Cyclists flout law 'to stay safe'

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Sh4rkyBloke

Jaffa Cake monster
Location
Manchester, UK
Oh, I see he's fessed up himself. :ohmy::biggrin:

Have to admit I was a bit seething when I saw the feature... muppets! :becool:
 

jmaccyd

Well-Known Member
linfordlunchbox said:
Absolute shyte. I just spent 3 days in Geneva (well Annemasse on the french side) and the driving standard is just as bad in Switzerland and France as it is here. I'd go as far as to say that they are very keen to cut other cars up when the lanes filter to the right, and cut across the highway for the tram stops in Geneva as well as doing the traffic light Grant Prix with other road users.

The biggest problem IMO is that some people who ride cycles see themselves as wheeled pedestrians, and this gives them the right to ride on the pavement, across traffic lighted junctions when they see a gap (RLJ'ing), and against the flow of traffic in one way streets which is just suicide as well as a lack of lights.

It just makes for 'two fingers up' at authority, and gives the impression that they see laws as something which apply to other people.

Most of the people I see riding like this are ones who are either too young, or too skint to put a car on the road legally (which is lets face it very expensive for someone in their teens or early twenties) - which indicates that they have never had to experience any formal training regarding the laws of the road - so how can they respect its boundaries ?

The figure I have seen is that 85% of cyclist own cars. So the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists.
 

LLB

Guest
jmaccyd said:
The figure I have seen is that 85% of cyclist own cars. So the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists.

And 100% of them are also pedestrians. The argument for this doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Loads of the rider of cycles using the pavements around this way are youngsters on BMX bikes. The whole ethos of a BMX bike is a go anywhere, bounce them off the street furniture type machine which you don't see with road cycling commuters.
 
magnatom said:
You don't need to do this though. Why not filter in a couple of cars back, instead of filtering to the front. There is no need to filter to the front to be safe. In fact, filtering to the front, can, as I am sure you are aware, sometimes be dangerous.

I don't understand, why, as cyclists, we feel we need to get to the front of the queue to be safe. We don't.
Well, I think the majority of us feel safer there, else what's the thinking behind ASLs? If we want to stop at the front of a queue, we should be able to!
 

hackbike 6

New Member
You don't need to do this though. Why not filter in a couple of cars back, instead of filtering to the front. There is no need to filter to the front to be safe. In fact, filtering to the front, can, as I am sure you are aware, sometimes be dangerous.


eh? I rarely have problems.
 
Absinthe Minded said:
Well, I think the majority of us feel safer there, else what's the thinking behind ASLs? If we want to stop at the front of a queue, we should be able to!

Often there is no thinking. There are a lot of dangerous ASLs (especially those with feeder lanes).I agree that if you want to stop at the front then you should be allowed. I don't disagree with that. What I have a problem with is, is the fact that it is actively encouraged. People who do not understand the risks of filtering see the ASLs and filter, oblivious to the risks (i.e being left hooked). That is why I think somethng like the ESZ which encourages cyclists to slot in a car or two back would be safer.
 
hackbike 6 said:
You don't need to do this though. Why not filter in a couple of cars back, instead of filtering to the front. There is no need to filter to the front to be safe. In fact, filtering to the front, can, as I am sure you are aware, sometimes be dangerous.


eh? I rarely have problems.

Was there not a poster on recently that broke her finger and was knocked off filtering (on the left), despite cycling with care?
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
magnatom said:
Often there is no thinking. There are a lot of dangerous ASLs (especially those with feeder lanes).I agree that if you want to stop at the front then you should be allowed. I don't disagree with that. What I have a problem with is, is the fact that it is actively encouraged. People who do not understand the risks of filtering see the ASLs and filter, oblivious to the risks (i.e being left hooked). That is why I think somethng like the ESZ which encourages cyclists to slot in a car or two back would be safer.

What's interesting is that at a number of ASL sites examined by TFL in London, there were not significant increases or decreases in cyclist collision rates at ASLs.
 
Origamist said:
What's interesting is that at a number of ASL sites examined by TFL in London, there were not significant increases or decreases in cyclist collision rates at ASLs.

That might be true, but it is encouraging cyclists to filter up the left to the junctions. Cyclists will then continue this practice at junctions without the feeders or ASLs. This is where the real problem will occur.

Where the ASL and feeder exist, drivers 'should' at the very least be looking out for cyclists. This might explain why the accident rate is no different (do you have a link?). Where there is no markings, the drivers will be less likely to look out for cyclists, increasing the risk. Of course, I cannot prove that this is the case, but it is true that cyclists are killed filtering on the left, so it should be discouraged where possible, not encouraged.
 

Origamist

Legendary Member
This gives some general info:

ADVANCED STOP LINES (ASLS) BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH STUDIES
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/asl.pdf

The majority of cyclists have always cycled up the left of traffic - way before the introduction of ASLs and feeders etc. The only encouragement then was expediency. If they removed them, cyclists would continue to do the same.

ASLs and feeders may rubber stamp filtering on the left, but I am ambivalent about them.
 

Maz

Guru
The link in the OP talks about more one-way roads being made 2-way for cyclists...Is that safe?
 

dondare

Über Member
Location
London
Maz said:
The link in the OP talks about more one-way roads being made 2-way for cyclists...Is that safe?


It's being trialled in half a dozen one-ways in Kensington and Chelsea, a film clip on the news didn't make it look safe, but we'll see.
 
magnatom said:
Often there is no thinking. There are a lot of dangerous ASLs (especially those with feeder lanes).I agree that if you want to stop at the front then you should be allowed. I don't disagree with that. What I have a problem with is, is the fact that it is actively encouraged. People who do not understand the risks of filtering see the ASLs and filter, oblivious to the risks (i.e being left hooked). That is why I think somethng like the ESZ which encourages cyclists to slot in a car or two back would be safer.
OK, I can see how filtering might be dangerous - but how can an ASL be dangerous?

You say there's no thinking, but that's not my experience - very rarely do I see people putting themselves in danger whilst filtering.

Also, if I start stopping a couple of cars back, I'm going to miss all that office totty crossing at the lights. That's bad.
 

biking_fox

Guru
Location
Manchester
Looks like the BBC have listened to your complaints! It's now a minority of cyclists, and there is no YouTube video, at least on the article as linked to higher up the thread.

I don't see how cyclefirst green stages will stop RLJs, if you do it, you do it when you reach the red, no waiting. Knowing that the wait will be marginally less isn't going to stop them.
 
Top Bottom