JNugent wrote:
> "Velvet" <
[email protected]> wrote...
>
>
>>"JNugent" <
[email protected]> wrote...
>
>
>>(some snippage)
>
>
>>>Exactly. And completely incompatible with abominations such as so-called
>
> "advance
>
>>>stop lines" (which thankfully, seem to be very rarely used, probably because most cyclits have
>>>more common sense than the PC cretins who
>
> thought
>
>>>up this waste of road-space).
>
>
>>>>The "if necessary" and "where it is safe" bits seem to be forgotten by the impatient.
>
>
>>>It is *always* necessary. No road-user has the right to obstruct the
>
> road
>
>>>or to deliberately hold up other road-users where such delay is unnecessary.
If this statement is applied to ASL's, then ASL's do NOT obstruct of deliberately hold up users.
Prove the case where use of an ASL has obstructed the road for others any different to waiting at
the front of a queue of traffic would, and I'll reconsider, but till then, you're talking bollocks
on that point.
>
>
>>Cars can therefore be seen to be holding up other road users if cyclists are supposed to pull over
>>to let them pass constantly, from the cyclists point of view.
>
>
> That may mean something to you. The rest of us can only guess at what that may be.
You say something holding up the traffic is an obstruction, and should pull over. I say constantly
pulling over to let cars past is an obstruction of my use of the road, by the car. Think about it a
little more and take those blinkers off and you might realise what I'm talking about.
>
>
>>It is NOT always a black and white issue, despite what you appear to think, J. Nugent.
>
>
> You have missed the point. The context is that of these stupid ASLs, not traffic on the move on
> the "open" road.
>
> Check the post to which I was responding, and re-read muy post in correct context.
Replies enclosed above and below focused specifically on ASL's. It is STILL not ALWAYS safe to pull
over if the situations are as below. There is NO reason why a cyclist should stop in the gutter of
the road in a queue of stationary traffic - he should take up the centre of the lane amongst the
cars in this instance. Again, if applied specifically to ASL's - just why do you think that the
cyclist should give way to cars at the junction rather than sitting where he should be, at the head
of the queue/in the ASL - he will not cause an obstruction to the road, but WILL cross the junction
with more safety, and prevent cars from dangerously overtaking on the junction, and being squeezed
into the kerb on the exit from said junction.
>
>
>>>It is *always* safe.
>
>
>>So stopping on a blind bend, stopping over the crest of a blind summit, stopping very close to a
>>junction - yes, they're all REALLY safe places to stop, aren't they - ALL the time.
>
>
> You have missed the point. The context is that of these stupid ASLs, not traffic on the move on
> the "open" road.
>
>
>>Idiot.
>
>
> I'd have thought that a better description of someone who has failed to grasp the context of my
> post (which was made absolutely clear - the context is that of these stupid ASLs, not traffic on
> the move on the "open" road).
>
No, from what I've read of you before, and what I read here, I still maintain that statement to be
correct. Your arguments against ASL's are founded on complete misunderstanding of shared road use
and the various DIFFERING hazards to the road users.
>
>>>All that is necessary is not to "advance" to a position where one will automatically create an
>>>obstruction - which is, at least, something the vast majority of cyclists do not do (to the
>>>extent that they stop at
>
> the
>
>>>red traffic light at all, of course).
Once again, cyclists at an ASL do not necessarily create an obstruction, and the ASL allows the
cyclist to cross the junction with a much better chance of doing so safely.
>
>
>>As far as I'm concerned, if an advance stop box allows me to safely negotiate a junction (for
>>example, if turning right
>
>
> No problem with that. A vehicle turning right *should* be in the right hand lane or on the crown
> of the road where there is only one lane.
>
>
>>and the alternative is to attempt to filter in with cars wishing to go straight on at the junction
>>and avoid their impatient driving habits) then I will use a stop box with absolute certainty that
>>it is my right to do so.
>
>
> Subcject to your douing it correctly, I can see no problem with that. A vehicle turning right
> *should* be in the right hand lane or on the crown of the road where there is only one lane.
>
>
>
>
>>Stop boxes ALSO help prevent the 'sorry mate I didn't see you' where they turn left THROUGH you
>>at a junction, cos you're able to get across that left turn (heading straight on) before they
>>pull left.
>
>
> Overtaking on the left is dangerous enough. Overtaking a vehicle which is indicating a left-turn
> from a nearside lane (on the left) is foolish in the extreme, isn't it?
>
> Not that it is directly connected with the issue at hand, which was ASLs.
>
I'm not talking about overtaking on the left, nor overtaking a vehicle signalling a right turn, as
would be clearly understood by relating the situation I describe to the ASL - take the advice you
gave me earlier about applying all this to the ASL circumstance only, please.
I'm talking about being part of a moving stream of traffic, where inevitably cars will (despite road
positioning attempting to stop this) pull along side if you're stopped, and will pull around to
attempt to overtake, then completely forget you are there, and turn left on that junction THROUGH
you, as a cyclist, going straight on. It happens enough times that I see no reason why an advanced
stop box should not be a good thing. Cars dislike intensly waiting behind cyclists at any time,
junctions included, where they perceive they have the right to pull away faster and not be held up.
As a cyclist approaches a junction, he/she will be expected to be at the left of the cars, sharing
road space with them, which makes it very hard to integrate into the stream with the cars pulling to
a stop around you, to take up primary riding position to stop cars pulling alongside then turning
left through you. Depending on the road/cycle lane in question, it is perfectly acceptable to ride
up a dedicated cycle lane and into the ASL whilst traffic is stationary, albeit with care and
knowledge that stupid drivers may open a door without looking into your path at any moment. Once in
the ASL, you will pull away first, clear the junction, and the car behind has a much reduced chance
of turning left through you - as I stated above.
Perhaps this makes it a bit clearer. I wasn't advocating undertaking vehicles ad hoc, just pointing
out two instances where being in an ASL with the motorists at an INCREASED distance behind the back
wheel is a distinct advantage.
So, to sum up - ASL's aren't stupid. From a cyclists point of view, they are useful. If car drivers
weren't so unobservant, impatient and downright dangerous to other road users, perhaps measures such
as cycle lanes, ASL's, shared use paths, etc, wouldn't be needed, and then no-one would have a
problem, would they.
Velvet
