# Getting fed up of Motorcyclists pulling this stunt



## captain nemo1701 (22 Nov 2012)

On my daily commute, I am going straight on at this junction:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn1oheS2VMo

As you can see, I occasionally have to tolerate numpty drivers who cut you up. The junction is on York Road, Bristol and if you look on Google Earth, it shows the old layout which was changed so that you now have two lanes, one for straight on, the left for left turns.
However, I'm becoming tired of numpty bikers who use the left turn lane to filter down the traffic jam and enter the ASL on my left, with no intention of actually turning left, but going straight on. Already had 'a word' with one guy:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAwJP5i4FRs&feature=plcp

Anyway, happened again this morning. Sat waiting at lights, young biker pulls up on my left - yep, going straight on.

They don't seem to have any qualms about cutting up a cyclist. Oh, and before anyone states that I broke the rules by crossing the line on red, the law (traffic marking regs) does state that vehicles should stop at this line while cyclists can carry on into the ASL via a cycle lane. In the absence of such lanes (which covers about 99% of ASL's, it would seem), the regs do not say that cyclists should also stop ie. they don't specifically prohibit a cyclist entering the box on red. I got this from a police website - see my clips for details. I am reluctant to use the left lane as that will mean I'm cutting up everyone else. I should also add that this junction is usually quite jammed up in the mornings with average traffic speed of near zero.

In future, I'll try and sit as far over to the left as I can, but I know that the b***ers will still try it on.


----------



## gaz (22 Nov 2012)

I have a similar junction on the way home at streatham, the left lane is left turn only and runs on a separate light sequence to the straight ahead phase. Motorcyclist and cyclists (myself included) use the left lane to filter to the front as the light phase is all red > left go> Left red > straight go > straight red. And I don't personally have an issue with it.



captain nemo1701 said:


> They don't seem to have any qualms about cutting up a cyclist. Oh, and before anyone states that I broke the rules by crossing the line on red, the law (traffic marking regs) does state that vehicles should stop at this line while cyclists can carry on into the ASL via a cycle lane. In the absence of such lanes (which covers about 99% of ASL's, it would seem), the regs do not say that cyclists should also stop ie. they don't specifically prohibit a cyclist entering the box on red. I got this from a police website - see my clips for details. I am reluctant to use the left lane as that will mean I'm cutting up everyone else. I should also add that this junction is usually quite jammed up in the mornings with average traffic speed of near zero.
> 
> In future, I'll try and sit as far over to the left as I can, but I know that the b***ers will still try it on.


Care to provide a link to the police webpage that backs up what you are saying?
No legislation agrees with what you have said. All vehicles must stop at the first solid line when the red light is shown.

In any case, in your second video it is clear to see that there is a cut away on the left side of the ASL for cyclists to enter. Whilst this may not be in an ideal position, that is the correct way to enter the ASL.

Have you actually ever had any issues with motorcyclists actually cutting you up at this junction? From your second video it looks like it is you who cuts him up (I haven't listened to what you said, so I don't know if you discussed with him what you intentions are). You went from the center/right position of the ASL to the left side of the road by the time you get past the junction.

In my opinion, from the videos you have included in the post and from my personal experience of similar layouts, this isn't something that is worth focusing on. If a cyclist did the same (filter on the left into the asl) would you have a problem with it? Or is it just because it's motorcyclist?
Whilst yes, they shouldn't technically be in there, i think it is probably best to work with motorcyclists rather than against them.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

what was the point of going in front of the red van?


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> In my opinion, from the videos you have included in the post and from my personal experience of similar layouts, this isn't something that is worth focusing on. If a cyclist did the same (filter on the left into the asl) would you have a problem with it? Or is it just because it's motorcyclist?
> Whilst yes, they shouldn't technically be in there, i think it is probably best to work with motorcyclists rather than against them.


 
+1


----------



## gaz (22 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> what was the point of going in front of the red van?


indeed. The first vehicle at the lights will often focus on the empty road ahead and as soon as possible will attempt to overtake.
Where as if you take a strong position behind a vehicle, and keep up with it as best as possible when the traffic starts moving. Then the vehicle behind can see that any overtake is potentially pointless and hopefully will stop them from overtaking when they shouldn't.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> indeed. The first vehicle at the lights will often focus on the empty road ahead and as soon as possible will attempt to overtake.
> Where as if you take a strong position behind a vehicle, and keep up with it as best as possible when the traffic starts moving. Then the vehicle behind can see that any overtake is potentially pointless and hopefully will stop them from overtaking when they shouldn't.


 
You actually helped me with this a few months ago.


----------



## hoski (22 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Whilst yes, they shouldn't technically be in there, i think it is probably best to work with motorcyclists rather than against them.


 
I find it quite intimidating to have motorcyclists using cycle lanes and ASLs. I suppose I might feel different if I cycled in that London where there are a large number of motorikes, but in a city like Oxford (or Birmingham where I used to live) it doesn't feel particularly necessary for motorcyclists to (ab)use those facilities.

I don't know if I have just had a few bad experiences, but I also often find a large number of motorbikes to be unnecessarily overpowered - again this adds to the intimidation. It's similar to the difference between having a 1L tiny french car pulling alongside you, as opposed to, par example, a BMW X5...


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

I would take exception at motorcyclists shooting up the left lane past and going straight on (similar to the car in the first vid), but from stationary I wouldn't care less?


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Nov 2012)

+1 to the comments above from gaz and 399bhp.

In addition to which, I'm not clear why you asked the motorcyclist to let you go first.

The guy on the motorcycle seemed pleasant and polite.

Even a gently ridden motorcycle will outpull Tom Boonen away from a junction. You had (as far as I can see) no reason either to want to get away ahead of the motorcycle or to ask him to let you.

It was pretty clear (to this untutored eye) that the motorcycle had 'tucked right' to be out of the way of the traffic filtered left while he was waiting. The question was a little intrusive and... unnecessary.

I saw no numpty motorcyclist in that clip. Is that junction in Rhyl by any chance? I seem to recognise it.


----------



## thefollen (22 Nov 2012)

Cycle similar roads to Gaz (at least down until Tooting). In multi-lane lights motorbikes and cyclists can come from all lanes. Have no problem with motorbikes in the ASL- happy to let them go first since they can accelerate faster than me and pose no problems. Would rather they do that than accelerate past from where I can't see them.

Personally I always expect a bit of undertaking and cheeky moves at junctions (as non-highway-code-approved as it is). In the vids it didn't look as though the cyclist was in any real danger.

If anyone here cycles in London and takes the Vauxhall Junction Northbound (South Lambeth Road going on to Wandsworth Road), then you're going to have some fun. I take the Waterloo lane- barely a day goes by without a car cutting dangerously across the front of me going from the right hand 'straight on' lanes to those going left. http://goo.gl/maps/sLCl5


----------



## daSmirnov (22 Nov 2012)

Alright he crossed the stop line. But personally I've got no issues with motorbikes using an ASL, at the end of the day it gives them somewhere safe to filter to, at least they can out accelerate all the other traffic and be on their way. Obviously if the ASL is jammed packed then in an ideal world they'd filter infront of the (pedal)cyclists. :-)


----------



## Lee_M (22 Nov 2012)

sorry but at what point did he or would he have cut you up?


----------



## mr_hippo (22 Nov 2012)

In every room in my house I have an electric light and a switch, why? I know that every night, it gets dark and I need the light to see but what has this got to do with your perceived problem?
Just as I know that if it gets dark and I am at home, I turn the light on so you should know that you `occasionally` have a perceived problem at that junction and should learn how to cope with it. It's not rocket surgery, is it?


----------



## davefb (22 Nov 2012)

asl are meant for cyclists..

if its okay for motorcyclists to use them, then err why not polite car drivers... so in fact, why bother with them at all?

its the usual, most motorcylists are great, but the ones that aren't are total idiots... *and* you'd expect better from a "fellow" 2 wheeler


----------



## doug (22 Nov 2012)

I have very few problems with "proper" motorbikes in the ASL as they accelerate away faster than I can and don't get in my way.

****ing under powered mopeds are a different kettle of fish - they think they will be faster away at the lights but more often than not I end up cursing them as they pootle along slowly getting in my way whilst puffing out clouds of noxious blue smoke


----------



## Hip Priest (22 Nov 2012)

I'd have let the motorcyclist go, personally. As an aside, I was struck by how friendly he was. If everyone had his attitude, imagine how pleasant the roads would be.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Nov 2012)

I like these videos,they test me out and make me ask what would I have done.I do like the sticking behind the van,I do that a lot with buses,depending on the situation.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> +1 to the comments above from gaz and 399bhp.
> 
> In addition to which, I'm not clear why you asked the motorcyclist to let you go first.
> 
> ...


+1, that about sums it up. I could see no reason to ask if you could go before the motorbike, odd.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (22 Nov 2012)

Before I got a helmet cam, I was cut up by a motorbike at this same junction. I was going through the lights in a primary position, little traffic about for once, I heard a motorbike coming from behind and assumed, from the sound and direction, that he was turning left. But as I looked over my right shoulder to check for cars, he shot past on my left as we went over the junction. There are often parked cars on the left, so in swerving to miss them, he gave me a bit of a shock suddenly appearing so close that I wobbled and almost came off. So when I got to the office, I ordered a helmet cam.

I have often worked in London where I see the ASL frequently full of motorbikes often with cyclists stuck behind in the traffic. Kind of defeats the whole concept, doesn't it?. Where one enters, others are encouraged. I see lots of cyclists on pavements, but it doesn't mean that I should simply because others choose to break the law.

I asked to go first as, if you study the video, I arrived ahead of him at the ASL. I heard the motorbike, but again, as he was slightly behind on my left, in the left turn lane, one assumes that he would actually going to turn left. So I think it's just poor riding to use a left turn lane to cut into a cycling facility automatically assuming nobody will be there. You wouldn't cycle straight out of a junction assuming no traffic was coming, would you?. I try not to cut people up on my bike, so it's common courtesy that someone on a motorbike shouldn't do it either. It's just poor riding and bad positioning. I wouldn't have a problem with a cyclist since they are also permitted in the ASL and move at about the same speed. That said, I have been cut up by roadies attempting to break the speed of light.

Trouble with this junction is that it now has a left turn lane as originally it had only one lane with a rather feeble advisory cycle lane on the left. The original layout is still in Google Earth although not on streetview level . One would expect cars and motorbikes in the left lane to actually be turning left . The cycle lane was removed and this left turn lane introduced to discourage undertaking by cyclists and colliding with left-turning lorries etc.

Some motorbikes have a lot of power and acceleration, so why would the rider of a machine capable of doing 60-70mph need to get into a space intended for slower moving cyclists?. And if you're that worried about your safety on a motorbike, why not switch to a bicycle. Motorbikes on the left cutting through are intimidatory because of their size, noise and speed. Just one sudden shock increases the risk of having an accident. 

I'll have to do a little digging to find that police website. It quoted the traffic road design regulations which mention motorists having to stop at the first white line on red while cyclists can enter using a cycle lane. Interesting that they don't say what to do if there is no cycle lane and they don't specifically prohibit entry by bicycle on red.


----------



## Lee_M (22 Nov 2012)

You seem to be getting het up over nothing. Ok he shouldn't be in the asl but bikers do it for the same reason as cyclists- to avoid getting killed. 

Other than that he was nowhere near you and wasn't doing anything to affect you

I really don't get it


----------



## Linford (22 Nov 2012)

ASLs don't make cycling safer. They encourage a vehicle which has just passed you in the traffic to do the same thing all over again 200 yards up the road, It could be argued that they make motorcycling safer as once in front of the big red van which you squeezed past, it will not be able to pass them again as they will be gone - unlike what it will do to you once more when you are both another couple of hundred yards up the road - you also rode into the path of an oncoming vehicle to get past it to gain access to the ASL.
You seem jolly keen to let everyone else know who owns the road both by actions and words....


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

I'll repeat, as perhaps you had skipped over my post.

Why did you go in front of the red van?


----------



## captain nemo1701 (23 Nov 2012)

I went in front of the red van because I know these lights and they are slow to change, especially if the crossing ahead is in use. There's plenty of room to filter - you have to take into account the distortion produced by the camera lens that tends to make things look closer than they actually are. I would not have filtered had there been no room. Looking at some other cycling vids, I note the same thing.

Linford - ASL's don't make cycling safer but they make motorcycling safer?. Don't get that one. So what if the car/van you just got in front of passes you further down the road?. The ASL makes you more visible, especially if I were turning off or filtering into a cycle lane etc.
I don't profess to own the road but I do take exception to others who put me at risk. They also put themselves at risk by developing bad riding habits.

Lee_M : If I wasn't there and this guy tried to cut through this way in heavy moving traffic, he might 'blindside' another vehicle or have a collision. Cutting across into the centre lane from the left is risky.
Perhaps this will clarify what I mean:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jfMmw3XnxQ&feature=plcp
 

Motorbike cuts through at 0.36. Not a very sensible thing to do?. Are you suggesting that motorcyclists who want to ride fast and dangerous machines should resort to using the cycling facilities if they feel at risk?. If so, where does this leave cycling?.

Bottom line on all this is that motorcyclists should not use the left turn lane to gain access to a cycling facility they have no business (HC178) being in. The biker made the mistake of assuming the ASL would be empty. Sure, if he and I had just sat behind the red van, nothing would have happened. But as a cyclist, I have the option of using the ASL if I wish (sometimes, I don't). I have noted the Must-Get-In-Front attitude of some bikers who often not only break the rules governing the ASL but place themselves in groups almost in the middle of crossings. Go over white line number 2 and it's RLJ time. In London recently, while driving the company van, I was sat at the lights and saw a motorbike in my wing mirror being ridden down the pavement so he could get in front of me at the ASL!.

Funny thing I've noted about these forums & Youtube is that cyclists will have a dig at drivers who abuse the ASL, but mention motorbikes and people somehow get all defensive about it. It's abusing a facility set aside for others, so people should show more respect and restraint. I don't cycle on pavements, simply because they are empty.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Nov 2012)

captain nemo1701 said:


> I went in front of the red van because I know these lights and they are slow to change, especially if the crossing ahead is in use. There's plenty of room to filter - you have to take into account the distortion produced by the camera lens that tends to make things look closer than they actually are. I would not have filtered had there been no room. Looking at some other cycling vids, I note the same thing.
> .


 
You appear to be justifying moving to the front "because you can"?


----------



## Paul99 (23 Nov 2012)

I've seen several hundred of these helmet cam videos since I started cycling about a year ago, and to be honest only about half a dozen actually made me wince. The rest I have struggled to see anything dangerous.

OP - You really need to leave the camera at home and just enjoy your cycling.


----------



## campbellab (23 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> You appear to be justifying moving to the front "because you can"?


 
I think its more justifying why it was safe to do so. I dont think the viewpoint that perhaps not going into the ASL would be a better and safer position has been communicated effectively


----------



## Linford (23 Nov 2012)

captain nemo1701 said:


> I went in front of the red van because I know these lights and they are slow to change, especially if the crossing ahead is in use. There's plenty of room to filter - you have to take into account the distortion produced by the camera lens that tends to make things look closer than they actually are. I would not have filtered had there been no room. Looking at some other cycling vids, I note the same thing.


 
You still deliberately rode into the opposite lane as the black car came towards you to get past the red van though. They had right of way at the end of the day. You went in their space, and they were forced into the gutter to leave a safe margin for you.



captain nemo1701 said:


> Linford - ASL's don't make cycling safer but they make motorcycling safer?. Don't get that one. So what if the car/van you just got in front of passes you further down the road?. The ASL makes you more visible, especially if I were turning off or filtering into a cycle lane etc.
> I don't profess to own the road but I do take exception to others who put me at risk. They also put themselves at risk by developing bad riding habits.


 
And so what if the lights had changed and the red van moved off whilst you were on the wrong side of the road marginalising the car in the opposite lane, and a following vehicle had to brake sharply to let you back onto your side of the road. ? You could have just stayed in the traffic flow behind the van as you put yourself in danger from it passing you, not once, but twice - for the sake of what, 10 seconds ?



captain nemo1701 said:


> Motorbike cuts through at 0.36. Not a very sensible thing to do?. Are you suggesting that motorcyclists who want to ride fast and dangerous machines should resort to using the cycling facilities if they feel at risk?. If so, where does this leave cycling?.


 
Motorcyclists are an at risk group more so than cyclists in the stats. You call them 'fast and dangerous', I call them 'vulnerable road users' in the same way which a cyclist is a 'vulnerable road user'. You want to rob them of the only advantage they have of using 2 wheels in an urban environment - which is to filter. Their needs are different to yours in respect that they can always stay with the flow of the traffic and so benefit from being in front of any queue. You double your risk when using an ASL when a large vehicle like a van, bus or lorry has to continually keep overtaking you to maintain any continuity. Regular traffic soon gets frustrated on 30 and 40mph roads when you jump the queue on your bike at every set of lights and then hold them up at 15 or 20 mph.



captain nemo1701 said:


> Bottom line on all this is that motorcyclists should not use the left turn lane to gain access to a cycling facility they have no business (HC178) being in. The biker made the mistake of assuming the ASL would be empty. Sure, if he and I had just sat behind the red van, nothing would have happened. But as a cyclist, I have the option of using the ASL if I wish (sometimes, I don't). I have noted the Must-Get-In-Front attitude of some bikers who often not only break the rules governing the ASL but place themselves in groups almost in the middle of crossings. Go over white line number 2 and it's RLJ time. In London recently, while driving the company van, I was sat at the lights and saw a motorbike in my wing mirror being ridden down the pavement so he could get in front of me at the ASL!.


 
I would argue that the laws regarding ASL's need overhauling for a changing transport model. Motorcycles are becoming more relevant as commuting vehicles, but as vulnerable users need to have these needs met.

If you had any experience on PTW's, you would appreciate another side of the coin.

Bristol has long since recognised that motorcycles are part of the solution, and as such given them access to the bus lanes long before the other places like London woke up to the benefits of encouraging their use - which is to get people out of cars who have commutes which are not practical by bicycle, and thus help to reduce congestion.

I favour safety for all vulnerable users at the end of the day and that is why I really never did get the whole ASL thing for cycles. They just create confrontation and encourage risk taking to enforce a 'right' where less experienced cyclists might try and run up the inside of HGV's and buses turning left just to get in front.


----------



## Lee_M (23 Nov 2012)

Personally, after reading all this I just think you have a problem with people not following "your" view of what is right or not.

I reiterate, the biker didnt cut you up or put you in any danger, but you cant seem to accept that, and your description of bikes as "fast and dangerous" gives away your prejudices


----------



## BentMikey (24 Nov 2012)

I think you ought to chill and let it go. I think this is much ado about nothing, and there's lots of good advice here to focus on more serious things.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2012)

To the OP I admit to being a a Demon of Death, sorry a Motorcyclist, if anything I think what the motorcyclist did was more sensible than you, you put yourself in danger by going over the white line & forcing the black car over, had I been driving that car I think I would have uttered a few choice words. Then once in front of the van you put yourself in more danger by staying to the right & blocking the van from setting off, again had a been the van driver I suspect I would have uttered a few more choice words.

The motorcyclist on the other hand, came up the clear left hand lane, something you should have done, positioned himself in the middle of the 2 lanes so that had you not been there & the van wanted to make a Sweeney getaway the motorcyclist would have not been in danger.

Do you have a license to drive any vehicle, have you had any formal training? I really do think you need to examine your own actions before deriding others.

Alan...


----------



## Lee_M (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> To the OP I admit to being a a Demon of Death, sorry a Motorcyclist,
> Alan...



I bet you eat small children and torture kittens too

You beast !


----------



## gaz (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> To the OP I admit to being a a Demon of Death, sorry a Motorcyclist, if anything I think what the motorcyclist did was more sensible than you, you put yourself in danger by going over the white line & forcing the black car over, had I been driving that car I think I would have uttered a few choice words. Then once in front of the van you put yourself in more danger by staying to the right & blocking the van from setting off, again had a been the van driver I suspect I would have uttered a few more choice words.
> 
> The motorcyclist on the other hand, came up the clear left hand lane, something you should have done, positioned himself in the middle of the 2 lanes so that had you not been there & the van wanted to make a Sweeney getaway the motorcyclist would have not been in danger.
> 
> ...


I think the same could be said for you.



> Then once in front of the van you put yourself in more danger by staying to the right & blocking the van from setting off, again had a been the van driver I suspect I would have uttered a few more choice words.


The key to safe cycling in traffic is to position your self in a position that stops people from overtaking as you set off. Bicycles are wobbily at low speeds. Would you really have uttered some words because of that?



> positioned himself in the middle of the 2 lanes so that had you not been there & the van wanted to make a Sweeney getaway the motorcyclist would have not been in danger.


This position is an extremely dangerous one to put your self in, especially if you aren't quick off the line. You could have traffic from either side of you passing very closely.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> This position is an extremely dangerous one to put your self in, especially if you aren't quick off the line. You could have traffic from either side of you passing very closely.


So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.

Alan...


----------



## gaz (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.
> 
> Alan...


I suggest you read post #2 and #5 if you want to find out what my stance is on what should be done in this situation.


----------



## HLaB (24 Nov 2012)

I've had a motorbike undertake me in the left lane at a similar junction when I was moving (had green, left turn had red, as streetview), and immediately cut across me to turn right and that scared the bejesus out of me at the time. I can't really see the problem in the vid though other than its a little naughty, the OP is stopped and aware of the motor bike


----------



## BentMikey (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.
> 
> Alan...


 
Gaz is right, you need to take the lane through junctions. Splitting the lane is a dangerous practice, leaving you with high speed vehicles passing inches both sides of you at the same time.


----------



## GrasB (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> The motorcyclist on the other hand, came up the clear left hand lane, something you should have done, positioned himself in the middle of the 2 lanes so that had you not been there & the van wanted to make a Sweeney getaway the motorcyclist would have not been in danger.


Why should the van driver make a Sweeney getaway? There is no need for him to drive in an aggressive & dangerous manner!



Phaeton said:


> So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.


How can a cyclist pulling away from a standstill in front of a stationary vehicle cause a hazard to them? The only hazard is the motorist to the cyclist by driving in a dangerous manner! Every week I see a small number of cyclists stationary, perpendicular to the kerb the far side of this junction after someone has barged past them after they kept a passive position towards the left hand side of the lane. The majority of drivers keep behind a cyclist regardless of their position across the junction. So why should drivers get annoyed by a cyclist holding the middle of the lane when most drivers seem to think they should stay behind cyclists? Wold that be because the ones charging past have no consideration to the danger they're putting other, vulnerable, road users in?


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Why should the van driver make a Sweeney getaway? There is no need for him to drive in an aggressive & dangerous manner!


Why does any driver pass a cyclist with less than 12 inches of room, why does a driver pull out of a petrol station when there is a cycle coming towards them, why is grass green & the sky blue, don't answer these as I know the answer to the last two.



GrasB said:


> How can a cyclist pulling away from a standstill in front of a stationary vehicle cause a hazard to them?


So you have a van driver you're making deliveries, you've had a nice day so far & you're sat at a junction, when some ****head on a cycle decides to overtake you & position himself in such a way that he's going to hold you up away from the junction instead of being considerate & leaving you room to safely overtake him.

Sorry but the more of these helmet cam cowboys I see, the more I understand why car drivers get upset, cyclists being totally inconsiderate of other road users.

Alan...


----------



## BentMikey (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry but the more of these helmet cam cowboys I see, the more I understand why car drivers get upset, cyclists being totally inconsiderate of other road users.
> 
> Alan...


 
You're confounding helmet camera riders with trained cyclists.

Untrained and inexperienced cyclists tend to take junctions by staying left in an attempt to not inconvenience motorists, and experience far more close passes and left hooks as a result. Trained and experienced cyclists are more likely to take the lane through junctions, and then fade left as soon as it's safe to share the road and make it easy for motorists to get past.

Even the IAM advises cyclists to take the lane through junctions. Are you suggesting they are wrong?


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Even the IAM advises cyclists to take the lane through junctions. Are you suggesting they are wrong?


As a member of the IAM how could I disagree, do you think the IAM would approve of his van overtake?

Alan...


----------



## campbellab (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you have a van driver you're making deliveries, you've had a nice day so far & you're sat at a junction, when some ****head on a cycle decides to overtake you & position himself in such a way that he's going to hold you up away from the junction instead of being considerate & leaving you room to safely overtake him.


 
You fail to see that sitting between lanes wouldn't give the van room to safely overtake instead it puts the cyclist at risk of being knocked from either side and down infront of the vehicle in the other lane - SPLAT.
At that junction people turning right in the opposite direction are likely to encroach on the 'overtaking' room - SPLAT.
As we have seen, people in the left lane sometimes go straight on - SPLAT.

Whether the cyclist should have put himself ahead in the ASL is a different argument, with no correct answer.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.
> 
> Alan...


 
Would I rather be a hazard & cause annoyance to other road users, or position myself dangerously and end up lying dead or seriously injured in the middle of the road? Hmm, it's a toughie. Can I get back to you?


----------



## tonyhalsall (24 Nov 2012)

As a car driver, motorcyclist and cyclist I would have to disagree with the OP on many counts. Whether we cycle, motorcycle or drive our intention is always to make progress as safely as possible within the law. Antagonising other road users by slowing them down for no reason serves no purpose whatsoever and neither does tribalistic, entrenched views about other road users - whatever form of transport they are using. Stay defensive, stay respectful and make the best progress that you can.


----------



## stowie (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you have a van driver you're making deliveries, you've had a nice day so far & you're sat at a junction, when some ****head on a cycle decides to overtake you & position himself in such a way that he's going to hold you up away from the junction instead of being considerate & leaving you room to safely overtake him.
> 
> Sorry but the more of these helmet cam cowboys I see, the more I understand why car drivers get upset, cyclists being totally inconsiderate of other road users.
> 
> Alan...


 
Posing a hazard is the same thing as inconveniencing? My word, that van driver must be counting his blessings after such a hazardous encounter with a cyclist.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Nov 2012)

tonyhalsall said:


> As a car driver, motorcyclist and cyclist I would have to disagree with the OP on many counts. Whether we cycle, motorcycle or drive our intention is always to make progress as safely as possible within the law. Antagonising other road users by slowing them down for no reason serves no purpose whatsoever and neither does tribalistic, entrenched views about other road users - whatever form of transport they are using. Stay defensive, stay respectful and make the best progress that you can.


Well said that man, are you sure you're on the correct forum

Alan...


----------



## ianrauk (24 Nov 2012)

Straddling lanes at a junction - not likely. Probably one of the most unsafe things a cyclist could do. A good exercise in antagonising 2 car drivers in one go with predictable results.

It's simple - at a junction, cycle as part of the traffic, either directly behind a vehicle or if in an asl, directly in front.

PS - I am not a head cam cyclist.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (24 Nov 2012)

Im not a head-cam cyclist,it's on the handlebars.


----------



## GrasB (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Why does any driver pass a cyclist with less than 12 inches of room, why does a driver pull out of a petrol station when there is a cycle coming towards them, why is grass green & the sky blue, don't answer these as I know the answer to the last two.


Because they are high risk taking, impatient drivers & consider it okay to drive well below the standard of driving required to pass the driving test.



> So you have a van driver you're making deliveries, you've had a nice day so far & you're sat at a junction, when some ****head on a cycle decides to overtake you & position himself in such a way that he's going to hold you up away from the junction instead of being considerate & leaving you room to safely overtake him.


Oh so the guy is delayed getting to the next hinderance in his journey by 5s, obviously that's a huge hazard. No at worst it's a minor inconvenience for him. An attempt to overtake a cyclist at the junction is unsafe as the potential for unpredictable road conflict is high.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (24 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Oh so the guy is delayed getting to the next hinderance in his journey by 5s, obviously that's a huge hazard. No at worst it's a minor inconvenience for him. An attempt to overtake a cyclist at the junction is unsafe as the potential for unpredictable road conflict is high.


 
Yeah but they will do a dodgy pinch point overtake to save two seconds.I try to ride defensive from these dickheads.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> As a member of the IAM how could I disagree,


 
Good stuff, so you do agree it's better to take the lane across junctions then.



Phaeton said:


> do you think the IAM would approve of his van overtake?
> 
> Alan...


 
*That* is a whole different question. I like to imagine we'd probably agree that it would've been better to wait calmly and quietly behind the van, in primary. There would likely still be other vehicles behind the cyclist, mind.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (24 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Because they are high risk taking, impatient drivers & consider it okay to drive well below the standard of driving required to pass the driving test.


 
That's a good point,I often wonder how some of these people pass their driving tests,I just think the quality of the driving tests are crap when it is what you so rightly say,people dont drive to their driving test quality.


----------



## boydj (24 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> So you would rather be a hazed & cause annoyance to other road users, do you ever wonder why drivers hate cyclists.
> 
> Alan...


If you're an IAM member, have you read the IAM guidance on dealing with cyclists or their explanation of cyclist positioning? It's in line with Bikeability and Cyclecraft in recommending taking the lane at a junction. It only takes a couple of seconds to move into secondary after the lights change - if it's safe to do so.

Personally, I would not have been too bothered about the motorcyclist and I may or may not have filtered past the traffic on the right depending on just how much room there was.


----------



## tonyhalsall (24 Nov 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Good stuff, so you do agree it's better to take the lane across junctions then.
> 
> 
> 
> *That* is a whole different question. I like to imagine we'd probably agree that it would've been better to wait calmly and quietly behind the van, in primary. There would likely still be other vehicles behind the cyclist, mind.


 
I think that getting to the front of the queue at lights should always be a judgement call based on a number of different considerations. If the light has been on red for a while there is always a risk it might change before you get to the front. In this instance I would not have attempted to get in front of the van on my bicycle because:
1) Available off side space because of the vans position - note what approaching black car had to do
2) Length of time light had already been on red and experience of how the front vehicle ususally likes to get a clean get away and does not expect a two wheeled user to appear next to him as he accelerates away.
3) Many motorists consider it an affront to be behind a slow cyclist and my fear would be the van driver trying an immediate overtake whilst traffic is also passing on the left filtering left.

Pausing behind the red van would be the most prudent action based on my own defensive riding experiences.

I am at a loss why the OP asked the motorcyclist to let him go first when the motorcyclist subsequently and almost immediately overtook him. Fortunately, in this instance, the motorcyclist was reasonable and measured in his reaction to the OP but I reckon that had the OP said that to 9/10 motorcyclists he may have got a different response and a subsequent "close pass" - further adding to the risk he put on himself.


----------



## Buddfox (26 Nov 2012)

tonyhalsall said:


> ...within the law.


 
Which on this occasion the motorcyclist failed to do by entering the ASL...


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (26 Nov 2012)

I see no problem in the videos. The motorcyclist accelerates at far greater speeds than a car and especially a cyclist. Why you asked "let me go first please", I don't know, but it had me laughing my arse off literally. Lol


----------



## stowie (26 Nov 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> I see no problem in the videos. The motorcyclist accelerates at far greater speeds than a car and especially a cyclist. Why you asked "let me go first please", I don't know, but it had me *laughing my arse off literally*. Lol


 
Sounds painful. How do you sit down?


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Which on this occasion the motorcyclist failed to do by entering the ASL...


 
The law regarding ASLs is ill thought out and outdated. A motorcycle is just as vulnerable when along side a vehicle in traffic as a bicycle. The only difference being that a motorcycle can use its performance to accelerate away from another vehicle as they both approach a pinch point.

When cycling you need to be in the primary well before that arises, or hanging behind the larger vehicle and not risk getting squeezed.

As motorcycles are already allowed in bus lanes in Bristol, Swindon, London, etc and national policy is now to allow them access where the risk is not elevated, this should also be the case for their access to the ASL's. I suspect that this would need a rewrite of the highway code, and not a local bylaw as is done with the bus lanes now.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

Actually, I think we [bicycles and motorcycles] both need breathing spaces don't we?

i.e. we both filter which can and often does mean straddling between stationary cars, which isn't often particularly safe.


----------



## Boris Bajic (26 Nov 2012)

2172607 said:


> There is one fundamental difference. There is no need for motorcyclists to be given a breathing space at the front, they can sit in a stream of traffic perfectly well,* it is just a desire to get away first and fastest* in their case.


 
It is not *just* that. That may be part of it, but it is not just that. Generalisations about motive and mindset may not always be helpful.

As a motorcyclist and cyclist in London for many years, I liked to start at the front of a queue on both kinds of bike.

Sometimes (particularly when working as a courier) it* was* to allow me to get away firstest and fastest.

Sometimes it was because there is a sense of vulnerability in the midst of a stream of four-wheeled vehicles that one simply does not experience at the head of a line. This is much as it is for bicycles.

Sometimes it was because a passenger made the whole plot slightly less stable and responsive, so a little extra room was a blessing.

I haven't ridden a motorcycle since the early 90s and have no experience of ASLs when riding one, but I find it quite understandable that a rider would squeak his or her way to the front to benefit from one. I think I probably would, if still riding.

As to the 'fastest' element of your assessment of the desire of a motorcyclist in traffic, it is terribly difficult on almost any motorcycle not to the the fastest away. It's not some sort of Valentinik-wannabe race instinct kicking in.... It's just the way mtorcycles tend to be powered and geared, all the way from a Benly to a Buell.


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

2172607 said:


> There is one fundamental difference. There is no need for motorcyclists to be given a breathing space at the front, they can sit in a stream of traffic perfectly well, it is just a desire to get away first and fastest in their case.


 
You don't get a breathing space when cycling though when jumping to an ASL, as you shorten your time to stop and rest. I always use red lights as an excuse to stop and catch my breath when on a cycle, so why reduce that opportunity to take a breather for a few seconds more ?
You are always going to have vehicles passing when cycling on an open road. Why double the danger from a large vehicle by continually jumping in front of them at every set of lights ? They really do in many instances take a leap of faith to get past on road like that.

FWIW, that is York Rd in Bedminster. I worked in the petrol station a few yards back from that junction for about 6 months back in the mid 80's, so know it very well. I see no value at all in jumping a queue on that road with a cycle, you will gain a few seconds at most and encourage unneccessary confrontation in the process if that is repeated every few hundred yards.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=york road, bristol&hl=en&ll=51.445676,-2.584426&spn=0.000027,0.013368&hnear=York Rd, Bristol, United Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.445621,-2.584531&panoid=kDXNYBDrlcq9riVUU4wN0g&cbp=12,262.49,,0,-5.63


----------



## Phaeton (26 Nov 2012)

Linford said:


> The law regarding ASLs is ill thought out and outdated. A motorcycle is just as vulnerable when along side a vehicle in traffic as a bicycle. The only difference being that a motorcycle can use its performance to accelerate away from another vehicle as they both approach a pinch point.
> 
> When cycling you need to be in the primary well before that arises, or hanging behind the larger vehicle and not risk getting squeezed.
> 
> As motorcycles are already allowed in bus lanes in Bristol, Swindon, London, etc and national policy is now to allow them access where the risk is not elevated, this should also be the case for their access to the ASL's. I suspect that this would need a rewrite of the highway code, and not a local bylaw as is done with the bus lanes now.


Sorry this is a slight hi-jack but lack of co-ordination between councils make it very difficult as a Motocyclist when entering a new town/city to work out whether you have access to Bus Lanes is allowed, sometimes the signage is somewhat lacking.

Alan...


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

2172694 said:


> You mean that motorcyclists are not really in control of their vehicles? That sounds a bit worrying.


 
About as worrying as people wanting to be the first away from an ASL on a cycle as they are a bit wobbly at low speed.


----------



## tonyhalsall (26 Nov 2012)

Personally, I am not 100% convinced at all of the safety case being made for ASL's particularly with the amount of anti-cyclist sentiment that is out there.
I probably do the worst in both cases but it always feels safer:
1) I will filter (offside) to the ASL on the motorbike or if there is not one there I sit just in front of the offside of the driver of the second vehicle.
2) On a bicycle I will filter (offside) to the second vehicle and position my self in front of them to know absolutely that they have seen me and won't attempt to overtake at the crossing simply because they can't - as a result of there being another vehicle being in front of me.


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

2173065 said:


> That is the whole purpose of the ASL, to give space for that cyclist to do that wobble in clear space and in clear sight.


 
And you think that a driver wouldn't be able to see someone wobbling 15ft in front of their vehicle because there is another vehcile in front of them in a queue ?


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

Linford said:


> And you think that a driver wouldn't be able to see someone wobbling 15ft in front of their vehicle because there is another vehcile in front of them in a queue ?


 
To be fair Linford, as a cyclist in a queue you are often not in front but to one side. And we all know many drivers don't use their peripheral vision when driving.

I believe Adrian is right in respect of the main purpose of an ASL.


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> To be fair Linford, as a cyclist in a queue you are often not in front but to one side. And we all know many drivers don't use their peripheral vision when driving.
> 
> I believe Adrian is right in respect of the main purpose of an ASL.


 
If I ride on to the back of a queue, irerespective of whether I'm on a cycle or motorcycle, I maintina a primary position. Once clear of the junction if on a motorcyle, I'd maintain that, but on a cycle, I'd then move to a secondary one if the road was open ahead. I'd not sacrifice that positioning to filter to the front on a junction as it is just asking to be squeezed out if the lights change before I got into an ASL.
You are then into the parked cars on the side of the road on a cycle


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

Linford said:


> If I ride on to the back of a queue, irerespective of whether I'm on a cycle or motorcycle, I maintina a primary position. Once clear of the junction if on a motorcyle, I'd maintain that, but on a cycle, I'd then move to a secondary one if the road was open ahead. I'd not sacrifice that positioning to filter to the front on a junction as it is just asking to be squeezed out if the lights change before I got into an ASL.
> You are then into the parked cars on the side of the road on a cycle


 
Many times I (and I guess you?) would filter part way down a queue of cars, in particular where that queue is relatively long. This is what I am talking about.


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Many times I (and I guess you?) would filter part way down a queue of cars, in particular where that queue is relatively long. This is what I am talking about.


 
Sure I filter also, but I don't feel it is crucial I get to the very front of the queue.which is what the ASLs promote.

In any case, when doing this on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, it is illegal to overtake on the zigzags in case someone were walking across at the front. Why should a regular set of lighs be any different - it makes little sense to me to differentiate when the front of a queue can be a risky place for more people than the person jumping there.

What say you ?


----------



## 400bhp (26 Nov 2012)

Linford said:


> Sure I filter also, but I don't feel it is crucial I get to the very front of the queue.which is what the ASLs promote.
> 
> In any case, when doing this on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, it is illegal to overtake on the zigzags in case someone were walking across at the front. Why should a regular set of lighs be any different - it makes little sense to me to differentiate when the front of a queue can be a risky place for more people than the person jumping there.
> 
> What say you ?


 
Agree-I'm not advocating that the default position is to move to the front. IMO and has been alluded to, it often isn't the best place. But the fact of the matter remains that the ASL was probably introduced because of the reason Adrian gave.


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

2173179 said:


> Well, it does depend on how transparent the vehicle between them is, a panel van or blacked out X5 for instance being tricky to see past. *I also note that you haven't addressed the issue of space*.


 
Can you elaborate on this ?


----------



## Lee_M (26 Nov 2012)

Linford said:


> If I ride on to the back of a queue, irerespective of whether I'm on a cycle or motorcycle, I maintina a primary position.


 
Like I did yesterday just to get the car behind try to force me off the road because he wanted to get round the right turn before me
and then do emergency stops in front to try and get me to fall off
(ive also had car drivers try that when Ive been on a notorbike too, hence why I used to use the ASL when on my mbike)


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

2173225 said:


> Whether or not you want to filter to the front is entirely up to you.
> The comparing of traffic light junctions with zebra crossings is a bit of a diversion. Having said that though have a look at the zigzag legislation. I am given to understand that it specifies motorised vehicles.


 
And yet again, another inconsitency in the legislation. When cycling, I want to be treated as an equal, and I am happy to behave like one.

The legislators are happy to turn cyclists into a group with 'special needs' rather than proffer equal status with associated respect from other users.
Just because cyclists move more slowly doesn't make them any less intelligent than any other vehcile user on the road - cnuts !!!!!!


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

Lee_M said:


> Like I did yesterday just to get the car behind try to force me off the road because he wanted to get round the right turn before me
> and then do emergency stops in front to try and get me to fall off
> (ive also had car drivers try that when Ive been on a notorbike too, hence why I used to use the ASL when on my mbike)


 
Road Legislation shouldn't be decided on the actions of someone who has no right to be there though.


----------



## Lee_M (26 Nov 2012)

Isn't that tautological? Road legislation is what means they have no right to be there

Tbh I'm amazed this thread has gone on so long based on the original post!


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

Lee_M said:


> Isn't that tautological? Road legislation is what means they have no right to be there
> 
> Tbh I'm amazed this thread has gone on so long based on the original post!


 
I am referring to someone who cannot keep ther temper in check whilst in charge of a vehicle.
I don't think we havecovered this yet have we ?


----------



## Lee_M (26 Nov 2012)

I've lost track tbh :-)


----------



## Linford (26 Nov 2012)

Lee_M said:


> I've lost track tbh :-)


 
The only person as I see it who got their knickers in a twist was the OP


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (27 Nov 2012)

Motorcycles and cyclists are the same EXCEPT they don't pedal and can go much faster. They still have the same vulnerabilities. So let them chill at the front with you


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (27 Nov 2012)

2174419 said:


> If they want to be the same, let them liberate themselves from their engines.


That's why I said except, other than that, they have the same vulnerabilities. We should all get along. Life is too short


----------



## tonyhalsall (27 Nov 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> That's why I said except, other than that, they have the same vulnerabilities. We should all get along. Life is too short


 
Absolutely -


----------



## PK99 (27 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> In my opinion, from the videos you have included in the post and from my personal experience of similar layouts, this isn't something that is worth focusing on. If a cyclist did the same (filter on the left into the asl) would you have a problem with it? Or is it just because it's motorcyclist?
> *Whilst yes, they shouldn't technically be in there, i think it is probably best to work with motorcyclists rather than against them*.


 
Whilst I might tend to agree with that, one incident in Teddington made me wish they would reciprocate. I was coming from Teddington heading straight on toward the lock, central in the ASL with a motorcyclist on my RIGHT in the ASL not indicating. Lights change, fortunately I am a little slow off the mark. Fortunately, as he turns LEFT across my nose!


{Grammatical aside: nice to see 'whilst' used correctly!}


----------



## PK99 (27 Nov 2012)

gaz said:


> Care to provide a link to the police webpage that backs up what you are saying?
> No legislation agrees with what you have said. All vehicles must stop at the first solid line when the red light is shown.
> 
> .


 
That omission is a quirk/drafting error in the law. 

If you were to argue that we should all follow that on pain of prosecution, then what about all of us riding clipless breaking the law every day by not having pedal reflectors?


----------



## Buddfox (27 Nov 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> Motorcycles and cyclists are the same EXCEPT they don't pedal and can go much faster. They still have the same vulnerabilities. So let them chill at the front with you


 
They don't have the same vulnerabilities - well, at least not to the same extent. They share a vulnerability of being smaller than cars but the scale of this vulnerability is much different. Always feel a lot safer in London on a PTW than on a bike.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

PK99 said:


> That omission is a quirk/drafting error in the law.
> 
> If you were to argue that we should all follow that on pain of prosecution, then what about all of us riding clipless breaking the law every day by not having pedal reflectors?


 
My SPD shoes have reflector built into the heels. Technically it couldbe argued that when they are clipped in, they become part of the bike/pedal as they are attached mechanically to them - innit


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2174451 said:


> Only one of us is directing a stream of exhaust gas in the other one's face though.


 
that might depend on what you had for dinner last night


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

Yes it could.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2174548, member: 45"]No it couldn't.[/quote]

What makes you say that ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Nov 2012)

2174451 said:


> Only one of us is directing a stream of exhaust gas in the other one's face though.


 
That's a good point, Adrian. High-level exhausts are slightly try-hard and a little too Troy Corser wannabe for urban commuting.

Nothing beats a pair of Lafranconi tailpipes, burbling away gently at ankle height. All this faddish high-level stuff poking out from under saddles is a little too 'look at me'.

But on the matter of motocycles and bicycles in traffic, the thing that irked and still irks me (despite my Zen-like love of all other people) is the habit of motorcycles filtering until they get to a pair of door mirrors or similar that won't let them go further.

For a cyclist, the mirrors offer a barn-door aperture, but the cyclist is stopped dead by the thwarted motorcycle.

Back in the 80s, Mile End to Russell Sqare was faster on an RLJ-ing bicycle than a speed-limit-breaking but red-light-obeying motorcycle.

On the bicycle, the biggest obstacle was motorcycles blocking my way between traffic lanes.

But back to the important issues... Adrian is right: High-level exhausts on anything but competition off-roaders are naff.

Thank you for reading.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2174561, member: 45"]They're not part of the bike. They're shoes.

Which is irrelevant to the law anyway.[/quote]

Care to show us what part of the law stipulates that?


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

No thanks. 

Your short reply to Linford's posts suggests that you know the law intimately and not only that you know how it would be interpreted in a court.

Are you a lawyer and do you know the particular law? 

Linford, quite rightly, used the word "technically". Unless a lawyer comes along and states that Linford is wrong then it's not worth any non experts flatly responding with a "no it's not".


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

Means nothing-sorry.


----------



## Buddfox (27 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> But on the matter of motocycles and bicycles in traffic, the thing that irked and still irks me (despite my Zen-like love of all other people) is the habit of motorcycles filtering until they get to a pair of door mirrors or similar that won't let them go further.
> 
> For a cyclist, the mirrors offer a barn-door aperture, but the cyclist is stopped dead by the thwarted motorcycle.


 
Yes! This is really irritating. I don't begrudge the motorcyclists, of course, but you are sat there thinking, 'Please could you get out of my way'. Comes from it being quite rare that a cyclist can't make forward progress in any type of traffic I suppose.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (27 Nov 2012)

2174451 said:


> Only one of us is directing a stream of exhaust gas in the other one's face though.


 
Not necessarily.


----------



## PK99 (27 Nov 2012)

2174451 said:


> Only one of us is directing a stream of exhaust gas in the other one's face though.


 
That would be me after beer'n'curry the night before.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> That's a good point, Adrian. High-level exhausts are slightly try-hard and a little too Troy Corser wannabe for urban commuting.
> 
> Nothing beats a pair of Lafranconi tailpipes, burbling away gently at ankle height. All this faddish high-level stuff poking out from under saddles is a little too 'look at me'.
> 
> ...


 

The high level cans came from the Ducati styling fad with all of the manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon. Thankfully they have gone the other way now and are building the collector box ino the shape of the bellypans. I do recall being sat behind a Honda SP1 in the pit lane at Donington Park waiting to go out on the track, and it was nasty as it was running rich, so I do appreciate the sentement. It isn't as bad as a bus or HGV blowing fumes though, and only a real problem when directly behind and up the chuff so to speak


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (27 Nov 2012)

Should ban cars as they do as well + plus cigarette smokers,disgusting.

I do tend to find that it isn't seriously important if im at the front of the Que or not,sometimes I prefer or not.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2174793 said:


> In normal use it makes no difference where the exhaust it, the bike polutes either way. For the purpose of this discussion it is very relevant though because it is having decided to share the ASL box that the biker most inflicts this particular unpleasantness.


 
The ASL's are never deep enough, and are certainy wide enough that you wouldn't have to sit directly behind a biker occupying one.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2174928 said:


> You don't commute by bike in London do you. It is far from uncommon to arrive at an ASL to find multiple motorbikes cluttering the place up, sometimes to the extent that there is no room for the cyclists for whom, let us remind ourselves, the ASL was designed in the first place.


 
No I don't, but I was commuting through this junction in the OP on my PTW when I worked just up the road, and feel there is nothing to be gained, and a lot at risk by jumping the queue as a cyclist - as the OP has demonstrated. 

So what do you do when you come across a pedestrian crossing or are riding in a bus lane with junction lights on red with a motorbike waiting at them ?

ASL's should be accessable for 'ALL' vulnerable 2 wheelers, not ones you chose to not want to ride.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2174958 said:


> It is a completely different sort of vulnerability. ASLs are designed to give cyclists space and time in which to start from the lights. Motorcyclists do no need this in the same way. I can see that it is convenient for them but there is not the same need. A motorbike can sit in a stream of traffic perfectly well without car drivers seeing the imperative to get past.


 
So you want to rob them of their legal ability of filtering, but want to retain it yourself ?
Motorcycles are part of the solution for reducing congestion on the roads, and benefit people who are beyond a sensible cycle commuting distance. they are part of the solution to get people out of cars, so why are you being so obtuse about it ? -you are always banging the drum about there being too many cars in the traffic, but want to put obstacles in the way of anything which doesn't fit your world view.

You just want your cake, and eat it at the end of the day and sod everyone else....


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2174962, member: 45"]There are regulations related to pedal cycles. One of them is that when ridden at night pedal reflectors must be fitted. Not shoe reflectors, pedal reflectors. Linfy's technical argument might excite him but it's a waste of time.[/quote]

I was arguing a principle that 2 pedal mechanism components mechanically attached to a bicycle can be regarded as one and the same (even if one resembles a shoe)- You can detatch a reflector from a pedal with a screwdriver at the end of the day sho why differentiate. They are both at the end of the crank arms spinning on a bearing.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2174962, member: 45"]There are regulations related to pedal cycles. One of them is that when ridden at night pedal reflectors must be fitted. Not shoe reflectors, pedal reflectors. Linfy's technical argument might excite him but it's a waste of time.[/quote]

See other replies.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (27 Nov 2012)

_ASL's should be accessable for 'ALL' vulnerable 2 wheelers, not ones you chose to not want to ride._

I thought you might ride motorbikes. An ASL is designed for _slower_ traffic such as bicycles who can't accelerate away at speed. Motorbikes can, and have often more accelerative power than cars. Therefore, Adrian is right, they don't really need to use the ASL. In fact, too mnay of them can hog it -seen this in London lots of times. By the time you account for fairing, panniers etc,a motorbike can have the footprint of a small car. Nope, they seem to use the ASL for pure convenience.

Incidentally, as for my knickers in a twist, I'll remember your comments if I'm ever blindsided by an undertaking motorbike as we go through the junction. I think the police have an opinion on undertaking. How many times have you seen this on a motorway?:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvKZ9xfEH4

Someone else has a similar problem with motorbikes:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi0HW8_m6qo


Final word on all this is that whilst as I am using a cycle facilty quite legally, Mr motorbike is impatiently cutting people up by insisting on using the left turn lane as a short cut.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

captain nemo1701 said:


> _ASL's should be accessable for 'ALL' vulnerable 2 wheelers, not ones you chose to not want to ride._
> 
> I thought you might ride motorbikes. An ASL is designed for _slower_ traffic such as bicycles who can't accelerate away at speed. Motorbikes can, and have often more accelerative power than cars. Therefore, Adrian is right, they don't really need to use the ASL. In fact, too mnay of them can hog it -seen this in London lots of times. By the time you account for fairing, panniers etc,a motorbike can have the footprint of a small car. Nope, they seem to use the ASL for pure convenience.
> 
> ...




So my avatar is a bit of a giveaway then 

You forgot to mention the bit where you forced the oncoming black car into the gutter when you overtook the red van to get into the ASL. As far as I see it, the motorbike use the correct filter lane to enter the ASL

On a bicycle, you are always going to be slow moving and vulnerable. It doesn't matter where you are in it, you will soon be overtaken.

You came on to have a rant anyway and it was entertaining. Thanks for that


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2175017, member: 45"]And my response is that you go ahead and try to argue that, but the regulations are clear.[/quote]

I thought they were a bit ambiguous, as the pedals are not complete and fully functional without a shoe attached. I say that like the ASL's, the law is a Donkey and needs a good spanking


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2175017, member: 45"]And my response is that you go ahead and try to argue that, but the regulations are clear.[/quote]

Nope


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2175036 said:


> What I really want is not to pitch up at my birthday party and find a load of bikers have ate all the cake.


 
So what I can figure from this nugget is that infact and unless a cyclist pitches up to your party, and doesn't admit that they also either drive a car, ride a motorcycle, or a horse (or spend a lot of time on foot as a pedestrian), you won't give them a welcome 

Remind me again why I'd want to go if invited anyway Adrian ?


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2175057 said:


> To clarify matters for you, beyond the levels of doubt and confusion your obtuse mind manages, I only get annoyed if there is no space for cyclists available because that is who the facility is for. I have no objection to sharing with a biker or two but I would like them to see their need as subservient to that of a cyclist.


 
Add to the mix that an awful lot of people (mostly women) are getting run over by left turning buses and lorries in London, do you still say that an ASL is a sensible thing to offer cyclists as they do encourage the less experienced ones to take a gamble to get to the front through tthe left feeder lane which they may otherwise not attempt if the facility were not there ?


----------



## thefollen (27 Nov 2012)

Were I a motorcyclist I'd probably be in the ASL like a tramp on chips.

I don't mind a couple of motorbikes in there either. In fact I like bikes and the sound of their engines. Always a treat if you get to race a nice Ducati Monster out of the ASL. In London it's rare to land in an ASL without a motorbike, well, unless a porky 'Big Bus Tours' bus is in the way.

Providing you're stable and predictable there are usually no dodgy moments as green strikes. The only occasional issue is as regards to left hooks which are usually avoidable with a bit of patience, observation and/or decent positioning. Can totally understand how new cyclists may feel intimidated, but with London comes a fast learning curve.


----------



## Buddfox (27 Nov 2012)

2174928 said:


> You don't commute by bike in London do you. It is far from uncommon to arrive at an ASL to find multiple motorbikes cluttering the place up, sometimes to the extent that there is no room for the cyclists for whom, let us remind ourselves, the ASL was designed in the first place.


 
I was going to say the same thing - and the habit that really grips me, PTWs using the ASL when they haven't had to filter to get to the front. I kind of get it when you're filtering, but if you get to the lights first, do you really need to enter the ASL? Plus, when I move in alongside them, usually on the right hand side as I prefer to filter to the right of traffic, they look at you as if you're being overly antagonistic.


----------



## neil earley (27 Nov 2012)

Oops have on occasions been guilty of the same offence, but I get annoyed when on a busy manl road 2 cyclists ride abreast so you cannott overtake safely, as you must give cyclists a wide berth for safety reasons ps More annoying when they just pull out without 1st checking behind them as they dont signal their intentions but we are all road users and there are far to many deaths or injured cyclists every year. Ride safely out there !


----------



## Norm (27 Nov 2012)

2174451 said:


> Only one of us is directing a stream of exhaust gas in the other one's face though.


Given that my Buell's exhaust is under the engine and pointing downwards, the only noxious gases I release above pavement height are the same whichever bike I'm riding.


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

2175072 said:


> Do you know whether or not there is an incidence of cyclists being hit by commercial vehicles either in the ASL or the feeder?


 

If Wiki is to be believed, 4 out of 10 fatalities occur on buses and commercials taking out cyclists on left turns . Read the bit about safety anyway, Even the Danes think they are dodgy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_stop_line


----------



## Linford (27 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2175548, member: 45"]Oh how I've missed this nonsense.[/quote]

You still aren't offering a coherent argument to refute my assertion though.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Nov 2012)

No he's not.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Nov 2012)

Don't patronise please.

Technically and legally I don't know if he is right or wrong. I've about as much knowledge on it as Paul appears to have.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Nov 2012)

Agreed.

But one person who doesn't appear to be in any way qualified believes that he does know the answer. It's frustrating when people come along with a binary response to something that isn't binary, even more so when they haven't been involved in the earlier discussions.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2176349, member: 45"]The regulations are clear. You could Google them, but you say you're not interested. I've briefed you on what they say. Pedals should be fitted with reflectors when riding at night. Not shoes on pedals.

In reality though, the scuffers aren't bothered as long as you're easily seen and lit. But technically you're not legal unless you have reflectors fitted on your pedals. Ironic that I'm using the word technically.[/quote]

See above many many posts.


----------



## captain nemo1701 (19 Dec 2012)

_As far as I see it, the motorbike use the correct filter lane to enter the ASL_


Err...no he didn't. That's a left turn lane with a sign pointing to turn left and a four-foot arrow on the asphalt. The motorcyclist ignored the signage (in itself, a traffic offence I think?) in order to get into the ASL on red against HC 178. So two traffic offences, methinks.

Incidentally, I am not robbing motorcyclists of the ability to filter, just don't like 'em barging into the ASL where they shouldn't be anyway. It's bad riding to cut through on the inside of traffic, change lanes without indicating etc. What happens if I am going through the junction when a dirty great big motorbike suddenly appears on my left? - wait a minute, that _*did*_ happen to me!. A collision is more likely under these circumstances. Riding through this junction going straight on in primary, I had a car driver recently undertake me in the left lane only to swing back into the centre lane in front. Not good driving and certainly not good riding from motorcyclists who do this. I don't do it on my bicycle.

I do realise that motorbikes can play a part in reducing congestion, but they should not choose which rules they want to follow and abuse the cycling facilities. I have seen motorbikes ridden in the mandatory feeder lane for some ASL's in Bristol and London.

Bottom line on all this folks is that undertaking (technically a nearside overtake) increases the risk of an accident.


----------



## PK99 (19 Dec 2012)

captain nemo1701 said:


> _As far as I see it, the motorbike use the correct filter lane to enter the ASL_
> 
> 
> Err...no he didn't. That's a left turn lane with a sign pointing to turn left and a four-foot arrow on the asphalt. The motorcyclist ignored the signage (in itself, a traffic offence I think?) in order to get into the ASL on red against HC 178. So two traffic offences, methinks.
> ...


 
Someone correct me if i am mistaken but: ASL's are for the use and protection of cyclists not motor cyclists


----------



## Stromtrooper (19 Dec 2012)

Personally as both a biker who used to ride 26,000 miles a year and a cyclist, I think the motorbike rider in question should not of undertaken. Cage drivers just don't expect you there. A slow filter down the outside taking care of oncoming traffic I would normally do but up the inside, no.


----------

