Ban HPVs from ASL's

[ash]

They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.

A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.

These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
queue in the firtst place.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

ash wrote:
> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
> cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
> vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
> to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>
> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>
> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
> there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
> queue in the firtst place.

Now look here, no sensible posts allowed here.
In any case we need the cycles ahead of us or we can't ram them so easily.

[mileburner]

"ash" > wrote in message
...
> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
> cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
> vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
> to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>
> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>
> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
> there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
> queue in the firtst place.

Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other facilities.
They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.

Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up the
inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that had
previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better to
overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic to
pass.

Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ash" > wrote in message
> ...
>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
>> cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
>> vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
>> to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>>
>> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
>> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>>
>> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
>> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
>> there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
>> queue in the firtst place.
>
> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other facilities.
> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>
> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up the
> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that had
> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better
> to overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay
> in lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the
> traffic to pass.
>
> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.

I don't know what is happening but I agree with you 100% Mileburner! I'm
still pinching myself.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
> wrote this:-

>They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]

Nice try at trolling.

The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
circumstances.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:32:00 +0100 someone who may be "mileburner"
> wrote this:-

>Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.

That would extend many urban bike journeys considerably. If it is
safe to overtake then people should do so. The question of whether
it is safe is a more difficult one.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[ash]

On 18 May, 13:15, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
> > wrote this:-
>
> >They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> >risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]
>
> Nice try at trolling.
>
> The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
> might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
> the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
> circumstances.
>
> --
> * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority attitude
at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on the
premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)

Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best practice
or even legal in all given circumstances.
Case in point - How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of the
ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue is a
cyclists god given right.
Additionally, you can only legally enter the ASL through the feeder as
it is illegal to pass the first solid stop line on a red.
There are too many inexperienced or clueless cyclists on the roads,
and the ASLs just encourage

As mileburner said, it is safer to hold your ground un the queue until
you are past the junction if on a cycle.

[mileburner]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other
>> facilities. They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and
>> motorists alike.
>>
>> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up
>> the inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic
>> that had previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it
>> is better to overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away.
>> Then stay in lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing
>> the traffic to pass.
>>
>> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>
> I don't know what is happening but I agree with you 100% Mileburner! I'm
> still pinching myself.
Per'aps you know how to a) Ride a bike and b) Drive a car. These qualities
are usually confined to motorists who cycle and cyclists who drive.

[mileburner]

"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:32:00 +0100 someone who may be "mileburner"
> > wrote this:-
>
>>Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>
> That would extend many urban bike journeys considerably. If it is
> safe to overtake then people should do so. The question of whether
> it is safe is a more difficult one.

I generally employ the 2 metre rule. If there is 2 metres of available width
I will overtake, if the traffic is going slow enough to or stopped. But if
there is not 2 metres I do not overtake and if there is not going to be a
metre either side of me I do not allow others to overtake, instead I will
pull out a further half metre or so to close the available gap.

[mileburner]

ash wrote:

> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority attitude
> at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on the
> premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
> and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)

While the "cyclist should have priority at all times" attitude is wrong
amongst cyclists, its actualy not a bad idea to hold that in mind when you
are driving, purely from a safety perspective. We know that cyclists *do* do
stupid things, many of them are inexperienced, untrained, children or just
plain stupid. Some of them do not even hold a drivers licence.

> Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
> doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best practice
> or even legal in all given circumstances.

Having read the book with great interest, I don't recall much in there which
does not form a damn good basis for safer cycling. However, there may be
points in there which are not strictly legal or best practice in all
circumstances. Care to cite any for debate?

> Case in point - How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
> London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of the
> ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue is a
> cyclists god given right.

A. Too many. Getting in front is quite often a not-so-good idea. Especially
if the vehicles ahead have just spent the last few minutes frustrated trying
to get past you. Its kinda like waving two fingers at them.

> Additionally, you can only legally enter the ASL through the feeder as
> it is illegal to pass the first solid stop line on a red.

Most road users don't know that. Many car drivers ignore the first stop like
anyway.

> There are too many inexperienced or clueless cyclists on the roads,
> and the ASLs just encourage

True :-)

But cycle facilities are there to encourage cycling, not to encourage good
practice and safer cycling :-(

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 18 May 2010, ash > wrote:
> On 18 May, 13:15, David Hansen >
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
> > > wrote this:-
> >
> > >They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> > >risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]
> >
> > Nice try at trolling.
> >
> > The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
> > might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
> > the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
> > circumstances.
>
> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority attitude
> at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on the
> premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
> and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)

Where do you think it has been promoted?
It's certainly not in David's reply or in Cyclecraft.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_5_]]

mileburner wrote:

> Less overtaking is generally better.

Less *necessity* for overtaking is generally better.

You wouldn't walk along a footway studiously staying behind someone making
slow progress on a zimmer frame. So why expect the equivalent further up the
speed scale?

The average cyclist won't even stay behind a fit pedestrian making normal
progress on the footway.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> > risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
> > cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
> > vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
> > to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>
> > A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
> > wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>
> > These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
> > which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
> > there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
> > queue in the firtst place.
>
> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other facilities.
> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>
> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up the
> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that had
> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better to
> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
> lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic to
> pass.
>
> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>
Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> "ash" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
>>> cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
>>> vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
>>> to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>>> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
>>> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>>> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
>>> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
>>> there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
>>> queue in the firtst place.
>> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other facilities.
>> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>>
>> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up the
>> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that had
>> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better to
>> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
>> lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic to
>> pass.
>>
>> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>>
> Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
> for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
> turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
> long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What a lot of sensible posts up to the point where you spoiled it.

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 13:59, ash > wrote:
> On 18 May, 13:15, David Hansen >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
> > > wrote this:-
>
> > >They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> > >risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]
>
> > Nice try at trolling.
>
> > The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
> > might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
> > the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
> > circumstances.
>
> > --
> > * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> > *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> > *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
>
> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority attitude
> at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on the
> premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
> and should therefore be promoted *(which is just nonsense)
>
> Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
> doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best practice
> or even legal in all given circumstances.
> Case in point *- How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
> London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of the
> ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue is a
> cyclists god given right.
> Additionally, you can only legally enter the ASL through the feeder as
> it is illegal to pass the first solid stop line on a red.
> There are too many inexperienced or clueless cyclists on the roads,
> and the ASLs just encourage
>
> As mileburner said, it is safer to hold your ground un the queue until
> you are past the junction if on a cycle.
>
As the law is made mainly for drivers it is not necessarily safe for
cyclists. You seem to think that rigid adherence to the law is the one
and only way and regardless of the circumstances. I've got news for
you. MPs who make the laws don't know everything and especially about
cycling. If they did more of it, instead of driving everywhere, maybe
the laws for cyclists would be a whole lot better.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
The Law is always open to question.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
> for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
> turning right.

Quite right. Motorists paid for them, why shouldn't they ignore them?

>Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
> long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.

Correct place for a cyclists is in the gutter.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 13:59, ash > wrote:
>> On 18 May, 13:15, David Hansen >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
>>> > wrote this:-
>>
>>>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>>>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]
>>
>>> Nice try at trolling.
>>
>>> The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
>>> might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
>>> the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
>>> circumstances.
>>
>>> --
>>> David Hansen, Edinburgh
>>> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP
>>> prevents me
>>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
>>
>> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority
>> attitude at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on
>> the premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be
>> good and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)
>>
>> Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
>> doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best
>> practice or even legal in all given circumstances.
>> Case in point - How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
>> London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of
>> the ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue
>> is a cyclists god given right.
>> Additionally, you can only legally enter the ASL through the feeder
>> as it is illegal to pass the first solid stop line on a red.
>> There are too many inexperienced or clueless cyclists on the roads,
>> and the ASLs just encourage
>>
>> As mileburner said, it is safer to hold your ground un the queue
>> until you are past the junction if on a cycle.
>>
> As the law is made mainly for drivers it is not necessarily safe for
> cyclists. You seem to think that rigid adherence to the law is the one
> and only way and regardless of the circumstances. I've got news for
> you. MPs who make the laws don't know everything and especially about
> cycling. If they did more of it, instead of driving everywhere, maybe
> the laws for cyclists would be a whole lot better.

I do hope that Doug doesn't use ASL boxes on his illegal moped.

[Tony Dragon]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 18 May, 13:59, ash > wrote:
>>> On 18 May, 13:15, David Hansen >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:13:39 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be ash
>>>> > wrote this:-
>>>>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>>>>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. [snip]
>>>> Nice try at trolling.
>>>> The answers to your trolling are contained in Cyclecraft, which you
>>>> might like to refer to. That includes the point that the inside of
>>>> the inside lane is not the best way to approach one in many/most
>>>> circumstances.
>>>> --
>>>> David Hansen, Edinburgh
>>>> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP
>>>> prevents me
>>>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
>>> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority
>>> attitude at any cost or risk is just wrong, and has been promoted on
>>> the premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be
>>> good and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)
>>>
>>> Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
>>> doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best
>>> practice or even legal in all given circumstances.
>>> Case in point - How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
>>> London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of
>>> the ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue
>>> is a cyclists god given right.
>>> Additionally, you can only legally enter the ASL through the feeder
>>> as it is illegal to pass the first solid stop line on a red.
>>> There are too many inexperienced or clueless cyclists on the roads,
>>> and the ASLs just encourage
>>>
>>> As mileburner said, it is safer to hold your ground un the queue
>>> until you are past the junction if on a cycle.
>>>
>> As the law is made mainly for drivers it is not necessarily safe for
>> cyclists. You seem to think that rigid adherence to the law is the one
>> and only way and regardless of the circumstances. I've got news for
>> you. MPs who make the laws don't know everything and especially about
>> cycling. If they did more of it, instead of driving everywhere, maybe
>> the laws for cyclists would be a whole lot better.
>
> I do hope that Doug doesn't illegally use ASL boxes on his illegal moped.
>
>

I hope you don't mind but I have corrected your post.
--
Tony Dragon

[mileburner]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> "ash" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>> > risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
>> > cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
>> > vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
>> > to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>>
>> > A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
>> > wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>>
>> > These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
>> > which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
>> > there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
>> > queue in the firtst place.
>>
>> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other
>> facilities.
>> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>>
>> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up
>> the
>> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that
>> had
>> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better
>> to
>> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
>> lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic
>> to
>> pass.
>>
>> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>>
> Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
> for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
> turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
> long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.

Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic from
overtaking, there will be no problem turning right. Unless it is a dual
carriageway where you may have to move over in stages. But the time to do it
is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to stop and allow a stream
of traffic to pass.

Learn to ride Doug.

[Colin McKenzie]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:59:27 +0100, ash > wrote:
> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority attitude
> at any cost or risk is just wrong,

I see little sign of this attitude. I see a lot of "drivers must always
have priority at any cost or risk", as shown by drivers overtaking
cyclists unsafely or pointlessly (because they can see the next queue just
ahead). And in this case the risk goes to the cyclist while the priority
goes to the driver.

> and has been promoted on the
> premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
> and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)

Sounds logical to me: energy consumption needs to be reduced, cycling is
the most energy-efficient form of transport, let's promote cycling.
Trouble is people don't have a clue how to do it, or a lot more people
would cycle.

> Cyclecraft promotes a given (and assertive) style of cycling. This
> doesn't neccessarily make interpretation of its contents best practice
> or even legal in all given circumstances.

The whole point is that following Cyclecraft is the best thing to do, most
of the time. There can always be exceptional circumstances where doing
something else may happen to work better, even though the odds were
against it.

> Case in point - How many cyclists die each year on junctions in
> London when filtering up the inside of large vehicles ? The use of the
> ASL gives the impression that getting to the front of the queue is a
> cyclists god given right.

And this completely misses the point of ASLs. They are not to encourage
people to filter, but to give a safe and legal place to wait if the
cyclist chooses to filter. Without the ASL you have the choice of crossing
the stop line (illegal) or waiting next to the front motor vehicle
(dangerous). My preference when putting in ASLs is to keep the feeder
lanes short to avoid encouraging cyclists to filter on autopilot.

> As mileburner said, it is safer to hold your ground un the queue until
> you are past the junction if on a cycle.

It is. But it can be a lot slower if the road is congested. And if it is
congested, chances are cyclists will be able to average a higher speed
than drivers, so the front of each queue is the appropriate place to be.
It's easier and a lot safer for cyclists to overtake stationary motor
vehicles than moving ones.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Derek C]

On 18 May, 23:59, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:

>
> --
> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the *
> population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking..
> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.

And read a load of biased tripe, written by cyclists who don't want to
wear helmets. National statistics and properly conducted studies are
rubbished in favour of any poorly conducted studies on tiny samples
that happen to agree with their beliefs.

Derek C

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 19:11, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
> >> "ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
> >> > risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
> >> > cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
> >> > vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
> >> > to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>
> >> > A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
> >> > wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>
> >> > These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
> >> > which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
> >> > there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
> >> > queue in the firtst place.
>
> >> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other
> >> facilities.
> >> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>
> >> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up
> >> the
> >> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that
> >> had
> >> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better
> >> to
> >> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
> >> lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic
> >> to
> >> pass.
>
> >> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>
> > Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
> > for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
> > turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
> > long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.
>
> Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic from
> overtaking, there will be no problem turning right. Unless it is a dual
> carriageway where you may have to move over in stages. But the time to do it
> is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to stop and allow a stream
> of traffic to pass.
>
> Learn to ride Doug.
>
So you advocate riding some distance in the outside lane while slowing
traffic? It takes courage to do that though I agree its the right
thing to do. ASLs are the usual compromise for cyclists, like bike
lanes. With sensible traffic laws, instead of the crap we have,
vulnerable road users would be exempted from blame when they are
struck by a motor vehicle, which would achieve much greater safety and
respect for cyclists and pedestrians, if enforced of course by our car-
centric society.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 19:11, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>>> "ash" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>>>>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they encourage
>>>>> cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a line of
>>>>> vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole procession has
>>>>> to repeat this manouver again on the far side of the junction.
>>>>> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
>>>>> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>>>>> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
>>>>> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic once
>>>>> there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the front of the
>>>>> queue in the firtst place.
>>>> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other
>>>> facilities.
>>>> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists alike.
>>>> Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to cycle up
>>>> the
>>>> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic that
>>>> had
>>>> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is better
>>>> to
>>>> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then stay in
>>>> lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before allowing the traffic
>>>> to
>>>> pass.
>>>> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>>> Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
>>> for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
>>> turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
>>> long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.
>> Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic from
>> overtaking, there will be no problem turning right. Unless it is a dual
>> carriageway where you may have to move over in stages. But the time to do it
>> is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to stop and allow a stream
>> of traffic to pass.
>>
>> Learn to ride Doug.
>>
> So you advocate riding some distance in the outside lane while slowing
> traffic? It takes courage to do that though I agree its the right
> thing to do. ASLs are the usual compromise for cyclists, like bike
> lanes.

Life is full of compromises.

> With sensible traffic laws, instead of the crap we have,
> vulnerable road users would be exempted from blame when they are
> struck by a motor vehicle,

Why should someone be exempted from blame, if they were in any way to blam?

> which would achieve much greater safety and
> respect for cyclists and pedestrians, if enforced of course by our car-
> centric society.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

[mileburner]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic from
>> overtaking, there will be no problem turning right. Unless it is a dual
>> carriageway where you may have to move over in stages. But the time to do
>> it
>> is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to stop and allow a
>> stream
>> of traffic to pass.
>>
>> Learn to ride Doug.
>>
> So you advocate riding some distance in the outside lane while slowing
> traffic?

I advocate proper road positioning. Most drivers realise that if a cyclist
wishes to turn right, they need to cross over to the right side of the road.
If you do it way too early, the traffic may be caused to slow down and the
drivers may get annoyed. If you try to do it to late, the traffic will
ignore you, hose you out, and you will need to cross the road like a
pedestrian. ASLs can help - if you need them. But getting accross early is
better than leaving it too late and then whinging about it.

> It takes courage to do that though

Bull. Al it takes is a willingness to use the roads properly. Not huddled in
the gutter.

I agree its the right
> thing to do.

Then what *is* your problem then?

ASLs are the usual compromise for cyclists, like bike
> lanes. With sensible traffic laws, instead of the crap we have,
> vulnerable road users would be exempted from blame when they are
> struck by a motor vehicle, which would achieve much greater safety and
> respect for cyclists and pedestrians, if enforced of course by our car-
> centric society.

Oh, blah blah blah de blah....

Go get a bike.

Take lessons.

Ride properly.

Avoid busy roads (where possible) as they less enjoyable to use.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:29:19 +0100 someone who may be "mileburner"
> wrote this:-

>I advocate proper road positioning. Most drivers realise that if a cyclist
>wishes to turn right, they need to cross over to the right side of the road.
>If you do it way too early, the traffic may be caused to slow down and the
>drivers may get annoyed.

The other traffic may be caused to slow down. Cyclists and their
vehicles are part of the traffic, just as motorists and their
vehicles are.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 18 May, 12:32, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>> "ash" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> They are an ill thought out idea which substantially increases the
>>>> risk to cyclists when negotiating traffic. Not only do they
>>>> encourage cyclists of all experience to filter up the inside of a
>>>> line of vehicles which has overtaken them, but then the whole
>>>> procession has to repeat this manouver again on the far side of
>>>> the junction.
>>>
>>>> A clear attempt by the shallow thinking yoghurt knitters to right a
>>>> wrong which was never really wrong in the first place.
>>>
>>>> These spaces should only be occupied by or filtered to on a vehicle
>>>> which is capable of staying in front of the rest of the traffic
>>>> once there, or it defeats the whole exercise of getting to the
>>>> front of the queue in the firtst place.
>>>
>>> Same principle applies to just about all cycle lanes and other
>>> facilities.
>>> They encourage dangerous behaviour both by cyclists and motorists
>>> alike. Less overtaking is generally better. Therefore, it is daft to
>>> cycle
>>> up the
>>> inside of traffic, only to be overtaken again by the same traffic
>>> that had
>>> previously overtaken the cyclist. If the queue is very long, it is
>>> better to
>>> overtake on the right and slot in as the traffic pulls away. Then
>>> stay in lane and ensure that the road is wide enough before
>>> allowing the traffic to
>>> pass.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, just stay in lane anyway and don't bother to overtake.
>>>
>> Apart from the fact that many drivers ignore ASLs and stop on them,
>> for which the police turn a blind eye, they do facilitate a cyclist
>> turning right. Otherwise they would have to wait in the gutter for a
>> long stream of traffic, aka 'car convoy' to pass.
>
> Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic
> from overtaking, there will be no problem turning right.

Except that you have no right to block the traffic.

> Unless it is
> a dual carriageway where you may have to move over in stages. But the
> time to do it is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to
> stop and allow a stream of traffic to pass.

Cyclists wishing to turn right should dismount, wait for the tax paying
traffic to clear, wheel their bikes across the carridgeway then resume their
journey.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Nonsense. If you are already *in* the lane and blocking the traffic
>>> from overtaking, there will be no problem turning right. Unless it
>>> is a dual carriageway where you may have to move over in stages.
>>> But the time to do it
>>> is well in advance, you don't wait until you have to stop and allow
>>> a stream
>>> of traffic to pass.
>>>
>>> Learn to ride Doug.
>>>
>> So you advocate riding some distance in the outside lane while
>> slowing traffic?
>
> I advocate proper road positioning. Most drivers realise that if a
> cyclist wishes to turn right, they need to cross over to the right
> side of the road. If you do it way too early, the traffic may be
> caused to slow down and the drivers may get annoyed. If you try to do
> it to late, the traffic will ignore you, hose you out, and you will
> need to cross the road like a pedestrian. ASLs can help - if you need
> them. But getting accross early is better than leaving it too late
> and then whinging about it.

You still don't understand do you? Cyclists wishing to turn right should
dismount & wheel their pushbikes to the appropriate place.

>
>> It takes courage to do that though
>
> Bull. Al it takes is a willingness to use the roads properly. Not
> huddled in the gutter.

Cyclists place is in in the gutter.

> I agree its the right
>> thing to do.
>
> Then what *is* your problem then?
>
> ASLs are the usual compromise for cyclists, like bike
>> lanes.

Compromises paid for by motorists. Not sponging freeloading cyclists.

> With sensible traffic laws, instead of the crap we have,
>> vulnerable road users would be exempted from blame when they are
>> struck by a motor vehicle, which would achieve much greater safety
>> and respect for cyclists and pedestrians, if enforced of course by
>> our car- centric society.

Traffic laws are perfectly sensible and have been deleloped over the years.
That they don't suit your weird mindset is your problem.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:29:19 +0100 someone who may be "mileburner"
> > wrote this:-
>
>> I advocate proper road positioning. Most drivers realise that if a
>> cyclist wishes to turn right, they need to cross over to the right
>> side of the road. If you do it way too early, the traffic may be
>> caused to slow down and the drivers may get annoyed.
>
> The other traffic may be caused to slow down. Cyclists and their
> vehicles are part of the traffic, just as motorists and their
> vehicles are.

Once again you fail to appreciate that motorists pay to use the roads and
cyclists don't. Cyclists should know their place and keep well out of the
way.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:59:27 +0100, ash >
> wrote:
>> I'm sorry David, but the cyclists should always have priority
>> attitude at any cost or risk is just wrong,
>
> I see little sign of this attitude. I see a lot of "drivers must
> always have priority at any cost or risk", as shown by drivers
> overtaking cyclists unsafely or pointlessly (because they can see the
> next queue just ahead). And in this case the risk goes to the cyclist
> while the priority goes to the driver.

You miss the point that freeloading cyclists should give absolute priority
to tax paying motorists.
>
>> and has been promoted on the
>> premise that to cycle is to be green, and to be green is to be good
>> and should therefore be promoted (which is just nonsense)
>
> Sounds logical to me: energy consumption needs to be reduced, cycling
> is the most energy-efficient form of transport, let's promote cycling.
> Trouble is people don't have a clue how to do it, or a lot more people
> would cycle.

Cycling is simply not a viable form of transport in the 21st century.
Nobody apart from a few weirdos who never grew up would ever want to use a
push bike.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:24:43 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

>
> Cycling is simply not a viable form of transport in the 21st century.
> Nobody apart from a few weirdos who never grew up would ever want to use
> a push bike.

Thank you for the compliment. Both of them.

Peter