Safe Speed Forums

Oh no, another one

You tell me.


Again!

Your "goodbyes" aren't very bye-ish, are they!
Now that the question that preceded your last "goodbye" has been raised again, will you again evade it with another "goodbye"?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So, in your stacks of links I'm still not seeing anything advising cyclist to ride in primary position all the time....

But that refers to the use of PP not to crossing red lights. Not so much moving the goalposts as playing a different ball game.

I agree that advanced stop lines would be a very good solution but their effectiveness is very much reduced by thelarge minority of motorists who disregard them http://www.westminstercyclists.org.uk/index.htm?asl.htm


You would druther a cyclist die than break the law by crossing a stop line: but you object to motorists being fined for a minor infringement of the speed limit. I rest my case that these forums are institutionally anti-cyclist.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Nor am I. No authority advises that you ride in the centre of the lane all the time. This not so much a strawman as a wicker man, in which Steve's arguments will soon be consumed. Unless he can give a direct link to an authority or participant who does advise it.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I would say that is deserving of a separate thread because, although not quite the same, I touched on this some time ago when I mentioned going over a red light to allow an ambulance to filter through. This is a fairly regular occurance from my window at work.

The upshot, as I recall, was you would still be done for the offence if caught by a jobsworth and I think the general consensus here was that most of us would jump the light. In such an event where we are held to account for it later we would hope good common sense would prevail, although somehow I doubt it in this country where the law is the law.

Generally, I would say if it is the safe thing to do, or to not do something which is illegal would put my or other peoples lives at risk, I would break the law but it’s a dichotomy I still haven’t come to terms with TBH.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I recommend SpecSavers!

It begins by quoting:

That's indeed exactly what the animation shows: regardless of hazards or traffic.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It’s the use of PP when approaching red lights, which is what we are talking about, right?


And now you are clearly trolling, or you are being phenomenally obtuse. I think it clear my argument has been won.

I will spell it out for you as you don't (want to?) understand the necessary detail:

- What is the compliance rate of ASL when a cyclist is already on the ASL? You might want to think about that!

- If an approaching cyclist is not on the ASL and a vehicle already is waiting there, this means the cyclist would have to filter up into driver's blind spots in order to get to the front of the queue. In that case, the cyclist can do as I twice stated: filter on the right or don’t filter through the front of the queue.

Now I could so easily argue that any rebuttal of that means that one would rather a cyclist die than having them wait a few seconds.
We’re done!

Beauty, and lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Now, "PP" seems to be used as a euphamisim to describe the act of cycling in a manner as to block (or at least make difficult) overtakes that the cyclist might cconsider to be potentially unwise. In much the same vein those lolly-pop on a stick things have also been mentioned to discourage drivers from getting too close (I dont mind these except when cyclists get too close in stationary traffic and scrape the damned things along the side of the car trying to get past. And no. the are NOT harmless...)

At this point I am making no general critisisim..

However, How does the "cycling comunity" feel about drivers adopting a similar "PP" close to the kerb to discourage potentially unwise "Undertakes" at junctions and in slow moving traffic?

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Personally would consider that to be perfectly justifiable. So much so that I have been known to do it myself when driving. But then I never filter through on the nearside when cycling. It is much too dangerous.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Wrong. I highlighting discussing the situation where a cyclist is already at the red light, waiting to go straight on, and a HGV pulls up along side signalling left.


If you believe that, Sir, you will believe anything. Please give a straight answer to my question: in the circumstance which I describe is the cyclist justified in crossing the stop line sufficiently to bring him into the direct vision of the driver?



Since ASLs are always associated with a cycle lane (Under UK law the cycle lane is required to enable cyclists to legally bypass the first stop line) you are now advocating that cyclist's do not use the cycle lane. In fact you are suggesting that a cyclist in the cycle lane, approaching an ASL with a vehicle already there, should leave the cycle lane, weave through the traffic to the right then , after the junction cross the traffic back to the cycle lane.


Indeed you could. Or you could argue that he Moon is made of green cheese. Not having been there I could only use an argument from authority - which you regard as a fallacy - to refute you.


There is a certain grim beauty in watching you wriggle

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

In theory, maybe, but in practice there are plenty of ASLs where there isn't a cycle lane. I'll dig out some StreetView links tonight if you don't believe me.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Steve, give it up. The Orlando animation illustrates the various reasons why you might wish to consider riding in primary position. It says nothing about how you decide when to us that advice. My reference to it was also for that purpose, to respond to Big Tone's request for more information on primary position and why you might want to use it. Anyone who takes that as a call ALWAYS to ride in primary position would be an idiot.


<Steve mode>The word is "euphemism"</Steve mode>

Actually, that is one of many reasons why you might want to use primary position; not a euphemism at all. The references that have been provided already give you other reasons.


I see this a lot on my commute, including driving in a cycle lane (a mandatory cycle lane even). If I can't see a reason for it, I might think they are a pillock, but I recognise that they have every right to drive in that road position, and also that they might be aware of something that I am not aware of. In that circumstance, they have often left enough space to overtake them on the right, so I may just do that (after checking behind and signalling clearly of course.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

PP Dave, PP!
ASLs are designed to encourage exactly this: to give the waiting cyclist in that scenario PP. Do you get it now?


Nope! See my point above.


No I didn't. You are twisting context. I advocate that cyclists need not remain in the cycle lane in certain circumstances.

As for ASLs:
There is no need to leave the cycle lane to remain safe - just don't filter forwards into blind spots!
Or if the cyclist is the first there, then there is no need to leave the lane, and that one can take up PP anyway.


If safe to do so (if they really want to jump the queue), otherwise don't filter forwards (why did you ignore this latter option?)
I have never said or implied that use of cycle lanes are compulsory, especially throughout all their length.


And you seem to be doing exactly that.

Given the allowance of PP at junctions (ASL or otherwise), or not filtering forward where vehicles are already waiting ahead, do you accept that cyclists need not break the law (over-run the stop line) in order to keep out of HGV drivers blind spots: Yes or No?
If not then why not?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Hmm, I'm not quite sure where the thread turned to always riding in the pp; it would seem to me that if there are no other road users being put out then a cyclist can ride anywhere in the lane they ruddy well please. No, the issue to which no satisfactory response has yet been made is that of cyclists adopting the pp with the intention of making it harder and therefore more dangerous for other road users to pass them. What is it exactly that qualifies cyclists to make judgements of safety and acceptability for other road users?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

That's right - it doesn't, which is exactly my point!
Folks are drawing conclusions from that advice, from infomation that isn't given within it.
When does it say to pull back to the side?

The animation clearly shows full-time riding in the middle of the lane, regardless of hazards or traffic. No caveats are given.

My bold.
Everything in life is 'potentially' (especially following vehicles wishing to pass), and your source's solution to everything is.......


Like Magnatom evidently does?


viewtopic.php?p=235403#p235403

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This is a direct question to MGC and no-one else:

Since when do I highlight spellos? Please show me the threads you have reviewed where I do this.

(Don't do a weepej by looking in threads that existed for years before you joined!)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The location is here http://bit.ly/gjDgxL
I was coming from the north (where the white car is just entering the roundabout).



Yes. As I mentioned earlier it looked like he was slowing down on approach to the roundabout, which is why I proceeded.



No. As said above, it appeared to be slowing on approach. By the time I was on the roundabout I assume he changed his mind and either came off the brakes, or accelerated. Interestingly when talking to the police about this, he first mentioned that he did not see me, and then pointed out that he proffers to keep his momentum going due to the amount of gears he needs to cycle through when slowing. Hmmmm.....



In hindsight, that wonderful thing that I didn't have at the time, he may not have seen me. He certainly appeared to at the time, which was backed up by the fact that he was slowing. Where he looked after looking towards me, I have no idea. Towards the road I guess, but it is just a guess. Remember this happened in March 2009!




Of course I was shocked. I thought we had made eye contact, I thought he was slowing, I was very, VERY visible (it was daylight, sun was behind him, I had my two front light on, both 200 lumen, and I was wearing a bright yellow jacket). So I had every reason to expect that this would be one of my many, many normal roundabout experiences. Remember I was actually traveling around this roundabout slower than normal. I'd normally take this at 18-20mph, today it was about 15mph, due to the conditions. In hindsight, yes, I could have proceeded slower. In hindsight, maybe I should have stayed in bed, but I didn't. I made reasonable assumptions based on the facts as I perceived at the time.

Now the question is, would I take this roundabout differently in the future. probably not. In fact I don't. The circumstances that led to this incident are incredibly rare. Yet, despite this nasty set of circumstances I managed to avoid the accident. So I must have done something right.
[/quote]


When? That is important. Earlier on when I was watching the tanker, yes I always consider that they might not stop, and probably did then. That is exactly why you look at the traffic. Assessing intentions. As I enter the roundabout, having assessed everything available to me a the time, I was sure he was in the process of stopping. So no (ish). There comes a point in any road interaction where you have to decide to proceed. When I decided to proceed in my mind I was sure he was stopping. Of course you are never 100%, and that is why you keep on looking, as I did. Had I been 100% then why bother keeping an eye on him? In 10,000 interactions like that he would have stopped. This was the very rare instance he didn't. I was wrong, but due to always keeping a little bit of guard up, I spotted it in time and stopped. Job done.




I didn't proceed at higher speed as I have discussed above.

I only noticed the tanker speeding up once I was on the roundabout. It is pretty obvious when this happens as you can hear my reaction.




My judgement of distance is nothing to do with the footage. I was my observation of being there. I should point out that 20cm is not how close I stopped to the tanker, but how close it got as it continued around. To see the wheels of the tanker I had to look down the way. In fact the thing I remember the most (not appreciable on the video) was how close the side grating on the tanker got to my front wheel. Not nice.



No. As I mentioned above I moved from prepared to stop, TO ready to go. A natural progression I think, based on my perception at the time. The effect hindsight has on the threshold for the move from one to the other is significant.



I disagree, it is not law or guidance....it is exactly 'advice' and good advice in my and many other cyclists opinion. However, the cycle lane issue has no real relevance to this particular incident anyway, except that being in a cycle lane is more likely to take you out of the line of sight at a roundabout, and might contribute to more incidents like this.




I am not a fan of cycle lanes, in that in general they are very badly designed. In fact this particular lane has a number of issues. Check out my video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPDA5xM88-Q) critiquing this lane (other direction). They reduce road users willingness to enter negotiation of safe road positions. I have written about this elsewhere. However, saying that, I can understand why some in-experienced cyclists like them, and I'm sure it does help encourage new cyclists. They just need to be properly designed.



And that is why it is important to know what is going on around you, front, left, right and rear. Normally on a roundabout (when there isn't a dirty great tanker in front of me!) I will make observations to my right and left.



You have to do all you can to keep yourself safe. However, by design our roads depend on some faith on other for your safety. At a roundabout there comes a point where you have to trust that others will 'follow the rules'. Of course it doesn't need to be like this and there are some experiments going on looking at removing restrictions road markings etc. This places responsibility back to the individual and away from the rules. Is this a better system? Probably not everywhere, but there is probably a place for it.




I think I did react fast. Thank goodness. I had replaced my brake pads the day before. That probably made a difference! As for riding to ensure that it doesn't happen again......I honestly don't think you can, apart from maybe not getting out of bed. It certainly reminded me to observe, observe, observe, and that is certainly what I try to do!

Phew!

Magnatom does not!

Read my FAQ as it tackles this very issue. (http://magnatom.blogspot.com/2009/01/magnatom-faq.html)

Not "folks", Steve; only you.


It doesn't, nor does it need to because it doesn't claim to address that issue. However, the fact that it doesn't say when to pull into the side is no justification for your claim that it says ALWAYS to adopt primary position.
I saw some ducks the other day that were swimming on a pond and they didn't fly once, but I do not conclude that ducks don't ever fly, nor even that those particular ducks don't ever fly!


When did he say that? (Clue: he didn't.)

And your point is? (You do seem often to make random links to totally irrelevant previous posts. You also tend to cut too much context out of your quotations of people's comments and then use that absence of context to twist the argument to some completely different purpose. I have put the context back in on this occasion.)

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

OK, perhaps you don't correct spellings. Sorry.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange