ADUK Archive

Following on from the Edinburgh thread where there was obvious disagreement about the level of responsibility of different classes of road users, I just wondered what members thought about the exclusion of certain classes of road user from certain types of roads as in the case of motorways or special roads.

Users of mobility scooters which have a top speed of 8mph for example are, IIAC, currently not prohibited from using a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 70mph. The only condition as far as I know, is that they must display a flashing amber light on any dual carriageway with a speed limit of 50mph or more.

One road locally that has a user prohibition is the A35 Upton by pass which has a pedestrian prohibition. I also noticed when in Shropshire, that the A5 North West of Shrewsbury has a pedestrian prohibition despite there being a wide verge.

Is there a case for extending the number of roads with prohibitions for certain classes of road users for their own safety?

Good question. In Israel, there is a reoccuring problem with cyclists (or mobility scooters, etc) riding on dual-carriageways (either on the carriageway or on the har shoulder), that often get killed. They are not legally prohibited from riding there, unlike a motorway.

But than again, the speed in dual carriageway in Israel is only 10kmph short of a motorway, which is 120kmph (75mph). The only difference is that a cyclist hit on a dual-carriageway will be killed, and one on a motorway will be overkilled.

The A34 down from the the M40 to the M4 (and beyond) has no retrictions. It gets used by agricultural vehicles and the occasional suicidal cyclist. The problem is that there is no reasonable alternative route over the downs ....

triquet wrote:The A34 down from the the M40 to the M4 (and beyond) has no restrictions. It gets used by agricultural vehicles and the occasional suicidal cyclist. The problem is that there is no reasonable alternative route over the downs ....

The A34 is a good example of why the OP's idea can't be done in the UK. Much of the A34 is simply an upgrade to an existing road; IOW, it goes over a right-of-way and anyone has the right to use it -the history of British roads is such that the government doesn't have the power to revoke that right. The only way would be to build entirely new roads alongside the old one, such as the same road at Beedon and Ilsley.

As one example, A-road tunnels, and the inescapable sections of their approach roads, typically have such prohibitions.

There is legislation empowering the relevant authorities to remove public rights of way and if this isn't enough Parliament is competent to create some.

MGF wrote:....Parliament is competent....

Sorry, David.

AIUI the difference between a Motorway and an A-road that looks like one, is that because Motorways prohibit specific users, it is necessary to provide an alternative route for these. The cost of doing this is the reason why so many 'motorways in all but name' exist; the highway authorities would rather accept the inevitable disruption of communities (for those that don't dare use them) and KSI risks (for those that exercise their right) than admit the fact that they have built a Motorway and provide what is patently required.

Can you give an example of a motorway-grade A road?

A48 after the M4. The only difference is the occasional (!) roundabout (certainly not friendly to non-motorised road users).
A3 from Kingston outwards.
Many multi-lane dual carriageway roads cut through communities, have a 70mph limit, are frequently driven at higher speeds, have few or no crossing points for non-motorised users and form the main practical route (having been built tofollow the old 'all traffic' road).

Not sure I agree with that - as far as the average experience of driving them goes, I agree there are plenty of motorway-esque A roads in the UK. What I know of the A3 is an example. However if you wanted to actually turn [the non-motorway bit of] it into one, you'd have to spend a huge amount of money bringing it up to design standard, totally replacing junctions with graded ones, etc. That in itself would mean simply getting rid of a lot of low density connections, firstly on cost and secondly because that's not what motorways cater for. Indirectly then, that is about access rights, but not a trivial case of a label.

think we are at cross-purposes: My labelling of them as 'Motorway in all but name' is what they effectively are for non-motorised users. I used to cycle the A3 London to Cobham and can assure you it is no safer or slower than were I to cycle the M25. It is however the most direct and flattest route!

As for 'design standard' - there are motorways which are not up tothe modern standard but still labelled as such - M4 through Port Talbot is one example.

Ah right - definitely agreed on that one. It's the same round here and the A31 between Southampton & Bournemouth - not somewhere you want to ride a bike, and indeed I did once try before giving up almost immediately.