[Closed] Who's worse, Cyclists or motorists?

Good work 😆

molgrips - Member

1) why is that safer than waiting?

Why is waiting in traffic with cars less safe than controlling your situation and being in safe clear road by yourself? Why is it better not to be caught up in the traffic light GP? Or to get away from the left-hookers and the squeezers-past?

I know I must seem rude but this is elementary stuff. Do I do it in a car? No, because in a car, none of those risks exist. Bikes are more vulnerable than cars.

Or to get away from the left-hookers and the squeezers-past?

That's very easily done and I think more safely done by being at the front of the queue, a few m in front of the first vehicle, in the middle of the appropriate lane. Usually in the ASL in fact, but sometimes ahead of that.

You really don't need to actually go through the junction.

Simple question about RLJing,

Why are more women killed by HGVs at lights than men?

The report authors claim that fewer women RLJ and that's the main reason for these accidents. That's a huge leap imo.

That's very easily done and I think more safely done by being at the front of the queue, a few m in front of the first vehicle, in the middle of the appropriate lane.

🙂 @ niceweecod

The report authors claim that fewer women RLJ and that's the main reason for these accidents. That's a huge leap imo.

More women are being killed, that is a given, is this a statistical anolnomy? that is repeated year after year. OR maybe there is something about how women ride that is getting them killed? Are they more likely to go up the inside of trucks? are they more likely to ride in the gutter and get caught by overtakers?

Everyone I hope is aware that the ASL zone and feeder lane matches the blind spots of a truck quite nicely.

As for your point about crossing the forward most stop line, that is illegal. You have RLJed. £50 on the spot fine, do not pass go. If you happen to have the money you are free to appeal and as evidenced by the CPS withdrawing you may well win, but you still need money to fund a lawyer for you.

As for your point about crossing the forward most stop line, that is illegal. You have RLJed

Yes, thanks [s]TJ[/s] mrmo. I've acknowledged this already.

My point is that crossing the line and waiting is not as bad as going through the junction. In fact this is something that is sometimes useful for increased visibility. My point is that it is sufficient to improve safety - you don't need to actually cross the junction on safety grounds.

As for why more women are killed - I don't know, but I'm sceptical it's because they wait at lights to be honest.

as we know from previous arguments threads no driver ever gets annoyed by a cyclist taking the lane infront of them.

That's never happened to me in 25 years of cycling for transport. Not at lights, anyway.

Everyone I hope is aware that the ASL zone and feeder lane matches the blind spots of a truck quite nicely.

That's something that comes with experience, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect novice cyclists to know that purpose-built cycling infrastructure places them in more danger...

The ASL doesn't match the blind spot IF you are well in front, and IF you are not going down the inside when the truck starts to move. I only filter down there if I know the lights aren't going to change say, if they have only just gone red. If there's any doubt I won't do it. If there's not enough room in front I won't do it either.

The purpose of moving in front is to be seen, so if you are standing right underneath a truck driver you aren't being seen.

This stuff desperately needs to be taught - it'll save lives.

My point is that crossing the line and waiting is not as bad as going through the junction. In fact this is something that is sometimes useful for increased visibility.

No it is exactly the same thing.

If you cross the line you have crossed the line.

That's something that comes with experience, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect novice cyclists to know that purpose-built cycling infrastructure places them in more danger...

You would expect DESIGNED infrastructure to be safe though????

If you want new cyclists to obey the law then the infrastructure has to work. If it starts to cause issues people will ignore it.

I am assuming most on here aren't novice cyclists and are aware that ASLs CAN be very very dangerous!

Northwind - Member
molgrips - Member
1) why is that safer than waiting?

Why is waiting in traffic with cars less safe than controlling your situation and being in safe clear road by yourself? Why is it better not to be caught up in the traffic light GP? Or to get away from the left-hookers and the squeezers-past?

I know I must seem rude but this is elementary stuff. Do I do it in a car? No, because in a car, none of those risks exist. Bikes are more vulnerable than cars.

I just don't get this. You can make yourself a traffic free zone for a few tens of metres, then it's just the same as it was.

The ASL doesn't match the blind spot IF you are well in front, and IF you are not going down the inside when the truck starts to move. I only filter down there if I know the lights aren't going to change say, if they have only just gone red. If there's any doubt I won't do it. If there's not enough room in front I won't do it either.

The purpose of moving in front is to be seen, so if you are standing right underneath a truck driver you aren't being seen.

This stuff desperately needs to be taught - it'll save lives.

To me this is the crucial part, take a driver put them on a bike, you get used to markings making your life easy and safe. IF the markings don't make it safer then what! Should you really need to teach someone that they really shouldn't use a lane that exists because SOMETIMES it is probably not safe!

Does an ASL need to be deeper to ensure visibility, does the feeder lane need to be wider or to not exist at all? Does it need solid lines to in theory prevent cars and trucks encroaching into it.

Do we need two sets of green lights a bike light and a car light???

You would expect DESIGNED infrastructure to be safe though????

If you want new cyclists to obey the law then the infrastructure has to work. If it starts to cause issues people will ignore it.

I am assuming most on here aren't novice cyclists and are aware that ASLs CAN be very very dangerous!

I just don't get this. You can make yourself a traffic free zone for a few tens of metres, then it's just the same as it was.

Yeah, but those tens of metres can potentially get you through the junction which is by far the most dangerous point (75% of cycling accidents are at or near a junction).

Yeah, but those tens of metres can potentially get you through the junction which is by far the most dangerous point (75% of cycling accidents are at or near a junction).

They also allow you to take primary, which is particularly useful if you need to turn right a little further up the road.

My point is that crossing the line and waiting is not as bad as going through the junction

"Bad" in what sense? You can't get "more illegal", it has a pretty binary definition. Less safe? More immoral?

Less safe, less considerate and more rude.

And I don't thing illegality does have a binary definition really. It might in theory but it definitely doesn't in practice.

Does an ASL need to be deeper to ensure visibility, does the feeder lane need to be wider or to not exist at all? Does it need solid lines to in theory prevent cars and trucks encroaching into it.

Do we need two sets of green lights a bike light and a car light???

There are a fair few junctions that do things like that. The car line is re-drawn further back sometimes, and I am sure I have seen places where there is a cycle lane and little cycle traffic lights to let cyclists out in front of traffic. And there's definitely a bus one in Cardiff that applies to cyclists too.

I don't thing illegality does have a binary definition really

Well, it kind of is. Something is illegal, or it isn't; you don't really get "mostly illegal" (in your best Billy Crystal voice).

But anyway. I don't really want to derail this into a semantics argument, I just wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks for the clarification.

[quote=molgrips said]more rude.
Don't you lot know that you're supposed to wait your turn in the queue?

Being polite and courteous is important.

Does an ASL need to be deeper to ensure visibility,

does the feeder lane need to be wider or to not exist at all?

Does it need solid lines to in theory prevent cars and trucks encroaching into it.

Couple of really dangerous cycle lanes near me, on one the cycle lane swerves off left along with the normally heavy quick moving left turning traffic, it's a mandatory cycle lane but loads of cars encroach on the left bend, but you're totally stuffed if you want to go straight on, you know, along the major NCN route.
[url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=liverpool+st+manchester&ll=53.478724,-2.261246&spn=0.000013,0.006899&hnear=Liverpool+St,+Salford,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&t=m&layer=c&cbll=53.478724,-2.261246&panoid=UYWj5_Lx01MXGhgsPhLgEQ&cbp=12,117.48,,0,1.68&z=17 ]here[/url]

Being polite and courteous is important.

IGMC

does the feeder lane need to be wider or to not exist at all?

I think most ASLs would be improved by ditching the feeder lane.

My understanding is that it is technically illegal to enter the ASL box without using the feeder lane, as it means crossing a stop line. If true then that is a very silly law which should be changed.

[quote=D0NK said]are drivers really going to wait >2 car lengths away from a junction?
IME more often than not they can't be bothered waiting behind the current ASL boxes.

Couple of really dangerous cycle lanes near me, on one the cycle lane swerves off left along with the normally heavy quick moving left turning traffic, it's a mandatory cycle lane but loads of cars encroach on the left bend, but you're totally stuffed if you want to go straight on, you know, along the major NCN route.
here

it seems the only "legal" way to enter the ASL box to go straight/right is from the left hand side of the left turn lane

Oh that is incredibly shit

[quote=D0NK said]The return leg isn't much better

Gosh, that is also incredibly shit - I'm struggling to work out which is worse! I hadn't spotted that, so thought you'd be referring to this dog's dinner http://goo.gl/maps/eo2Vr - which at least has the merits of not being obviously inherently dangerous.

I don't consider that [i]too[/i] bad, seems to work in practice, if you're riding along the DC and want to turn right you don't have to get across lanes of traffic, crossing over from the NCN is ok ish , pretty lame that the light sequence means you [b]will[/b] be stuck on the island tho, they obviously didnt think it would be a good idea to have a phase to get bikes/peds straight across in one go.

Incidentally there are a few junctions in Cardiff where the asl feeder lane is in the middle of the two car lanes, where the left one is left only. Works nicely and makes a point about where cyclists can go.

Scumbags, all of them. Especially the super idiots who do both.

pretty lame that the light sequence means you will be stuck on the island tho, they obviously didnt think it would be a good idea to have a phase to get bikes/peds straight across in one go.

I was assuming that would be the case.

I don't think people notice good cycling - they only notice the bad cycling - confirmation bias + just following the crap they're fed by the media and ignorant friends and colleagues.
Plus a group of cyclists sitting at a red light simply isn't noticeable, it's what you expect to see + they're not moving...

People fail to notice bad driving partly because it's the norm and essentially socially acceptable, and partly because they do it as well... people behave as badly as they think they can get away with generally.

It also doesn't help that some people are simply thick. Like the ill-educated bloke who told me that 'push-bikes are for the road' as I had to brake to prevent myself from hitting him as he walked straight up a cycle path towards me this evening which he mistakenly thought was a footpath... no doubt he'll be telling all and sundry about the law-breaking London cyclist 😯

The two things the cycling spokespeople are failing to get out there are:
1. The stats which prove that cyclists are NOT causing their own deaths and injuries - we need some serious myth-busting to counter the misinformation
2. The daily experience of persecution and harassment because some people driving can't cope with 'other' people on the road

+1 brooess