h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Something I've been cursing at for ages now... Thought I'd share it with you...

You're driving along a straight road in town, the road has numerous sets of traffic lights along its length...

You get to the first set of lights - they're at red...

You stop, and a cyclist overtakes you on the inside - rides up to the front of the queue of traffic and stops...

Lights change, all the cars set off at 2 mph behind the cyclist - eventually, one by one overtaking him when it's safe to do so..

Arrive at the next set of lights - which are again red because you've spent so much time behind the cyclist you're out of synch with the traffic light sequence.

You stop, the cyclist you were stuck behind rides back up the inside of the queue of traffic to the front and everything starts again...

After two or three sets of lights, the driver's are getting rather hacked off at this and are taking evermore risky opportunities to overtake the cyclist.

I can understand the cyclist heading to the front of the queue if they're planning to turn left or right at the lights - but all they're doing if they're going straight on is to annoy other road users and to put themselves in potential danger...

Anyone out there who cycles regularly explain what the advantage is for the cyclist?

In Ireland this is the recommended procedure for cyclists. The roads are marked with a narrow cycle lane at the side, then at the traffic lights it widens out to cover the whole road, to give room for the cyclists to congregate in front of the cars.

No idea why.

Yeah you get that in the UK too now.

You think cyclists annoy car drivers Whisky - try talking to a cyclist At least cyclists don't try and kill you on a serial basis.

More seriously, I mildly moaned about this to my brother not long ago - he is a really serious cyclist and believe it or not - he agreed with me. It is rather pointless.

Personally I think they should put cycles on the pavement. A cyclist *can* kill a pedestrian but it's rather rarer and more unlikely than cars/vans/trucks killing cyclists.

I do this. That's because at every set of traffic lights there's a big box with a picture of a bicycle in it, so I figure that's what I'm supposed to do.

I suppose the big box might be assuming a mass of 20 cyclists? To avoid cyclist jams? In rush hours?

Other than that, I got nothing, although if I cycled I probably would do what Z does.

I can understand it if there are:

a) Cycle lanes along the edge of the road
or
b) The cyclist is turning right or left at the junction...

But that's rarely the case...

To be honest, I have less of a problem with the cyclists who rush to the head of the queue then jump the lights... At least they're not holding me up all the time.

Right.

Urban planners have this verb 'to Copenhagenise', meaning to organise city streets for mass cycling. If you go to Copenhagen or Amsterdam or various other European cities you can see that they often manage to integrate four-wheeled and two-wheeled traffic on the same streets, separated by curbstones. Bikes also have their own traffic lights - and unlike in Britain bikes follow the rules of the cycleway as rigidly as cars follow the rules of the road. They've put some thought into it. It works.

Britain has decided to go for the Green brownie points. Only...green paint is cheaper than curbstones and traffic lights. We haven't put much thought into it. It doesn't work.

A cyclist can go at about 20mph if they are fairly fit in good conditions, it's quite hard to do that on a busy pavement.

Unfortunately, one of the problems over here is the free bike scheme (I think you've got something similar but smaller in London).

It means you've got thousands of people on the road who haven't necessarily ridden bikes for years, are not particularly fit and who are trying to lug ruddy great heavy hire cycles around...

20 mph would be lovely - but generally it's about 5!

Definitely not on the pavement.

I average 25/30 kmh in town.

As to the OP, it depends how long the queue is - if it's a long queue, than maintaining my movement through it is part of the advantages of cycling. As above, even when the road is clear you won't be much faster than me anyway. And I'm much quicker away from the lights, unless against a boy racer.

The other advantage of those boxes is that the cyclist is visible, and so cannot be killed by the motorist who has forgotten they have overtaken a cyclist and then turn across them. .

sprout

Cycling on the pavement gets you a £20 on the spot fixed penalty

I don't do a lot of town cycling but when I do encounter lights at junctions I go to the front to avoid traffic - especially lorries & buses - turning left and flattening me. If I'm at the front, there's more chance of:

a) being seen by drivers and
b) getting across the junction before all the traffic turning left begins.

As for speed, I normally do 50 mile runs and average 15-17mph.

Basically - what sprout said

>Cycling on the pavement gets you a �20 on the spot fixed penalty erm<

Well yes, I'm suggesting that shouldn't be the case.

I'm also not advocating trying to cycle at 25 mph on a pavement. I'm thinking more in terms of cyclists being still alive when they get wherever they're going.
My experience when I used to cycle busy city streets was that they were a deathtrap and I'd rather go slower on a pavement than risk death on a busy road - especially a busy roundabout or two lanes of traffic when I'm trying to turn right.

I do this, and I certainly don't get up to 20mph

Why do I do it. Hmmm.
Because I want to get where I am going in the shortest, safest time. Why prolong my journey by waiting somewhere I don't have to?
If there is a clear patch of road for me to travel down, I shall. Why should I stop 5 cars away from the light if it is safe to move closer? I have as much right to the road as anyone else. My responsibility is, as it is theirs, to use it safely, which I do. There is no 'right' for you to travel in a car at 30mph on the road.

Plus, of course, if the road is narrow such that overtaking a cyclist is not easy, then if I did stay 5 cars back from the lights then the cars behind me would be complaining about the cyclist who is blocking them and causing them to miss the green and wait for the next one due to being slow.

Exceptions to doing this are: vehicles at the head of the queue turning left (I'll sit behind the last one indicating) and large vehicles (buses, lorries, etc) who may not see me.

Incidentally, a perfectly legal way to 'jump' lights is to dismount the cycle, wheel it around the corner on the pavement or across the road and then get back on it again and cycle on.

>I'll sit behind the last one indicating<

You see cars indicating? It's not just me then.

When I used to cycle to school that was my fav thing in the world, it was my revenge for being outside in the wet. HTH.

Ictoan is absolutely right on his two no-no situations. Cycling up the inside of lorries and buses is the absolutely classic way for a novice urban cyclist to be killed, unfortunately. If you go past, you have to be 100% sure you can be in front of them before they move.

sprout

>>>if the road is narrow such that overtaking a cyclist is not easy, then if I did stay 5 cars back from the lights then the cars behind me would be complaining about the cyclist who is blocking them and causing them to miss the green and wait for the next one due to being slow.

You're missing one point here... Ok, there are bad drivers out there, but most drivers will wait patiently till they can get past safely.

By continually moving to the front of the line you're holding up the _same_ drivers _several_ times - and what's more, you're going to get to your destination at _exactly_ the same time because regardless of whether you're first at the lights or 6th, you're going through them on the same sequence.

The only difference is that you'll get through the last set of lights thirty seconds earlier - and in the mean time you've held up quite a few cars, several times.

The fact you've held up the same drivers on multiple occasions is going to increase the possibility of one of them attempting a dangerous overtake...

So, basically, to make yourself feel like you're getting their a bit quicker you're hindering other road users and putting yourself in a potentially hazardous situation.

Frankly in my experience it's so rare to see a cyclist actually bother to stop at red lights that I'd treat anyone who did with as much courtesy as I could. Ultimately, if I attempt a dangerous overtake, what am I gaining? A couple of seconds? Big deal.

I withdraw the comment if the cyclist if barreling right down the middle of the carriageway to actively prevent people overtaking, but assuming they're pedalling at the side of the road safely enough, I'm more than happy to kick back and sit behind them for the few hundred yards they're likely to be there.

The cyclists who get my goat are the ones who sail at great speed up the inside of a traffic queue, and barely even slow down, let alone stop, for the red light we're all queuing for in our cars. And for what? Again, an advantage of a few seconds. On the other hand, that cyclist has now made me think "You're not obeying the rules of the road, why should I bother?" and might find that when I inevitably catch and overtake them, I might be closer to them that they're entirely comfortable with. And when I arrive at the next set of light my wheels will be right in the gutter to make sure they have to mount the pavement to undertake... which they always do, of course, because laws and the highway code don't apply to cyclists, right?