Advance stop lines

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nigel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else,
you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
feet of road??

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?

Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

Simon Brooke said:

In line abreast until safe and convenient to do otherwise, I would have
thought. Jostling in a junction with cars close behind does not sound
safe to me.

You wouldn't cope in London then. ;-)

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

Matt B said:

Would you move forward in a queue at lights into the ASL red zone if it had
a few other bikes in it?

What would you advise?

John B

Matt B said:

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
it, and use the road to the right of it?

What would you recommend, and why?

John B

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

I *loathe* cycle lanes for the very reason you describe and the fact that
too many off them are unwanted, not needed, poorly designed and put where
they create danger for cyclists rather than reduce danger,

Cheers, helen s

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:59:55 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

With more and more "advanced stop lines" springing up at traffic lights,
does anyone have any advice as to how they are supposed to be used?

"Cyclecraft" covers them.

Thanks, but I don't have a copy to hand. Can you summarise the gist? Is it
available online anywhere?

--
Matt B

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Would you move forward in a queue at lights into the ASL red zone if it
had
a few other bikes in it?

What would you advise?

I'm not really familiar/experienced enough to be able to give an
authoritative view, but am tempted to go to the front and fill the space, as
it is provided. I'm a little worried about the consequential chaotic
move-off though, which is why I'm looking for views from this group.

--
Matt B

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Nigel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone else,
> you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.

Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
feet of road??

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?

Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and, usually
in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

Would it be better/safer if these lanes were removed do you think?

--
Matt B

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
it, and use the road to the right of it?

It depends. Given that many 'cycle lanes' comprise a red or green painted
gutter complete with drains, gulleys, yellow lines, crumbling tarmac and
other [censored] it is often best to avoid them.

Yes, I've noticed, even to the extent of a _missing_ gulley grid in one
place leaving a huge square hole.

Quoted message said:

A favourite is to paint a red or green stripe along side a line of parking
bays -- nicely in line for a 'car dooring'. Again, best avoided.

Of course, cycling inside a cycle lane allows our less bright motoring
colleagues to ignore the cyclist all together and zoom along with his
inside
wheels on or very near the edge of the lane.

They often seem rather narrow to me.

Quoted message said:

Alternatively, cycling outside the green/red painted stripe tends to annoy
Johnny Plonker who starts shouting [censored] about getting off of 'his' road
and
demonstrating his lack of knowledge on 'road tax', licensing regulations
and
insurance.

So perhaps we'd be better without the lines and with better _educated_ road
users.

Quoted message said:

Ho hum.

Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make the
[censored] wait.

I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee to
be able to use the road in safety and in peace.

--
Matt B

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you avoid
it, and use the road to the right of it?

What would you recommend, and why?

I find them often too narrow, too intermittent and of dubious road surface
quality. They give a certain "sense of security" leading, perhaps, to "over
confidence" or even disregard of other road users. They do, on the whole,
keep the buses, trucks, etc. over slightly to the right, and perhaps make
motorised traffic more aware of the likelihood of encoutering a cyclist.

They also, as seems to be the view of many here, provide an excuse for
inconsiderate/ignorant/arrogant motorists to be annoyed, perhaps because
they resent (fallaciously maybe ;-) that they are the "cash cows", paying
the lion's share towards these things, the consequences of which are less
productive roadspace, leading innevitably to slower progress.

So to answer the question :-) I would, as suggested by a PP in this thread,
suggest using them if they feel right, but (carefully) avoiding them if they
felt wrong.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

snip

Quoted message said:

So perhaps we'd be better without the lines

Yes indeedy

Quoted message said:

and with better _educated_ road
users.

Now you are just being utopian.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ho hum.

Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] wait.

I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee to
be able to use the road in safety and in peace.

To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who drives
without due care and attention) need to be restrained. Personally I could
not approve of Guy's solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
attractions.

T

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

snip

Quoted message said:

So perhaps we'd be better without the lines

Yes indeedy

Quoted message said:

and with better _educated_ road
users.

Now you are just being utopian.

You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ho hum.

Personally, I cycle where I feel it is safest to do so -- regardless of
decorated guttering of Johnny Plonker's 'advice'. If in doubt -- make

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] wait.

I'd agree with that sentiment (if not the actual language ;-). You nee
to
be able to use the road in safety and in peace.

To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who drives
without due care and attention) need to be restrained.

Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

Quoted message said:

Personally I could not approve of Guy's

Guy?

Quoted message said:

solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
attractions.

He believes that the problem is male only?

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Nigel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> I think painting the whole thing red is a big mistake, it leads
>> cyclists to think it's maybe a bunching zone ahead of everyone
>> else, you're still only entitled to your 3 feet on the left.
>
> Care to show which bit of law says cyclists can only use the left 3
> feet of road??

Would you recommend using a cycle lane, if one exists, or would you
avoid it, and use the road to the right of it?

Avoid it. It puts you out of the driver's central vision, and,
usually in urban areas, in the door zone. Both very dangerous.

Would it be better/safer if these lanes were removed do you think?

Certainly in almost all cases, probably in all cases. I've never see one
I thought was safe to use, but there may be exceptions.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.

BigRAb

"Matt B" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it has
attractions.

Quoted message said:

He believes that the problem is male only?

Tough on testosterone, tough on the *causes* of testosterone, innit?

AIUI, aggressive driving is mainly a male problem. Dippy driving affects
both sexes...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"BigRab" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think it would be a brave cyclist who moseys up to the front of the
ASL box and sticks his arm out to turn right whith the traffic in that
lane possibly going straight on. I wish 'they' would clarify that.

BigRAb

Why would that be brave?

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now you are just being utopian.

You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?

Most could (probably) be educated. But what is the incentive? The average
driver thinks he/she is average or better than average. Serious accident
rates are low enough that most of us will, fortunately, not be involved in
one in a lifetime of driving or cycling and the percieved risk is low.

To improve driver education (other road users would also benefit from better
education but it is drivers who are in charge of leathal weapon) one would
need to change from the concept that we pass our test at 18 and drive
scerenely until old age.

Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?

Mandatory retesting after any serious offence, points accumulation or
accident?

Greater use of take the education or get a fine and points (applies for
speeders)

All would help. All would cost. All would be unpopular with those who need
it most.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who

drives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without due care and attention) need to be restrained.

Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

It would make more sense than painting bits of road red or green, putting up
railings everywhere and having more traffic signals than there were trees in
the wildwood.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I could not approve of Guy's

Guy?

Not been here long? He will appear shortly -- currently he is enammered
with bicycle origami. Fold -- unfold -- fold -- unfold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

attractions.

He believes that the problem is male only?

The male of the species is the more agressive and ovaries are more difficult
to get at (rusty knife or otherwise).

T

"Matt B" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Why no signal?

Cos keeping both hands on the handlebars improves control.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now you are just being utopian.

You don't agree that road users _could_ be educated?

Most could (probably) be educated. But what is the incentive?

Could we give some sort of financial incentive to those with certain
qualifications?

Quoted message said:

The average
driver thinks he/she is average or better than average. Serious accident
rates are low enough that most of us will, fortunately, not be involved in
one in a lifetime of driving or cycling and the percieved risk is low.

To improve driver education (other road users would also benefit from
better
education but it is drivers who are in charge of leathal weapon) one would
need to change from the concept that we pass our test at 18 and drive
scerenely until old age.

What about putting "roadmanship" on the national curriculum? It could have
modules leading to several different qualifications, one of which might be a
driving licence. Isn't roadmanship an essential life skill?

Quoted message said:

Compusory refresher cources and additional testing every 5 years?

What about random checks, like breath tests, if roadmanship incompetence is
evident? Penalty points and on-the-spot fines being available for dishing
out to those who fail.

Quoted message said:

Mandatory retesting after any serious offence, points accumulation or
accident?

Greater use of take the education or get a fine and points (applies for
speeders)

All would help. All would cost. All would be unpopular with those who
need
it most.

Yes, but it could/would/should become compulsory for all non-pedestrian road
users.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To do so Johnny Plonker (the perhaps 1% of drivers who are positively
dangerous) and his mates, Dippy Dave and Ditsy Doreen (the 30% who

drives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without due care and attention) need to be restrained.

Should road safety initiatives and resources be concentrated on
educating,
and indeed eliminating the un-educatable, road users?

It would make more sense than painting bits of road red or green, putting
up
railings everywhere and having more traffic signals than there were trees
in
the wildwood.

Do you think that pedal cyclists would tolerate being expected to learn and
be able to demonstrate the skill and knowledge necessary to be a good road
user, not being so used to the discipline as motor vehicle drivers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I could not approve of Guy's

Guy?

Not been here long? He will appear shortly -- currently he is enammered
with bicycle origami. Fold -- unfold -- fold -- unfold.

Ah, I may have encountered him in a previous thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

attractions.

He believes that the problem is male only?

The male of the species is the more agressive and ovaries are more
difficult
to get at (rusty knife or otherwise).

--
Matt B

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solution (cutting off their balls with a rusty knife,
hanging them and burning the body) but I will admit that, for some, it
has
attractions.

Quoted message said:

He believes that the problem is male only?

Tough on testosterone, tough on the *causes* of testosterone, innit?

AIUI, aggressive driving is mainly a male problem. Dippy driving affects
both sexes...

Which type would you rather encounter? Which type would you rather be the
victim of?

--
Matt B