Was this cyclist in the right or wrong

2»

Posts

  • goonz wrote:
    fatsmoker wrote:
    bit of a 20p for the swearbox then.

    Need to know what bike he was riding first

    Was he kitted out fully in lycra?

    no as mentioned above had shorts on over his bibshorts or lycra shorts or whatever they were, think he had lycra top on. it wasnt u was it?!
  • You don't have to accelerate like a pro to not hold up drivers when the lights change, providing you're alert and move immediately. If he dawdled then yes, inconsiderate, but if he had got on with it as the lights changed, and pulled over to the left immediately once he was moving, I don't see the problem in principle.

    +1

    No considerate driver should have a problem with this (I'm surprised so many cyclists seem to).

    in light traffic, with 3-4 cars in the queue, what need was there for the cyclist to filter up the left then weeble in front of the lead car right in the middle of the road, for the apparent benefit of simply not having to unclip, then holding the 3 cars up as the lights changed as he continued to weeble off from the lights.

    whats the point? he got no benefit from it. and knowing how a lot of drivers see cyclists why do things that can potentially antagonise them for no personal gain, bar not having to unclip, and give non ccycling drivers further ammunition against cyclists?

    imo people who do such thngs, whether being technically right int he eyes of the law or what others would do, give cyclist in general a bad name and just make life worse for the rest of us by being completely inconsiderate for no reason.
  • GiantMikeGiantMike Posts: 3,139
    He should have casually ridden up and stopped, putting his right hand on the bonnet or roof of the leading car, completely ignoring the driver. He wouldn't have needed to unclip and all the drivers in the queue would have thought he was 'well cool' and felt priveleged to be near such greatness.
    my power improvement experiment blog

    Rule number 100: It's your bike and your money and your time; do what you like with it and ignore other peoples' rules. Except this one.
  • Tom DeanTom Dean Posts: 1,723
    You don't have to accelerate like a pro to not hold up drivers when the lights change, providing you're alert and move immediately. If he dawdled then yes, inconsiderate, but if he had got on with it as the lights changed, and pulled over to the left immediately once he was moving, I don't see the problem in principle.

    +1

    No considerate driver should have a problem with this (I'm surprised so many cyclists seem to).

    in light traffic, with 3-4 cars in the queue, what need was there for the cyclist to filter up the left then weeble in front of the lead car right in the middle of the road, for the apparent benefit of simply not having to unclip, then holding the 3 cars up as the lights changed as he continued to weeble off from the lights.

    whats the point? he got no benefit from it. and knowing how a lot of drivers see cyclists why do things that can potentially antagonise them for no personal gain, bar not having to unclip, and give non ccycling drivers further ammunition against cyclists?

    imo people who do such thngs, whether being technically right int he eyes of the law or what others would do, give cyclist in general a bad name and just make life worse for the rest of us by being completely inconsiderate for no reason.
    I repeat: the rider's positioning in the lane is the only issue.

    He is entitled to filter through stationary traffic. The benefit of doing so is that you get further forward on the road. That is obvious, but irrelevant. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it, the fact that he was wobbling, or that he didn't unclip.
  • djm501djm501 Posts: 378
    You don't have to accelerate like a pro to not hold up drivers when the lights change, providing you're alert and move immediately. If he dawdled then yes, inconsiderate, but if he had got on with it as the lights changed, and pulled over to the left immediately once he was moving, I don't see the problem in principle.

    +1

    No considerate driver should have a problem with this (I'm surprised so many cyclists seem to).

    +2 What if the car had been turning left and was an inconsiderate 20p for the swearbox and wasn't signaling? Good way of avoiding the classic left hook. The car will be held up for how long?
  • and with 3-4 cars on an empty road the cyclist would be held up for how long, by just waiitng in turn in the middle of the road in order? and wouldnt mke drivers think what w*nker.
  • @ tom dean. i mention it cos that was the only reason he did it. it gained him no advantge filtering and pulling into the middle of the road, bar not having to unclip.

    the attitude of some cyclist is just bollox, technically they are entitled, but its just inconsiderate a holes that help foster 20p for the swearbox relationships with car drivers and make considerate cyclists labelled with the same brush.
  • chrisaonabikechrisaonabike Posts: 1,919
    The attitude of some cyclist is just bollox, technically they are entitled, but its just inconsiderate a holes that help foster 20p for the swearbox relationships with car drivers and make considerate cyclists labelled with the same brush.
    So all bike boxes at traffic lights should be removed then?

    If cyclists shouldn't filter their way to the front through the stationary traffic, bike boxes have no purpose. If you wait in line, whether at the kerb or behind the car in front, there's no need for them, since you'll either reach the front in a moving queue, or you'll be at the front anyway waiting for the lights to change.

    Clearly this is a nonsense. Whether waiting at the kerb or waiting in line, there is the risk of holding someone up behind. If at the kerb, there's the risk of being too close to the car next to you to accelerate away under perfect control; if in line, then you're holding up the cars behind in the same way as if you're at the front of the queue.

    Either way, you shouldn't hold cars up, you should move off promptly and pull over to the left. Bike boxes facilitate this, so using them is good. They should be present at more junctions.

    Wobbling as you filter through to the front, consequently looking like a plank, and making the drivers worry that you're going to scrape them, is obviously a Bad Thing.

    However, I still think that if there's space, moving confidently and accurately through to the front without fuss, pulling away promptly the instant the lights change, and then moving over, is the least hassle to anyone.

    Oh, and as a driver, I don't want a bike at the kerb side next to me. I don't want to have to worry about hitting them, or them me. If there's a bike box, I want them in it, and for them to get cracking outa my way when the lights change.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • awaveyawavey Posts: 2,114
    but wasnt he just taking up primary position though :? a 'b' road doesnt sound all that wide and I can kinda understand around a traffic light junction not wanting to concede space that allows people to think theres enough room to squeeze past you when there actually isnt, or could suddenly not be (everyone always forgets traffic coming towards you turning right goes and sits and takes about a bikes width out of your lane), it is better if your visible and upfront to people as then everyone knows your there, and hopefully wont try any crazy nonsense trying to pass you or pretend they didnt really see you, A-pillars are great at hiding cyclists stuck on the inside on busy junctions.

    fair enough you dont stay there for too long and deliberately hold traffic up more than necessary, which in most cases Ive ever encountered is the length of the junction itself, its not like pretending to be tractor on a country road for mile after mile, but it depends on the road layout space available, so I dont think setting off in the middle from the front is bad behaviour necessarily.
  • y r we referring to bike boxes now? there wasnt one.

    b road in question was plenty wide enuf.

    i guess there are just lots of inconsiderate cyclists about. fine take primary positon, as i do, in turn in traffic. fine if its heavy and u will miss the light change filter thru to the front and take prime, you will get a clear benefit from that. dont do it if there are 3-4 cars and you will gain 0 benefit and just p off car drivers.

    personally i dont want to antagonise motorists for no personal gain or valid reason apart from being technically allowed to. again its all about being considerate to over road users.
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    I actually think Cycle ASL cause as many problems as they fix.

    They put cyclists directly in harms way and help to cause frustration, particularly when they are put in places without proper thought. Same as cycle lanes on narrow busy roads.

    In cities if they split them or allowed motorcyclists to use them then I think car drivers would be more used to people coming in front of them at the lights.

    ASLs seem to go against the British culture of queuing
Sign In or Register to comment.