Depressing Reading

Following recent discussions about ASLs I did a bit of Googling and
found this 2006 report for Transport for London studying the use of 10
ASL reservoirs on the A202 (a road I know well) and the A23 (a road I
vaguely know).
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ber-011106.pdf

Overall, a despicable 39% of cyclists who arrived at lights on red
ignored the red traffic signal. This fell to 7% at the busiest
junction but rose to an astonishing 66% at one junction.

However, and even worse in my opinion, between 46% and 91% of
motorists stopped in the ASL reservoir, encroaching by 25% or more.
Figures for those motorists which encroached by any degree is not in
the report.

Generally, motorists encroachment by more than 33% into the feeder
lanes was low, with compliance between 51% and 100% (weighted towards
100% compliance) on all feeder lanes and between 80% and 100% for
mandatory feeder lanes.

Compliance with ASL reservoirs and feeder lanes was significantly
lower amoung HGV and bus drivers than car drivers.

On 10 Oct, 23:49, Tom Crispin
wrote:
Following recent discussions about ASLs I did a bit of Googling and
found this 2006 report for Transport for London studying the use of 10
ASL reservoirs on the A202 (a road I know well) and the A23 (a road I
vaguely know).http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-Findings-Repo...

Overall, a despicable 39% of cyclists who arrived at lights on red
ignored the red traffic signal. This fell to 7% at the busiest
junction but rose to an astonishing 66% at one junction.

However, and even worse in my opinion, between 46% and 91% of
motorists stopped in the ASL reservoir, encroaching by 25% or more.
Figures for those motorists which encroached by any degree is not in
the report.

Generally, motorists encroachment by more than 33% into the feeder
lanes was low, with compliance between 51% and 100% (weighted towards
100% compliance) on all feeder lanes and between 80% and 100% for
mandatory feeder lanes.

Compliance with ASL reservoirs and feeder lanes was significantly
lower amoung HGV and bus drivers than car drivers.

Anyone know the figures (or even any) successful prosecutions/fines
for contravening an ASL ?
I thought there had been a change of law in the last two years to
permit local authorities to police them (in the same way as yellow
line parking restrictions) - but I haven't heard of any
backlash.........
(On the positive side, the school I work at has just sent letters to
all parents that from next week the Council is starting to
aggressively police the no waiting/parking restrictions outside the
school with large fines in the offing.....)

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:49:26 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

Following recent discussions about ASLs I did a bit of Googling and
found this 2006 report for Transport for London studying the use of 10
ASL reservoirs on the A202 (a road I know well) and the A23 (a road I
vaguely know).
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ber-011106.pdf

Overall, a despicable 39% of cyclists who arrived at lights on red
ignored the red traffic signal. This fell to 7% at the busiest
junction but rose to an astonishing 66% at one junction.

However, and even worse in my opinion, between 46% and 91% of
motorists stopped in the ASL reservoir, encroaching by 25% or more.
Figures for those motorists which encroached by any degree is not in
the report.


Why worse - it is against the law to ignore a red traffic light. Is
it against the law to "encroach" in to the ASL box?


You missed out the bit which said:
Table 5.3 shows the proportion of vehicles that encroached into the
reservoir by up to 25% of the reservoir length. Therefore, a high
proportion of vehicles encroaching to this degree indicates that the
reservoir was more frequently available for cyclists to
use. In other words, the higher the percentage of vehicles
encroaching by 25% or less, the better for cyclists.



--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

However, and even worse in my opinion,

why ?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:25:30 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:49:26 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

Following recent discussions about ASLs I did a bit of Googling and
found this 2006 report for Transport for London studying the use of 10
ASL reservoirs on the A202 (a road I know well) and the A23 (a road I
vaguely know).
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ber-011106.pdf

Overall, a despicable 39% of cyclists who arrived at lights on red
ignored the red traffic signal. This fell to 7% at the busiest
junction but rose to an astonishing 66% at one junction.

However, and even worse in my opinion, between 46% and 91% of
motorists stopped in the ASL reservoir, encroaching by 25% or more.
Figures for those motorists which encroached by any degree is not in
the report.


Why worse - it is against the law to ignore a red traffic light. Is
it against the law to "encroach" in to the ASL box?



You missed out the bit which said:
Table 5.3 shows the proportion of vehicles that encroached into the
reservoir by up to 25% of the reservoir length. Therefore, a high
proportion of vehicles encroaching to this degree indicates that the
reservoir was more frequently available for cyclists to
use. In other words, the higher the percentage of vehicles
encroaching by 25% or less, the better for cyclists.



--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment




Of course it's against the law to encroach in to an ASL box - what
would the purpose of them be otherwise.

I agree with the title, but surely Swindon is even worse.

James

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:56:31 +0100, "BOFH" wrote:


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
.. .

However, and even worse in my opinion,

why ?

Two reasons.

1. A cyclist who ignores a red traffic signal is being selfish, but
the person the cyclist puts most at risk is him or herself. A
motorist who ignores a ASL reservoir is being selfish and putting law
abiding cyclists at risk.

2. The percentage of motorists ignoring red light signal was higher
than the percentage of cyclists ignoring the red light signal.

wrote:

I agree with the title, but surely Swindon is even worse.

No, Slough. Betjeman wasn't wrong. :-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Phil Cook wrote:
wrote:

I agree with the title, but surely Swindon is even worse.

No, Slough. Betjeman wasn't wrong. :-)

I'm glad I'm not the only one mentally pronouncing the Subject as
that.

Personally, I would say Reading is worse than Swindon (but I've only
spent a little time in Swindon), and Betjeman did indeed have the
right idea.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:56:31 +0100, "BOFH" wrote:


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
. ..

However, and even worse in my opinion,

why ?

Two reasons.

1. A cyclist who ignores a red traffic signal is being selfish, but
the person the cyclist puts most at risk is him or herself. A
motorist who ignores a ASL reservoir is being selfish and putting law
abiding cyclists at risk.

There's a chance that anyone travelling through a junction that comes across
a RLJer is likely to have to take avoiding action - the knock on effects of
which could be serious. In other words the RLJing cyclist is putting other
road users (including other cyclists) at risk.

If the RLJer is injured the act is enormously selfish as it uses up precious
emergency services time and, most likely, causes some significant delay to
all road traffic.

2. The percentage of motorists ignoring red light signal was higher
than the percentage of cyclists ignoring the red light signal.

This somewhat counters my argument as obviously this could well mean the
number of RLJers is less than the actual number of ASL ignorers. Statistics
are wonderful things but in this case I think TfL are demonstraing that
there is some work to do in training drivers and cyclists about safe road
behavoiour. To use the report as evidence of the evil of the motoroist is
pushing it a bit!

There is another report by TRL (PPR240) that appears to have done almost
exactly the same type of study for TfL in the same year! I thought at first
they were the same report in different jackets but they appear to have
looked at different sites.

I haven't studied either in any detail but both do conclude that ASLs are
worthwhile which should lead to their imcreased installation.

Matt