slight problem with ASLs

[DaveReading]

There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.

IMHO, a good rule of thumb is never to even contemplate using an ASL unless you can be sure that lights will stay on red long enough to let you filter without being left- or right-hooked.

 

[mickle]

Very much so. I've been cycle commuting in London for over 20 years. I just don't buy in to the "we're special and our s*** smells of roses" ideas

If you weren't so anti-cyclist you'd be understand that we are special. And compared to the noxious brew that spews out of the sh!t pipes of the UK's 35million internal combustion engines our sh!t does smell of roses.

You want us all to behave like cars, waiting patiently in line - to participate in a traffic nightmare which is not of our making. The whole: 'If you want to use our roads you have to play by the same rules' bullcrap. ASLs are an attempt to deliver a slight advantage, a bit of positive descrimination, to the mode of transport causing the least congestion, the least harm. ASLs are an internationally accepted method of helping cyclists gain an advantage and are part of the landscape. They've been around for decades. That you think that answer posed to cyclists by blind spots in lorries requires removal of the cyclists really beggars belief.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Utter b****cks. The photo shows that almost all of the ASL is in the blindspot. The only safe place in the photo is behind the truck off to the left (so you have an escape route if he starts to reverse)

Do you believe that in the photo. The lorry is stopped in an acceptable position?

Do you believe that stopping in a position in which you cannot see the stop line is acceptable?

 

[martint235]

If you weren't so anti-cyclist you'd be understand that we are special. And compared to the noxious brew that spews out of the sh!t pipes of the UK's 35million internal combustion engines our sh!t does smell of roses.

You want us all to behave like cars, waiting patiently in line - to participate in a traffic nightmare which is not of our making. The whole: 'If you want to use our roads you have to play by the same rules' bullcrap. ASLs are an attempt to deliver a slight advantage, a bit of positive descrimination, to the mode of transport causing the least congestion, the least harm. ASLs are an internationally accepted method of helping cyclists gain an advantage and are part of the landscape. They've been around for decades. That you think that answer posed to cyclists by blind spots in lorries requires removal of the cyclists really beggars belief.

Are you truly that stupid? I haven't said remove bikes and I haven't said wait in line. I've said remove false safe havens and be part of the traffic. If you know how to handle a bike, you can move around safely while remaining part of the traffic. It's not rocket science

 

[martint235]

Do you believe that in the photo. The lorry is stopped in an acceptable position?

Do you believe that stopping in a position in which you cannot see the stop line is acceptable?

Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"

 

[mickle]

Are you truly that stupid? I haven't said remove bikes and I haven't said wait in line. I've said remove false safe havens and be part of the traffic. If you know how to handle a bike, you can move around safely while remaining part of the traffic. It's not rocket science

Yes I clearly am.

 

[mickle]

Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"

'...... Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it....' Martin, I'm arguing that it's wrong for cyclists to have to take responsibility for the danger posed to them by others. And slightly dumbfounded that you believe that it's ok for lorries to be driving around on streets used by vulnerable road users when THEY CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE farking GOING*.

*Capitals used for emphasis.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"

It's not irrelevant. Being able to stop in the distance you can see is clear and safe when driving is fairly common these days. Yet people seem to think that stopping in a position where they're unable to see is acceptable.

You already say that you don't believe it's an acceptable position to stop.

Highway Code 176

176
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36

How can the HGV in the photos comply with that statement, if they cannot even see that the junction is clear? Cyclists need to be aware of them, but it's another issue of HGVs being either totally inconsiderate, or are blind to the dangers they cause.

 

[martint235]

It's not irrelevant. Being able to stop in the distance you can see is clear and safe when driving is fairly common these days. Yet people seem to think that stopping in a position where they're unable to see is acceptable.

You already say that you don't believe it's an acceptable position to stop.

Highway Code 176


How can the HGV in the photos comply with that statement, if they cannot even see that the junction is clear? Cyclists need to be aware of them, but it's another issue of HGVs being either totally inconsiderate, or are blind to the dangers they cause.

The truck in the photo is stationary behind the line. How is it breaching your statement?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The truck in the photo is stationary behind the line. How is it breaching your statement?

If it is unable to see the stop line, and ASL. Then it is unable to proceed only when there is room. Unless it is just taking a guess that it's clear. Unless you think that the HWC finds it suitable to drive through junctions when you THINK it may be clear.

 

[martint235]

'...... Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it....' Martin, I'm arguing that it's wrong for cyclists to have to take responsibility for the danger posed to them by others. And slightly dumbfounded that you believe that it's ok for lorries to be driving around on streets used by vulnerable road users when THEY CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE farking GOING*.

*Capitals used for emphasis.

I don't believe it's ok. I believe that it happens and therefore we have to deal with it. I just happen to believe that giving a cyclist the idea they are in a safe place when they patently aren't is wrong.

 

[mjr]

As for breathing fumes, stop being a nob. You're breathing fumes all the time you're out in traffic. It's unfortunate but it's fact.

While it doesn't contradict the above, studies have shown that when I'm riding along cycle routes, I'm usually breathing fewer fumes than if I'm sat directly behind a motorist's exhaust pipe (on a bike or even in another motor vehicle). Trying to make cyclists sit in an unhealthy location like that is basically trying to injure them with pollution a bit more. Don't you think it's wrong to deliberately injure people when there are valid alternatives? Isn't the very tiny risk of a nobber in a lorry squashing someone who doesn't take avoiding action better than a certainty of motorists slightly poisoning almost every cyclist using the junction?

Even so being part of the traffic doesn't stop you moving about just don't do it in an attempt to reach a false safe haven

So how do you think they should handle it? Cyclecraft-style right-hand-side filtering and slotting in as the queue of motorists starts to move off? Why not position oneself to do that, but continue to the ASL if it looks safe to do so?

 

[mjr]

IMHO, a good rule of thumb is never to even contemplate using an ASL unless you can be sure that lights will stay on red long enough to let you filter without being left- or right-hooked.

How can you ever be sure of that? A nobber at the front might decide to jump the red and hook you. Play the odds, not bet on some false sense of safety.

 

[DaveReading]

How can you ever be sure of that? A nobber at the front might decide to jump the red and hook you. Play the odds, not bet on some false sense of safety.

How can you be sure how long the lights will stay on red?

Well having just changed from amber gives a pretty good clue. OTOH, if you can see that they have been steady on red for a while as you approach them, it's reasonable to expect they might be about to change. It's not difficult, nor risky if you use common sense.

 

[summerdays]

There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.

Do away with them, make cyclists respected members of the standard traffic flow. Simples

If there is a huge queue of cars and space to filter, and safe to filter, I will. It wouldn't matter whether there is a box there or not I can always rejoin the queue at any point.