Graculus wrote:
Boris's latest mad-cap idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources.

So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and
thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is
cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how
many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial
"green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's
approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle
crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way,
blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality?

Quite barmy!


Yesterday I approached, on my bike, a junction that had both an approach
lane and an Advanced Stop Box. The lights were RED. There was a cyclist
in the box, but the first vehicle was a van indicating left. Both myself
and another cyclists waited to the rear of the first vehicle. (We we
aware that the first vehicle in a Q at lights normally just looks at the
light and moves off when they change without looking around). Another
van was pulled up along side us. When the lights changed we all moved
off. As we reached the junction the van that had been alongside STARTED
to indicate left and pulled across our paths.
It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to
indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are
doing the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble}

What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used in
other Northern European Countries. Then cyclists could approach lights
in the provided cycle lanes in the sure knowledge that they wouldn't be
trapped by a left turning vehicle as the vehicle lights turned green for
motor vehicles.
Of course they would still be the odd idiot who would cycle up the
inside of a vehicle indicating left AFTER the advance cycle lights have
turned green, but in the vast majority of case cyclists would be safer,
and it would even be possible for alert cyclists to use an approach lane
on the left to correctly position themselves for a right turn at most
junctions.

Jim Chisholm

In article , (J.
Chisholm) wrote:

What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used
in other Northern European Countries. Then cyclists could approach
lights in the provided cycle lanes in the sure knowledge that they
wouldn't be trapped by a left turning vehicle as the vehicle lights
turned green for motor vehicles.
Of course they would still be the odd idiot who would cycle up the
inside of a vehicle indicating left AFTER the advance cycle lights
have turned green, but in the vast majority of case cyclists would
be safer, and it would even be possible for alert cyclists to use
an approach lane on the left to correctly position themselves for a
right turn at most junctions.

This was part of the trial advanced cycle stop box in Devonshire Road,
Cambridge (a site you are no doubt as familiar with as I), surely? The
second set of signal heads were not implemented in later cycle advanced
stop box schemes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...

It seems increasingly common for vehicles to use 'indicators' NOT to
indicate what they will be doing, but only to indicate WHEN they are doing
the manouvre, as if it isn't bloody obvious. {end of preamble}

That is because many drivers will combine the act of turning the wheel, with
the act of flicking the indicator stem :-(

"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Yesterday I approached, on my bike, a junction that had both an approach
lane and an Advanced Stop Box. The lights were RED. There was a cyclist
in the box, but the first vehicle was a van indicating left. Both myself
and another cyclists waited to the rear of the first vehicle. (We we
aware that the first vehicle in a Q at lights normally just looks at the
light and moves off when they change without looking around). Another
van was pulled up along side us. When the lights changed we all moved
off. As we reached the junction the van that had been alongside STARTED
to indicate left and pulled across our paths.

I don't think anybody's ever claimed that there aren't a substantial
number of ****wits driving on the roads of this country.

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he
could pull up alongside?

Adrian wrote:

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he
could pull up alongside?

Because had I stopped outside the cycle lane I would have risked being
hit or abused by one of those many drivers who believe if there is a
cycle lane I should be in it!

Jim

In ,
Adrian tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he
could pull up alongside?

Because preventing a vehicle from overtaking is something one should never
ever do ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.

"Dave Larrington" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he
could pull up alongside?

Because preventing a vehicle from overtaking is something one should
never ever do ;-)

cough And where would he have been overtaking too...?

In ,
Adrian tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
"Dave Larrington" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where
he could pull up alongside?

Because preventing a vehicle from overtaking is something one should
never ever do ;-)

cough And where would he have been overtaking too...?

cough Doesn't matter. Even if he's about to crash headlong into another
vehicle, you must *never* obstruct him.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something
that folds, buy a deckchair.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...

If it's not a silly question, why did you stop in a position where he
could pull up alongside?

You can't actually prevent it.

I have been in the situation where I have stopped for a children's crossing
patrol and because I turn right immediately after the crossing, I am toward
the right side of the lane. A car pulls up alongside me on the right and
stops, straddling the centre line. I could only guess that she was using the
cyclist as a kerb marker :-(

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:57:43 +0100, "J. Chisholm"
wrote:

snip


What we really really need are 'advance' cycle lights such as used in
other Northern European Countries.

No chance - insufficient numbers of cyclists to make the cost even a
serious consideration.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.