Cyclists and lorries:

AndyManc

ms pepperpot wrote:

Not if you are in the middle of the main lane, ie. not hovering to the left. As the traffic moves you will easily be travelling at the same speed as the traffic and they aren't in a position to overtake.

They will also position themselves in what I would see as a vulnerable position in the ASL, ie hovering to the left, rather than in a more assertive position in front of the first vehicle in the traffic. By doing this they are still vulnerable to idiots who decide they must overtake cyclists at all costs.

The first point ;

I have no intention of staying in a half mile queue of traffic for 20 minutes, at that rate it would take me hours to get to work, one of the main benefits of cycling is that you can avoid queues and have a good laugh at the idiots in the metal cage, pass HGV's and other large vehicles when they are guaranteed to be stationary and you can give them a wide berth.


Second point ;

I consider myself a very experienced cyclist, I've come to conclusion that whilst good positoning will deter the incompetent, nothing will deter the 'idiot' .

I think 'hovering to the left' at ASL's is perfectly fine for the majority of cyclists, you can't expect an individual (or young child) to set off in primary doing walking pace which (in reality) is what many cyclists are capable of.

.

ms pepperpot

I'm not saying don't filter/overtake/get to the front if you're in a position to do so. What I'm trying to challenge is the idea that cyclists are supposed to do this whatever the situation is.

It's about using your judgment and doing what is safest. Sometimes you can safely get to the front and sometimes you personally may feel safer hanging back (and actually be safer too). I'm not talking about long tail backs and queues either. I mean when you're maybe 4-5 vehicles back at the lights, or maybe less than that but one is an HGV.

I feel there is a pressure (usually coming from other cyclists) that all cyclists should be trying to get to the front. I've had cyclists yell at me to move on because I've chosen to wait. That's my choice, it's not for them to tell me what decisions I make about my own safety. New or nervous cyclists are likely to feel that pressure more because they are still learning these things and how to be riding on the road. I don't see what's wrong with making it clear that if you feel safe go to the front if you want, if not stay where you are and make sure motorists around you are aware of you, eg. by making eye contact.

BentMikey

AndyManc wrote:

The consensus of opinion doesn't support that view, it's why advance stop boxes were designed.
.

LOL, consensus? I don't think so. Read cyclecraft, or take a bit of cycle training.

alfablue

ASL's are a lure to the naive cyclist to squeeze down the side of trucks, with the well known problems that go with that.

I very rarely filter in order to use them, invariably the lights will change before I get there and them I'm worse off than if I had waited in primary in my place further back.

TBH, most of the problems with road safety are because of impatience, with so many people driving or riding like they are having their own little emergency. I find it bewildering to see the maniacal behaviour of a large portion of road users :?

I think the idea of ASL's is probably derived from a sense that bikes are like motorcycles, and can accelerate at speed and not get overtaken by the traffic behind. Some cyclists may achieve that, the majority won't.

dondare

ms pepperpot wrote:

leehellcat wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Cycle lanes are IMHO one of the worst ideas invented, it creates segregation between the motorists, and lures cyclists into a false sense of security about their 'right of way', even if the cycle lane does put them in a stupid place.
Common sense, thats all it requires

and a surprising number of motorists seem to think that if a cyclist is in a cycle lane they are protected by some magic invisible force field along the boundary so it doesn't matter how close they over take them.

On a more general note I think one of the problems is a lot of cyclists have a false (in my view) idea that they must get to the front of the traffic at all times at lights or at any other junction where there is a queue. There is nothing wrong with staying back and just waiting in the main body of traffic, particularly if it's just a short queue waiting for the lights to change. Getting to the front is unlikely to much difference to when you actually get through the lights (and if you're fast there's a good chance you'll then overtake half the cyclists who've filtered past you while you were waiting)

I'll stay behind when motor vehicles have exhaust pipes that point forward.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

leehellcat wrote:

.

Cycle lanes are IMHO one of the worst ideas invented, it creates segregation between the motorists, and lures cyclists into a false sense of security about their 'right of way', even if the cycle lane does put them in a stupid place.
Common sense, thats all it requires

Totally disagree, a well designed (and enforced) cycle lane infrastructure is essential.

I agree that what we have in the UK today is sud-standard and they will often create more hazards than they attempt to cure, but, other countries have shown how it can be done and their efforts result in a far higher proportion of cyclists on their roads.

Essential? If the roads are well designed and the rules properly enforced then what advantagea are there in having marked-off areas for different classes of vehicle?

daviesee

ms pepperpot wrote:

leehellcat wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Cycle lanes are IMHO one of the worst ideas invented, it creates segregation between the motorists, and lures cyclists into a false sense of security about their 'right of way', even if the cycle lane does put them in a stupid place.
Common sense, thats all it requires

and a surprising number of motorists seem to think that if a cyclist is in a cycle lane they are protected by some magic invisible force field along the boundary so it doesn't matter how close they over take them.

On a more general note I think one of the problems is a lot of cyclists have a false (in my view) idea that they must get to the front of the traffic at all times at lights or at any other junction where there is a queue. There is nothing wrong with staying back and just waiting in the main body of traffic, particularly if it's just a short queue waiting for the lights to change. Getting to the front is unlikely to much difference to when you actually get through the lights (and if you're fast there's a good chance you'll then overtake half the cyclists who've filtered past you while you were waiting)

Please don't quote me on things that I did not say :evil:

That said, I agree that cycle lanes segregating traffic is a flawed idea and dangerous when badly conceived.

AndyManc

dondare wrote:

Essential? If the roads are well designed and the rule properly enforced then what advantagea are there in having marked-off areas for different classes of vehicle?

They're not.

The driving standards and behaviour of those behind the wheel are falling and continue to fall dramatically.

The policing of traffic regulations will also continue to drop dramatically, with the police under further pressure to reduce costs, traffic violations will be given zero priority.

I agree under ideal conditions then a separated infrastructure for cyclists would not be necessary,

Potential cyclists and parents of children (that wish to cycle) continually cite a failure to provide safe conditions to cycle on our roads, and rightfully so.

When schools ban their own pupils from cycling to school for safety reasons then obviously there are serious issues that need to be addressed, it's not just a perceived danger it's a reality.

.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

dondare wrote:

Essential? If the roads are well designed and the rules properly enforced then what advantagea are there in having marked-off areas for different classes of vehicle?

They're not.

The driving standards and behaviour of those behind the wheel are falling and continue to fall dramatically.

The policing of traffic regulations will also continue to drop dramatically, with the police under further pressure to reduce costs, traffic violations will be given zero priority.

I agree under ideal conditions then a separated infrastructure for cyclists would not be necessary,

Potential cyclists and parents of children (that wish to cycle) continually cite a failure to provide safe conditions to cycle on our roads, and rightfully so.

When schools ban their own pupils from cycling to school for safety reasons then obviously there are serious issues that need to be addressed, it's not just a perceived danger it's a reality.

.

We should be campaigning for safer roads for all (which generally means better behavior from motorists) rather than separate facilities for cyclists.
If the problem is that motorists speed or don't look where they're going because they're on the phone then this should be addressed directly rather than asking for cycle tracks.

dondare

And keeping to the suject of the thread, cycle-lanes on roads actually direct cyclists to ride up the inside of lorries. Pedestrian barriers block their escape to the pavement.
These supposed safety features should be removed.
The streets of most cities, towns and villages still follow a plan that was laid out or grew up before cars and lorries existed and huge, powerful vehicles cannot navigate such roads safely. Either we accept a certain attrition as the price of our consumer lifestyle or we ban lorries from population centres with all the costs that would result from this.

AndyManc

dondare wrote:

And keeping to the suject of the thread, cycle-lanes on roads actually direct cyclists to ride up the inside of lorries. Pedestrian barriers block their escape to the pavement.

.

No they don't.

Cycle lanes come in many different forms and design, they are to be used at the discretion of the individual cyclist, as the highway code points out, they may not always be the safest route, and as you have already pointed out, enforcement of traffic regulations should be a priority.

Physically segregated lanes are the ideal, these lanes are growing in popularity throughout the world, I fully realise that they are not popular with a number of cyclists, but to encourage the masses and for the safety of the inexperienced they do play a vital role.

Every new road in Holland MUST have a cycle lane built adjacent to it, one of many directives that Holland and other countries have in favour of cyclists.

Personally, the banning of all motor vehicles within city centres (with access for delivery,maintenace and other vehicles scheduled for the appropriate times) is my ideal.

dondare wrote:

Either we accept a certain attrition as the price of our consumer lifestyle or we ban lorries from population centres with all the costs that would result from this.

.

Consumerism is not a new phenomenon , with the massive growth in internet retail, the super HGV's we see on our roads today are not essential to maintain our material goods fetish, not that it's desirable anyway.

Out of town distribution points (with rail links) for goods to be loaded onto smaller vehicles is easily attainable, all it takes is the political will.


.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

dondare wrote:

And keeping to the suject of the thread, cycle-lanes on roads actually direct cyclists to ride up the inside of lorries. Pedestrian barriers block their escape to the pavement.

.
No they don't.

The most common sort run alongside the kerb right up to junctions: The killing zone.

AndyManc wrote:

Cycle lanes come in many different forms and design, they are to be used at the discretion of the individual cyclist, as the highway code points out, they may not always be the safest route, and as you have already pointed out, enforcement of traffic regulations should be a priority.

Inexperienced cyclists trust them too much.

AndyManc wrote:

Physically segregated lanes are the ideal, these lanes are growing in popularity throughout the world, I fully realise that they are not popular with a number of cyclists, but to encourage the masses and for the safety of the inexperienced they do play a vital role.

I'm all for segregation. Let the cyclists use the public roads and create entirely separate roads for motor traffic. It's been done before: they're called "Railways".

AndyManc wrote:

Every new road in Holland MUST have a cycle lane built adjacent to it, one of many directives that Holland and other countries have in favour of cyclists.

While we're about it lets have a canal system like their's as well.

AndyManc wrote:

Personally, the banning of all motor vehicles within city centres (with access for delivery,maintenace and other vehicles scheduled for the appropriate times) is my ideal.

dondare wrote:

Either we accept a certain attrition as the price of our consumer lifestyle or we ban lorries from population centres with all the costs that would result from this.

.

Consumerism is not a new phenomenon , with the massive growth in internet retail, the super HGV's we see on our roads today are not essential to maintain our material goods fetish, not that it's desirable anyway.

Out of town distribution points (with rail links) for goods to be loaded onto smaller vehicles is easily attainable, all it takes is the political will.


.