Advance stop line

slowbike

First Aspect wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I thought the ASLs were there so cyclists didn't stop and wait beside a motor vehicle - who may or may not be turning - and critically - who probably hasn't noticed the cyclist(s) there. In the ASL the cyclist is clear ahead - and it's then up to the vehicle driver to overtake safely- having seen the cyclist(s).

Having done a long trip back from holiday over the weekend - stuck in the M25 traffic - watching the motorbikes go by - it struck me that it didn't matter that they were filtering past - we're doing 30-40mph, they can go a bit faster and get to where they're going quicker - providing they're doing it safely what's the point in making them wait? It's not going to make my journey any different eitherway, so may as well let them go - or even facilitate them getting past.
I don't come across traffic lights often whilst cycling - but I think the same principle applies ...

There's nothing to stop them filtering, but they can filter up to the stop line just like everywhere else. If a junction has an ASL for cycle safety, that's a different thing. At the very least motorbikes should let us get through the junction safely before passing.

I say this because there is one in my commute where straight on bears right and left is a racetrack bearing slightly left. I am often squeezed left by 500kg of motorbike, and sometimes prevented from even getting into the ASL because one has filled all of the gap between the first car and a traffic island. I object to that.

I suppose - filtering to the stop line doesn't get them in front of the 4+ wheeled vehicles waiting there- then, a little like us - they're vulnerable to the 4+ wheeled driver not seeing them and taking them out on a lights change. I can see your objection for them being in the ASL - if they're not being courteous enough when the lights change....

faster97

roger merriman wrote:

I personally have never felt the need to pull forward, generally the safest is maybe two cars back, even by most cyclists fairly mundane pick up off the line, cars are fairly easy to match pace across the junction.

If I am at the front I generally will pick up reasonably quick enough to not be passed by cars until though the junction which isn’t that fast really. though I will not cross the line unless I have chosen to filter to the front, and a car is in the ASL, or similar. I generally hang back I have the potential acceleration that junctions aren’t a problem.

I'm not exactly sure where you are positioning yourself here when you are two cars back. Are you sandwiching yourself between two cars, or alongside? Either way, I can't see how this is safer, or indeed safe.

Whilst I'm sure most of the time it is easy to match a cars acceleration, at best you are at the motorist's mercy. However fast you think you are, you do not have the potential acceleration to get yourself out of harms way and neither does any other cyclist.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that by getting further forward, I'm giving myself the best chance I can of both being seen and making my way to relative safety before being overtaken and I'm struggling to see the downside.

TGOTB wrote:

Where there's no ASL I understand your point, though there are other ways to stay safe (such as stopping in a gap a few cars back). Where there *is* an ASL, why is stopping in front of it "much, much safer" than stopping in it?

The "much, much safer" was referring to both situations ie crossing the stop line and crossing the ASL, and I agree that I reduce my risk more by crossing the stop line when there is no asl compared to crossing the ASL. In this context, whether it is safer, much safer, or "much, much safer" is irrelevent. If something will make me a tiny bit safer, I'll consider doing it.

inbike wrote:

Accelerating hard when the lights change seems like a good way to increase your chances of being taken out by a driver gambling on amber from your right or left.

Unless you've got a great view, it's better to sit squarely on front of traffic (so they can't pass) and set off at about the same rate of acceleration as a car, heads up and hands on the brakes.

I changed to the second approach after seeing a few videos of people dying. It'll waste less driver time than if they have to wait for me to be hosed off the junction.

I get around this problem simply by not accelerating hard if it's into the path of drivers from the left or right. I didn't say this in my first post - maybe I should have done?

You make a good point though - by moving to the front of the junction the chance of a "great view" is much increased. Better to have the great view early rather than set off, get to the end of the junction where there is a great view, realise that cars are coming then brake and risk getting run over by the following car.

slowbike

faster97 wrote:

I'm not exactly sure where you are positioning yourself here when you are two cars back. Are you sandwiching yourself between two cars, or alongside? Either way, I can't see how this is safer, or indeed safe.

Whilst I'm sure most of the time it is easy to match a cars acceleration, at best you are at the motorist's mercy. However fast you think you are, you do not have the potential acceleration to get yourself out of harms way and neither does any other cyclist.

It's about being seen - so long as the driver behind/beside you can see you - and has noticed you - you're as safe as you're going to be - you're always at the motorists mercy - doesn't matter if you're at the front or further back...

tgotb

faster97 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Where there's no ASL I understand your point, though there are other ways to stay safe (such as stopping in a gap a few cars back). Where there *is* an ASL, why is stopping in front of it "much, much safer" than stopping in it?

The "much, much safer" was referring to both situations ie crossing the stop line and crossing the ASL, and I agree that I reduce my risk more by crossing the stop line when there is no asl compared to crossing the ASL. In this context, whether it is safer, much safer, or "much, much safer" is irrelevent. If something will make me a tiny bit safer, I'll consider doing it.

I still don't understand. Why is sitting in front of the ASL safer than sitting in it?

wolfsbane2k

TGOTB wrote:

faster97 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Where there's no ASL I understand your point, though there are other ways to stay safe (such as stopping in a gap a few cars back). Where there *is* an ASL, why is stopping in front of it "much, much safer" than stopping in it?

The "much, much safer" was referring to both situations ie crossing the stop line and crossing the ASL, and I agree that I reduce my risk more by crossing the stop line when there is no asl compared to crossing the ASL. In this context, whether it is safer, much safer, or "much, much safer" is irrelevent. If something will make me a tiny bit safer, I'll consider doing it.

I still don't understand. Why is sitting in front of the ASL safer than sitting in it?

I guess it depends on the vehicle behind, but if it's an HGV, they can't see you cos their frigging lethal blind spots make them unsafe in citys.?

tgotb

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

I guess it depends on the vehicle behind, but if it's an HGV, they can't see you cos their frigging lethal blind spots make them unsafe in citys.?

One of the things I *always* do when sat in an ASL in front of an HGV is turn round and make eye contact with the driver. I don't recall ever being unable to do this. If I couldn't see the driver I'd get out of the way sharpish (onto the pavement or through the red light if necessary), but I've *never* had to do this. It's not hard to catch their eye; they're generally a pretty professional bunch (albeit grumpy at times), and will be actively looking for you.

Yes, there are large blind spots (by far the worst are to the side, which is why so many fatalities involve left-turning HGVs), but if the HGV is behind the ASL you can stay out of its blind spot without having to go in front of the ASL. Bear in mind that, when you see those blind spot demonstrations the Police put on, you're seeing the patch of road that the driver can't see. You can be sat on quite a lot of that patch of tarmac but very visible to the driver because they're looking down at an angle. If you can see the driver's face, they can see you (and, because you're looking into their eyes, you can see that they've seen you).

The other thing you can do with an HGV is just stay behind it for the time being. I'm staggered by the number of people who'll happily sail up the side of an HGV which is either moving, or may be about to start moving. That's crazy stuff! Just wait until it's stationary, and you're quite sure it's going to remain stationary while you pass (either because you can see a long queue of stationary vehicles in front or because you know the traffic light phasing). That's a far more effective way of staying safe around HGVs than illegally crossing the line at the front of the ASL.

So many people seem to be terrified of being rear-ended by motor vehicles, but (apart from close passes, which you have to mitigate by riding well out from the kerb) all the dangerous situations I see involving motor vehicles travelling in the same direction arise from the cyclist being alongside the motor vehicle and the driver not knowing they're there.

TGOTB's basic rule for traffic safety:
Never allow yourself to be alongside a moving 4+wheel vehicle unless either:
1. It's overtaking you (and therefore knows you're there because you were previously in front of it (and not riding in the gutter).
2. You have your own lane (proper lane, not a narrow bike lane painted in the gutter)

Pretty much all the really dangerous situations I see cyclists getting themselves into around motor vehicles could be avoided by following this rule. If you're in front of it, the driver can see you. If you're behind it, it can't get you. If you're alongside it, the only way you can be sure it can't get you is if it can't move.

wolfsbane2k

TGOTB wrote:

<snip>
Pretty much all the really dangerous situations I see cyclists getting themselves into around motor vehicles could be avoided by following this rule. If you're in front of it, the driver can see you. If you're behind it, it can't get you. If you're alongside it, the only way you can be sure it can't get you is if it can't move.

I agree with nearly all of this, and like you, actively look for the face of the HGV driver whenever I'm near one in traffic.
However, down here I've had a number of incidents where I've been an ASL, and the HGV driver behind pulls right up to the line, and I physically can't see them, so I've broken the line so I'm visible - and then told the driver off.

A lot of it will depend on the actual road layout - for example, some ASL's are huge, with loads of space front to back, whereas some are only a meter and a bit tall.

I think the flow chart in this piece is a reasonably good assessment:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... stop-line/

To me, the fundamental issue is that many people think cycling infrastructure is there to make you safer when on a bike, and therefore it's safe to use it - whereas experienced cyclists generally know better.

First.Aspect

TGOTB wrote:

TGOTB's basic rule for traffic safety:
Never allow yourself to be alongside a moving 4+wheel vehicle unless either:
1. It's overtaking you (and therefore knows you're there because you were previously in front of it (and not riding in the gutter).
2. You have your own lane (proper lane, not a narrow bike lane painted in the gutter)

I generally agree with the rest of this post, but your "rules" aren't that helpful.

1. Drivers often forget you are there as soon as you drop back into their blind spot - hence left hooks and moving back into the lane before the whole vehicle has overtaken the cyclist, are all too common.
2. "Your own lane" is either a traffic lane that you happen to be in, or a bus lane, which in most cases is the same thing only with green paint want signage no one takes any notice of. In neither case to motorists seem to care whether the lane happens already to be occupied by a cyclist when they move into it.

Your rules instead should be "1. minimize the time you are next to a moving vehicle and 2. if you are next to a moving vehicle, prepare to avoid it"

faster97

Slowbike wrote:

It's about being seen - so long as the driver behind/beside you can see you - and has noticed you - you're as safe as you're going to be - you're always at the motorists mercy - doesn't matter if you're at the front or further back...

Sorry, but that is just wrong. Whilst being seen is always preferable to not being seen, it's only part of of the story. Being seen is overrated imo. There is obviously more you can do to make yourself safer than just being seen. I have no evidence to back this up, not even anecdotally, but I suspect in many accidents, the driver sees the cyclist ... then just runs them over anyway. Of course, the driver will always say they never saw the cyclist, or they came out of nowhere.

The reason being at the front makes a difference is that the biggest risk in crossing a junction is when you are between the car and the exit that they want to turn in to. Being at the front of the junction gives a head start to reduce risk of letting yourself get into this situation or reduce your time in this situation. Ideally, you are past the junction before the first car passes or comes alongside. I agree, I'm still at the motorist's mercy, if they really want to accelerate alongside and turn in, they can - it just makes it more difficult for them.

TGOTB wrote:

I still don't understand. Why is sitting in front of the ASL safer than sitting in it?

I'm no expert - these are only my opinions, but I think it's safer in exactly the same way the sitting behind the ASL is safer than sitting behind the stop line. An even better ASL if you like. More chance of being seen, more chance of clearing the junction before a car pulls alongside, better view of the traffic approaching from the left or right.

Do you think much thought has been put into the optimal size of the ASL? Me either. I think they are designed to reduce the amount of green paint needed to a minimum, whilst still fitting the length of a bike in. Around here, they all seem to be the same size whatever the junction is like.

Why is sitting in it safer than getting further forward?

First Aspect wrote:

1. Drivers often forget you are there as soon as you drop back into their blind spot - hence left hooks and moving back into the lane before the whole vehicle has overtaken the cyclist, are all too common.

Exactly - agree totally with this. It's a key point.

frogonabike

faster97 wrote:

Sorry, but that is just wrong. Whilst being seen is always preferable to not being seen, it's only part of of the story. Being seen is overrated imo. There is obviously more you can do to make yourself safer than just being seen. I have no evidence to back this up, not even anecdotally, but I suspect in many accidents, the driver sees the cyclist ... then just runs them over anyway.

Wut you been smokin?

First.Aspect

Mmm. Fairly sure being seen helps. Try walking around with your eyes shut. I bet you have more collisions.

tgotb

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

I think the flow chart in this piece is a reasonably good assessment:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... stop-line/

I haven't seen that before; seems to summarise it pretty well.

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

To me, the fundamental issue is that many people think cycling infrastructure is there to make you safer when on a bike, and therefore it's safe to use it - whereas experienced cyclists generally know better.

Yep

roger_merriman

TGOTB wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

I think the flow chart in this piece is a reasonably good assessment:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... stop-line/

I haven't seen that before; seems to summarise it pretty well.

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

To me, the fundamental issue is that many people think cycling infrastructure is there to make you safer when on a bike, and therefore it's safe to use it - whereas experienced cyclists generally know better.

Yep

Hugely dependent on the quality and where it is, for example on my way to work either side of Hounslow Heath is the A314 which has just painted and narrow and clearly iffy bike lane, but the A315 has off road east bound and protected by armadillos west bound and reasonably wide, enough that pre armadillos you’d get the odd car attempting to fit!

But further up from the A4 up is a old empty though fair bit of rubbish/glass in places off road bike bath with very few give ways etc, I sail past traffic and generally have very few places that I need to need to stop or yeald to other traffic.

Does help that my commute bike is a big heavy beast so I don’t tend to hit the point that these tracks condition would slow me.

faster97

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. Fairly sure being seen helps. Try walking around with your eyes shut. I bet you have more collisions.

Mmm. Fairly sure nobody has said that being seen doesn't help.

First.Aspect

faster97 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. Fairly sure being seen helps. Try walking around with your eyes shut. I bet you have more collisions.

Mmm. Fairly sure nobody has said that being seen doesn't help.

You are right. No one would be stupid enough to downplay it's importance.

wolfsbane2k

First Aspect wrote:

faster97 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. Fairly sure being seen helps. Try walking around with your eyes shut. I bet you have more collisions.

Mmm. Fairly sure nobody has said that being seen doesn't help.

You are right. No one would be stupid enough to downplay it's importance.

I downplay it's performance over people giving a damn quite a lot.

kingstongraham

Even people who don't care about you don't want the scratches on their bonnet.