Another impatient driver

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars filter past
a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is not to overtake them
in the first place.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving cars to
have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:42:31 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars filter past
a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is not to overtake them
in the first place.

That assumes there are no vehicles behind the cyclist who will
overtake the cyclist later on.

I'd rather be the first to cross a junction, or first to start to
cross a junction, by being at the head of the queue, that pass the
junction with other already moving traffic.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving cars to
have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

Indeed, but it would be better, and probably safer, to have 20
vehicles pass a cyclist three times than have 60 vehicles pass the
same cyclist once; plus it is more likely that the cyclist who filters
will have made better progress than the cyclist who has not filtered.

On Nov 13, 1:58*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:


I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like this of course.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numptybus.wmv

--
Simon Mason

On 13/11/11 13:00, Simon Mason wrote:

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
If done safely, yes. The head of a traffic queue is the safest place
to be in a traffic queue.

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue
then you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the
lights go green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention
the additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

What risk?
It is just good bike handling skills and anticipation in action.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/numptybus.wmv


The risk that the traffic starts moving again before you have got to the
front.

The risk of someone turning into/out of a side road not looking for
filtering cyclists.

The risk of someone flinging a door open into your path.

I can see that if you are reasonably confident about being able to
account for these risks then it is ok to filter to the front.

On 13/11/11 16:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:42:31 +0000,
wrote:

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars filter past
a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is not to overtake them
in the first place.

That assumes there are no vehicles behind the cyclist who will
overtake the cyclist later on.

I'd rather be the first to cross a junction, or first to start to
cross a junction, by being at the head of the queue, that pass the
junction with other already moving traffic.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving cars to
have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

Indeed, but it would be better, and probably safer, to have 20
vehicles pass a cyclist three times than have 60 vehicles pass the
same cyclist once; plus it is more likely that the cyclist who filters
will have made better progress than the cyclist who has not filtered.

I think what it comes down too is that it is highly situation dependant
whether it is a good idea to filter or not and thus impossible to apply
a general rule to cover all situations.

I sometimes encounter traffic backed up on this road (there is a traffic
light controlled T junction ahead just out of sight):

http://g.co/maps/z2eqm

If you look at the street view and imagine a traffic queue extending
back beyond the side road on the left, would you consider filtering here?

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:48:14 +0000, Adam Lea
wrote:

On 13/11/11 16:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:42:31 +0000,
wrote:

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars filter past
a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is not to overtake them
in the first place.

That assumes there are no vehicles behind the cyclist who will
overtake the cyclist later on.

I'd rather be the first to cross a junction, or first to start to
cross a junction, by being at the head of the queue, that pass the
junction with other already moving traffic.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving cars to
have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

Indeed, but it would be better, and probably safer, to have 20
vehicles pass a cyclist three times than have 60 vehicles pass the
same cyclist once; plus it is more likely that the cyclist who filters
will have made better progress than the cyclist who has not filtered.

I think what it comes down too is that it is highly situation dependant
whether it is a good idea to filter or not and thus impossible to apply
a general rule to cover all situations.

I sometimes encounter traffic backed up on this road (there is a traffic
light controlled T junction ahead just out of sight):

http://g.co/maps/z2eqm

If you look at the street view and imagine a traffic queue extending
back beyond the side road on the left, would you consider filtering here?

Filtering on the inside past side roads is fraught with dangers. I'd
certainly consider filtering on the outside.

On 13/11/11 18:10, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:48:14 +0000, Adam
wrote:

On 13/11/11 16:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:42:31 +0000,
wrote:

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars filter past
a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is not to overtake them
in the first place.

That assumes there are no vehicles behind the cyclist who will
overtake the cyclist later on.

I'd rather be the first to cross a junction, or first to start to
cross a junction, by being at the head of the queue, that pass the
junction with other already moving traffic.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving cars to
have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

Indeed, but it would be better, and probably safer, to have 20
vehicles pass a cyclist three times than have 60 vehicles pass the
same cyclist once; plus it is more likely that the cyclist who filters
will have made better progress than the cyclist who has not filtered.

I think what it comes down too is that it is highly situation dependant
whether it is a good idea to filter or not and thus impossible to apply
a general rule to cover all situations.

I sometimes encounter traffic backed up on this road (there is a traffic
light controlled T junction ahead just out of sight):

http://g.co/maps/z2eqm

If you look at the street view and imagine a traffic queue extending
back beyond the side road on the left, would you consider filtering here?

Filtering on the inside past side roads is fraught with dangers. I'd
certainly consider filtering on the outside.

You are braver than I am, I wait in the queue.

On 13/11/2011 12:55, wrote:

Oh really - so overtaking on the zig-zags is good cycling practice. Spouting
******** like that is what gives cycling a bad name.

Perhaps you can point out just one publication where it tells you to do that?

And of course - is cycling up the outside of a lane of traffic - which can
start moving at any time - really safe?

In most cases, of course it's perfectly safe - a stationary (or slow)
lane of traffic has small gaps, and as the traffic speeds up, you can
slip in to the widening gap quite safely

The zig-zag prohibitions are for motor vehicles only.

Adam Lea wrote:

On 13/11/11 18:10, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:48:14 +0000, Adam
wrote:

On 13/11/11 16:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:42:31 +0000,
wrote:

On 13/11/2011 13:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Adam wrote:

I do wonder about this, surely if you are at the head of the queue then
you have more vehicles behind trying to get past you when the lights go
green than if you were to wait in the queue? Not to mention the
additional risk of getting to the front in the first place.

I suppose the back of a traffic queue is even safer, but at some point
a cyclist is going to want to make progress, and better to filter past
stationary cars than have moving cars filter past a moving cyclist.

But the former will inevitably occasion the latter a short while later.

The way to avoid or minimise the incidence of having "moving cars
filter past a moving cyclist" (one assume you meant "overtake") is
not to overtake them in the first place.

That assumes there are no vehicles behind the cyclist who will
overtake the cyclist later on.

I'd rather be the first to cross a junction, or first to start to
cross a junction, by being at the head of the queue, that pass the
junction with other already moving traffic.

Doing so at successive traffic lights (etc) may cause the same moving
cars to have to overtake a moving cyclist several times.

Indeed, but it would be better, and probably safer, to have 20
vehicles pass a cyclist three times than have 60 vehicles pass the
same cyclist once; plus it is more likely that the cyclist who filters
will have made better progress than the cyclist who has not filtered.

I think what it comes down too is that it is highly situation dependant
whether it is a good idea to filter or not and thus impossible to apply
a general rule to cover all situations.

I sometimes encounter traffic backed up on this road (there is a traffic
light controlled T junction ahead just out of sight):

http://g.co/maps/z2eqm

If you look at the street view and imagine a traffic queue extending
back beyond the side road on the left, would you consider filtering here?

Filtering on the inside past side roads is fraught with dangers. I'd
certainly consider filtering on the outside.

You are braver than I am, I wait in the queue.

I'd think about overtaking on the right but really would depend if there
are nice big gaps with no oncoming traffic and then probably yes.

though I am likely to wait til past the left turn.

But as ever would depend,

Hampton Court road before they moved the cycle path on to the pavment
always worried me as cars do just give up and do a U turn.

so having a wide ish pavement you can just roll down, past a mile or so
of stuck traffic is a lot faster and calmer. since there are no left
turns etc on it.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
. uk...

Boy racer hurtles away from the lights, nearly hits a little old lady
crossing the road, then floors it to get the "lost" time back, then has to
slam on the anchors at a zebra where I pass him anyway.

What is that all about?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/impatient.wmv
======================================

Same as you. He's doing a time trial.

At 17 seconds, there was a lady waiting to cross the road. Had you any
anticipation or been reading the road, you should have stopped. At 27
seconds the car was correctly stopped at the zebra crossing for a
pedestrian. You went through the crossing while the person was still
crossing. The only reason you went past the car at that point (which you
promote) is because you were failing to observe the rules. At 34 seconds you
nearly ran down a pedestrian in exactly the same way as your complaint about
the car at the beginning.

This is another video demonstrating why cyclists should undergo the same
testing as car drivers before being allowed on the public roads.