) if it still exists of course.
But creation of motorways enabled the powers that be to give them a separate legal definition and simply ban cyclists (and other slow moving vehicles) from them