Temporary Traffic Lights and Cyclists

[meic]

or multiple cars that have left no space between each other in the queue (aren't drivers taught any more to stop so they can see the bottom of the wheels of the vehicle in front?

Yes they were taught but they gave up doing it because people used it to push their way into a queue in front of them, so they lost the space which wasnt actually there for the benefit of queue jumpers.

[mjr]

You can dislike it all you like, but it is absolutely not obstruction (an offence with a fine of up to £1000).

The front car was however right up to the stop line (probably past it) so the cyclist is guilty of RLJing.

I thought we were discussing temporary traffic lights, which have no stop line. If there's no line and the cyclist stops before the light, it's not RLJing.

If they can do it why not everybody else? until the road is too blocked for on coming traffic to squeeze through?

Most drivers can't do it simply because their vehicles are too fat to fit back in the queue.

Morally it isnt as bad when a motorcycle does it, as they tend to be gone quicker than the motorists that they have passed.

Higher speeds are morally superior? I'll try to remember that when I see the next motorist doing 70 past my house, that they're just being morally better by trying to get out of the way of the motorists behind them(!)

If motorists don't like it,

I am not disliking this as a motorist. Just as a cyclist with standards about how they treat motorists..

My standard for treating motorists doesn't include putting myself at greater risk merely for their convenience.

[meic]

Higher speeds are morally superior?

Acceleration.

which have no stop line

They have a sign saying stop here.

My standard for treating motorists doesn't include putting myself at greater risk merely for their convenience.

My standard for treating motorists doesnt include pushing in front before inconveniencing them.

[mjr]

Higher speeds are morally superior?

Acceleration.

Oh right, I'll try to remember that when someone goes for take-off out of a side road in my village(!)

which have no stop line

They have a sign saying stop here.

Usually pretty much beside the lights here. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen one recently.

My standard for treating motorists doesn't include putting myself at greater risk merely for their convenience.

My standard for treating motorists doesnt include pushing in front before inconveniencing them.

"Pushing in"? This ain't a USSR bread queue. It's not "pushing in" because cyclists are normally allowed to overtake motorists stopped at lights, both through ASLs and specific exceptions at lights where motorists are prohibited from overtaking each other like TSRGD 2016 SCHEDULE 14 PART 1 Paragraph 14(2)(a).

I don't agree that cyclists merely riding on the road is inconveniencing them - if not a cyclist, it would only be another motorist or a tractor or something else in front of them.

[meic]

if not a cyclist, it would only be another motorist or a tractor or something else in front of them.

It is no better if one of those does it than a cyclist. Like for example driving down the slip road in order to push in a bit further ahead.
Though if it isnt a problem being inconvenienced by the person in front, then the cyclist could just hold their position behind the vehicle in front of them instead of having to push through to in front of them.

[mjr]

if not a cyclist, it would only be another motorist or a tractor or something else in front of them.

It is no better if one of those does it than a cyclist. Like for example driving down the slip road in order to push in a bit further ahead.
Though if it isnt a problem being inconvenienced by the person in front, then the cyclist could just hold their position behind the vehicle in front of them instead of having to push through to in front of them.

So to avoid committing the bogus offence of pushing in nearer the front of the queue (the rules allow cyclists to move up such queues for good reason), the cyclist would be inconvenienced by oncoming motorists driving at them at speed (in my experience) - which could be considerably worse than mere inconvenience. That's taking self-sacrifice a bit too far for my liking!

[meic]

Not at all.
I am not sure if that is some attempt to rationalise selfish behaviour, or you just havent read the relevant posts.

It is perfectly possible to set off at the front of a queue of motorists without pushing to the front.
You just wait for the next green, it isnt much of a sacrifice to even let a few of the cars who were behind you to go on while it is still green* and you wait for the lights to go through their routine around to a fresh green. Then the cyclist sets off in front of a queue of cars, cars who dont have a good reason to be annoyed by your selfish behaviour.

* You can even collect karma points both as an individual and for the greater cycling community as a whole.

[mjr]

Not at all.
I am not sure if that is some attempt to rationalise selfish behaviour, or you just havent read the relevant posts.

Likewise. I think I'll stop here because you seem not to be reading my posts because you keep on with the nonsense about "pushing to the front" (we're not - it's normal and permitted and often encouraged at permanent lights with lanes and boxes) and ignoring the key points that the detectors on most troublesome temporary traffic lights can't see cyclists (else the mid-works detectors would see us and not change the other green) so if you don't go when there are motorists, there's no telling how long you'll have to wait for more motorists to arrive and trigger the green light. Self-preservation ain't selfish and shouldn't be punished with longer waits either.

[meic]

because you keep on with the nonsense about "pushing to the front" (we're not

If you are not pushing to the front then there was no disagreement.
However the original post definitely said that they cycled to the front of the queue, pulled in front of the front car in primary position and then set off in front of them when the lights change.

There may be a funny world where that is not "pushing in at the front" but it is not one which I inhabit.
Fortunately I do inhabit the sort of place where MOST motorists and cyclists treat each other (regardless of which they are on) with a sense of fairness. We all live to our own moral standards and mine involve treating others (even car drivers) with decency, not just selfishly pushing in then holding them up.
I unselfishly hold them up when it is my turn to do so.

[[XAP]Bob]

because you keep on with the nonsense about "pushing to the front" (we're not

If you are not pushing to the front then there was no disagreement.
However the original post definitely said that they cycled to the front of the queue, pulled in front of the front car in primary position and then set off in front of them when the lights change.

There may be a funny world where that is not "pushing in at the front" but it is not one which I inhabit.
Fortunately I do inhabit the sort of place where MOST motorists and cyclists treat each other (regardless of which they are on) with a sense of fairness. We all live to our own moral standards and mine involve treating others (even car drivers) with decency, not just selfishly pushing in then holding them up.
I unselfishly hold them up when it is my turn to do so.

It's no more pushing in front than any other overtaking manoeuvre...

There are good reasons to want to ensure that you make it through the lights on the next cycle as a cyclist which don't apply to motorists (they have other, slightly similar ones - but with far less effect).

Of course the process changes if you aren't trying to get anywhere, just out to be riding...

[meic]

It's no more pushing in front than any other overtaking manoeuvre...

Yes it is, because you are overtaking a vehicle that has stopped to let others take the priority (all be it directed by the orders of a redlight which you are disobeying).

Of course the process changes if you aren't trying to get anywhere, just out to be riding...

I dont accept the "I am in a hurry" excuse from cyclists any more than I do from motorists.
To use the often quoted line to motorists who complain about being stuck in traffic "set off earlier!"

Really I see nothing here but trying to rationalise MGIF but from a cyclist's perspective.

I am pleased to say that a motorist who could have overtaken me on the approach to the temporary lights and managed to stop in front of my bike without risking an accident, didnt do that yesterday, they waited patiently behind.
I rate that driver's character much more highly than that of many cyclists I ride with.
Even if he had I wouldnt have overtaken him just to GIF when he stopped at the lights, unless he had pissed me off with the manner of his overtake.

[[XAP]Bob]

It's no more pushing in front than any other overtaking manoeuvre...

Yes it is, because you are overtaking a vehicle that has stopped to let others take the priority (all be it directed by the orders of a redlight which you are disobeying).

I'm not disobeying it - I'm driving up to it and stopping...

As to the MGIF - it's a case of avoiding extra traffic light cycles - one of the things which makes cycling a more attractive form of transport is the reduction in journey duration variability made possible by not having to guess how long the queues will be, since you get a 'worst case' of a single light cycle.

I'm not saying that I'm 'in a hurry' but that I balance my desire to get the kids up and breakfasted with my obligation to be in the office at a certain time, and take a transport option which makes the time between those two roles as predictable as possible.
If I stopped and waited at the back of every queue I came across then I'd go stark raving mad - quite aside from the fume inhalation.
As it is I am significantly ahead of motorists as far as 9-10 miles from work (when the one I regularly leave with turns away)... That alone suggests that I am not holding them up at any point along the way - I might be slightly slowing them for a few seconds, but they are slowed much more by other motorists than they are by me (to the extent that they aren't slowed by me at all, I just save them fuel on their route to the next traffic jam).

I could ride a motorbike, and that wouldn't be nearly as offensive to you, but in reality is no more or less 'pushing in front' than on a pedal cycle.

[meic]

but in reality is no more or less 'pushing in front' than on a pedal cycle.

In reality it isnt because they dont then hinder any legally behaving motorist that they have just overtaken. Which is the sub-standard behaviour that I will not approve of.

The rest of your post was pretty standard MGIF rationalisation. Just a cyclist's version rather than a motorist's. They MGIF so they are not delayed by a cyclist who they hadnt budgeted time for when trying to spend a bit of time with their kids.
The time stopped waiting for a fresh green is just as long for the displaced motorist as it is for the cyclist who displaced them out of their own self-interest.

[Ruadh495]

Personally I try to avoid having the same motorist overtake me twice. The way I do that is to avoid overtaking them when they are sat at lights, even if I end up waiting beside the queue in a "cycle lane". If you filter to the front at every light, you get into a "leap frog" situation, where the motorist passes the cyclist between the lights, is caught and passed at each light and so on. Each overtake involves danger for both cyclist and motorist and leads to annoyed motorists passing less carefully than they might otherwise.

This doesn't happen with motorcycles since they are as fast or faster than cars between the lights. A cyclist can get into a similar situation with a bus which stops frequently to pick up passengers (I'd tend to wait behind the bus at one of its stops and let it get ahead rather than getting into a leap-frog).

[[XAP]Bob]

Whereas I avoid leap frog by overtaking a new group of cars at each set of lights...

Over the course of 10+ miles I am actually faster than motor vehicles - the suggestion that I am holding them up when they are stationary is mildly ridiculous.

Note that in those 10 miles there are no traffic lights (though there are a couple of oversubscribed junctions) - if I take the end of my journey with 11 sets of lights in 2 miles then the situation is even more obvious. The delay caused by cyclists to motorists is negligible/non existent. The delay motorists cause cyclists is massive.

The bigger issue is how much motorists overestimate any delay on their journey. Heck, they often asses that when I'm doing 5mph *over* their speed limit that I must be holding them up.
To cause an obstruction - which appears to be your complaint - I would actually have to obstruct them, not merely take them to the next traffic jam at a more consistent pace than they would otherwise have chosen.