If overtaking cars cause so much danger...

....then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is. As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road
safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can
explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the
dangers of cars overtaking them?

On 28/03/2013 13:05, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

I think the idea is that bikes may filter to the front an then pull away
ahead of the traffic, rather than trying to pull away while being overtaken.

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Nah, so long as the overtaking traffic gives proper space relative to
the speed of the overtaking traffic no one minds being overtaken.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is.

ASLs only offer a convenient place to pull up while waiting for the
lights to change.... Hang on, cyclists never wait for lights to change
anyway. Seems to me they serve little point.

As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

You seem to be one of those drivers who think driving near cyclists is
difficult. It's not. Just give plenty of space, don't drive up behind
too closely and when you pass leave a car's width and you'll be fine.
The important thing to remember that the few seconds that cyclists hold
you up for will make very little difference compared to stop-starting in
traffic queues.

I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road
safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can
explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the
dangers of cars overtaking them?

I think you are talking bollox Nuxxy :-)

On 28/03/2013 16:13, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 28/03/2013 13:05, M Wicks wrote:

...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

I think the idea is that bikes may filter to the front an then pull away
ahead of the traffic, rather than trying to pull away while being
overtaken.

You'd have to think that one through carefully. The capacity for
acceleration of a motor vehicle (at any part of the range) is
considerably greater than that of a pedal cycle (supermen absent), so
"pull away ahead of the traffic" (nice to see an admission that bikes
aren't really proper traffic, BTW) actually means "hold up the traffic
whilst trying to get up to a reasonable speed and then move left in
order to be overtaken".

No real advantage visible there for anyone.

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Nah, so long as the overtaking traffic gives proper space relative to
the speed of the overtaking traffic no one minds being overtaken.

But many (possibly most) drivers *do* mind being overtaken at very close
quarters whilst stationary, especially where the vehicle doing the very
close pass (often an inch or two clearance) is uninsured and untraceable.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is.

ASLs only offer a convenient place to pull up while waiting for the
lights to change.... Hang on, cyclists never wait for lights to change
anyway. Seems to me they serve little point.

Indeed, they serve no legitimate purpose. Encouraging cyclists to
queue-jump only encourages them to be loutish in other aspects of their
behaviour, including failure to comply with mandatory signals.

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2013 13:05, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

I think the idea is that bikes may filter to the front an then pull away
ahead of the traffic, rather than trying to pull away while being
overtaken.

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Nah, so long as the overtaking traffic gives proper space relative to the
speed of the overtaking traffic no one minds being overtaken.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is.

ASLs only offer a convenient place to pull up while waiting for the lights
to change.... Hang on, cyclists never wait for lights to change anyway.
Seems to me they serve little point.

As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

You seem to be one of those drivers who think driving near cyclists is
difficult. It's not. Just give plenty of space, don't drive up behind too
closely and when you pass leave a car's width and you'll be fine.

A car's width? In slow-moving traffic? Why?

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:05:42 PM UTC, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front

of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?



Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken

because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay

behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?



Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in

which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please

stop pretending it is. As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory

things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they

demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,

they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more

difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore

measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also

make driving easier.



I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road

safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can

explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the

dangers of cars overtaking them?

ASLs can be useful to all, but not always. There aren't many around here, but I use one occasionally, and it can contribute to danger. It's at a set of lights with a single right turn. The light on the oncoming main road is set well back, so a cyclist in the ASL waiting to turn right can make his right turn before the oncoming traffic has got going, thus leaving the junction clear. All well and good; for the cyclist this eliminates a nasty wait in the middle of the road whilst following traffic passes by within inches of my left elbow. So I try to get into the ASL when turning right.

BUT..... if there's already a car or cars waiting at the lights, I have to enter the ASL on their left, then pull across to the centre so I can make my right turn. Inevitably half-way through this manoevre the lights change, so there I am, nicely positioned in front of the leading bonnet having approached from a direction where the driver may not be looking. Now I know that all car drivers are trained and have taken a test, so there's absolutely no chance of them hitting me, but even so it's not ideal.

So now, when turning right, I only use the ASL if there is no car waiting. When driving, I always have a good look around before pulling off

"al Mossah" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:05:42 PM UTC, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front

of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?



Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken

because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay

behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?



Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in

which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please

stop pretending it is. As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory

things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they

demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,

they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more

difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore

measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also

make driving easier.



I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road

safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can

explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the

dangers of cars overtaking them?

ASLs can be useful to all, but not always. There aren't many around here,
but I use one occasionally, and it can contribute to danger. It's at a
set of lights with a single right turn. The light on the oncoming main
road is set well back, so a cyclist in the ASL waiting to turn right can
make his right turn before the oncoming traffic has got going, thus leaving
the junction clear. All well and good; for the cyclist this eliminates a
nasty wait in the middle of the road whilst following traffic passes by
within inches of my left elbow. So I try to get into the ASL when turning
right.

BUT..... if there's already a car or cars waiting at the lights, I have to
enter the ASL on their left, then pull across to the centre so I can make
my right turn.

Is using the ASL compulsory? It would make more sense to wait in the traffic
until it's safe to enter the ASL properly, without having to swerve across
traffic. As far as I know, cyclists are allowed to wait in a line of traffic
rather than make dangerous moves in their desperate attempts to get away
from the lights before anyone else. It's not the ASL "contributing to
danger", it's you.

Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Simon Weissel" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2013 13:05, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in
front of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous
overtaking?

I think the idea is that bikes may filter to the front an then pull
away ahead of the traffic, rather than trying to pull away while
being overtaken.

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Nah, so long as the overtaking traffic gives proper space relative
to the speed of the overtaking traffic no one minds being overtaken.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is.

ASLs only offer a convenient place to pull up while waiting for the
lights to change.... Hang on, cyclists never wait for lights to
change anyway. Seems to me they serve little point.

As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

You seem to be one of those drivers who think driving near cyclists
is difficult. It's not. Just give plenty of space, don't drive up
behind too closely and when you pass leave a car's width and you'll
be fine.

A car's width? In slow-moving traffic? Why?

In case they have to swerve round an ant.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Simon Weissel" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2013 13:05, M Wicks wrote:
...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in
front of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous
overtaking?

I think the idea is that bikes may filter to the front an then pull
away ahead of the traffic, rather than trying to pull away while
being overtaken.

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Nah, so long as the overtaking traffic gives proper space relative
to the speed of the overtaking traffic no one minds being overtaken.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is.

ASLs only offer a convenient place to pull up while waiting for the
lights to change.... Hang on, cyclists never wait for lights to
change anyway. Seems to me they serve little point.

As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

You seem to be one of those drivers who think driving near cyclists
is difficult. It's not. Just give plenty of space, don't drive up
behind too closely and when you pass leave a car's width and you'll
be fine.

A car's width? In slow-moving traffic? Why?

In case they have to swerve round an ant.

lol!

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:05:42 -0000, M Wicks wrote:

...then why have ASLs,

Age Sex Location?
Association for Scottish Literary Studies?

which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

It's not dangerous at all, I cycle and have no objection to cars overtaking me. Like 99.9% of cyclists, I don't require them to move over by a whole lane either.

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is. As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road
safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can
explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the
dangers of cars overtaking them?

They're treehuggers. That's the only conclusion I can think of.

Or they want all the people hidden away in cars to get on bikes with lycra so they can admire their gentleman's area.

--
The "new labour" government has just announced that they are changing their party emblem from a red rose to a condom, as they believe it most accurately represents the governments political stance.
A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a false sense of security when you're actually being screwed.

M Wicks wrote:

...then why have ASLs, which encourage slower bicycles to go in front
of faster cars, thus resulting in more oh-so-dangerous overtaking?

Maybe psycholists exaggerate the supposed danger of being overtaken
because they don't like cars, and they want them to be made to stay
behind bikes, thus negating one of their biggest advantages?

Either overtaking really is as dangerous as the psycholists say, in
which case let's get rid of ASLs, or it's not, in which case please
stop pretending it is. As ever the psycholists wanting contradictory
things in terms of safety shows their true motives. The things they
demand may contradict each other in terms of safety, but, as always,
they all have one thing in common: they all make driving more
difficult. And to cap it all, the psycholists continually ignore
measures which would genuinely improve safety but which would also
make driving easier.

I thus submit that the psycholists only pretend to care about road
safety because they want to persecute drivers. Unless someone can
explain why else they want ASLs *and* they constantly exaggerate the
dangers of cars overtaking them?

Advanced stop lines are intended help cyclists in a number of ways,
and that's why many cyclists want them.

ASLs encourage cyclists to position themselves in a position that is
highly visible to following traffic (cyclists waiting by the kerb are
much less visible). In allowing bicycles to move off first cyclists
are allowed to carry out more safely and conveniently a manoeuvre they
may have to perform (like, they can position themselves correctly for
a right turn or avoid being 'cut up' by turning traffic). At junctions
where ASLs are not provided cyclists frequently feel they are forced
to wait out in front of the waiting traffic, well past the stop line,
for all the reasons mentioned above (and not to seemingly jump the
queue).

ASLs also allow cyclists to avoid having to breathe direct vehicle
fumes and smoke. And, finally, they allow cycles to bypass traffic
queues safely and conveniently, which helps to encourage cycling as an
excellent mode of transport in line with local and national policy.

That's the theory, anyway.

--
Alexis
"Never judge a book by its movie."