London cyclist says he thought he would die as he was dragged underneath petrol tanker

andyp wrote:

Legal or not, surely this only happens if you're not reading the road and/or are very impatient?

Maybe, maybe not but the fact remains that the lorry is there, it's a couple of thousand times heavier than you are therefore arguing with it is probably a bad idea. You may be 100% right, it may be your right of way but being dead is not a great standpoint to argue your point of view...

Equally, I could turn your words around - surely a cyclist only goes up the inside of a lorry if they're not reading the road and/or are very impatient?

JohnS wrote:

The truck was in an ASL, however it got there - in a place set aside for cyclists.

So the driver should have expected cyclists to be on his nearside, where the cycle marking sent them, and perhaps it might have been an idea for him to check properly - by moving across the cab and looking out of the nearside window - before setting off from this illegal position?

The court has completely ignored the illegal driving - as usual.

Or the cyclist completely ignored the warning on the back of the lorry saying "don't go up my inside" and the flashing indicator saying "I am about to turn left". It's not a clear cut case at all and I think, while such stories on this website highlight the very real dangers that cyclists face daily on the roads, there is a distinct lack of will amongst cyclists to accept that they could in any way be at fault.

If you're driving across an ASL and get stuck there by other traffic and you're subsequently trapped there by the lights changing to red, that is LEGAL. No offence has been committed. The ONLY offence is driving into the ASL while the lights are at red and to prosecute successfully on that one the officer needs to actually see you drive into it.

You could argue that, even checking mirrors, the driver might reasonably assume that no cyclist would be daft enough to go up the inside of a left turning lorry...

Part of this is playing Devil's Advocate by the way, just highlighting that it's just not worth taking the risk. I'm not saying that all drivers are blameless (cos in the vast majority of cases, they are SOLELY to blame for vehicle/cycle collisions), I just think some perspective needs to be taken.

georgee wrote:

A few more people like James Moore would do us well, he's now a fantastic poster boy for what happens if you cycle like a tit and a reminder that Darwinism usually has higher consequences.

I think that's harsh given the important point that ASLs and feeder lanes legitimise (at least on the face of it) precisely the sort of action that Mr Moore took. If doing what he did is "cycling like a tit" then it's doing so with the endorsement of the Highway Code.

Dyed-in-the-wool cyclists recognise that riding up the inside of an HGV at the lights is madness. But less experienced road users won't; they'll see the cycle lane and the ASL and exercise their right to be there on the mistaken assumption that since that particular piece of road architecture had been designed, standardised and legislated, at least someone along the way must have said "yup, that's safe" on the basis of some form of logic and evidence rather than on the basis of being a total moron.

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's all very well saying that it's better to wait behind the traffic queue, but those tailbacks can be very long indeed and I don't think it's practical to expect everyone to do so.... I often hop the kerb to get to the front of the queue, which some people may have negative views of but if there are few pedestrians and a wide kerb I don't see the harm in doing so.

The problem with this approach is that it gets interpreted as the following: 'I obey the rules when they are convenient, but when they aren't I stick to my own code'. I'm sure you don't ride on the pavement when it would cause a problem, but there's still a public perception issue. It's the same with running red lights when there are no cars around - it's not the safety that is the issue, it's the perception of the general public that cyclists make up their own rules, and therefore don't deserve to be protected by the rules that everyone else is bound by.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Personally I think ASLs should also be open to use by motorcyclists, who like cyclists are vulnerable road users and share quite a few of the same risks. If this was the case, I think it'd help enforce their proper use and reduce the incidence of them being crossed by cars and buses and so on, with overall benefits to cyclists in terms of safety.

Got to say, I get quite irritated by motorcyclists blocking entry to the ASL or clogging it up meaning I can't get in, but if it was designed for use by both it probably would be much safer overall. Motorbikes generally accelerate quicker than any other traffic, so it's daft to have them sat behind the cyclists and then flying past when the lights go green. If they could design the ASLs so that they can be better shared (bigger ASLs and wider access) then they would make a lot more sense.

step-hent wrote:

Motorbikes generally accelerate quicker than any other traffic, so it's daft to have them sat behind the cyclists and then flying past when the lights go green.

But where you say "motorbikes" it would be equally valid to say "motorised vehicles", whereby the statement becomes an outright indictment of ASLs. This is just one part of the reason why they are dangerous: every time the lights go red, they reshuffle the traffic so that the slowest and most vulnerable vehicles are right at the front, in the path of the fastest and least vulnerable.

Cyclists get tempted in by the feeder lane, which they think is great because it's a little bit of tarmac all to themselves when in fact it's just ghettoisation to get them out of everyone else's way, and encouraged to pass traffic in a way which would clearly be total insanity were it not for the legitimsation given by the green paint; and then they get dumped in front of tons of metal and hundreds of horsepower operated by people, who may have had a bad day at work or may be plain stupid or may simply be growing more and more annoyed by the fact that instead of having to pass these cyclists just once they're now having to pass them in between every single set of lights. (Ah, but they don't have to, you say; they could just cruise behind until the next set of lights - true, but if you're using the ASLs to get in front of them at every set of lights... pot, kettle...)

Bez wrote:

step-hent wrote:

Motorbikes generally accelerate quicker than any other traffic, so it's daft to have them sat behind the cyclists and then flying past when the lights go green.

But where you say "motorbikes" it would be equally valid to say "motorised vehicles", whereby the statement becomes an outright indictment of ASLs. This is just one part of the reason why they are dangerous: every time the lights go red, they reshuffle the traffic so that the slowest and most vulnerable vehicles are right at the front, in the path of the fastest and least vulnerable.

Actually, no - I (and most cyclists around me) generally accelerate away from the lights quicker than cars or larger vehicles. I reach my cruising speed quicker than they reach my cruising speed - it's just that they then carry on accelerating to a higher crusing speed than I do. By the time they catch me and the other cyclists, we've spread out a bit and there's room to pass.

Motorbikes, on the other hand, get away quicker than I can hope to, so they are right behind me and ready to overtake before the singling out process has happened. So, to me, it seems to make more sense to put the motorbikes in front of the cyclists - i'd rather have them away ahead of me, and with clear space opening up in front of me, than have them amassing behind me.

The thing with ASLs is that they make cyclists visible and give them a chance to get space to pull away from the lights without being hassled by surrounding cars. From that point of view, they work. I'm not saying they are without issues, but there are good reasons for them - it's just that they could be helped with a little development and also some more education about when not to use them.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Personally I think ASLs should also be open to use by motorcyclists, who like cyclists are vulnerable road users and share quite a few of the same risks. If this was the case, I think it'd help enforce their proper use and reduce the incidence of them being crossed by cars and buses and so on, with overall benefits to cyclists in terms of safety.

Totally disagree. The reason ASLs are good is that they should be a safe place for cyclists to wait at lights where they are visible, hence you find me in the middle of the lane in an ASL. The danger to motorcyclists comes from people turning into them from sideroads rather than being pushed off the road at lights or elsewhere so they don't need the protection of an ASL.

The reason I have a love-hate relationship with ASLs (as a cyclist) is, as others have said, getting to them is a risky endeavour. The problem is that when you approach a red light you don't always know whether you have time to get to the ASL before the lights change. If you can ASLs are lovely. If you can't then they are dangerous if you continue to try to get there rather than trying to merge into the traffic.

It seems to me that road designers often put a straight on lane (the ASL approach cycle lane) to the left of a left turn lane. This is going to lead to conflicts. Putting it to the right doesn't help either, as you then end up with a cyclist stranded to the right of accelerating cars when the lights change (I've been there and not enjoyed it). I can't see an easy solution, ASLs are useful but require care by both motorists & cyclists.

0liver wrote:

The problem is that when you approach a red light you don't always know whether you have time to get to the ASL before the lights change. If you can ASLs are lovely. If you can't then they are dangerous if you continue to try to get there rather than trying to merge into the traffic.

QFT. Absolutely spot on. With the additional point that trying to merge into the traffic at that point is difficult and dangerous: it's either stationary with insufficient space between vehicles, or it's rapidly changing (everyone's moving off) and therefore extremely dangerous to merge with.

This is the worst and most dangerous aspect of the ASL. Get to the ASL itself and the problems are reduced to the fact that you're just getting passed by people who are irritated at having to repeatedly pass you. Not a massive deal in the grand scheme of things.

But get caught out on the way and you're in trouble - you're bimbling along the side in your special needs green stripe and the flow around you is changing rapidly and dramatically (ie from stationary or slower than you, to faster than you), and that change causes significant problems.

Whereas if you stay as part of the flow, assert your place in that flow, and accept that sometimes that flow stops, you don't get that sharp rise in risk - you're part of the same flow as everyone else and you all move off together with no surprises.

warton wrote:

Tragic story, and the driver of the HGV obviously shouldn't have been in the ASL, but to undertake an HGV indicating left is madness...

and if it's NOT indicating.

Bez wrote:

Cyclists get tempted in by the feeder lane, which they think is great because it's a little bit of tarmac all to themselves when in fact it's just ghettoisation to get them out of everyone else's way, and encouraged to pass traffic in a way which would clearly be total insanity were it not for the legitimsation given by the green paint;

So true (and the rest of your post, Bez).

I ignore feeder lanes, they are death traps. For "legitimisation" read "token gesture", and a waste of paint. Cycling infrastructure as dangerous and misleading as this is worse than none at all.

http://www.londonskaters.com/cycling/safety-heavy-goods-vehicles.htm

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14799.aspx

http://www.lfgss.com/thread46710-4.html

A snippet from the RoSPA fact sheet 'Cyclists and Lorries' [PDF]

"When turning left, a lorry will often pull out to the right first. This creates a wide gap on the left side between the vehicle and the kerb, which many cyclists think is safe to ride into. But in fact this is a very dangerous place to be.

As the lorry begins to turn, it will swing back to the left very close to the kerb. The gap between the kerb and the lorry will disappear in an instant.

If a lorry in front of you is waiting in a queue of stationary traffic (particularly at the approach to any junction), do not undertake it. Hang back behind the vehicle and let it move off first."