An idea to reduce cyclist deaths at junctions.

In urban areas you could have junctions every 200 yards so you could put up a lot of signage or achieve the same result with a blanket ban on overtaking cyclists in urban areas. Either option would face the same counter-argument:

"Why shouldn't I overtake cyclists when it's safe to do so?"

So what I would prefer to zoom in an are the existing rules on overtaking and the way that they are enforced. These could be clarified and expanded to make it clear to motorists that fast overtaking and close overtaking are both dangerous in themselves and likely to result in penalty points (with prosecutions for careless or even dangerous driving when both are combined.)

People need to understand how the amount of clearance required is related to the speed of the overtaking vehicle. 3 feet might be enough clearance if a suburban driver slows from 20 mph to 12 mph while overtaking a parent cycling uphill with two toddlers in a child trailer at 7 mph, but 3 yards might be barely enough clearance - even for a less obviously vulnerable cyclist - if traffic is moving freely on a road with a 60 mph limit.

Many drivers believe they can speed without anything bad happening because they are skilled. The physics of stopping distances disprove their arguments. The physics of overtaking need to become more widely known in the same way, and drivers need to understand the psychological impact of dangerous overtakes on victims. If somebody gives up cycling after a near-death experience, it's not true to say that "nothing happened" just because there was no collision and nobody was injured.

I think your post looks at the problem wrong way around. We're not going to change drivers so let's put the responsibility with the cyclist and give them the tools to be safe at junctions:

1) Keep ASLs and enforce them with cameras (just like they do with yellow boxes)
2) Put a large countdown timer up so cyclists can see how long they have to get to the ASL before traffic begins to move.
3.1) Green light for cyclists for ten seconds or so
or
3.2) Allow cyclists to turn left on a red when safe to do so.

The above are easy to enforce and practical. Chances of any of it being done? Nope.

The shared space scheme in Poynton is mayhem and a danger to everyone concerned, no way would I walk around there with my kids, sorry but I can't see what benefits such schemes bring to anyone.
A better idea would be to remove the driver's airbag from all cars and replace it with a foot long spike sticking out of the steering wheel, maybe then drivers might pay a bit more attention.

There are already far too many road signs - some high streets look like a small forest of steel poles all with signs - watch out for this, directions to that, publicity for the other.

All over the place, road users are being given all sorts of information from the useful (turn left for A, turn right for B) to the advisory (caution, speed humps ahead) to the generally useless (car boot sale this Sunday!).

As a result, they're conditioned not to think, they expect to be given everything and when something happens (eg, a bike NOT in a bike lane) they get confused, angry, don't know how to react. The bike should be in it's lane, that's what I've been told and it's not. Drivers simply look for the green light - not whether there's still a little old lady crossing, they just see green and go.

Last thing we need is yet more signage - if anything it needs stripping away completely so that drivers actually have to think for themselves, that is proven to slow them down. Google "shared space" for more info.

Have been thinking much the same thing Neil. Though do you not mean 200 feet? I would have a no passing zone from say 25 meters from the lights. I would also have it on the approach to a roundabout. I would also have it on the other side as well to allow a number of cyclists to safely allow themselves to establish their position based on speed.

Another thought is that if you are making a right hand turn off the main road, that oncoming traffic slow down to allow you to turn off the main road.

I think there has been some good points made so far. It's a shame that traffic planners do not seem to read cycling websites when working out the provision for cyclists.

I think a lot of the problem is that judgement is not used when and when not to use a bike lane to undertake stationary traffic at junctions. Most motorists (myself included) are 'hard wired' to expect and look out for overtaking traffic but not undertaking traffic. In some cases IMHO bike lanes provide a false sense of security and encourage a mindset that you must get to the ASL where in some cases it is more diligent to hold back and queue with the rest of the traffic (a minority of which has issues when you take a primary position when queuing but that is a different problem).

Would no a solution be to remove all bike lanes within 50yds of a junction & where there is space divert the bike lane onto the pavement to offer a left hand filter lane for cyclists. The lane could be easily segregated from pedestrians / traffic using raised kerb edgings.

Having thought long and hard about this I cannot see any justification for allowing any vehicle to overtake any other vehilce in the 50 metres preceding and the 50 metres after any controlled road junction, or traffic control feature. By any vehicle I include motor vehicles and pedal cycles.

"No overtaking" ought to always mean any vehicle (that is not the same as a continuous centre line).

A global rule banning such manouvres might be a good start. We already theoretically have no overtaking in the zig-zag areas at certain types of pedestrian crossings.

I also can't see any justification for allowing motor vehicles to travel faster than 20mph in built up areas.

Think about it; I mean real justification. That doesn't include making slightly quicker journey times, increasing flow rates across a city or passing something in those 50 metres because it is going really slowly.

If there is no justification for allowing it then why is it allowed?

I agree with r48. Not really practical. Hard to enforce and you would otherwise cause a rush to get passed cyclists before the 200 yard point. You are just starting a problem at another point on the road.

I think common sense on it should be that cyclists don't undertake HGVs, and feel happy to sit in the lane. Education on when to use the ASL and when not to. Perhaps creating a HGV line (further back) on the ASL to give them more vision of cyclists - perhaps a ASL line further back at all junctions for HGVs.

Also the thing about sitting behind a bus or HGV is that they don't move too fast. Cars are much happier to let you take the lane if they know that they are being blocked by the bus and not you (because if you are over to the left there is plenty of room for them to move beyond you).

In London I think the average journey speed is 12.5mph, which is easily matched on a bike - so in the main I don't think drivers are actually too bothered about immediately passing cyclists. It actually seems that cyclists are more bothered about overtaking/undertaking motorists.

The issue to me is as much about cyclists understanding HGVs as vice versa (and actually cyclists and any other vehicle in traffic).

thing is, they would not obey it. Well maybe 70% of them might. Only real solution is segregated bike lanes with physical barriers so cars and lorries cannot either park or drive on cycle lanes.
I lived in Sweden for about 4 years and te cycle lanes were a joy.
Or actually, rather from an Englishmans perspective they were safe.