Advanced cycle stop lines, good idea?
Discussion
i don't see the point in them at all
they might be useful in cities which are really big on cycling, but on the roads i drive i come across a few and they are rarely used by anyone, and i've never seen them used by multiple cyclists
they are not something i particularly complain about though, i would like to see all traffic lights with a nice gap between the lights and the stop light, i am fed up of awkward junctions where the only set of light which isn't generally obscured by traffic is virtually above your head
they might be useful in cities which are really big on cycling, but on the roads i drive i come across a few and they are rarely used by anyone, and i've never seen them used by multiple cyclists
they are not something i particularly complain about though, i would like to see all traffic lights with a nice gap between the lights and the stop light, i am fed up of awkward junctions where the only set of light which isn't generally obscured by traffic is virtually above your head
Antony Moxey said:
Urban Sports said:
Why should cyclists be given a priority above motorists when they don't even pay road tax?
It's absurd!
Change the record dimwit. It wasn't funny the first time you tried be clever.It's absurd!
Please please please, find a new joke.
gavsdavs said:
Firstly, you are very brave 
Secondly - this kind of suggests we agree. We are not talking about 'average speed', though. Cars can accelerate to 30mph much quicker than a bike. Bikes can benefit from getting through smaller gaps which cars cannot use to hold a higher average speed. Any car turning right to cross a lane of traffic impacts a car waitig to go straight on, but not a bike.
I would rather they allocate better, wider lanes to bikes and fewer, better lanes to cars so the two don't have to mix. This isn't so cars can go faster, but because it's safer for bikes and less frustrating for cars to have bikes in their way.
In an ideal world all roads would be wide enough to have two lanes in each direction, one for powered and one for unpowered traffic, but that's never going to happen I suspect.Secondly - this kind of suggests we agree. We are not talking about 'average speed', though. Cars can accelerate to 30mph much quicker than a bike. Bikes can benefit from getting through smaller gaps which cars cannot use to hold a higher average speed. Any car turning right to cross a lane of traffic impacts a car waitig to go straight on, but not a bike.
I would rather they allocate better, wider lanes to bikes and fewer, better lanes to cars so the two don't have to mix. This isn't so cars can go faster, but because it's safer for bikes and less frustrating for cars to have bikes in their way.
I understand that cars find it frustrating to be momentarily held up by cyclists - but the reverse is true, especially in London, that cars get in the way an awful lot - some consideration of that point would be nice at times. Especially from the powered-bike crew, who get in the way the most.
JQ said:
Antony Moxey said:
Urban Sports said:
Why should cyclists be given a priority above motorists when they don't even pay road tax?
It's absurd!
Change the record dimwit. It wasn't funny the first time you tried be clever.It's absurd!
Please please please, find a new joke.
I hope I'm right.
jimbop1 said:
Mr Gear said:
If you're overtaking a cyclist and then getting stopped at a set of lights, what was the point in overtaking in the first place?
So that traffic can flow?They've extended the idea at a large 4-way junction in town here to give the cyclists a 5 second headstart - ie. Cyclists get a green light 5 seconds before cars.
Initially I saw this as simply giving me the opportunity to reach 50-60mph before hitting one rather than the 20-30 i could achieve previously but it has actually worked out quite well for everyone- the cyclists are no longer getting tangled up with cars and holdig everything up when everyone sets off so more cars are making it through the lights with less incident.
Initially I saw this as simply giving me the opportunity to reach 50-60mph before hitting one rather than the 20-30 i could achieve previously but it has actually worked out quite well for everyone- the cyclists are no longer getting tangled up with cars and holdig everything up when everyone sets off so more cars are making it through the lights with less incident.
Urban Sports said:
Why should cyclists be given a priority above motorists when they don't even pay road tax?
It's absurd!
as the reply immediately below your OP states 'what century are you in?' It's absurd!
Vehicle Excise Duty is not hypotheticated
Road building and repair is paid for from general taxation
herefore all road users whether motorised or not contribute to the upkeep of roads
HTH
HAND
GBYHIV
Poopipe said:
... the cyclists are no longer getting tangled up with cars and holdig everything up when everyone sets off so more cars are making it through the lights with less incident.
er, the cars are still being held up - by the five-second delay.And you're not going to get more cars making it through the lights unless that five seconds is not being subtracted from the green time, in which case the red time is five seconds longer for the cross-traffic.
Phatboy317 said:
er, the cars are still being held up - by the five-second delay.
And you're not going to get more cars making it through the lights unless that five seconds is not being subtracted from the green time, in which case the red time is five seconds longer for the cross-traffic.
Precisely what I thoughtAnd you're not going to get more cars making it through the lights unless that five seconds is not being subtracted from the green time, in which case the red time is five seconds longer for the cross-traffic.
The thing is theres a few other factors at play
1 it gives the first cars a warning so they get away quicker
2 none of the cars are wiggling round cyclists and can go exactly where they want when they want to
3 there are a lot of cyclists - 15-20 during rush hour
Youd expect to get 3-4 cars through per lane, per light change previously, its double that now at least
Phatboy317 said:
Tell you what, you don't tell me how to live my life and I won't tell you how to live yours.
Oooh, touchy! High stress, high blood pressure perhaps? And Fatboy is not spelt with a "Ph"... Being overweight is no joke, it can be detrimental to your health. Cycling can help with that too.
saaby93 said:
It's no good Ive run out of parrots
Isn't the queue jumping what leads to all the aggro in these forums, and out on the road too.
If you catch up with a queue, take a breather behind it until it moves.
Only the cars are actually in a queue. The bikes are just waiting for the light to change. There is no queue/traffic jam for them.Isn't the queue jumping what leads to all the aggro in these forums, and out on the road too.
If you catch up with a queue, take a breather behind it until it moves.
Mr Gear said:
Oooh, touchy! High stress, high blood pressure perhaps? And Fatboy is not spelt with a "Ph"...
Being overweight is no joke, it can be detrimental to your health. Cycling can help with that too.
No, it's actually a wordplay on my name - I'm not fat.Being overweight is no joke, it can be detrimental to your health. Cycling can help with that too.
And I do cycle as well, but not to work - too far and too much to carry.
But when I do cycle, I'm mindful of other road users and have no desire to impede their progress.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff