Oh, OK. So if there was a three lane road (one for left, one for straight on, and one for right) you would advise a cyclist turning right to enter the ASZ in the legal manner, and then have to swing across 2½ lanes of traffic to take up proper position?
RLJ-ing: A Minority Pastime?
- Thread starter Davidsw8
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Oh, OK. So if there was a three lane road (one for left, one for straight on, and one for right) you would advise a cyclist turning right to enter the ASZ in the legal manner, and then have to swing across 2½ lanes of traffic to take up proper position?
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
No I'd advise them to ignore the ASZ completely and behave like a car. Indicate right, take your place in traffic.
Doesn't that rather defeat one of the main advantages of cycling: that you can filter through traffic. If I had to wait in traffic I might as well drive.
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
See above. I filter to behind the first car. You asked what I would advise someone else to do and the safest thing is to behave like a car.
I read some parts of a very long report on the use of ASL's:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Behaviour-at-cycle-advanced-stop-lines.pdf
I thought it was interesting that the implication is that the ASL lessens the encroachment of vehicles into the pedestrian crossing area, i.e. it looks like motorists are expected to 'push-it' in terms of going over the line they're meant to stop at, so if you introduce this extra line then it'll somehow placate their desire for going over a line and stop them going over a 2nd one
Half this stuff seriously is mind-games.
OK. I would say the law that requires entry to an ASZ by the feeder lane is ridiculous, and if a cyclist wants to use the ASZ it is safer to enter it in the middle of the lane they want to be in.
My point was that something being illegal doesn't automatically make it unsafe or even necessarily wrong (except in the legal sense).
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
The discussion is whether or not laws should be obeyed not whether or not they are ridiculous. Personally I think the laws that stop me slashing the tyres of cars parked illegally across my drive are ridiculous. However, despite the fact that no one would get hurt, I still obey the law.
As to ASZ, I think they should be abolished altogether along with cycle lanes on the carriageway. Neither serve any real purpose. Cycle lanes are for those who for whatever reason don't really want to mix it up with the traffic so the lane should be segregated and away from the traffic. The rest of us can carry on as we are.
As to ASZ, I think they should be abolished altogether along with cycle lanes on the carriageway. Neither serve any real purpose. Cycle lanes are for those who for whatever reason don't really want to mix it up with the traffic so the lane should be segregated and away from the traffic. The rest of us can carry on as we are.
There aren't many mandatory feeder lanes though? I'm not aware of any (though not sure how I'd know if one was mandatory or advisory).
I thought that if there was a feeder lane you were obliged to use it. I might be wrong.
So any law should be obeyed no matter what? Despite the fact that in the example above it is more dangerous than disobeying it?
They seem to be advisory for the most party:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ASL-Findings-Report-October-011106.pdf
'part' not 'party', doh!!
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
Yes until it's changed. And your example isn't valid because I gave a perfectly legal way of proceeding safely. Better to get rid of the ASZ entirely.
If a cyclist judges that he/she is fine to disobey the law on red lights, what authority do they have to criticise the driver who thinks he/she is fine to drive after 3 pints? Or to use a mobile while driving? The vast majority of rljs as has been pointed out, harm no one. The vast majority of drivers on mobiles harm no one.
I guess I don't see things as black and white as you.
As I have said, I am generally against RLJing. But it's ludicrous to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a cyclist RLJing and someone driving a car after 3 pints.
Scruffmonster
Über Member
- Location
- London/Kent
This is really really silly. Really silly.
People need to understand the difference between sensible debate and argument.
To compare a car with a chatty cathy on the phone, and a cyclist breezing along a clear road with nothing but a red light for company... it's silly.
Were whites that treated black people with respect pre 1840(?) criminals?
Were gay couples wearing wedding rings criminals pre 2000ish?
I'm not comparing basic human rights to RLJ'ing, but it's a pretty clear indication of how thick you are if you rely on the laws of the land at any given moment to govern your own common sense and ideals of what's right and wrong.
I can jump a red light and stop at the next junction to stop someone stealing a car. The thief doesn't get a pass because 'Us criminals stick together'.
Similar threads
