V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Discussion about and results of Beacon club time trials and Beacon member participation in open time trials

Moderators: Beacon RCC, David Cole, JessRJ, martin mc

Post Reply
Posts: 167
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 20:40
Real Name: Ian Taylor

V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by IanT » 28 Jan 2018 20:58

Apologies for the long message but thought it worth sharing an email that CTT have sent out in the last few days regarding a potential ban by Highways England for the use of the A63 near Hull for Time Trials. Details below and a call to action to object to this proposal:

Highways England has put forward a proposal for a Traffic Restriction Order (TRO) to ban cyclists from the A63 near Hull. The stretch of the A63 which would be affected includes the entire course used for the ultra-fast 10 course, the V718 and all its derivatives. If the TRO is put in place, that would mean the V718 would cease to exist as a course and no more events could be held on it.

The Statement of Reasons given in support of the proposed TRO is:

Concerns have been raised for the safety of cyclists using the A63 Trunk Road between North Cave Interchange and Daltry Street Interchange. Cyclists are travelling on a carriageway that carries average speeds of 65 mph for traffic, at a rate of over 2500 vehicles per hour. In the last 5 years there have been six accidents involving cyclists, including a fatality in 2013. should we state that the cyclist rode into the back of a stationary caravan - not necessarily stating the obvious? It could be seen as a sensible objection perhaps?

In the interests of road safety, Highways England Company Ltd is proposing to ban cyclists on this stretch of road, including the associated slip roads.

CTT does not accept that on the days and at the times that time trials are held on this stretch of road that the figures quoted by Highways England accurately represent the correct position. CTT does not believe that the V718 course represents a danger to cyclists or that time trials held on this course are not safe. The six accidents referred to are not all accidents in CTT events. That is the total number of accidents involving cyclists over the last six years, which is not statistically significant. That should be compared against a recorded number of 297 accidents over the same period on this stretch of road involving motor vehicles. Accordingly, CTT intends to object to the proposed TRO in the strongest possible terms.

If you wish to object to the proposed TRO, please could you put your objection in WRITING (Highways England has not supplied an email address for objections to be sent to, so objections cannot be made by email) and POST it to The Office of the Director, Operations Directorate (Yorkshire & North East), Highways England, 3rd Floor South, Lateral, 8 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9AT. The objection should quote the reference 'The A63 Trunk Road (North Cave Interchange to Daltry Street Interchange) (Prohibition of Cyclists Order)'.

Objections MUST be received to the above address not later than Monday 19 February 2018.

Any objection must be based on the proposed ban on cyclists using the A63. An objection based on the fact that it is a fast time trialling course would not have any merit and would very likely be disregarded.

If you do wish to lodge an objection, you may wish to begin this as follows:

I write to object to the above proposed TRO. Please respond confirming you have received this objection and respond to the issues I have raised below. Additionally, please inform me of the outcome of this consultation and of any future amendments to this proposal.

The grounds of my objections are:

Then please give details of your objections. Suggested objections are listed below, although if you wish to object please add whatever objections you have of your own:

Six accidents involving cyclists in a period of five years is very low. Why is it proposed to impose a total ban on cyclists? As compared to significantly more accidents involving motor vehicles over the same period (nearly 300) why is it considered that a ban on cyclists is proportionate?
I do not consider that the quoted statistics of six accidents involving cyclists over a five year period are statistically significant. How do the statistics quoted compare against collision statistics for other similar type A roads? Is a similar type proposal (for a TRO) to be made in respect of those other A roads?

Bicycles pose the lowest risk of all vehicles types on the highway, due to their lower speeds and mass. Please could you explain why such a low figure can be treated by Highways England as justification to ban bicycles on this stretch of road?
I do not consider that a ban on cyclists on this stretch of road is a proportionate response bearing in mind the statistics quoted. What alternative measures have been considered?

Highways England has an obligation to respond to ALL objections received and must respond using the same means by which you contacted them (ie. by letter). As such, please ensure that when making your objection you give details of your name and address.

Again, objections must be received by Highways England by 19 February. If you wish to object and to help to save this course, please could you lodge your objection with Highways England by that date? The more objections received, the more Highways England has to take notice of what is said. As such, please don’t rely on others objecting. Every single objection is needed.

Thank you.

CTT Board of Directors
Last edited by IanT on 29 Jan 2018 18:55, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1663
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Re: V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by Philip Whiteman » 29 Jan 2018 09:51

I know this road well, given that I frequent its use en-route to a local authority in East Yorkshire.

It is astonishing to learn the CTT could have ever deemed it safe enough for such purposes. Traffic volumes are high and most vehicles are travelling at full speed. Not in a million years would I ever consider it as safe stretch of road for cycling in any situation given that it is the principal arterial route into Hull, a major city. The road virtually resembles a motorway and is not dissimilar to the sections on A1, A90 or A14 which have also been subject to PTROs banning cyclists and for very good reason. I'm afraid that I with Highways England on this one
Beacon Audaxes The Kidderminster Killer & From Clee to Heaven 20.7.19; Autumn South Salopian 5.10.19. www.beaconrcc.org.uk/

Posts: 273
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 21:12
Real Name: James Tate
Location: United Kingdom

Re: V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by jdtate101 » 29 Jan 2018 18:40

I have TT'd on this course and it's perfectly safe. Yes the cars are sometimes going fast, but the road is pretty much straight and the lanes are wider than average, meaning drivers have NO reason not to see cyclists. If they were genuine about road safety, they should be calming the traffic once the M62 ends, for example avg speed cameras. This would pay for itself in time and slow the traffic to acceptable levels. IMHO there are far more dangerous TT courses out there that force drivers to overtake on corners and bully riders. V718 has had 5 accidents (cyclist involved) in 6 yrs with only one being fatal, despite being one of the most popular courses in the country with events frequently very oversubscribed. That statistically is a VERY low rate of incident, yet this knee jerk reaction would have you believe it's very dangerous. This is a total overreaction and the thin end of the wedge. I have written to Highways England against the TRO and I encourage every cyclist, even if they don't TT, to do the same otherwise we will find more and more roads forbidden to us as this sets a dangerous precedent.

Posts: 927
Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
Real Name:
Location: Harborne

Re: V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by laurence_cooley » 29 Jan 2018 19:35

Is the "should we state that the cyclist rode into the back of a stationary caravan - not necessarily stating the obvious? It could be seen as a sensible objection perhaps?" a note that Highways England have accidentally left in the proposal? Bit of an own-goal if it is!

Posts: 290
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 13:33
Real Name: Dave Hughes

Re: V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by Yosser » 31 Jan 2018 10:38

I do love a passionate argument and confess that I haven’t ridden this road. However I am almost entirely fact drive when coming to any conclusions. To say that the road is dangerous because it LOOKS dangerous is an interesting supposition. It is akin to a casual observer staring up at the bottom of a velodrome banking and deciding that it is completely impossible to ride a bike on such a banking because it LOOKS impossible. Let the facts speak for themselves. The road seems statistically safe for cyclists on the figures presented. However it does seem to be significantly more dangerous for motorists. I would advise you to avoid the car for this stretch Phil and leap on your bike, it’s statistically much safer!

User avatar
Posts: 646
Joined: 17 Jan 2014 16:40
Real Name: Pete Marshall
Location: Stourbridge

Re: V718 course proposed ban by Highways England

Post by petemarshall » 31 Jan 2018 21:33

It is always the"safety" arguments used by authorities to stop people doing things. If a road has been made dangerous by cars and lorries driving fast and badly the logical thing to do would be to control the cars and lorries, but no, it's cyclists and pedestrians that must be controlled and even banned. This is tragic and that so many people share this ideology doubly so.

How historians will look back with wonder and amazement that people were willing to give up their freedom, their countryside and their health so they could travel around as fast as they pleased in metal boxes will be the subject of many a future dissertation😉

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests