LCC welcomes casualty fall, but says police must target careless drivers

bikebot wrote:

I'm pretty bored now with statistics for drivers fined for entering ASL boxes. That's an annoyance but it's far from the most serious danger, and for the Police it's a relatively soft target to make up the numbers.

It also reaffirms ASL's 'usefulness' and that they then become the template solution for junction design.

There are a few reasons why the Dutch stopped using them.

zanf wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I'm pretty bored now with statistics for drivers fined for entering ASL boxes. That's an annoyance but it's far from the most serious danger, and for the Police it's a relatively soft target to make up the numbers.

It also reaffirms ASL's 'usefulness' and that they then become the template solution for junction design.

There are a few reasons why the Dutch stopped using them.

ASLs are stupid because 1) you are encouraged into a position directly in front of impatient traffic who are desparate to sprint to the back of the next queue and can't cope with you starting off slowly...

and 2) to get into them you are encouraged to ride up the side of large vehicles where you might get stuffed as the lights change and and they suddenly start indicating AND turning left on top of you without bothering to look...

I've had that last one myself... there seems to be an increasing trend of idiot drivers who don't start indicating until the light goes green... why? deity knows, perhaps they think it means the bulbs last longer? But it's effing infuriating as it directly encourages cyclists to come up their underside thinking it's safe...

zanf wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I'm pretty bored now with statistics for drivers fined for entering ASL boxes. That's an annoyance but it's far from the most serious danger, and for the Police it's a relatively soft target to make up the numbers.

It also reaffirms ASL's 'usefulness' and that they then become the template solution for junction design.

There are a few reasons why the Dutch stopped using them.

The coverage of the Elephant & Castle incidents, has reinforced for me how much planners had positioned cycling infrastructure to "calm traffic". Stuff that, I'm not some two wheeled speed hump.

I do think ASL boxes are frequently misused by cyclists who always race to the front, for exactly the same reason that I think drivers who overtake me just before a red light are daft. When the lights change, the car in front won't slow me down, and staying in lane where you know everyone around you has seen you is often the safest option.

bikebot wrote:

I do think ASL boxes are frequently misused by cyclists who always race to the front, for exactly the same reason that I think drivers who overtake me just before a red light are daft.

On that basis you may as well say "don't filter".

As for 'misuse' - there is an entry lane for cyclists (there has to be a break in the first line of the ASL box), which is there to allow cyclists to legally enter the box AFTER any other traffic has stopped (hopefully at the first stop line).

JonD wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I do think ASL boxes are frequently misused by cyclists who always race to the front, for exactly the same reason that I think drivers who overtake me just before a red light are daft.

On that basis you may as well say "don't filter".

As for 'misuse' - there is an entry lane for cyclists (there has to be a break in the first line of the ASL box), which is there to allow cyclists to legally enter the box AFTER any other traffic has stopped (hopefully at the first stop line).

Oh, I'm not anti-ASL. I use them plenty.

I just think there are also a lot of cyclists who make the mistake of ALWAYS filtering to the front, when often the safest thing to do is to stay in a strong position in the lane you are in.

So it's not "don't filter" or "do filter". It's read the road, and make a decision based on the junction, the type of vehicles you'll be filtering past, and the timing of the lights.

I think the legal position of those stupid filter lanes is going to be changed, which at most junctions actually requires bicycles to enter on the left side of traffic.

bikebot wrote:

JonD wrote:

bikebot wrote:

I do think ASL boxes are frequently misused by cyclists who always race to the front, for exactly the same reason that I think drivers who overtake me just before a red light are daft.

On that basis you may as well say "don't filter".

As for 'misuse' - there is an entry lane for cyclists (there has to be a break in the first line of the ASL box), which is there to allow cyclists to legally enter the box AFTER any other traffic has stopped (hopefully at the first stop line).

Oh, I'm not anti-ASL. I use them plenty.

I just think there are also a lot of cyclists who make the mistake of ALWAYS filtering to the front, when often the safest thing to do is to stay in a strong position in the lane you are in.

So it's not "don't filter" or "do filter". It's read the road, and make a decision based on the junction, the type of vehicles you'll be filtering past, and the timing of the lights.

I think the legal position of those stupid filter lanes is going to be changed, which at most junctions actually requires bicycles to enter on the left side of traffic.

I absolutely agree. To some extent I think ASLs don't really help. They are based on the philosophy that cyclists should not be "in the lane" and shouldn't overtake on the outside. If I am overtaking or filtering to the front of a stationary or slow moving line I do it on the outside, never on the inside. And I join the lane a few cars back if I can. definitely where I can be seen right in front of a bonnet.

I can understand that more novice cyclists might not feel comfortable doing that but then again why send novice cyclists up the more dangerous route.

MercuryOne wrote:

He looked like every third moron you meet; 5'6" Phil Mitchell lookalike in a battered silver Astra.

Bah... could be anyone then!