Y DO U NEED 2 B @ THE FRONT
Comments
-
redddraggon wrote:feaseyrider wrote:b coz dude once i've overtaken u then u have been forgotten ....all i wanted too find out was a different perspective on being at the front of the queue ...?
my bike: it is a GIANT FCR ADVANCED....
and what is your bone shaker?
I'm sorry, you are n00b.
Only n00bs ride flat barred road bikes.
WHY ARE YOU SORRY?0 -
feaseyrider wrote:
as a cyclist and a class 1 hgv driver , y do cyclist need 2 b at the front at every set of lights ....only 4 me in my BIG truck try to safely overtake u get in front and then .... ANOTHER SET OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS....... when i cycle 2 work i stay with the flow of the traffic ....judging by some of the U TUBE footage us cyclists think we have a certain domination over ME IN MY BIG TRUCK ..... this a general point i'd like to find out ,not a dig....
happy commuting
feaseyrider
THANK YOU
For reading this , i was recently knocked from my bike and suffered a broken wrist plus minor scratches.I have made a full recovery and back commuting, at present i'm fighting my corner as the driver of this CLASS 1 says i was too blame.i'd like to point out that there was no witnesses but he stopped and call the emergency services.....very strange i thought he may of driven off ... I DON'T DRIVE BIG TRUCKS ...but needed different views to put together a STRONGER case .....
THANK YOU ALL
happy commute
feaseyrider0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
If you are going faster than me, how come you have to overtake me more than once?feaseyrider wrote:b coz DUDE my truck naturally travels fast than u so ... if yor already at the front of the Q ....but if i have OVERTAKEN YOU y weave yor way to the front ....u r gaining nothing ...coz my truck naturally travels faster than u ...DUDE....
Oh, and have a go at full syntax so I can take you seriously.
What sort of bike do you have?
This forum really has disappeared up its own fundament.
Many of you are obsessed with getting to the front - what else is SCR if it is not about that?
Anyway, this bloke is right, don't overtake him whilst he is stationary if you are only going to be overtaken again whilst traffic sets off from the lights again.
His point is the same as the regular whinge on this forum about other slower cyclists who feel the need to stop at the front of the bunch at the lights necessitating you to overtake all over again.
An to end my rant, so what if his syntax / grammar / punctuation are not the same as yours?
As long as he is able to make his point - which his has since you have responded to all of them - the format of that posting is immaterial.0 -
It all depends on where you are cycling. If in a city you can mostly beat anything to the next set of lights and not slow down the general flow of traffic, if anything it's the motor vehicles slowing the cyclist down.
Out of the cities it's a bit different with more of a chance of the motor traffic to get up to speed. Often I’ve been at the front of a set of lights with a hgv behind and waved him through coz I know he'll struggle to get past if i set off first. (Also jump on the back and get a good draft )
Quite often you can see the hgv at lights further down the road and he would be stuck behind several cars, I go to the front and I’m aware that there's a hgv behind.
If you sit behind the traffic at lights you can miss the change and be stuck there longer than needed, I think that is why some set of lights have them boxes mark out at the front for cyclists.
And finally if you are prepared to overtake be prepared to be overtaken0 -
Why do HGV Drivers insist on overtaking other HGV's when they are blatently only capable of doing the same speed, meaning both lanes are blocked for 5 minutes holding everyone else who is capable of going over 60mph up. Damn that annoys me! :xBoardman Hybrid Pro
Planet X XLS0 -
woodford2barbican wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
If you are going faster than me, how come you have to overtake me more than once?feaseyrider wrote:b coz DUDE my truck naturally travels fast than u so ... if yor already at the front of the Q ....but if i have OVERTAKEN YOU y weave yor way to the front ....u r gaining nothing ...coz my truck naturally travels faster than u ...DUDE....
Oh, and have a go at full syntax so I can take you seriously.
What sort of bike do you have?
This forum really has disappeared up its own fundament.
Many of you are obsessed with getting to the front - what else is SCR if it is not about that?
Anyway, this bloke is right, don't overtake him whilst he is stationary if you are only going to be overtaken again whilst traffic sets off from the lights again.
His point is the same as the regular whinge on this forum about other slower cyclists who feel the need to stop at the front of the bunch at the lights necessitating you to overtake all over again.
An to end my rant, so what if his syntax / grammar / punctuation are not the same as yours?
As long as he is able to make his point - which his has since you have responded to all of them - the format of that posting is immaterial.
+1!
There is a culture of getting to the front of the ASL with cyclists and its the place most accidents happen. I.e. People turning left with the big truck also turning left and squashing said cyclist. Fact is if the cyclist waited behind the big truck, who may not be able to see said cyclist that is infront/beside of them because of the high driving position, the big truck wouldn't be a hazard.
Point is you don't need to be at the front of the queue to be visible, you only need to be visible to the person behind. It doesn't matter if a vehicle is ahead of you. If bikes are traffic then act like traffic. I wouldn't filter or fight to get to the front in my car.
Lastly, only time I try to get ahead of a truck is if there is another truck behind me and a large vehicle behind that (i.e. I'm surrounded by vans, trucks and lorries). Then I might even RLJ or pass the crossing but not the junction to get away from all the trucks. Trucks = bad.
As for the guys syntax, its a internet forum not a formal letter he's writing, what he wrote has been understood, therefore it has done its job.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
deffler wrote:Why do HGV Drivers insist on overtaking other HGV's when they are blatently only capable of doing the same speed, meaning both lanes are blocked for 5 minutes holding everyone else who is capable of going over 60mph up. Damn that annoys me! :x
Your a cyclist, surely you understand the importance of momentum, and preserving it whenever possible, and how much of a cost in energy having to speed up/slow down is.
You're also aware of how much you can save by being in someone else's draft.
You don't think the exact same principles apply to HGV's? They pass to take their turn up front, they pass to preserve that little extra momentum they have. They don't do it to piss cars off, cars that are going to be delayed a couple of minutes on what is probably going to be a couple of hours of driving anyway.0 -
cjcp wrote:Rockbuddy wrote:Am I a Troll
:oops:
Not you, RB. The OP.
Oh, ok - just thought 'cos I was going a bit against the grain with my post.
Anyways, the OP has now said he's not an HGV driver and was researching for a court case or something? Sounds a bit suss, I'm htinking he maybe a reporter researching for an article or something...Either way all seems a bit weird, or am I the only one that thinks so.
Oh and @ DDD from your post I got the impression that you maybe thinking more of cyclists as Traffic, are ou changing your view point???
0 -
Two good reasons for going to the front:
1. If you stop behind a car/truck they are not likely to see you and may make a surprise left turn in front of you or squeeze you to the curb because they're talking on their cell etc. not paying attention to their position in the lane.
2. If at each light you stop at the position of the last stopped car/truck you may end up
so far back from the intersection that you may have to wait twice for the light to go green to pass through and you will still have plenty of cars that have to pass you during that time anyways so it's fairly pointless.
I think it just gets down to everyones level of courtesy and not being a self righteous a-hole on the road no matter what your mode of travel is.0 -
crankycrank wrote:I think it just gets down to everyones level of courtesy and not being a self righteous a-hole on the road no matter what your mode of travel is.
+1 I think it comes down to respecting other road users whatever mode of transport you use. When I'm in my car I don't expect to be able to make as quick progress through busy towns and in the city then I would on my bike, what annoys me when I'm in my car tho is drivers who seem to think they can take the pi$$ by pushing into queues or who constantly jump lanes.
Likewise when I'm on my bike my usable road spaces increases significantly as I can make it through the smaller gaps so I can keep moving when I'd usually be stuck in a traffic jam in the car. I'll admit sometimes I do take so stupid risks to get in front of a bus or large vehicle, but this is normally when I've made a judgement that I can make it through the gap and I'm travelling considerably faster then them. I'm sure one day my luck will run out but part of the reason I enjoy riding my bike is the thrill I get out of using it such situations :-D0 -
tardington wrote:He's got a point - Mr Feasey. Don't know you well enough to know you won't start spouting (probably vague) threats.
oh thats MRS TO YOU....0 -
Rockbuddy wrote:Oh and @ DDD from your post I got the impression that you maybe thinking more of cyclists as Traffic, are ou changing your view point???
No, but I can totally see the point of view.
My thoughts, though controversial, is that cyclist need to make a choice: If traffic then act like (modern day) traffic, no filtering, undertaking and swarming to the front of the ASL for example.
Or
Don't be considered traffic i.e. not expected to act like a car, but be accepted as a road user and have seperate rules/laws developed to ensure cyclists and other road user safety.
The latter takes thinking outside the box, but works on the continent as I understand. I for one support the latter.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
crankycrank wrote:Two good reasons for going to the front:
1. If you stop behind a car/truck they are not likely to see you and may make a surprise left turn in front of you or squeeze you to the curb because they're talking on their cell etc. not paying attention to their position in the lane.
That's not a good reason to get to the front at all. That's exactly how and why some get crushed going left in the first place.
The more sensible thing to do is wait behind the very large vehicle and allow it to make its move (whether going left, right or straight) and then for you - the very vulnerable cyclist - to move safely.2. If at each light you stop at the position of the last stopped car/truck you may end up
so far back from the intersection that you may have to wait twice for the light to go green to pass through and you will still have plenty of cars that have to pass you during that time anyways so it's fairly pointless.
Again, so what. That's what vehicles and most other road using have to do.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
crankycrank wrote:Two good reasons for going to the front:
1. If you stop behind a car/truck they are not likely to see you and may make a surprise left turn in front of you or squeeze you to the curb because they're talking on their cell etc. not paying attention to their position in the lane.
2. If at each light you stop at the position of the last stopped car/truck you may end up
so far back from the intersection that you may have to wait twice for the light to go green to pass through and you will still have plenty of cars that have to pass you during that time anyways so it's fairly pointless.
I think it just gets down to everyones level of courtesy and not being a self righteous a-hole on the road no matter what your mode of travel is.
Neither of those are good reasons. Your first one is wrong, if you are behind the truck how can it run you over? Your second one, so what if it takes two goes to get through the lights?0 -
The more sensible thing to do is wait behind the very large vehicle and allow it to make its move (whether going left, right or straight) and then for you - the very vulnerable cyclist - to move safely.
+1
I think at some point be it in a car or on a bike, there is this must overtake/get to front of queue mentality, I do get it sometimes to.
I was chating about something similar with people at work, and we ended up coming up with the idea of allowing Amber to show for a extra 5 seconds which would allow cyclists to leave the lights, giving a headstart on the traffic. Though that would not be praticle at every junction0 -
If you add that to every cycle of the lights, it would significantly impede traffic flow.JonS123 wrote:The more sensible thing to do is wait behind the very large vehicle and allow it to make its move (whether going left, right or straight) and then for you - the very vulnerable cyclist - to move safely.
+1
I think at some point be it in a car or on a bike, there is this must overtake/get to front of queue mentality, I do get it sometimes to.
I was chating about something similar with people at work, and we ended up coming up with the idea of allowing Amber to show for a extra 5 seconds which would allow cyclists to leave the lights, giving a headstart on the traffic. Though that would not be praticle at every junction
Besides, how many cars would actually wait?0 -
Besides, how many cars would actually wait?
None.
The car at the front is going to chase the amber. But there is a domino effect that makes every car behind the first move off a little slower. The delay isn't best served by making amber last longer its already found in a drivers reaction time when moving off.
In someways its safer to wait and move off between the third and forth car as they are less likely to speed off...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
So, how about the OP tells us what actually happened in this accident. Might give us a better chance of deciding who's fault it was.
Regardless of blame, I hope you've learned that dicking around near HGVs isn't a particularly good idea. You won't have much chance to argue they were to blame if one of them runs over your head.0 -
_Brun_ wrote:Regardless of blame, I hope you've learned that dicking around near HGVs isn't a particularly good idea.
Brun is right.
Everyone stay away from the HGVs. You are a long time dead and it's not worth being 50/50 for the sake of the time it's taken me to type this post....
You might be OK 99 times out of a 100 - but how often do you roll the dice?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rockbuddy wrote:Oh and @ DDD from your post I got the impression that you maybe thinking more of cyclists as Traffic, are ou changing your view point???
No, but I can totally see the point of view.
My thoughts, though controversial, is that cyclist need to make a choice: If traffic then act like (modern day) traffic, no filtering, undertaking and swarming to the front of the ASL for example.
Or
Don't be considered traffic i.e. not expected to act like a car, but be accepted as a road user and have seperate rules/laws developed to ensure cyclists and other road user safety.
The latter takes thinking outside the box, but works on the continent as I understand. I for one support the latter.
I don't think it is so black and white, IME the choices I make about where I sit in a que or whether I filter or not depend on the situation at the time, so I don't fit into either category exclusively. Maybe naive of me but I think that cyclists can be part of traffic but also have specific rules/laws for them (as you mentioned) the 2 don't have to be exclusive of each other though. If we completely seperate ourselves from the rest of road users surely this sends out the wrong message to the motorists?0 -
Rockbuddy wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Rockbuddy wrote:Oh and @ DDD from your post I got the impression that you maybe thinking more of cyclists as Traffic, are ou changing your view point???
No, but I can totally see the point of view.
My thoughts, though controversial, is that cyclist need to make a choice: If traffic then act like (modern day) traffic, no filtering, undertaking and swarming to the front of the ASL for example.
Or
Don't be considered traffic i.e. not expected to act like a car, but be accepted as a road user and have seperate rules/laws developed to ensure cyclists and other road user safety.
The latter takes thinking outside the box, but works on the continent as I understand. I for one support the latter.
I don't think it is so black and white as the choices I make about where I sit in a que or whether I filter or not depend on the situation at the time. Maybe naive of me but I think that cyclists can be part of traffic but also have specific rules/laws for them (as you mentioned) the 2 don't have to be exclusive of each other. If we completely seperate ourselves from the rest of road users surely this sends out the wrong message to the motorists?
It's not naive or wrong of you to think that. I just have a different perspective.
When in a car, I don't expect bicycles to act, react or behave like most other traffic. My view is if motorists were to think differently about cyclists, rather than expect them to act like other common forms of traffic then we can begin to create seperate laws for cyclists to increase our safety.
For me, there is no point in creating new road laws for bikes if motorists attitudes towards cyclists don't change dramatically. Getting them to think of cyclists as legal road users but not traffic, I feel, is one way of doing that.
On topic: If a bicycle and a HGV were to transform into robots and have a fight... The HGV would win. Cyclists stay away from HGV's. You will lose!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Aw. I was hoping the "post a picture of your commuting ride" would now have a BIG TRUCK on it. Big trucks are cool! Like this one:
0 -
Are you butch, with tats and piercings though?feaseyrider wrote:tardington wrote:He's got a point - Mr Feasey. Don't know you well enough to know you won't start spouting (probably vague) threats.
oh thats MRS TO YOU....0 -
woodford2barbican wrote:Neither of those are good reasons. Your first one is wrong, if you are behind the truck how can it run you over?
I am of the more cautious stay-entirely-behind-if you-can't-permanently-overtake' variety of thinking, however I was once on a narrow lane and a white van I had been following (it had no rear windows) suddenly decided to reverse back up the road. I had to leap the bike off into a hedge or he would have flattened me in not-so-slow-motion.
Some HGVs will also sometimes start blind reverse-turning in a similar fashion without a safety man, relying on nothing more than luck and their reverse beeper. So always give yourself some room when behind.0 -
nielsamd wrote:woodford2barbican wrote:Neither of those are good reasons. Your first one is wrong, if you are behind the truck how can it run you over?
I am of the more cautious stay-entirely-behind-if you-can't-permanently-overtake' variety of thinking, however I was once on a narrow lane and a white van I had been following (it had no rear windows) suddenly decided to reverse back up the road. I had to leap the bike off into a hedge or he would have flattened me in not-so-slow-motion.
Some HGVs will also sometimes start blind reverse-turning in a similar fashion without a safety man, relying on nothing more than luck and their reverse beeper. So always give yourself some room when behind.
I always wondered if that ever happened in real life....
If you swerved to the right would/could he have seen you in his wing mirror?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Why is everyone getting so upset and concerned for the poor motorists having to overtake? Overtaking is part and parcel of driving, so can't we just leave them to get on and do it where safe and legal to do so? I usually work my way steadily up to the front (though usually the gap behind the car in front, in case the guy ahead turns left) and I have never been aware that I have caused any undue delay to any motorists. I have probably caused aggravation (though noone has voiced it) - unsurprising bearing in mind I probably get to the city centre 20 minutes before they do - but again, so what, if they want to get all upset about it, I don't really care? I don't think I take the p1ss, so I don't think I'm giving cyclists a bad name, and if I didn't go to the front, it could add a serious chunk to my commute time, so all in all I will continue to ride to the (almost) front. If there was a narrow high speed section of road ahead of me, I'd probably take a different view, but for my commute, there is no issue with it. Also, some junctions have big green cycle boxes at the front by the lights - does that not suggest that cyclists are to convene there ready for them to change? They are a great idea, by the way as they 'legitimise' sitting in the middle of the road at the head of the queue and not being run over by someone turning left. Also, when driving, I expect cyclists to move through the queue and will usually create room to allow them to do so.
I agree with the posts on here that it is not black and white, but for me, moving on is the default.0 -
I'll normally if safe filter to a postion that i'll make the lights, some times that might be the front sometimes a few cars behind. if the cars are very packed in and i can't see the lights i will just wait, same way while i do filter i do slowly as your moving though ton plus objects blind spots.
as to cars being stuck behind in big urban areas a fast bike is likely to be one of if not the fastest vehicle.0 -
woodford2barbican wrote:Your second one, so what if it takes two goes to get through the lights?
And if it takes FIVE goes to get through ?
It's certainly not worth taking the 'at all costs' approach to getting to the front on the queue, but surely one of the benefits of cycle commuting is that you can take advantage of your reduced width to make up ground that you lose if overtaken later.
To me one of the most important advantages of being at the front of the queue is that most times you can react faster to the lights and get 'into gear' and moving quicker than those behind you. That then gives you enough time to adopt the best position for the road ahead.
However , filtering does have it's moments & you should always keep an eye on the lights ahead and also for any traffic joining/ leaving (e.g. from side roads)
Mike0 -
Then unless its clear and safe to filter you wait FIVE goes.Mikelyons wrote:And if it takes FIVE goes to get through ?To me one of the most important advantages of being at the front of the queue is that most times you can react faster to the lights and get 'into gear' and moving quicker than those behind you.
This is an absolute myth. There is no way a person on a bike can move off faster than the combustion engine powered car. The only reason why a bike appears to move off faster than a car is because:
a) The person in the motorised vehicle has chosen to let the bike go.
b) The person in the motorised vehicle is simply moving off slowly.
If you doubt it, try moving off quicker than my Uncle's V6 Audi A3. :roll: Or my Fathers 3lt BMW 5 Series or my 1.4 Seat.... :roll:
Everytime a bike appears to have moved off faster than me, when I'm in a car, its because I've let them.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0
