Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Using the left turning lane to undertake a row of traffic is a dick move.

Yes, but we aren't talking about a left turning lane.
The lane is for going straight on OR left.

It actually slows the "main" lane.

It doesn't get more vehicles through each light phase.

Even Oliver "pro-car" Schick admits that you guys are wrong.

Lanes are multiplied at junctions to increase motor traffic capacity.

Do you guys really believe that road designers have added the extra lane to SLOW traffic?
Even for Boris, that would be weird!

Yes, legally it's straight ahead or left, but in practice it slows everything down. If those two lanes turn into a single lane on the other side of the junction then driving two lanes into it isn't going to be any faster - it can only be slower due to the merging friction. And that's ignoring the hazard to cyclists in the left lane. I believe most roads weren't designed for the level and variety of traffic we have today.

Even Oliver "pro-car" Schick admits that you guys are wrong.

Heh. Obviously, circumstances are different at different junctions, but generally, the effect of more stacking lanes at junctions will be to increase motor traffic capacity. The capacity gain does not lie in the behaviour of motors when moving but in shortening the queue by breaking it up into more lanes. There will undoubtedly be issues at many junctions with re-merging behaviour, but that would not be enough to offset the effect of more lanes. Remember also that in most cases, multiple lanes take care of several different kinds of manoeuvres, e.g. left-turn only or right-turn only, depending on the flows in each direction.

Do you guys really believe that road designers have added the extra lane to SLOW traffic?
Even for Boris, that would be weird!

No, they haven't, of course. However, lane layout at junctions is a surprisingly complex subject. :)

You are missing the point about drivers taking off from the lights as differing speed/acceleration and leaving gaps. These gaps can be filled by merging.

The fact that in practice it doesn't always work is not helped by drivers not allowing the merge to happen as they feel cheated in some way that someone has got ahead of them.

We could debate the term "motor traffic capacity" :)

What's "better":
a) a 1 mile queue of vehicles feeding into a single lane bridge, left lane relatively empty for left turners and two wheelers
b) a 1/2 mile queue of vehicles, both lanes chocker, no room for anything on two wheels, left lane merging in the middle of the junction.

The flow rate on the bridge is the same - it's a single lane - but with both lanes full, left turners and other road users are stuck in the queue.

Using both lanes just moves the bulge along. It doesn't increase the flow on a larger scale. Does it? iamnotatrafficplanner

We could debate the term "motor traffic capacity" :)

What's "better":
a) a 1 mile queue of vehicles feeding into a single lane bridge, left lane relatively empty for left turners and two wheelers
b) a 1/2 mile queue of vehicles, both lanes chocker, no room for anything on two wheels, left lane merging in the middle of the junction.

The flow rate on the bridge is the same - it's a single lane - but with both lanes full, left turners and other road users are stuck in the queue.

What's better is less motor traffic. Increasing motor traffic capacity will generally increase motor traffic. After a while, the new capacity will be full and the net outcome will be worse than before. Delays to drivers will end up being about the same as before, with the difference that more people will drive, which in the inner city for the vast majority of journeys is not the most desirable mode of transport.

Workmate of mine saw a suit (in one of those sporty Audis surprise, surprise) deliberately and maliciously drive into a cyclist this morning on Preston Drove in Brighton. Apparently he thought it was a right laugh; even my work mate who is a car-fancying fool was shocked, but not sufficiently to get any details.
He did however give the cyclist his number, so if you might know the victim please get him to call the police (with my work mate as a witness) if he hasn't done so already - I don't think he realized quite how deliberate the driver's actions were.

Even Oliver "pro-car" Schick admits that you guys are wrong.

Do you guys really believe that road designers have added the extra lane to SLOW traffic?
Even for Boris, that would be weird!

I'm going on what I observe, when "I'm too important to queue" types go into the left hand lane, floor it, then have to force their way back into the main lane it does slow the the main traffic flow- it's a seperate question as to whether the main lane should allow these cunts people back in or not.

When they had road works at the end of London Bridge it caused terrible tailbacks- purely from people spreading out into multiple lanes, then having to merge back into one lane at the end, I'm positive that if they'd closed the whole lane rather than just the end (thus forcing the merge) traffic would have gone a lot faster.

It's ridiculous to how many road in London that constantly get changed from dual to single every miles or so, take Collier Wood to Stockwell (on the CS7 route surprise surprise) for example, I reckon that contributed to a lots of traffic jam due to people spreading out onto the other lane than merge back into a single lane.

It's not ridiculous, Ed, it's to do with the historical development of London's shape. In small village centres, streets naturally narrowed from the wider country roads that led up to them. Land values were (and are) highest in the historical centres, leading people to build very close to the street, often even adding upper storeys that protruded further out into the street than the ground floor. If you wanted to even out the entire course of a street, you'd either have to knock down houses in historic centres or narrow the streets leading up to them.

If you want to read about some of the silly plans that people had for mass motorisation in the 20th century, Google for "Bressey Plan" and "Greater London Plan" (Abercrombie). There were plans to knock down a huge number of houses to widen streets (as happened when the Westway was bulldozed in or when things like the Old Street roundabout were built).

local po-po weren't overly interested in hearing about the BT van who tried to run me off the road 3 times this morning, told me to tell BT so I shall.

Anyone know who to contact in BT for complaint against their driver?

don't fancy 2hrs on hold to be told I'm not a customer of theirs so they can't help any enquiry...

Write to them rather than speak to them You should then get a written reply. The contact details must be on their website

yeah, need to dig around on a proper computer, but will write not speak that's for sure.

Yesterday morning, going over Blackfriars Bridge northbound, I saw in the distance a massive plume of black fumes spew out the back of a black cab as it pulled off with the traffic. The cab stopped then started spewing fumes again as I came closer to it in the cycle lane. It was a proper cloud of shit and I had to hold my breath as I went through it. I decided to let the cabbie know about it.

I pulled up alongside the cab, tapped on the window, which was duly wound down and said, "You've got a lot of black fumes coming out of your exhaust, mate." Cabbie has one of those 'I'm a cunt' expressions on his face. "Yes," he says, "I'm using it to kill cyclists. Got four already this morning." In the time it takes me to actually register what he's said, the sheer fucking idiocy of it, he's wound his window up.

Taxi need to keep their vehicles in top condition in order to do their job, if it's not, then they have to take it off the road to be repaired.

That is AFAIK naturally, report them.

I don't know if this is the right thread for this but RLJing by cyclists is a police priority in Central London, which is partly due to public complaints. You can see that the complaint form here is pretty skewed against cyclists:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/citypolice/forms/wardpolicingconsultation_b.aspx

There things specified for people to rate their level of concern are for dangerous cycling, skateboarders, noise, drunkenness, rough sleepers and begging. Just calling it "dangerous cycling" seems to be encouraging people to complain against it, as well as having no mention of dangerous cars / HGVs.

Perhaps we could encourage cyclists to use this form to voice concerns against dangerous driving?

good idea Oliver
Done this too
Funny how they don't list dangerous driving in the options which is much more dangerous and anti social than any of the things they do list

Many thanks for this ojeffcott. Done.

wtf is rough sleepers doing on that list? I can see the connection between dangerous skateboarding and cycling, but rough sleeping? Being dangerously homeless?

1. Are there any other issues not listed above that concern you? If so, please list and indicate level of concern from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most concerned.
   
   

Rapacious bankers and rampant tax avoidance sanctioned by a bought and paid for political class.** 5**

That list of issues reads like a set of problems for people who don't have real problems.

That list of issues reads like a set of problems for people who don't have real problems.

It also seems weighted to choosing dangerous cycling. It's the only choice with an adjective and it's right at the top - number* one*.

And even the lowest option means you are slightly worried about it, no choice for "not a problem"

Chilling video from Gaz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOPTocYrMA

Update on this vid from the cyclist:

[B]Fined £400 + £85 costs and 6 penalty points applied to their license. A good result for some pretty dangerous driving?[/B]

The fine is pretty substantial compared to some of the other cases I’ve seen about dangerous drivers bullying other road users. This fine was how ever for failing to nominate a driver.

The registered keeper of this vehicle was sent several letters by the Police and failed to respond to all of them. They were summoned to court for Failing to Nominate a driver and were fined £400 + £85 costs and given 6 penalty points.

More info here:
http://croydoncyclist.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/1306/