# slight problem with ASLs



## Racing roadkill (2 Dec 2015)

The majority of the time, ASLs do their job. They give you a bit of time to get away, when the lights change, and allow you to take a safe position. That is of course, unless the vehicle behind you, is a truck. I had a little poke around in a concrete delivery type truck, and a tipper truck a while back. What astonished me was that if you position your bike in the ASL, and the thing behind you is a truck, if they haven't got the downward facing mirror fitted to the cab, they cannot see you on a bike. The ASL is in the worst place that it can be. The presence of the ASL could actually fool the unwary cyclist into actually putting themselves at increased risk, where as if there was no ASL, then most cyclists would not deliberately go in front of the truck..


----------



## Sbudge (2 Dec 2015)

I suspect you're right but you've also put your finger on a bigger problem. Most of the main road user communities just don't have enough insight into what it's like being one of the others but they often *think* they do or assume it's just someone else's problem. I drive a car regularly and commute by bike every day but I've really no idea what anything bigger than a transit van can see behind them etc.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

I've mentioned this before. Look at the graphics of a truck's blindspot and it's almost exactly the same size and shape as an ASL.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2015)

Thread is mistitled. I suggest it should be "Serious problem with trucks". The truck could roll up behind a cyclist in a non-ASL queue, forget they're there and then run them over when the lights change (didn't that happen in east London?), or a pedestrian could have crossed unawares or anything. Please support the campaign to End Lorry Danger when you get chance (with your local campaign group if not London).


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

I don't think it is mistitled. ASLs present themselves as being a safe haven for cyclists at the front of the traffic queue when they are anything but.

One could argue that the campaign page is mistitled, trucks don't kill anyone it's the people in and around them that make them unsafe.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Dec 2015)




----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

That's the one. The bottom one demonstrates exactly what I mean


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> That's the one. The bottom one demonstrates exactly what I mean


Although in these cases the HGV have the appropriate mirrors so that he blind spot does not exist. If only they were used.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (2 Dec 2015)

It's not a problem with trucks, it's not a problem with ASLs. It is again, a problem with drivers.

You should be stopping the vehicle where you can see the line. If you can see the line, you can see everything inside that box also.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> The truck could roll up behind a cyclist in a non-ASL queue, forget they're there and then run them over when the lights change (didn't that happen in east London?)



It happens frequently, that's how Sebastien Lukowmski and Mary Bowers both had their lives ended. Both waiting at lights, hgv driver comes up behind and is either playing with a phone or didn't notice the cyclist, sets off and crushes them.


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> The majority of the time, ASLs do their job. They give you a bit of time to get away, when the lights change, and allow you to take a safe position. That is of course, unless the vehicle behind you, is a truck. I had a little poke around in a concrete delivery type truck, and a tipper truck a while back. What astonished me was that if you position your bike in the ASL, and the thing behind you is a truck, if they haven't got the downward facing mirror fitted to the cab, they cannot see you on a bike. The ASL is in the worst place that it can be. The presence of the ASL could actually fool the unwary cyclist into actually putting themselves at increased risk, where as if there was no ASL, then most cyclists would not deliberately go in front of the truck..



This is why we teach to stop behind the first vehicle in the queue. It also lets them have the hassle of getting the queue moving, any late RLJ'ers cutting across them etc.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It happens frequently, that's how Sebastien Lukowmski and Mary Bowers both had their lives ended. Both waiting at lights, hgv driver comes up behind and is either playing with a phone or didn't notice the cyclist, sets off and crushes them.


Erm it may come as a bit of a shock to Mary to find out she's dead.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2015)

Her life has been ended. I chose my words carefully.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Her life has been ended. I chose my words carefully.


Her life has been massively changed. "Ended" would mean that rehab is a pointless exercise


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2015)

What rehab?


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

In 2013 it was reported she'd been moved to a rehab facility in Essex


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2015)

I know. I asked you what you were calling pointless. Mary hasn't communicated since the hgv driver playing with a phone failed to notice her and crushed her. Her life ended that day.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I know. I asked you what you were calling pointless. Mary hasn't communicated since the hgv driver playing with a phone failed to notice her and crushed her. Her life ended that day.


So you believe there is no hope for her and there is no reason to keep her in a rehabilitation facility?


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2015)

Nope, I said her life ended that day. Argue the toss if you like, I'm done.


----------



## martint235 (2 Dec 2015)

Yup. Ditto


----------



## Pete Owens (10 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


>


This phots show why ASLs are such a good idea - AND also why the safety benefit is principally where there is an HGV behind. Yes - there is a blind spot immediately in front of the cab - The ASL allows you to position yourself in front of that thus in the driver's direct field of view. The dangerous place to be is the blind spot beside the truck.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (10 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Yup. Ditto



I don't even like the guy, but @glenn forger has a point. You don't need to to die for your life to end. Even with a lot of rehab. Your life, as you knew it has gone. Your whole new life is trying to recover something of the old. Because a HGV driver didn't stop where he could see the ASL. If I was crushed by a HGV, and survived, I'd still consider my life to be over.


----------



## summerdays (11 Dec 2015)

If something comes up behind me at the lights such as a lorry, or even a car that comes too close I'm happy to move forward over the line as long as I can see the lights.

I also watch for the lights changing and don't hang around when they do change, over that short distance I could easily beat a lorry from stationary. I'm more worried by them coming up beside me so I'm never waiting near the kerb as a I see a lot waiting.


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> This phots show why ASLs are such a good idea - AND also why the safety benefit is principally where there is an HGV behind. Yes - there is a blind spot immediately in front of the cab - The ASL allows you to position yourself in front of that thus in the driver's direct field of view. The dangerous place to be is the blind spot beside the truck.


Utter b****cks. The photo shows that almost all of the ASL is in the blindspot. The only safe place in the photo is behind the truck off to the left (so you have an escape route if he starts to reverse)


----------



## mickle (11 Dec 2015)

Nowt wrong with ASLs. They are part of our built environment. If certain motor vehicles are incompatible, then they shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> Nowt wrong with ASLs. They are part of our built environment. If certain motor vehicles are incompatible, then they shouldn't be on the road.


There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL. 

Do away with them, make cyclists respected members of the standard traffic flow. Simples


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.


Except it's not usually dodgy if they're to spec (and the left entry lane isn't too narrow, as it often is). Only if there's a defective lorry behind, or you Must Get In Front if the lights change as you approach.



> Do away with them, make cyclists respected members of the standard traffic flow. Simples


How would making cyclists wait in line between wide motor vehicles and breathe in their exhaust be respecting them? Surely rolling out the red carpet and letting them go first with a pre green is more respect!


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Except it's not usually dodgy if they're to spec (and the left entry lane isn't too narrow, as it often is). Only if there's a defective lorry behind, or you Must Get In Front if the lights change as you approach.
> 
> 
> How would making cyclists wait in line between wide motor vehicles and breathe in their exhaust be respecting them? Surely rolling out the red carpet and letting them go first with a pre green is more respect!


The left hand lane is what, 5 metres. I've seen people squeezing down the line from 20 metres away. 

As for breathing fumes, stop being a nob. You're breathing fumes all the time you're out in traffic. It's unfortunate but it's fact. Even so being part of the traffic doesn't stop you moving about just don't do it in an attempt to reach a false safe haven


----------



## mickle (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.
> 
> Do away with them, make cyclists respected members of the standard traffic flow. Simples



You don't like cyclists do you?


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> You don't like cyclists do you?


Very much so. I've been cycle commuting in London for over 20 years. I just don't buy in to the "we're special and our s*** smells of roses" ideas


----------



## DaveReading (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.



IMHO, a good rule of thumb is never to even contemplate using an ASL unless you can be sure that lights will stay on red long enough to let you filter without being left- or right-hooked.


----------



## mickle (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Very much so. I've been cycle commuting in London for over 20 years. I just don't buy in to the "we're special and our s*** smells of roses" ideas



If you weren't so anti-cyclist you'd be understand that we _are_ special. And compared to the noxious brew that spews out of the sh!t pipes of the UK's 35million internal combustion engines our sh!t does smell of roses.

You want us all to behave like cars, waiting patiently in line - to participate in a traffic nightmare which is not of our making. The whole: _'If you want to use our roads you have to play by the same rules_' bullcrap. ASLs are an attempt to deliver a slight advantage, a bit of positive descrimination, to the mode of transport causing the least congestion, the least harm. ASLs are an internationally accepted method of helping cyclists gain an advantage and are part of the landscape. They've been around for decades. That you think that answer posed to cyclists by _blind spots in lorries_ requires removal of the cyclists really beggars belief.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Utter b****cks. The photo shows that almost all of the ASL is in the blindspot. The only safe place in the photo is behind the truck off to the left (so you have an escape route if he starts to reverse)



Do you believe that in the photo. The lorry is stopped in an acceptable position?

Do you believe that stopping in a position in which you cannot see the stop line is acceptable?


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> If you weren't so anti-cyclist you'd be understand that we _are_ special. And compared to the noxious brew that spews out of the sh!t pipes of the UK's 35million internal combustion engines our sh!t does smell of roses.
> 
> You want us all to behave like cars, waiting patiently in line - to participate in a traffic nightmare which is not of our making. The whole: _'If you want to use our roads you have to play by the same rules_' bullcrap. ASLs are an attempt to deliver a slight advantage, a bit of positive descrimination, to the mode of transport causing the least congestion, the least harm. ASLs are an internationally accepted method of helping cyclists gain an advantage and are part of the landscape. They've been around for decades. That you think that answer posed to cyclists by _blind spots in lorries_ requires removal of the cyclists really beggars belief.


Are you truly that stupid? I haven't said remove bikes and I haven't said wait in line. I've said remove false safe havens and be part of the traffic. If you know how to handle a bike, you can move around safely while remaining part of the traffic. It's not rocket science


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Do you believe that in the photo. The lorry is stopped in an acceptable position?
> 
> Do you believe that stopping in a position in which you cannot see the stop line is acceptable?


Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"


----------



## mickle (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Are you truly that stupid? I haven't said remove bikes and I haven't said wait in line. I've said remove false safe havens and be part of the traffic. If you know how to handle a bike, you can move around safely while remaining part of the traffic. It's not rocket science



Yes I clearly am.


----------



## mickle (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"



'_...... Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it....'_ Martin, I'm arguing that it's wrong for cyclists to have to take responsibility for the danger posed to them by others. And slightly dumbfounded that you believe that it's ok for lorries to be driving around on streets used by vulnerable road users when THEY CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE farking GOING*. 

*Capitals used for emphasis.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Irrelevant. No I don't believe it's an acceptable position. Is it a legal position? Yes. Is it where 99% of trucks in London will stop? Yes. Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it and the first thing they need to do is be aware of the threat not think "Oh I'm safe, I'm on a bit of paint"



It's not irrelevant. Being able to stop in the distance you can see is clear and safe when driving is fairly common these days. Yet people seem to think that stopping in a position where they're unable to see is acceptable.

You already say that you don't believe it's an acceptable position to stop.

Highway Code 176


> 176
> You *MUST NOT* move forward over the white line when the red light is showing.* Only go forward* when the traffic lights are green *if there is room for you to clear the junction safely* or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36
> *


*
*
How can the HGV in the photos comply with that statement, if they cannot even see that the junction is clear? Cyclists need to be aware of them, but it's another issue of HGVs being either totally inconsiderate, or are blind to the dangers they cause.


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> It's not irrelevant. Being able to stop in the distance you can see is clear and safe when driving is fairly common these days. Yet people seem to think that stopping in a position where they're unable to see is acceptable.
> 
> You already say that you don't believe it's an acceptable position to stop.
> 
> ...


The truck in the photo is stationary behind the line. How is it breaching your statement?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> The truck in the photo is stationary behind the line. How is it breaching your statement?



If it is unable to see the stop line, and ASL. Then it is unable to proceed only when there is room. Unless it is just taking a guess that it's clear. Unless you think that the HWC finds it suitable to drive through junctions when you THINK it may be clear.


----------



## martint235 (11 Dec 2015)

mickle said:


> '_...... Therefore rightly or wrongly the cyclist needs to deal with it....'_ Martin, I'm arguing that it's wrong for cyclists to have to take responsibility for the danger posed to them by others. And slightly dumbfounded that you believe that it's ok for lorries to be driving around on streets used by vulnerable road users when THEY CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE farking GOING*.
> 
> *Capitals used for emphasis.


I don't believe it's ok. I believe that it happens and therefore we have to deal with it. I just happen to believe that giving a cyclist the idea they are in a safe place when they patently aren't is wrong.


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> As for breathing fumes, stop being a nob. You're breathing fumes all the time you're out in traffic. It's unfortunate but it's fact.


While it doesn't contradict the above, studies have shown that when I'm riding along cycle routes, I'm usually breathing _fewer_ fumes than if I'm sat directly behind a motorist's exhaust pipe (on a bike or even in another motor vehicle). Trying to make cyclists sit in an unhealthy location like that is basically trying to injure them with pollution a bit more. Don't you think it's wrong to deliberately injure people when there are valid alternatives? Isn't the very tiny risk of a nobber in a lorry squashing someone who doesn't take avoiding action better than a certainty of motorists slightly poisoning almost every cyclist using the junction?



> Even so being part of the traffic doesn't stop you moving about just don't do it in an attempt to reach a false safe haven


So how do you think they should handle it? Cyclecraft-style right-hand-side filtering and slotting in as the queue of motorists starts to move off? Why not position oneself to do that, but continue to the ASL if it looks safe to do so?


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2015)

DaveReading said:


> IMHO, a good rule of thumb is never to even contemplate using an ASL unless you can be sure that lights will stay on red long enough to let you filter without being left- or right-hooked.


How can you ever be sure of that? A nobber at the front might decide to jump the red and hook you. Play the odds, not bet on some false sense of safety.


----------



## DaveReading (11 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> How can you ever be sure of that? A nobber at the front might decide to jump the red and hook you. Play the odds, not bet on some false sense of safety.



How can you be sure how long the lights will stay on red? 

Well having just changed from amber gives a pretty good clue. OTOH, if you can see that they have been steady on red for a while as you approach them, it's reasonable to expect they might be about to change. It's not difficult, nor risky if you use common sense.


----------



## summerdays (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> There's a lot wrong with them, the main thing being that they give an utterly false sense of safety. They also encourage cyclists to go for that dodgy filter that they otherwise wouldn't attempt just to get to the ASL.
> 
> Do away with them, make cyclists respected members of the standard traffic flow. Simples


If there is a huge queue of cars and space to filter, and safe to filter, I will. It wouldn't matter whether there is a box there or not I can always rejoin the queue at any point.


----------



## Pete Owens (11 Dec 2015)

martint235 said:


> Utter b****cks. The photo shows that almost all of the ASL is in the blindspot.


Ah ... I think I can see where you are getting confused.

The lower picture does *not *show an ASL (even though it is more or less the same sort of "L" shape). The yellow line shows where the driver can see the road surface. Roughly 2 - 2.5m in front of the truck. An Advanced Stop Line should be 4 - 5m in front of the motor stop line so that any cyclist stoped at that line is entirely clear of the blind area and completely (right down to the foot of the back tyre) in the direct vision of a truck driver stopped at the motor vehicle line.


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2015)

DaveReading said:


> How can you be sure how long the lights will stay on red?


That's not what you wrote earlier, but if you want to pretend motorists don't jump red lights and that variable light timing schemes like SCOOT don't exist, enjoy the queue while I ride past you.


----------



## DaveReading (11 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> if you want to pretend motorists don't jump red lights



If I spent my life worrying about potential RLJ-ing motorists, I'd never progress past a single traffic light.


----------



## Brandane (17 Dec 2015)

Sorry but there's a load of bollox being spouted on this thread. I drive HGV's of all types, and I find the photos on page 1 to be scaremongering on a large scale; "blind spots" to the front of an HGV don't really exist unless you manage to get within about 2' of its front bumper, and are less than 4' tall. I once had a scary moment with a pedestrian who did exactly that; walked in front of my lorry in stop/start traffic. She was lucky that I saw the very top of her head just as I started to move forward.
In the real world, as long as the driver makes proper observations, by which I mean moving his head and body around to see the bits obscured by the mirrors themselves, and pillars, then those illustrated "blind spots" are just BS (and I don't mean Blind Spots!). If you sit in a cab, as the OP allegedly did, and sit rigidly still - then you may think there are blind spots. MOVE AROUND, FFS, and you can see properly! 
The only real blind spot which is difficult to cover is close in to the drivers nearside, and slightly forward of the nearside mirror. The area is so small that you would be hard pushed to fit a bicycle in it. It does become more of a problem in moving traffic, because the driver then has to pay most attention to what is going on ahead of him, and quite simply cannot be checking 6 mirrors all the time - but he can when stationary, and before moving off.


----------



## Brandane (17 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


>



These are the illustrations I was talking about. WTF?? I take it they are making out that the black areas are blind spots? So if you are standing in those areas and can look the driver in the eye (or see his eyes in one of the mirrors), what makes them think the driver cannot see them? Like I said, BS and scaremongering.


----------



## gaijintendo (31 Aug 2018)

I have a bit of a reputation for resurrecting old threads, but let me add to this, if nobody minds.

The other slight problem, which applies access lane or not: if you don't have knowledge of a junction light timings, you end up in the midst of moving traffic, rather than part of it. This scenario accounts for possibly the majority of my cycling stress when in unfamiliar routes.

Also, I notice a lot of cyclists treat every light as if it has ASL, regardless. I presume that to be perfectly legal, but these choices always seem mighty risky to me.


----------



## mjr (31 Aug 2018)

gaijintendo said:


> I have a bit of a reputation for resurrectimrold threads, but let me add to this, if nobody minds.
> 
> The other slight problem, which applies access oane or not: if you don't have knowledge of a junction light timings, you end up in the midst of moving traffic, rather than part of it. This scenario accounts for possibly the majority of my cycling stress when in unfamiliar routes.


Cyclecraft tells us how to handle the lights changing before you finish filtering: as the motorists start to move off, the gaps between them open up and you merge left into one. It's more difficult if you were using a dodgy left side filter/approach lane that puts you at risk of a left hook because you have to move right and motorists expect that less.



> Also, I notice a lot of cyclists treat every light as if it has ASL, regardless. I presume that to be perfectly legal, but these choices always seem mighty risky to me.


Not sure what you mean by that. Filtering up the side is legal. Crossing a single stop line rarely is.


----------



## Drago (31 Aug 2018)

Legal is most circumstances, but not necessarily clever, especially when Chris Grayling is in town.


----------



## mjr (31 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> Legal is most circumstances, but not necessarily clever, especially when Chris Grayling is in town.


Keep out of the door zones, which is why few left side filter lanes in this country are usable.


----------

