Suggestion to resolve advance-stop line problem

[Ian D Henden]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:13:27 +0100 someone who may be "Ian Henden" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
> >So why do cyclists ride in the bus lane, when there is a perfectly good cycle lane (smooth,
> >painted green, no dog ****) runnung parallel just
three
> >yards away? (Southampton, the Avenue, going north from the Law Courts to
the
> >Common)
>
> You asked the question, here is my reply. I suggest you get hold of a copy of "Cyclecraft" and
> read (parts of) it. There is a section on the problems of such cycle "facilities".
>
I would have thought Rules 47, 48 and 49 from http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml would have been
sufficient.

They seem clear enough to me.

Perhaps SOAPs feel they do not need to take heed of this publication?

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:05:04 +0100 someone who may be Conor <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>That and the fact that in York they feel the need to make all cycle lanes within 50 yards of
>traffic lights about handlebar width.

I have seen several in York that appeared to be narrower than handlebar width. Their only use
appears to be marking the zone within which the cyclist's wheels should never be while moving along.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:02:25 +0100 someone who may be Conor <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>They cycle alongside then round the left corner and stop.

I think that they would have to translocate themselves sideways to be below the vision of "a typical
lorry driver". I don't think it would be possible to turn right and then left so sharply as to be in
any such blind spot. Perhaps someone reliving their childhood on BMX bike could manage it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:03:19 +0100 someone who may be "Mike CJ" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>As a motorist, I refuse to recognise these cyclist "zones" because I pay road

It's always interesting when the "friendly salt of the earth motorist" mask slips.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 03:06:11 +0100 someone who may be "Ian Henden" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>Cycle lanes have been provided at great expense

I will have to see this cycle lane, it must be unique!

The ones I have seen have been provided at minimal expense.

>to facilitate a safe route for cyclists.

Many appear to be provided to "get those dammed cyclists out of the way", as far as I can see.

>Perhaps if LAs did NOT spend loads of ratepayers cash on cycle lanes, then we would not have seen
>such massive rises in "Community Tax" or whatever it's called this year.

I doubt it.

http://www.spokes.org.uk/news83b.htm

>Councils have allocated only 3.8% of transport capital to cycling/SRS in 02/03 - again within the
>3.2%-3.9% range which has held since 1997, even though our percentage is now boosted by including
>CWSS [see table, 'special notes'].

>Now, stop squirming, and get on yer bike. I can't be arsed to discuss this any further with a bunch
>of zipperheads.

Ah, a convincing argument.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:34:36 +0100 someone who may be "Ian D Henden" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>> >So why do cyclists ride in the bus lane, when there is a perfectly good cycle lane (smooth,
>> >painted green, no dog ****) runnung parallel just three yards away?
>>
>> You asked the question, here is my reply. I suggest you get hold of a copy of "Cyclecraft" and
>> read (parts of) it. There is a section on the problems of such cycle "facilities".
>>
>I would have thought Rules 47, 48 and 49 from http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml would have
>been sufficient.

"Rule 47 - Use cycle routes when practicable. They can make your journey safer."

Note the word "can". The evidence is that cycle routes (by which I assume they mean segregated cycle
tracks) seldom make cyclists' journey's safer.

"Rule 48 - Cycle Tracks."

Says nothing about using them in preference to anything else.

Rule 49 - Cycle Lanes."

Has nothing to do with the cycle track outlined in this thread.

I repeat my advice. If you really are interested in an answer to your question then you should
follow it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:47:10 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Cast_Iron" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>> I think that they would have to translocate themselves sideways to be below the vision of "a
>> typical lorry driver". I don't think it would be possible to turn right and then left so sharply
>> as to be in any such blind spot. Perhaps someone reliving their childhood on BMX bike could
>> manage it.
>
>Then you would be wrong,

What would I be wrong about precisely?

>and no I'm not a lorry driver nor am I a cyclist.

Perhaps you could let us know how you have gained your experience of cycle turning circles then?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Cast_iron]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:47:10 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Cast_Iron" <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
> >> I think that they would have to translocate themselves sideways to be below the vision of "a
> >> typical lorry driver". I don't think it would be possible to turn right and then left so
> >> sharply as to be in any such blind spot. Perhaps someone reliving their childhood on BMX bike
> >> could manage it.
> >
> >Then you would be wrong,
>
> What would I be wrong about precisely?

How close to the front of a vehicle a cyclist can position themselves having just pulled in
front of it.

>
> >and no I'm not a lorry driver nor am I a cyclist.
>
> Perhaps you could let us know how you have gained your experience of cycle turning circles then?

By watching what's going on around me.

.

 

[James Hodson]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:53:52 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Now, stop squirming, and get on yer bike. I can't be arsed to discuss this any further with a
>>bunch of zipperheads.
>
>Ah, a convincing argument.

Hi David

You won't win. Ian's capable of reading the highway code and thus knows all about cycle lanes.
Whether or not he actually uses those lanes is irrelevant.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[John'S Cat]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:26:32 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:06:08 +0100 someone who may be John's Cat <[email protected]>
>wrote this:-
>
>>>> >feigning outrage when not given as much room as they would like.
>
>>Then you know that it's not a case of 'as much room as they would like', but as much room as
>>stated in the Highway Code.
>
>Yes. Rule 139 is badly written, but the little drawing makes it clear.
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#139

Which is about the amount of room a cyclist needs, but is seldom given.

 

[John'S Cat]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:59:18 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ian D Henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> He MUST NOT be delayed, but is quite happy - deliriously pleased, in
>fact -
>> if he can delay someone else.
>
>I'd suggest you find out about the psycholical phenomena of "projection".
>
>In this thread you state all sorts of things about whats happening in the heads of people you
>don't know.
>
And complains vehemently that cyclists delay him...

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, johns- [email protected] says...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 01:28:38 +0100, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Generally I find lorry drivers to be amongst the most considerate of road users. However
> >> leaving a foot clearance is putting the cyclist's life at enormous risk and is completely
> >> unacceptable.driving.
> >>
> >Absolutely but in defence sometimes thats all you've got to pass them.
>
> But you haven't got to pass them.
>
Really? So how many miles would you say is acceptable to follow a bike?

--
________________________
Conor Turton [email protected]
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 15:47:50 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Cast_Iron" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>How close to the front of a vehicle a cyclist can position themselves having just pulled in
>front of it.
>
>> Perhaps you could let us know how you have gained your experience of cycle turning circles then?
>
>By watching what's going on around me.

We can all do that. I have yet to see a cyclist ride along a cycle lane to an ASL and then execute
two right angled turns. That would leave them stopped in the rear of the ASL and possibly out of
sight of a lorry driver.

I have seen them execute a right and left hand turn and end up stopped at the front of the ASL,
where they would be in sight of a lorry driver.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

> Perhaps you could let us know how you have gained your experience of cycle turning circles then?
>
Not the slightest chance he could have ever ridden a bike?

Also, video evidence on pretty much every news programme showing a shot of built up London
city traffic.

--
________________________
Conor Turton [email protected]
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[Petere]

Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, johns- [email protected] says...
>>
>> But you haven't got to pass them.
>>
> Really? So how many miles would you say is acceptable to follow a bike?

Of course in such circumstances cyclists should abide by Highway Code Rule 145 and pull over to
allow following vehicles to pass.

But we all know cyclists have this strange aversion to the HC.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[Petere]

John's Cat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:26:32 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes. Rule 139 is badly written, but the little drawing makes it clear.
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#139
>
> Which is about the amount of room a cyclist needs, but is seldom given.

Cyclists routinely demonstrate the amount of room they are happy with by the amount of room they
give when overtaking queues of traffic on the left.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[John'S Cat]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:06:27 +0100, "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>John's Cat <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:26:32 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Rule 139 is badly written, but the little drawing makes it clear.
>>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#139
>>
>> Which is about the amount of room a cyclist needs, but is seldom given.
>
>Cyclists routinely demonstrate the amount of room they are happy with by the amount of room they
>give when overtaking queues of traffic on the left.

Generally thought of as bad practice due to motorists failing to indicate before turning left or
passengers opening doors without looking, but since said traffic would be stationary, a smaller gap
can be tolerated than when being overtaken at higher speeds.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:06:27 +0100, "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Cyclists routinely demonstrate the amount of room they are happy with by the amount of room they
>give when overtaking queues of traffic on the left.

And of course there is absolutely no difference between the amount of room required in slow speed
manoeuvring around stationary cars and the safety margin when passing a moving cyclist with a
significant speed differential.

No different to headway distances, really: the required headway distances at 30mph and 70mph are
identical, as you can observe on the M25 any day.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[Richard Bates]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 18:06:27 +0100, "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> in
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Cyclists routinely demonstrate the amount of room they are happy with by the amount of room they
>give when overtaking queues of traffic on the left.

When overtaking me, please be advised that I do not overtake traffic on the left. I would therefore
appreciate it if you gave *me* a safe amount of room.

If you are not able to decide whether the cyclist infront of you is the type that requires room or
the type that is happy to squeeze through narrow gaps on the left, then I suggest you err on the
side of caution and give them a safe amount of room when overtaking.

Thank you.
--
If ingnorance is bliss then I am the erm er luckiest thingy in the whatchamacallit. To mail me,
change the obvious bit to richard

 

[John'S Cat]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 17:53:40 +0100, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, johns- [email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 01:28:38 +0100, Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> >
>> >> Generally I find lorry drivers to be amongst the most considerate of road users. However
>> >> leaving a foot clearance is putting the cyclist's life at enormous risk and is completely
>> >> unacceptable.driving.
>> >>
>> >Absolutely but in defence sometimes thats all you've got to pass them.
>>
>> But you haven't got to pass them.
>>
>Really? So how many miles would you say is acceptable to follow a bike?

Until it becomes safe to overtake, since your alternative seems to be endangering the cyclist.

If you are lucky, the cyclist may pull over to let you by. He ought to.