You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Unfortunately this ends up being dumb.

    For the vast majority of the time, people will drive to whatever lines you give them. It is, effectively, the course of least resistance and saves them from thinking for themselves. It's why people observe non-mandatory bike lanes, timed bus lanes, chevroned areas and the like. Until they come up with a motivation to breach them then 99% of drivers won't intentionally drive them and will make a concerted effort to observe them.

    Removing the lights to the right wouldn't work because the need to see the lights to the left would come too late. Also, because as you state, this doesn't work for all vehicles and it's very much in human nature to copy other people's behaviour, even when it isn't in our own best interests. That sort of pattern of behaviour won't change until there is a direct perceived threat to safety. That pattern of behaviour will also extent to cyclists. drivers would then use cyclists as an indication of the lights changing thus choosing to draw level with them and setting off as soon as the cyclist is seen to move.

    Further to this, unless you specifically demarcate an area as being for cyclists, drivers won't get any message that the space is for them. You'd be far more likely to get drivers indulging in extraordinary in car gymnastics in order to see the lights from the line or using advice from passengers as to when the lights have changed.

    JamesSW makes a good point here that a little redesign could be used to subliminally change driver behaviour. However, there is a bit of a flaw in this in regards to the law. You are allowed to enter the ASL when the light is green and are legally obliged to remain there if the light then turns to red. We would benefit from a change in the law so that ASLs effectively become box junctions and drivers can only enter them once their exit from the junction is clear.

    I realise that this is a bit of a dickish long-winded take down of a simple suggestion. I hope I've explained it sufficiently that the OP doesn't feel discouraged from making other proposals. We've probably all come up with dumb ideas in the past but for the future improved safety of cycling we still need some really good ones.

About