# Road Cycling Safety BBC radio 5 discussion



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

Did anyone hear the phone in this morning on BBC 5 live radio with Nicky Campbell?

They had a driver from Devon, a cyclist and a lorry driver. I don't want to be harsh but the cyclist's arguement was weak from the outset. He said it was fine for the cyclist to skip a red light to get a head start on the traffic waiting at the lights and then said he prefers cycling on the pavements. 

Is this the voice we cyclists want to put forward our case for safety on the road? Maybe he was a little less articulate than he could have been but surely his line of arguement was flawed?

If you heard the piece on the radio what did you think?

Here are some of the issues that were brought up by the discussion

Do you run red lights? 
Cycle the wrong way up one-way streets? 
Give hand signals when turning? 
Do you find when at lights traffic is very aggresive when the lights change to green?


----------



## thomas (8 May 2009)

Sounds like you should have phoned in and told them to ignore their cyclist's views.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

To be fair, after that first cyclist - with the dubious views - there have been quite a few more sensible cyclists calling in. Putting a stronger point across. The discussion is still going on.

The main point seems to be that the rest of Europe has such a more advanced set up for road safety


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 May 2009)

the media choosing a controversialist to represent us? That never happens.


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

I just want to put the record straight here, so I apologise if I shout a little....

*Cyclists Do NOT need to run red lights to be safe! To say other wise is utter utter tosh!!

*Carry on!


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

magnatom said:


> *Cyclists Do NOT need to run red lights to be safe! To say other wise is utter utter tosh!!*



Hear Hear!


----------



## Woz! (8 May 2009)

Totally agree! 
Running lights is moronic!


----------



## tonka (8 May 2009)

RLJ's annoy me, they give us all a bad name.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 May 2009)

They can't hear you Mags. They're on the radio.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

What about cycling the wrong way up One-way streets?


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']They can't hear you Mags. They're on the radio.[/quote]


I'd be happy to go on radio, however, I'd just be called a media tart!


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 May 2009)

I don't run reds but getting past that cab yesterday just past at Fenchurch Street was stupid and impatient.Sorry mr cab driver.I should know better.

On the way home though had a cab pull in,in front of me (to pick up a fare) so that equalled the scores. (Blackfriars)


----------



## jimboalee (8 May 2009)

Light turns red. No vehicles coming the other way. Cars behind.

Hop off, walk bike across crossways road, remount on other side and get on your way.

Thanks Solihull Police for that bit of advice.


----------



## Olly (8 May 2009)

Red light jumpers annoy the cr*p out of me.
when i started commuting in the late 80's riding to work wasn't nearly as popular as today.
I found if you used the road as a car does (signaling, using the right lanes, keeping a decent speed and NOT JUMPING THE LIGHTS) you got treated like you "_DO_" have a right to be on the road.
I stopped commuting for about 8 years and started again about 8 months ago.

what a change!!!

Not so bad in the winter but over the last few months there are the worst cyclists on the roads!!! 
Really bad fair weather dawdlers with headphones or ON THE PHONE!!!!
and wanna be new york couriers on brand new designer fixies who nearly always jump the lights!!!!

I cycle within the road rules so if and when  a white van / taxi / knight of the road F*cks me about i can let them have it with my morals intact and the law on my side!

having said all that i do cut across the north edge of norfolk sq.  (its a gravel "pavement" about 20feet wide)

rant over!!!


----------



## semislickstick (8 May 2009)

To be fair the 'plank' was on about slightly jumping red lights to get ahead start from the car behind. Still not obeying the Highway code but not the same as just ignoring them.
I know I start to go on Amber/get ready to go but by the time I actually get going its green!


----------



## summerdays (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> Did anyone hear the phone in this morning on BBC 5 live radio with Nicky Campbell?
> 
> They had a driver from Devon, a cyclist and a lorry driver. I don't want to be harsh but the cyclist's arguement was weak from the outset. He said it was fine for the cyclist to skip a red light to get a head start on the traffic waiting at the lights and then said he prefers cycling on the pavements.
> 
> ...



I don't think I would want to hear it if being represented by someone showing the bad side of cycling.

As to the questions
No
No (unless exempted)
Yes and No (depends on the situation)
Didn't understand the last one but if you meant do I try and race a car across the lights then yes, but only from the point of view I start much quicker than a car.

And then ask all the questions to car drivers and they wouldn't be lily white either a number of them. But I would also add in the questions have they used a mobile when driving and do they drive with faulty lights as well.

I doubt most people are perfect, however the standards I believe are slipping. A quick check outside my front door and there are 3 vehicles parked with 80% of the car on the pavement completely blocking the pavement. They assume they won't get caught, that they haven't inconvienced anyone - my son had to go on the road to get past one on the way to school.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

semislickstick said:


> To be fair the 'plank' was on about slightly jumping red lights to get ahead start from the car behind. Still not obeying the Highway code but not the same as just ignoring them.
> I know I start to go on Amber/get ready to go but by the time I actually get going its green!




But he still was condoning jumping the lights AND did say he prefered cycling on the pavement!

I don't want to have to dodge pedestrians on the road so I would never cycle on the pavement. If I need to, I hop off the bike and become a pedestrian. (Not to mention riding curbs is not good for rims!)


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

semislickstick said:


> To be fair the 'plank' was on about slightly jumping red lights to get ahead start from the car behind. Still not obeying the Highway code but not the same as just ignoring them.
> I know I start to go on Amber/get ready to go but by the time I actually get going its green!




There is no need to do that either. Just slot a couple of cars back from the front. I've been doing it for a few years now and I've never had any problems.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

summerdays said:


> Didn't understand the last one but if you meant do I try and race a car across the lights then yes, but only from the point of view I start much quicker than a car.



Sorry  ! I meant to say do you find car drivers very aggressive at the lights. i.e. As soon as the lights change from red they rev and honk thier horn before you even have a chance to lift up your standing foot to pedal?


----------



## summerdays (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> Sorry  ! I meant to say do you find car drivers very aggressive at the lights. i.e. As soon as the lights change from red they rev and honk thier horn before you even have a chance to lift up your standing foot to pedal?



In that case only when the car is in the ASL by a long way, and I saw it go in after the lights changed. In those circumstances I sometimes seem to be a bit daydreamy, and slow at getting the pedal ready.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

Sorry for my ignorance but what does ASL stand for?


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 May 2009)

Anti Sycling League - they're a bunch of militant motorists who can't spell.


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Anti Sycling League - they're a bunch of militant motorists who can't spell.[/quote]

Nice! Like it


----------



## summerdays (8 May 2009)

Advanced Stop Lines (I like them - Magnatom doesn't). Though he has a point in that some cyclists will do anything to get into them... I use them when its safe to get to and more when I also know the light sequence well. 

For example at the end of my road, there are 2 sets ... if you aren't in the first 50m you won't get though in 1 sequence and some cars have to wait upto 4 or 5 sequences to join the main road. I know that they are linked to the ones 200m up the road... I just watch the pedestrian light at those lights - when it turns red I know I need to stop filtering forward and rejoin the line of cars. It usually get through in 1 sequence max two.


----------



## Nigeyy (8 May 2009)

Magnatom,

you know, I agree with you probably 99.99% of the time, but this one for me doesn't quite ring true. Now granted I don't think I've ever had cause to run a red in good old Blighty, but I do so over here in the States due to a combination of factors (though I should add very, very rarely). 

I know, I know, this board is a UK board so my opinion is a little irrelevant, but I think the whole principle is that ultimately you have to work out the safest option for yourself -and sometimes rules aren't applicable for your safety 100% of the time. Assuming you have a good head on your shoulders, YOU are the best safety advocate for yourself. I'm not trying to promote running reds (even in the States) but I will definitely state sometimes -and usually very infrequently for me -it is a good idea to do so after weighing up all the options _carefully_.

Until I started living over in the good Ole US of A and experiencing the road design and driving habits, I never thought I would have written the above!

[ducks flak]

Yours toshfully,

Nigeyy




magnatom said:


> I just want to put the record straight here, so I apologise if I shout a little....
> 
> *Cyclists Do NOT need to run red lights to be safe! To say other wise is utter utter tosh!!
> 
> *Carry on!


----------



## garrilla (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> Sorry for my ignorance but what does ASL stand for?



I prefer to call them 178 boxes after "Rule 178 of the Huighway Code"







*178*

_Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, *MUST* stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you *MUST* stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows._
*[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)]*


----------



## Zorro (8 May 2009)

*garrilla*,

Thanks for that explaination. Very comprehensive especially with the diagram. It's just a pity that in London more than half the time the ASL (or 178) is encroached by a motorist


----------



## ChrisKH (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> *garrilla*,
> 
> Thanks for that explaination. Very comprehensive especially with the diagram. It's just a pity that in London more than half the time the ASL (or 178) is encroached by a motorist



Or motorbikes, more like.


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

No flak Nigeyy . I have absolutely no experience of cycling in the US so I would be wrong to disagree with you. I would be interested though for you to explain a situation where you feel running a red would help. Is it because of the difference in road traffic laws/rules?


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

I should add that there is one proviso to my 'never need to run a red light comment'

Should some nutter behind me to put his foot down, ignore my presence and decide to run a red light whilst driving over the top of me, I reserve the right to run a red light!


----------



## Nigeyy (8 May 2009)

I'd say it's a combination of some really bad road design, poor road signage and (just my opinion) a greater proportion of distracted drivers. I should state running a red on a bicycle is -as far as I know -completely illegal in all the States.

Road signage over here isn't <cough> quite as good as the UK. For example, there are no warning flashes on the road or often no road signs for hazards ahead such as traffic lights, yields or stop signs. Traffic light signals are very inconsistently placed. Generally, drivers are far more distracted and can be quite impatient without regard for any sort of road rules (this is a hard one to explain; generally people over here just don't seem to take driving seriously or abiding by the rules -it just doesn't seem part of the culture). Also add in the fact that you can take a left (actually a right, but you know what I mean) on a red light in most states (if not all, not sure about that).

What this means? If I get to a traffic light at a crossroads with poor warning and am exposed, I don't want to be more in a primary position of the lane waiting on red to go straight if I can help it -that soccer mom drinking her Dunkin' Donuts coffee whilst chatting on the mobile and applying her makeup (yes, I've seen it) coming up behind me in that people carrier doesn't fill me with glee. I also don't want to be in a secondary or even poorer secondary position as traffic can take the near turn on red, coupled with the fact it wouldn't be out of the realms of imagination for someone to still take that turn and hook me when the light turns green, so I think a strong primary is a good idea.

It means I have a choice: cycle through red _only after carefully looking_ for cars with nary a car in sight in the cross street, or wait in one of several bad positions at the lights. I figure I'd rather take my chance on going through the red. Fortunately, I tend to avoid any junctions like this on purpose -so like I said, I do it very, very rarely -but I do come across one now and again.

I should also add I cycle in the Boston area, which has a reputation as having some of the worst drivers in the country!



magnatom said:


> No flak Nigeyy . I have absolutely no experience of cycling in the US so I would be wrong to disagree with you. I would be interested though for you to explain a situation where you feel running a red would help. Is it because of the difference in road traffic laws/rules?


----------



## stoatsngroats (8 May 2009)

garrilla said:


> _ Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows._



This part really needs shouting from the rooftops.........is this advice, or part of the instruction for ASL's....?

Good post BTW


----------



## garrilla (8 May 2009)

All the text in italics is lifted from direct.gov.uk is verbatim from the Highway Code.

That's why I call it "178" its easy to shout at the motons: "178, Highway Code, Rule 178" The downfall is if they still have that tattered 1972 edition their dad gave them!


----------



## HF2300 (8 May 2009)

summerdays said:


> ... do I try and race a car across the lights then yes, but only from the point of view I start much quicker than a car...



I really don't understand this. I can see that in very heavy slow traffic it might be worthwhile, but generally speaking I can't see the point. The number of times I see cyclists cut through to the front of a queue of traffic - often dangerously - just to get away first on the red & amber, when all they achieve is to arrive at the other side of the junction with all the traffic bunching up behind them because they're only faster for the first 100 yards.

Just seems calculated to encourage close overtakes and irritate idiot drivers, and to show the same 'must get ahead' mentality motorists are often criticised for.


----------



## nigelnorris (8 May 2009)

In a confessional sort of spirit I'm going to own up so that someone should tell me how to do this properly.

On my way home through rush hour (well half three / four o'clock actually so I have schoool run, busses, lorries the lot) Birmingham I have to cross two busy roads (one is the Stratford Road for anyone who knows Brum). I have to turn right off that at a set of lights onto a secondary road, but the oncoming traffic is insane especially since drivers in Brum only really consider red lights to be advisory. When the lights turn green for me to go (and the cars behind me, there's a cycle space like mentioned above to camp up in while the lights are red) there's no way to go anywhere, there's just traffic coming straight at me instantly which doesn't stop till the lights are red. Not only that but when the lights do turn red the traffic doesn't stop coming on until the last second when traffic starts coming across from the green lights anyway. So every time I try to obey the lights I get caught in the crossfire and it's not a happy experience.

But then I noticed that when the lights go in the other direction they lock up all four on red so that the pedestrian crossings work and people can safely cross the junction on foot in any direction. So what I've started doing is timing it so that I hit the lights at that point, and use the hiatus to just amble into the middle of the whole junction while all the lights are red and there's no traffic, sit there till all the pedestrians have gone and the pelican lights go red - so now everything is stopped, then just cruise my way through. Same for the other crossing though that one is straight ahead.

By my reckoning that means I've gone through each of the junctions with 8 sets of lights simultaneously on red. Am I a bad person?


----------



## marinyork (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> Did anyone hear the phone in this morning on BBC 5 live radio with Nicky Campbell?
> 
> Here are some of the issues that were brought up by the discussion
> 
> ...



Sounds like a pretty immature debate to me although the people organising the story probably geared it towards that? None of those issues are high up my cycling safety list. It sounds a complete biased load of nonsense and they got 3 village idiots to take part in it.


----------



## Olly (8 May 2009)

RichK said:


> I came across a new (for me at least) peril of the RLJ cyclist this morning. Pulled up at the lights, next to & slightly behind cyclist already in the ASL. Said cyclist then decides to RLJ & the car behind starts to follow him... only to realise, just in time (phew) that I'm not moving anywhere. They then look & lights & see why.



That has happened to me AS A DRIVER!!!!
I was coming off highbury corner roundabout at the lights with 2 bikes in front of me. Both moved off and i followed only to be shouted at by a pedestrian as i went through the red light!B).

Its amazing how easily it happens!
I consider myself a good driver AND cyclist but a moment taking somthing for granted and look what happens.
scary stuff!


----------



## ferret fur (8 May 2009)

HF2300 said:


> I really don't understand this. I can see that in very heavy slow traffic it might be worthwhile, but generally speaking I can't see the point. The number of times I see cyclists cut through to the front of a queue of traffic - often dangerously - just to get away first on the red & amber when all they achieve is to arrive at the other side of the junction *Yes, this is the point: By accelerating across the junction faster than the following traffic you (hopefully) avoid a left hook*.* If you are mixed in with the queue you lose that ability to escape the cars behind you: They get a 'must get ahead of the bike' idea and wham, they turn left across your bows *with all the traffic bunching up behind them because they're only faster for the first 100 yards.*No matter where you start in the queue the traffic will have to flow past you if it is moving faster than you can cycle. *
> r.



:


----------



## HF2300 (8 May 2009)

ferret fur said:


> *Yes, this is the point: By accelerating across the junction faster than the following traffic you (hopefully) avoid a left hook*.* If you are mixed in with the queue you lose that ability to escape the cars behind you: They get a 'must get ahead of the bike' idea and wham, they turn left across your bows*



Perhaps I misread Summerdays' post; the way it was phrased just seemed to imply that 'must get ahead' attitude, and that's the sort of attitude I see in a lot of cyclists round here.

Anyway, don't you avoid the left hook by correct road positioning and not tucking into the kerb?



ferret fur said:


> *No matter where you start in the queue the traffic will have to flow past you if it is moving faster than you can cycle. *



True, it will - but that's just normal traffic flow. It's not the same as unnecessarily compelling generally faster flowing traffic to pass and repass you though.


----------



## ferret fur (8 May 2009)

HF2300 said:


> Anyway, don't you avoid the left hook by correct road positioning and not tucking into the kerb?
> 
> .


To a degree: But I would argue that the point at which an impatient motorist is at their most impatient is approaching a set of green traffic lights *which might turn red!!!* If they are 'held up' by a cyclist in primary they are more likely to try and get past at an innapropriate point. ie try & left hook. To me, getting to the front is basic risk management. Eliminate as many risk points as you can and one of these is traffic which you can't get away from (because of the car in front) but which is impatient to get past you. Most of my urban riding is central Edinburgh, so I don't accept the argument that I'm slowing other traffic down. Most of the time I am getting through town faster than a car can. That is (mainly) why I cycle. They may repass me, but sure as eggs is eggs I will be going past them in the near future.


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

Nigeyy, I see your point, but I don't think it really applies here. Of course it could happen, but I would suggest that the risks of running a red light are greater than being rear ended. 

Would motorcyclists not be at the same risk or rear-ending?


----------



## magnatom (8 May 2009)

nigelnorris said:


> By my reckoning that means I've gone through each of the junctions with 8 sets of lights simultaneously on red. Am I a bad person?



Of course your not. You are just trying to figure out a safe way to negotiate a difficult junction.

However, I have been faced with similar situations in the past. I takes a bit of guts and gile, but you just have to make yourself as visible as possible. The traffic coming towards you isn't a threat (despite how it feels). You are directly in their view. So long as you take a good primary, the traffic behind has a good view of you as well.

The timing does seem a bit of a problem, but again you are in the middle of the junction (from what I can make out). So, as long as you are signalling in a visible way, the traffic has no excuse for not seeing you.

Of course, on junctions like this, it is easier said than done. Could you change your route to avoid it? That might be the best option. My route to work is not as direct as it could be, just to avoid places where I wouldn't be comfortable.


----------



## ComedyPilot (8 May 2009)

Zorro said:


> Do you run red lights? NO
> Cycle the wrong way up one-way streets? NO
> Give hand signals when turning? YES
> Do you find when at lights traffic is very aggresive when the lights change to green?NO



Do you run red lights? *NO*
Cycle the wrong way up one-way streets?* NO*
Give hand signals when turning? *YES*
Do you find when at lights traffic is very aggresive when the lights change to green?* NO*


----------



## purplepolly (8 May 2009)

I (confession here) go the wrong way down a one-way street in order to use the level crossing at the end of the one-way bit. The alternative is rat-run road bridge where motorists always try and overtake before the blind summit. 

I'm not loosing too much sleep over this as it used to be two-way but was changed to force motorists to use the bridge which has made it more difficult for cyclists. And as it used to be two lanes they could just as easily have left a cycle lane in on the route, there's more than enough space.


----------



## HJ (8 May 2009)

magnatom said:


> I'd be happy to go on radio, however, I'd just be called a media tart!



Come on Mags, face up to it yous is just a tart anyways ...

Being serious though, a lot of the stuff you have done in the past, media wise, have been really positive...


----------



## nigelnorris (8 May 2009)

magnatom said:


> Of course, on junctions like this, it is easier said than done. Could you change your route to avoid it? That might be the best option. My route to work is not as direct as it could be, just to avoid places where I wouldn't be comfortable.


Ohmygosh what a completely obvious piece of advice that has escaped me.

I have got into work the last few days after commuting in the sunshine, and talking to the guys who drive and get there before me have sat about in the staffroom saying how I'd like to increase the length of my ride to burn off a few more calories. And I've been so full of how quick I can do my route now, and how I'd like to add ten miles or something because that sounds meaningful, that the obvious tactic of pedalling an extra quarter mile to avoid a junction has passed me by.

I'm sure that sounds stupid to you old hands but I've just learned a real lesson. Thanks.


----------



## HJ (8 May 2009)

ferret fur said:


> To a degree: But I would argue that the point at which an impatient motorist is at their most impatient is approaching a set of green traffic lights *which might turn red!!!* If they are 'held up' by a cyclist in primary they are more likely to try and get past at an innapropriate point. ie try & left hook...



I find that holding a strong primary position is the best way to stop drivers from trying to over take and left hook...


----------



## HLaB (8 May 2009)

ferret fur said:


> To a degree: But I would argue that the point at which an impatient motorist is at their most impatient is approaching a set of green traffic lights *which might turn red!!!* If they are 'held up' by a cyclist in primary they are more likely to try and get past at an innapropriate point. ie try & left hook.


I know where you are coming from, you kind of gain a 6th sense of idiots like that. I've found the only way to deal with them is to hold a primary position and anticipate the green/ accelerate faster and leave them sitting there (its even better if they stall).


----------



## HLaB (8 May 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I (confession here) go the wrong way down a one-way street in order to use the level crossing at the end of the one-way bit. The alternative is rat-run road bridge where motorists always try and overtake before the blind summit.
> 
> I'm not loosing too much sleep over this as it used to be two-way but was changed to force motorists to use the bridge which has made it more difficult for cyclists. And as it used to be two lanes they could just as easily have left a cycle lane in on the route, there's more than enough space.


I must admit I cycle the wrong way down a one way street regularly too . Leaving the works garage. I've got the choice of 50m of level cobbles and a left turn on to 75m of nicely surfaced road. Or 150m of cobbles with lots of badly parked cars to turn right at a busy road to 60m of more cobbles which sharply go down hill to an even busier junction, then a right turn and 200m back to the same point. I think I'll take the 1st option on Monday.


----------



## fossyant (8 May 2009)

Just a quick post...

Most half decent cyclists are faster off the mark than 'most cars' easily.....

I can pedal, clip in (and even fluff it), accelerate to ride speed, and I've usually covered at least 100-200 yards before the car catches me, and that's on the now knobbly tyred MTB.....

Now shove a Scooby up me ass, I'll have my road bikes with some fella holding me up (clipped in) to try and out sprint one on them.....

So why need to jump.

I will admit to stopping in front of the ASL on 'certain' junctions where folk block an obvious ASL ....still takes the idiots 200 plus yards to pass me....from go......


----------



## cheadle hulme (8 May 2009)

magnatom said:


> There is no need to do that either. Just slot a couple of cars back from the front. I've been doing it for a few years now and I've *never had any problems*.



Didn't you post a vid of you doing exactly this and then the car you'd slotted in in front of passed you with inches to spare? (escort iirc).

I never have problems moving directly to the front. That way the first driver doesn't feel they've been singled out for special attention ala your Escort driver.


----------



## hackbike 666 (9 May 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Do you run red lights? *NO*
> Cycle the wrong way up one-way streets?* NO*
> Give hand signals when turning? *YES*
> Do you find when at lights traffic is very aggresive when the lights change to green?* NO*



+1


----------



## Nigeyy (9 May 2009)

I know I might sound like a typical person trying to justify it, but I do believe it is different over here (I haven't found a place in the UK where I thought I needed to run a red for better safety fyi). Everyone ultimately makes a choice -and I do believe you should make a choice that you firmly believe carries greater personal safety for yourself. You have to analyze and react to the situation.

And yes, motorcyclists are at the same or very similar risk of being rear ended as well. I used to ride motorcycles -but I wouldn't want to do it over here for that reason and others, plus the wife might not take to kindly to it.....

I will say I don't want it to sound like New England streets are deathtraps -fortunately the widths of roads (more room to swerve, seriously), generally lower speeds and lower traffic density make up for a lot. It can be extremely pleasant cycling over here as well.



magnatom said:


> Nigeyy, I see your point, but I don't think it really applies here. Of course it could happen, but I would suggest that the risks of running a red light are greater than being rear ended.
> 
> Would motorcyclists not be at the same risk or rear-ending?


----------



## summerdays (9 May 2009)

HF2300 said:


> I really don't understand this. I can see that in very heavy slow traffic it might be worthwhile, but generally speaking I can't see the point. The number of times I see cyclists cut through to the front of a queue of traffic - often dangerously - just to get away first on the red & amber, when all they achieve is to arrive at the other side of the junction with all the traffic bunching up behind them because they're only faster for the first 100 yards.
> 
> Just seems calculated to encourage close overtakes and irritate idiot drivers, and to show the same 'must get ahead' mentality motorists are often criticised for.



If prefer to not hang around at junctions, I would rather any car over took me a little further down the road. If I have held up a car where I didn't think it was safe for them to overtake and I can do so safely I will move over towards the kerb to encourage them to overtake.

If I'm several cars back in the queue (which I will do), then I have to accelerate at the cars pace... very slow from stationary and then quickly they are going faster than me but held up behind me at the junction if I'm in primary which I will be in a queue of traffic at the lights.

I also think you are more visible in the ASL, where as in the queue sometimes the car (well usually larger vehicle) in front hides you from on coming traffic waiting to turn right thinking there is a gap.

And I don't start until it goes green.


----------



## downfader (10 May 2009)

There is a comments section on the 5Live website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2009/05/saving_lives_on_our_roads.html#dnaacs

I have left two comments myself.

I also noticed this letter in the local paper the other day. It caught my attention after having seen something similar within the week.  Some people just have no sense of the problems they cause other people:
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/deletters/4349538.Shame_on_you__cyclist/

I really think we can do our bit on this. If we find out that someone is going to start riding a bike to work then we can encourage them to read the HC and we should offer them advice and encouragement.


----------



## magnatom (10 May 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> Didn't you post a vid of you doing exactly this and then the car you'd slotted in in front of passed you with inches to spare? (escort iirc).
> 
> I never have problems moving directly to the front. That way the first driver doesn't feel they've been singled out for special attention ala your Escort driver.




Yes I did, but I don't think that had anything to do with me filtering to one car back instead of to the front. I'm sure if I had been at the front and the guy had passed me a bit later, he would have done the same. I don't thnk there was any malice in his overtake, just a very poor driver.


----------



## magnatom (10 May 2009)

nigelnorris said:


> I'm sure that sounds stupid to you old hands but I've just learned a real lesson. Thanks.



Glad to be of help.


----------



## thomas (10 May 2009)

fossyant said:


> Just a quick post...
> 
> Most half decent cyclists are faster off the mark than 'most cars' easily.....



+1. I can usually beat any car of the mark.

As for red light jumping. I don't do it, and the only reason I would do it would be to save time*. I don't believe that it makes cycling safer.

*(If I was to red light jump and be honest, that's the reason - not because it is safer).


----------



## downfader (10 May 2009)

RLJ... There is a junction here at Thomas Lewis Way iirc is the name. Now and again you'll see an RLJ but the fast moving traffic scares the bejesus out of them and they dont do it again. Two blind corners too. 

If I'm stuck for time or dont like the driver near me I get off and walk it around safely. I know many see it as cheating, lol!


----------



## thomas (10 May 2009)

downfader said:


> If I'm stuck for time or dont like the driver near me I get off and walk it around safely. I know many see it as cheating, lol!



The lights near work take forever. On my last day before back to UNI I got off and pushed it the hundred yards to where I lock it up, just past the lights. I see no problem with that.


----------



## Ian Johnson (10 May 2009)

thomas said:


> +1. I can usually beat any car of the mark.
> Interesting.
> But for how long,in traffic its possible to get ahead of cars for some considerable distance, I am a powerful sprinter(check my Utube clips) and can get up to 30 mph on a flat road in a short time before I burn up and have to slow down a bit. Sometimes leaving cars well behind,but lets not get carried away with this ,if the road ahead was clear and a driver decided to 'floor it' ,any cyclist would be left in the dust pretty rapidly.Most drivers just accelerate normaly tapping the accelerter gently usually because traffic conditions making it feel we can easliy out pace them. My humble astra 1.6 can will be flying past the 40mph mark at just over5 secs if I absoloutly floor it from standing, so your faster off the mark then...maybee for 3 secs if your clipped in and in the right gear .


----------



## summerdays (10 May 2009)

Last time I was in a hurry at some ped lights... I decided not to wait but get off and cross the road. The car behind moved forward on seeing me move and had to brake when he realised it was still red.


----------

