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
No comments:
Post a Comment