I know the markings you describe. They’re often called ‘Advance Stop Lines’ and are now commonplace in many UK cities. The intention of ASLs is to place cyclists in clear view of queuing traffic and give them a small headstart when the lights change.

Regarding the ‘tail’ you describe, it’s hard to say without knowing the junctions themselves. But there are several reasons why the feeder lane may be in the centre, rather than at the left. Lots may depend on the road layout before and after the ASL: there may be good reason why a cyclist may need to be in the right lane, not the left – if they’ve just joined from the right or will be leaving to the right. Or maybe the lanes are soon to split. Regardless of this, I think it’s worth noting that the very left hand side of a road or lane is often not the best place for a cyclist to be. Riding further out in the lane gives more visibility in busy traffic, and moving the ‘tail’ feeder lane away from left may well support this.

I am wondering why ASLs need these ‘tail’ at all… Why are they needed, when a cyclist could entre the ASL from any poition?

Would it be fair to say there’s some contradiction in your remarks? From “Insurance or not as long as a cyclist that causes damage pays for it no problem” to “Compulsory insurance for cyclists is a MUST!”.

Your situation sounds unfortunate, but as you say, the other party is liable and you are dealing with the process of receiving recompense for the damage. I think you make a strong case for liability and enforced responsibility, but that is not the same thing as a case for compulsory insurance.

For the reasons I described in my post, there would be unintended consequences of making insurance compulsory – damaging the accessibility of cycling and turning it from a normal activity into something exclusively for committed enthusiasts. This is counter to the idea of increasing cycling in the UK. And for what gain?

Insurance is compulsory for cars, yet many hundreds of thousands of uninsured drivers are on the road, causing damage, death and expense to others. I don’t see how compulsory insurance for cyclists would be any more failsafe, how it would alter the liability of those who cause damage, and I can’t ignore the huge harm it would do to the freedom of us all to use cycling as a normal way of getting around.

Clive

One little click, one little like, one powerful marketing tool.