Annoyed a cyclist today-didn't take much.

Stevo_666

Aguila wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Isn't the bottom line here that we all - whether on a bike or in a car - make mistakes from time to time and being a busy-body, holier-than-thou, finger-wagging toss-pot (again, whether a cyclist or motorist) achieves little more than resentment?

I wonder how many motorists in the OPs position would think, "Oh my goodness, that man's right: I've driven into the ASL! I must be more careful in future" and how many would think "Bloody cyclists, they think they own the roads."
We often hear it said here that we mustn't RLJ because it brings down the standing of all cyclists (a view I now agree with), but I cannot help but think that cycling militants do just as much harm.

For what it is worth, I do support the cyclist's right to set off in primary position so as to make his presence obvious and to make it clear that that he intends to carry straight on once the lights have changed. I would also hope he moved left as soon as it was safe for him to do so and that he had a decent enough level of fitness that means he holds the traffic behind him up for as little time as possible.

+1

Absolutely right.

+2

You put it better than I could.

rml380z

Aidy wrote:

Mikelyons wrote:

Aidy wrote:

I tend not to remonstrate motorists for doing so though.

The Highway code does allow use of ASL by motorists if lights were just changing to red when entering the ASL.
Most of the time you can't tell why a motorist is in the ASL - so there's no reason to remonstrate with them , especially if they have just obeyed a red signal.

It also states motorists should give space & time

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

178
Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.


Mike

I'm well aware of the highway code. Thanks.

This exchange kinda sums up the whole finger-wagging thing; i don't think Mikelyons was being condescending (actually, I think he was just being helpful), but Aidy appears to have taken offence. Very similar to what happens when a cyclist says anything to a motorist.

I've never fully read that bit in the Highway Code on ASLs before, and am wondering how any car can be legally stopped at red in an ASL. They are not allowed in when the lights are on green and the way ahead is blocked and should not cross the first stop line when the lights are red or amber. They are allowed to stop in them if the lights turn red after they go over the first stop line. Given the first two conditions, how can the last possibly happen?

AidanR

spen666 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I'm going to try and tread a careful line through the middle of this. Basically, yes the OP was in the wrong for encroaching on the ASL (and admits as much). But whilst I think assertive cycling is generally safer cycling, being assertive to the point of aggression or condescension is counter-productive and harmful to the reputation of cycling in general. Losing your cool and yelling at drivers tends to provoke rage rather than contrition, and so does tutting and finger wagging. In our eagerness to show that we have an equal right to be on the road as cars, we sometimes overstep the mark and come off as aggressive or smug tw*ts which doesn't do anybody any favours. When pointing out the mistakes of others you have to be very careful of the manner in which it is done, otherwise the message is not taken in and the whole endevour may be counter-productive.

None of the actions I've highlighted actually took place, so why introduce these


We are told regularly that society ignorres criminal acts and we shouldn't do that.

Here someone make a finger wagging gesture and only that and suddenly it is now equated with aggression, shouting etc

I put those in there as an illustrative comparison. I think there are many on here who have had more experience of aggressive rather than condescending behaviour so I was drawing parallels between the two. Being aggressive and being condescending are both things that tend to elicit a negative response, and are therefore often counter-productive.

jonny_trousers

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

If these guys are cyclist-friendly, it says a lot about the attitude of those who don't like cyclists to start with.

I've never really got the 'them 'n' us' attitude of certain cyclists. There are bad motorists out there and there are bad cyclists and on my commute into work yesterday I saw far more incidences of bad cycling than bad driving. From the elderly couple who merrily glided through every red-lit junction before continuing their journey on the footpath, to the middle-class, middle-aged man and woman who were cycling along Croxted Road (a very tight road for car drivers) at 11:00pm last night without any lights or reflective clothing on whatsoever.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the OP was in the wrong (including himself), nor the cyclist's right to be disgruntled, it's just the wisdom behind remonstrating in such a situation and in such a way that is questionable.

bails87

rml380z wrote:

Aidy wrote:

Mikelyons wrote:

Aidy wrote:

I tend not to remonstrate motorists for doing so though.

The Highway code does allow use of ASL by motorists if lights were just changing to red when entering the ASL.
Most of the time you can't tell why a motorist is in the ASL - so there's no reason to remonstrate with them , especially if they have just obeyed a red signal.

It also states motorists should give space & time

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

178
Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.


Mike

I'm well aware of the highway code. Thanks.

This exchange kinda sums up the whole finger-wagging thing; i don't think Mikelyons was being condescending (actually, I think he was just being helpful), but Aidy appears to have taken offence. Very similar to what happens when a cyclist says anything to a motorist.

I've never fully read that bit in the Highway Code on ASLs before, and am wondering how any car can be legally stopped at red in an ASL. They are not allowed in when the lights are on green and the way ahead is blocked and should not cross the first stop line when the lights are red or amber. They are allowed to stop in them if the lights turn red after they go over the first stop line. Given the first two conditions, how can the last possibly happen?

I suppose they could be moving very slowly (for some reason other than traffic, otherwise the way ahead is 'blocked' so they shouldn't enter) when they get to the stop line on a green light. And then the light goes to amber, then red while they're moving forwards and they're going so slowly that they stop in between the first and second white lines.

But that would mean moving forward at walking pace. If a driver reached the first line at 15mph and the lights started to change then they'd probably just carry on. I would! :?

rml380z

bails87 wrote:

But that would mean moving forward at walking pace. If a driver reached the first line at 15mph and the lights started to change then they'd probably just carry on. I would! :?

Ah yes, that makes sense and explains all the milk-floats, parades and hearses I see in the ASLs. What about all the other motor vehicles?

always_tyred

I think the difference between stop line rules and ASL rules derives from the position of the lights in relation to each. The driver has less time and distance to react to the lights in time to stop at the stop line.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

I think the difference between stop line rules and ASL rules derives from the position of the lights in relation to each. The driver has less time and distance to react to the lights in time to stop at the stop line.

What difference in rules?

Both appear to be covered by regulation 36 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as far as Motor vehicles are concerned

I do however confess to not having looked into this in detail

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I think the difference between stop line rules and ASL rules derives from the position of the lights in relation to each. The driver has less time and distance to react to the lights in time to stop at the stop line.

What difference in rules?

Both appear to be covered by regulation 36 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as far as Motor vehicles are concerned

I do however confess to not having looked into this in detail

Well, I've not looked at it at all - just commenting on the HWC recommendations.

My guess, however, is that the ASL is the stop line, in law, and that the zone between there and the "car" stop line is a solid white line which you cannot cross unless there are requisite circumstances, in the same way as the solid centre line, cycle lanes with solid lines, chevronned areas around central reservations and so on. But that's just a guess.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I think the difference between stop line rules and ASL rules derives from the position of the lights in relation to each. The driver has less time and distance to react to the lights in time to stop at the stop line.

What difference in rules?

Both appear to be covered by regulation 36 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as far as Motor vehicles are concerned

I do however confess to not having looked into this in detail

Well, I've not looked at it at all - just commenting on the HWC recommendations.

My guess, however, is that the ASL is the stop line, in law, and that the zone between there and the "car" stop line is a solid white line which you cannot cross unless there are requisite circumstances, in the same way as the solid centre line, cycle lanes with solid lines, chevronned areas around central reservations and so on. But that's just a guess.

Other way round.

The 1st line you come to is the stop line - cyclists are supposed to enter the resevoir via the left side where there is no line

rjsterry

On a slightly separate note, has anyone noticed that at a lot of junctions, you have to crane your neck back to actually see the lights when waiting in the ASL. The ASL seems to have been added on in front of the original stop line, instead of behind it. I've been 'beeped' a few times, because I haven't been able to see the lights go green(and couldn't ease back because some motorist was right up my chuff.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Other way round.

The 1st line you come to is the stop line - cyclists are supposed to enter the resevoir via the left side where there is no line

I always find that if you know something, you can make it appear as though you know lots of things by disclosing the information bit by bit.

lost_in_thought

It occurs to me that the OP can now say he's annoyed lots of cyclists...

Clever Pun

AndyManc wrote:

The entire post from the OP is from a motorist point of view.

Full of anti cyclists propaganda, it's the sort of letter I'd expect to see in the raving loony Daily Mail letter page from a BMW owner in Surrey.


.

I liked the I'm a cyclist as well

kinda like saying some of my best friends are cyclists

baloo_the_bear

lost_in_thought wrote:

It occurs to me that the OP can now say he's annoyed lots of cyclists...

yep. this has now become an ironic thread

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I think the difference between stop line rules and ASL rules derives from the position of the lights in relation to each. The driver has less time and distance to react to the lights in time to stop at the stop line.

What difference in rules?

Both appear to be covered by regulation 36 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as far as Motor vehicles are concerned

I do however confess to not having looked into this in detail

Well, I've not looked at it at all - just commenting on the HWC recommendations.

My guess, however, is that the ASL is the stop line, in law, and that the zone between there and the "car" stop line is a solid white line which you cannot cross unless there are requisite circumstances, in the same way as the solid centre line, cycle lanes with solid lines, chevronned areas around central reservations and so on. But that's just a guess.

Other way round.

The 1st line you come to is the stop line - cyclists are supposed to enter the resevoir via the left side where there is no line

Someone a while back was saying that ASL's don't encourage people to go down the inside of stationary traffic (HGVs specifically). If cyclists are supposed to enter the ASL only at the extreme left (BTW, not all ASL's have this entry point), then this surely does encourage filtering down the inside (encourage, that is, not force). When the lights are green, you are allowed to cross into the box over the white line, so if the lights change just as you draw near, in theory you should swerve over to the left, then (if you want the RH lane) back across the front of other traffic, which may or may not have decided to gamble on amber or just-three-more-cars red. Well that is well thought out.

Bikerbaboon

lost_in_thought wrote:

It occurs to me that the OP can now say he's annoyed lots of cyclists...

didn't take much.

Just to the guys saying ahhh well we all make mistakes. Its not good enough if you are at the controlls of a 2 tonne weapon you cant make mistakes, A nice lady made a small mistake in a car near me once. Spent 2 weeks in hospital for it.
If you enter a ASL as you did not see it you are not paying enough attention. ASL are easy to spot, a child thats run in to the road is a lot harder to spot.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Other way round.

The 1st line you come to is the stop line - cyclists are supposed to enter the resevoir via the left side where there is no line

I always find that if you know something, you can make it appear as though you know lots of things by disclosing the information bit by bit.

Not sure what you are referring to


You raised the point about the lines. I just answered it.

It wasn't in issue as far as I was aware until you raised it.

I apologise for not being able to see into the future

the_hundredth_idiot

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

If these guys are cyclist-friendly, it says a lot about the attitude of those who don't like cyclists to start with.

I've never really got the 'them 'n' us' attitude of certain cyclists. There are bad motorists out there and there are bad cyclists and on my commute into work yesterday I saw far more incidences of bad cycling than bad driving. From the elderly couple who merrily glided through every red-lit junction before continuing their journey on the footpath, to the middle-class, middle-aged man and woman who were cycling along Croxted Road (a very tight road for car drivers) at 11:00pm last night without any lights or reflective clothing on whatsoever.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the OP was in the wrong (including himself), nor the cyclist's right to be disgruntled, it's just the wisdom behind remonstrating in such a situation and in such a way that is questionable.

Not sure which part of that sentence translated into a "them and us" issue. The OP is a cyclist who frequently posts on a cycling forum - so I'm guessing he is more cyclist-friendly then some of the nutters out there (see BentMikey's youtube videos). The OP committed a traffic offence and another road user (happens to be a cyclist but no reason it couldn't have been someone else) wags his finger in admonishment. OP gets mightily precious about said finger-wagging. If the cyclist had got off his bike with D-lock in hand and trashed the OP's car then I would have had sympathy with the OP. But a wag of the finger? How sensitive can some poor souls be?

And I don't really see the relevance to this incident that other cyclists break the law (as, I agree, they all too frequently do). There are bad motorists and there are bad cyclists. In this case, it was the motorist who was in the wrong by either deliberating entering an ASL when he shouldn't or paying so little attention to the traffic lights that he ended up in the ASL by accident (so, technically, jumping a red light). Or are you saying that motorists are allowed to break the law as some kind of tit-for-tat for cyclists breaking the law - not sure that's how the law works.

If I started a thread on a motoring forum (not unheard of) stating that I'd RLJed on my bike (NB: I don't RLJ) and complaining that a motorist wagged a finger at me, do you really think I would earn a lot of sympathy? Or do you think the response might be along the lines of having a read of the Highway Code to see where I'd gone wrong?

PS. Croxted Road - you must live near me/do the same sort of commute - I cross over Croxted Road at the Turney Road junction.

Headhuunter

Clever Pun wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

The entire post from the OP is from a motorist point of view.

Full of anti cyclists propaganda, it's the sort of letter I'd expect to see in the raving loony Daily Mail letter page from a BMW owner in Surrey.


.

I liked the I'm a cyclist as well

kinda like saying some of my best friends are cyclists

I'm not racist but....

Some of my best friends are gay but....

DonDaddyD

Had the OP just stopped before the ASL, by DonDaddyd

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL then the cyclist wouldn't have been annoyed

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL then the cyclist wouldn't have shook his head and wagged his finger

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL then the cyclist wouldn't have positioned his bike several inches from the front of the OP's car

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL then the OP wouldn't have felt he had to wait for the cyclist to 'wobble off' to a safe distance before he could be passed

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL all the above could have been avoided

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL this thread wouldn't even exist

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL I wouldn't have seemingly had to agree with Spen666.

Had the OP just stopped his car before the ASL.

I thank you

jonny_trousers

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

If these guys are cyclist-friendly, it says a lot about the attitude of those who don't like cyclists to start with.

I've never really got the 'them 'n' us' attitude of certain cyclists. There are bad motorists out there and there are bad cyclists and on my commute into work yesterday I saw far more incidences of bad cycling than bad driving. From the elderly couple who merrily glided through every red-lit junction before continuing their journey on the footpath, to the middle-class, middle-aged man and woman who were cycling along Croxted Road (a very tight road for car drivers) at 11:00pm last night without any lights or reflective clothing on whatsoever.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the OP was in the wrong (including himself), nor the cyclist's right to be disgruntled, it's just the wisdom behind remonstrating in such a situation and in such a way that is questionable.

Not sure which part of that sentence translated into a "them and us" issue. The OP is a cyclist who frequently posts on a cycling forum - so I'm guessing he is more cyclist-friendly then some of the nutters out there (see BentMikey's youtube videos). The OP committed a traffic offence and another road user (happens to be a cyclist but no reason it couldn't have been someone else) wags his finger in admonishment. OP gets mightily precious about said finger-wagging. If the cyclist had got off his bike with D-lock in hand and trashed the OP's car then I would have had sympathy with the OP. But a wag of the finger? How sensitive can some poor souls be?

And I don't really see the relevance to this incident that other cyclists break the law (as, I agree, they all too frequently do). There are bad motorists and there are bad cyclists. In this case, it was the motorist who was in the wrong by either deliberating entering an ASL when he shouldn't or paying so little attention to the traffic lights that he ended up in the ASL by accident (so, technically, jumping a red light). Or are you saying that motorists are allowed to break the law as some kind of tit-for-tat for cyclists breaking the law - not sure that's how the law works.

If I started a thread on a motoring forum (not unheard of) stating that I'd RLJed on my bike (NB: I don't RLJ) and complaining that a motorist wagged a finger at me, do you really think I would earn a lot of sympathy? Or do you think the response might be along the lines of having a read of the Highway Code to see where I'd gone wrong?

PS. Croxted Road - you must live near me/do the same sort of commute - I cross over Croxted Road at the Turney Road junction.

Okay it was unfair of me to quote your post when making my general point and for that I apologise, but I do think there is an attitude among many posters here that cyclist = good, motorist = bad ,when it cannot be so clear-cut. In the OP's case, he made a very small error of judgement (please, someone, hold back on posting 'it only takes a small error of judgement in a car to kill a person') and for that he gets a patronising wag of the finger. None of it really matters and we are all wasting far too much of our time discussing it here, but my sympathies lie with his general point: that there was no need for such admonishment.

staringatthesea

rml380z wrote:

bails87 wrote:

But that would mean moving forward at walking pace. If a driver reached the first line at 15mph and the lights started to change then they'd probably just carry on. I would! :?

Ah yes, that makes sense and explains all the milk-floats, parades and hearses I see in the ASLs. What about all the other motor vehicles?

They were probably having to crawl along behind some cyclist taking up the whole road!

Aguila

Bikerbaboon wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

It occurs to me that the OP can now say he's annoyed lots of cyclists...

didn't take much.

Just to the guys saying ahhh well we all make mistakes. Its not good enough if you are at the controlls of a 2 tonne weapon you cant make mistakes, A nice lady made a small mistake in a car near me once. Spent 2 weeks in hospital for it.
If you enter a ASL as you did not see it you are not paying enough attention. ASL are easy to spot, a child thats run in to the road is a lot harder to spot.

If you are going to be as black and white about it as that you will have to ban all drivers from the road immediately, because we all DO make mistakes, even you. And I'll bet more drivers go into ASLs than fail to avoid hitting children in the road.

The point is that if you take enforcing the law into your own hands you will get aggressive/dangerous reactions from a minority of drivers, some of which will be dangerous enough to risk harm to you.

Is this worth it??

Not under the circumstances of the OP, IMO.

toontra

Driving into an ASL area isn't a "mistake" - it's careless, inconsiderate driving and is contrary to the highway code. If this isn't pointed out to motorists they will just carry on doing it and endangering cyclists in the process, especially on busy roads like dual carriageways.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Bikerbaboon wrote:

[ if you are at the controlls of a 2 tonne weapon you cant make mistakes

I *heart* the two tonne weapon argument. It's great. And so versatile.

Did you know: my feet are deadly weapons. I could accidentally catch a person's heel whilst walking, cause them to trip, fracture their skull and die of a brain haemorrhage.

I can't afford to let my feet make mistakes, no way, no how, no sir. I'm going to chop them off, and totter around on my stumps, just to be on the safe side.

I hope I don't fall into someone, cause them to trip, etc...

bails87

It wasn't "taking the law into his own hands". It was a wag of a finger.

If someone tries to kill you for wagging a finger, when they've done something wrong and theyknow it. Then they're the one with a serious problem. Not the person wagging the finger!

There's something seriously wrong if you can't in essence say "Oo, you shouldn't actually be across that line mate. It's meant for bikes only" for fear of being murdered.

That fear may well be there, but anyone who reacts so agressively should probably be having psychiatric help rather than driving about. Can you imagine what they do when the wife burns their dinner, or someone steps on their toe, or someone spills a drink on them, or....

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

It wasn't "taking the law into his own hands". It was a wag of a finger.

If someone tries to kill you for wagging a finger, when they've done something wrong and theyknow it. Then they're the one with a serious problem. Not the person wagging the finger!

There's something seriously wrong if you can't in essence say "Oo, you shouldn't actually be across that line mate. It's meant for bikes only" for fear of being murdered.

That fear may well be there, but anyone who reacts so agressively should probably be having psychiatric help rather than driving about. Can you imagine what they do when the wife burns their dinner, or someone steps on their toe, or someone spills a drink on them, or....

Did I miss the bit in the OP where he says that he flew into a psychotic rage and attempted to mow down the innocent law abiding and law enforcing cyclist in cold blood, then reverse back over him just to be on the safe side?

TommyEss

Greg66 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

It wasn't "taking the law into his own hands". It was a wag of a finger.

If someone tries to kill you for wagging a finger, when they've done something wrong and theyknow it. Then they're the one with a serious problem. Not the person wagging the finger!

There's something seriously wrong if you can't in essence say "Oo, you shouldn't actually be across that line mate. It's meant for bikes only" for fear of being murdered.

That fear may well be there, but anyone who reacts so agressively should probably be having psychiatric help rather than driving about. Can you imagine what they do when the wife burns their dinner, or someone steps on their toe, or someone spills a drink on them, or....

Did I miss the bit in the OP where he says that he flew into a psychotic rage and attempted to mow down the innocent law abiding and law enforcing cyclist in cold blood, then reverse back over him just to be on the safe side?

3rd Paragraph - 2nd line...

toontra

Greg66 wrote:

Did I miss the bit in the OP where he says that he flew into a psychotic rage and attempted to mow down the innocent law abiding and law enforcing cyclist in cold blood, then reverse back over him just to be on the safe side?

It obviously riled him enough to post on here about it. He also makes it clear that he wouldn't be surprised if other motorists may assault the finger-wagger, implying that the cyclist would have brought it on themselves.