1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I've got an idea

Discussion in 'Commuting' started by magnatom, 19 Jul 2007.

  1. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    I just had one of my ideas today :tongue: . Feel free to shoot me down if you think it is stupid.
    There is a junction with lights on my commute which approximately two cars back from the stop line has a hatch which was originally in place because a side junction joined the main road. This junction has since been closed off with bollards so although the hatching is still there it isn't really needed anymore.

    Anyhoo, drivers still tend to stay out of the hatching which is great for me, the cyclist. It allows me to overtake the waiting cars and slot nicely into place safely two cars back from the stop line in the primary position (which is required here as I am going right at the junction).

    This got me thinking. What if we scrapped ASL boxes which encourage cyclists to go all the way to the front of the queue which can have implications especially when vehicles are turning left (if the cyclist filters left). In their place we have a cycle hatching two cars back on the road which cars are not allowed to stop in. This would encourage cyclists to filter into this box, two cars back from the stop line and hopefully to take a position where the drivers could see them. I think this position is safer than current ASL positioning. I also find if I sit a couple of cars back at junctions that I get less hassle from cars behind me.

    What do you think? Is this a reasonable idea?

    I will try and put some video of the hatching I am talking about when I get a chance, to illustrate the point.
  2. Mister Paul

    Mister Paul Honky

    North Somerset
    The first problem that springs to mind is that articulated lorries are more than two cars long.
  3. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    True. I suppose you could make it three cars back!
  4. Wolf04

    Wolf04 New Member

    Wallsend on Tyne
    Nice idea but from my experience cars routinely ingore hatched areas and if they thought it was cyclist specific then even more so I suspect.
  5. dondare

    dondare Über Member

    If it wasn't right at the front, most cyclists wouldn't use it.
    I don't wait behind cars because I don't want to be breathing exhaust fresh from the tail pipe.
  6. magnatom

    magnatom Guest


    True, this is a flaw. However, I don't think this would be a good reason not to do it. Obviously work would have to be done to try and 'encourage' drivers to obey the hatch. Maybe cameras could be used to catch offenders, i.e. I could catch them on my helmet camera.... :tongue:


    Possibly, but that is where education would be vital. i.e. pointing out to cyclists the risks of filtering up the left, the problems with being at the front etc.

    Also I wouldn't expect that this is the solution for every junction. For some junctions an ASL may be the best and most often used option, but at others the 'cycle hatch' might be better.
  7. HJ

    HJ Cycling in Scotland

    Auld Reekie
    In which case the artic should stop behind the hatched box.
  8. Mister Paul

    Mister Paul Honky

    North Somerset
    In which case the artic should stop behind the hatched box.[/quote]

    -leaving the cyclist being tempted to cycle past the artic, and expose himself to the same danger that an ASL invites.

    -Leaving a 2-car gap between the junction and the hatched area. I very much doubt that a following car driver could handle this.
  9. Tetedelacourse

    Tetedelacourse New Member

    How would it work if you are the first to be stopped at the lights i.e. no other cars when they change to red? You'd go the the ASL. Then cars gradually queue anyway. There'd be a pointless gap.

    Not sure also that having ASLs in one case and the staggered hatching in others would be easily understandable to either cyclists as a whole or to motorists.

    I see what you're getting at Magna, it might send a clear message (to some :?: ) that cyclists are part of the traffic, equal road users and not merely an obstacle or even worse an appendage :tongue: but I can't see it working in practice.

    I wont shoot you though, I enjoy your films too much.
  10. Cab

    Cab New Member

    I can see a good argument for hatching existing cycle boxes, and allowing only cycles in tem unless the exit from the box is clear. But to be honest, plod aren't going to enforce that anyway.
  11. Mister Paul

    Mister Paul Honky

    North Somerset
    I suppose the answer is that if cyclists were proficient then there would be no real need for either.

    At non-light junctions I very rarely go to the front of the queue. Predicting the move of the lead car is very difficult, and so you can never be sure that you can get there before he moves. And he'll be too busy looking for a gap in the traffic to see you coming.

    It's much safer to slot in one or two cars behind, where you are more visible, and have more awareness of what the cars are going to be doing.
  12. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    Hmmmm, interesting points. I certainly understand that enforcement would be a problem, but I suppose that is only half of the issue. It is education of cyclists.

    As Mister Paul says I find it best to always hang back a couple of cars and I do this routinely. However, most cyclists don't, and I think this is often because they don't see the value of hanging back of couple of cars. Introducing the 'hang back hatch' might send a message out rather than provide a full time practical solution.

    I keep coming back to the ideal that cyclists need some form of training before getting out on the roads, but I also know that there are significant problems with making this obligatory so it would never work. I just wonder if next best option would be to provide road markings that guide the cyclists towards best practice (not the current form of road markings I hasten to add). Of course best practice depends on a number of factors that can change from junction to junction and from time to time, however, surely some form of guidance is better than none.

    Bah I'm just rambling now, I'll shut up now.... :tongue:
  13. Wolf04

    Wolf04 New Member

    Wallsend on Tyne
    How about pressure sensitive mines? They could be set not to explode if traffic is moving and if stationary only if it weighs more than say a Ford Ka! I don't think there would be many re-offenders!! There again I'm not the lighest rider around so perhaps not. I bet you thought my Avatar was a pink baby elephant and not a self portrait!! :?: I'll get my coat
  14. domtyler

    domtyler Über Member

    No way man, I always go right to the front as I get away faster from the lights than most cars. I don't really get a problem with being visible either as I pull right across the bonnet of the lead car and give the driver a thousand yard stare. Your system would totally freak me out.
  15. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    :tongue: :?:


    Such raod markings wouldn't be obligatory. I would expect that experienced cyclists would assess each situation individually and do what they thought was best. However, as has been pointed out in other threads, there are a lot of cyclists out there who don't have the skills or knowledge to do this. Markings such as these would guide them towards good practice.