Hold the line!!

[Rob3rt]

I'd rather someone went in front of me than waited to the nearside of something waiting to hook or squeeze them.

On a second more pondering thought of the situation I agree with this actually.

But it is also quite annoying when you are continually having to re-overtake someone because they pootle along in front of you. Then they go and pull in front of you at the next lights. Over and over. Dont know about you, but I find it harder to pottle at 12mph than to cruise at 20mph so they actualy make the commute harder while reducing your cardio workout quality.

 

[summerdays]

Not trying to be awkward but this sounds very much akin to the "anyone else find it annoying when you are sat in your car and a bloody cyclist forces his way in front of you" argument....

Interesting way of looking at it.

I find that the type of cyclist that pushes their way to the front tends to do it near the pavement and I'm aiming for the middle of the lane anyway. If there are so many cyclists that we take up the whole box then I will go to the right of the lane so I have my space to make a good start. For some reason I am much quicker at starting than going fast over a long period.

 

[Landslide]

There is the problem that if you come late and filter through the traffic to find the area in front already occupied by other cyclists.

If you can't see that the area ahead is clear and safe, don't go there.

 

[zophiel]

i had one like this on friday. just done 6 miles and the guy cuts up the inside, I am sat 2 cars back, its a bit narrow on the road. He jumps to the front and then thinks he is great as he jumps out infront of everyone, all tights and posh bike. didnt get him very far though was on his tail no problem sat in my scruffs from work and my tired ribble commuter.

 

[jonny jeez]

Not trying to be awkward but this sounds very much akin to the "anyone else find it annoying when you are sat in your car and a bloody cyclist forces his way in front of you" argument....

I'd rather someone went in front of me than waited to the nearside of something waiting to hook or squeeze them.

not awkward at all.

but I do feel your example is a little unbalanced…. Allow me to use your own example (from a different perspective)

If you are driving in a sensible way along the road (in a car) and stop in a line of traffic, would you consider it polite if another car drove down the outside, and pulled in-front of you, blocking your route...then repeated this every time you got to a set of lights.

Translating this into two different types of vehicle does not work as many people expect bikes and cycles to move along to the front of traffic. But when I am in (or on) the same type of vehicle as the offender, I just expect a little more courtesy.

 

[Glow worm]

Around here, especially closer to Cambridge it happens so often if I got pi**ed off about it every time, I'd just be permanently annoyed. So I just let'em get on with it and enjoy the ride regardless.

 

[swee'pea99]

Once is irritating, twice is infuriating. They're just twats is all.

 

[shippers]

I'm with Potsy here. 13 miles this morning, only saw one other cyclist travelling my direction. (Chap outside Leeds railway station, about 7am anyone? Nice bike.)
Had a bit of a natter with a bloke on a BSO on the way home though. He went in front at the lights but it wasn't a problem. Then again, only happened once.

 

[HLaB]

It is irritating. If they stop immediately, they have a habit of undertaking and crawling through the junction but are left stranded. When the lights go green within two pedal strokes your past them and are left thinking why. Then you meet another red and they do the same. Perhaps even a third time. When they do it a fourth time! Slow learners.

 

[BentMikey]

LOL, nice one Lee!

 

[HJ]

Is it me?....am I becoming a cycle snob?

Am I the only one who finds it’s a bit "rude" when other cyclist insist on "pushing" past you when you are standing at the lights and popping themselves down right in front of your wheel.

No its not just you, I find it just plain bad manners, it is even worse when they then move off at a crawl...

 

[Dan B]

Translating this into two different types of vehicle does not work as many people expect bikes and cycles to move along to the front of traffic.

Many more don't. Realistically, what is the justification that cyclists use for always having to be at the front if they're going to be slower off the mark than the vehicles (of whatever kind) they've just overtaken?

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Many more don't. Realistically, what is the justification that cyclists use for always having to be at the front if they're going to be slower off the mark than the vehicles (of whatever kind) they've just overtaken?

Usually, at least in rush hour situations, it's not because they will be slower off the mark, it is that they will reach another obstruction to the vehicle behind in little or no time, meaning that the vehicle behind has not, in real rather than percieved terms, been inconvenienced in any way

I suppose in those terms, I have contradicted my earlier point somewhat (but isn't forming and altering opinion what forums are for?) as a cyclist holding up another cyclist can make a discernible difference to journey time.

I'd suggest that it it is once, in an otherwise cramped situiation, it's OK. If it's every light, on a road where there are lights every 400 yards, then it becomes a nuisance.

 

[al78]

Why should someone have to queue behind you just because you got to the lights first?

The problem is when one cyclist has a significantly faster acceleration & cruising speed than the other.

Consider two cyclists, cyclist A and cyclist B. Cyclist B is slower off the lights and has a lower cruising speed than cyclist A. If cyclist B positions themselves behind cyclist A then when the lights go green, cyclist A can move off at their own pace, cyclist B can move off at their own pace, neither cyclist is in conflict with each other and everybody's happy.

If cyclist B positions themselves in front of cyclist A then when the lights go green cyclist B sets off at the same pace as in the previous scenario but now cyclist A has to either re-overtake cyclist A which introduces an extra hazard or stay behind cyclist B which delays his journey. Thus in this scenario cyclist B has just introduced extra delay and/or hazard for cyclist A and thus an unnecessary irritation for cyclist A without actually gaining anything themself.

I'm sure you'll agree that performing an action that pisses people off when you could perform a perfectly feasible alternative action that is of no cost to yourself but allows everyone else to make progress as well is not desirable in the slightest.

 

[John the Monkey]

Realistically, what is the justification that cyclists use for always having to be at the front if they're going to be slower off the mark than the vehicles (of whatever kind) they've just overtaken?

Largely to make yourself visible to following (and potentially turning) traffic.

This is the thinking behind ASLs - in standing traffic, you can get to the front & put yourself in the drivers' eyeline (as opposed to in the periphery of the area they're paying attention to).

TBH, I tend to do this by taking a mid-lane position before the traffic stops - I don't mind waiting while the traffic ahead moves off, and ASLs aren't always clear when you get to them. The one exception is when I'm using segregated roadside lanes that lead to ASLs, which don't really give you much choice, although here you can wait back from the ASL & try to catch the eyes of the drivers behind you.

A lot of this stuff just seems to get translated into "you must be at the front of a queue no matter what" to new cyclists, when the key *really* is road position & eyelines, not being at the front as an end in itself.