Ian wrote in
:

If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night, it's
very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan your
braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the traffic
light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you need to
stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.

In ,
Martin Underwood said:
Ian wrote in
:

If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at
night, it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance
so you plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line
is level with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you
suddenly discover that you need to stop further back that you'd
anticipated.
The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they
are level with the car stop line.

Which would permit cyclists to go through a red light legitimately and then
what the self-righteous car drivers have to huff and puff about?

Brimstone wrote:
In ,
Martin Underwood said:
Ian wrote in
:

If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at
night, it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance
so you plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line
is level with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you
suddenly discover that you need to stop further back that you'd
anticipated.
The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they
are level with the car stop line.

Which would permit cyclists to go through a red light legitimately
and then what the self-righteous car drivers have to huff and puff
about?

My thoughts exaclty - and I've driven plenty of miles in London and have
never (in all conditions) had to pass the stop line when on red.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message Ian wrote in


If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan
your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the
traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you
need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.


How about the cycle lane on the nearside of the road on the approach to the
traffic lights? If you can't see that you need your eyes tested. If you can
see it then you should anticipate that there is likely to be a cycle box at
the traffic lights.

Ian

Ian wrote:

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message Ian wrote in


If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan
your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the
traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you
need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.


How about the cycle lane on the nearside of the road on the approach to the
traffic lights? If you can't see that you need your eyes tested. If you can
see it then you should anticipate that there is likely to be a cycle box at
the traffic lights.

Is that really the case? It seems most illogical to me! The benefits of
having a cycle box are far greater where there's no cycle lane.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

In message of Sat, 29 Apr
2006 19:58:47 in uk.transport.london, Aidan Stanger
writes
Ian wrote:

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message Ian wrote in


If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan
your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the
traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you
need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.


How about the cycle lane on the nearside of the road on the approach to the
traffic lights? If you can't see that you need your eyes tested. If you can
see it then you should anticipate that there is likely to be a cycle box at
the traffic lights.

Is that really the case? It seems most illogical to me! The benefits of
having a cycle box are far greater where there's no cycle lane.


Such a situation should never exist. A cyclist can only bypass the first
stop line via the cycle lane - that one is new to me.

I am going to quote http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#10
Meaning of stop line and references to light signals
43. - (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), "stop line" in
relation to light signals for the control of vehicular traffic means -
[snip]
(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed
in conjunction with light signals, "stop line" in relation to those
light signals means -

(a) the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal
cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that
line; or
(b) the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded
beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle
lane.

Diagram 1001.2 is in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113am.gif
--
Walter Briscoe

In message , Walter Briscoe
writes

Such a situation should never exist. A cyclist can only bypass the
first stop line via the cycle lane - that one is new to me.

The requirement for an advance stop box to be fed by a cycle lane is
relatively new. There are older examples where this doesn't happen, e.g:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/_CTC/images/Ca.../GYork0397.jpg

http://www.ctc.org.uk/_CTC/images/Ca...licy/F1036.jpg
--
Paul Terry

On 28/4/06 09:40, in article
, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:


The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.

In almost every other country I've been to, you stop in a line with the
traffic lights -- ie don't pass a red signal. But here, oh no, we scatter
traffic lights confusingly all over a junction, often way past the stop line
on the other side of the road, and then paint a white line and tell people
don't cross that line if the lights are red.

It was always a bad system; better enforcement of it makes it more obviously
so.

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote in
:

If you have
difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you plan
your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level with the
traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly discover that you
need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they are
level with the car stop line.

Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved.

On Tue, 2 May 2006, d wrote:

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Ian wrote in
:

If you have difficulty stopping at the correct line you shouldn't be
driving.

In my experience, in wet weather (when the road is shiny) or at night,
it's very hard to see that there's a cycle box from a distance so you
plan your braking based on the assumption that the stop line is level
with the traffic light pole. Then as you get closer, you suddenly
discover that you need to stop further back that you'd anticipated.

The solution to this is to move the traffic light poles back so they
are level with the car stop line.

Or, even easier, for drivers to assume there is a box. Problem solved.

Good god: careful, defensive driving - are you mad?

I do think it's be a good idea to have some sort of sign on lights that
indicated that there was a box, though, so drivers could tell it was there
even if it was covered in traffic. Personally, i'd like the same for
filter lanes - many is the time i've been riding into a junction and
suddenly found myself on top of a huge white arrow telling me 'if you try
to turn here, you will be killed'.

Why not let cars cross the front line of a bike box on red? Or on amber,
at least. That gives cars which are in the box when the lights change a
chance to get out of it, making it much more useful to cyclists, and less
irritating for drivers. If the timing of the lights was worked out
appropriately, i don't see that this would need to be any more dangerous
than the present situation.

Oh, and somebody suggested making bike boxes and pedestrian crossings
effectively box junctions - i'd certainly agree with that.

tom

--
Civis Britannicus sum.