Advance Cycle Boxes
Jul. 1st, 2008 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackJust before traffic lights, there is a cycle-lane like box the width of the main lane, in which cyclists can stop at lights without being rear-ended by cars.
0. Is there an official name for them? "Advance cycle box" is in my head, is is equally likely to be something else entirely, or made up.
1. What is the intended use if the cyclist approaches the traffic lights behind three cars? I feel it should be obvious what they're supposed to do, but admit I can't tell. Obviously if you can accelerate briskly to 20mph, there's no problem, but if you can't, or don't want to?
Undertake if there is a clear cycle lane, else wait in the queue? Always undertake if you can? (But it's not clear when the highway code permits undertaking.) Overtake if you can? (But this is unlikely to be possible.) Always wait? (But that leaves a frustrated driver behind you.) Dismount and cross the intersection from the pavement? (But that's annoying and takes several times as long.)
2. If it were safe to do either, which would delay the drivers least: moving ahead to the cycle box, or waiting in turn. One way, the drivers ahead go past, but the one behind probably misses the lights. The other, all the drivers are delayed until the road is wide enough to overtake safely again.
3. What do you do?
I feel silly for not knowing, but most of the time, it doesn't come up, either because there's not enough of a queue, or the road is wide enough to permit cars overtaking cycles safely. And then when it does, I don't actually know.
0. Is there an official name for them? "Advance cycle box" is in my head, is is equally likely to be something else entirely, or made up.
1. What is the intended use if the cyclist approaches the traffic lights behind three cars? I feel it should be obvious what they're supposed to do, but admit I can't tell. Obviously if you can accelerate briskly to 20mph, there's no problem, but if you can't, or don't want to?
Undertake if there is a clear cycle lane, else wait in the queue? Always undertake if you can? (But it's not clear when the highway code permits undertaking.) Overtake if you can? (But this is unlikely to be possible.) Always wait? (But that leaves a frustrated driver behind you.) Dismount and cross the intersection from the pavement? (But that's annoying and takes several times as long.)
2. If it were safe to do either, which would delay the drivers least: moving ahead to the cycle box, or waiting in turn. One way, the drivers ahead go past, but the one behind probably misses the lights. The other, all the drivers are delayed until the road is wide enough to overtake safely again.
3. What do you do?
I feel silly for not knowing, but most of the time, it doesn't come up, either because there's not enough of a queue, or the road is wide enough to permit cars overtaking cycles safely. And then when it does, I don't actually know.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-02 08:43 am (UTC)If there's space to the left, and I judge it safe, I'll take it. Note that "juding it safe" would not include cycle boxes.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-02 11:36 am (UTC)I'm confused - are you saying it's ok for cyclists to jump queues, but not for cars to do so? The situation you outline with the impatient car driver sounds like queue-jumping as well, which, imo, is also behaviour unbecoming of a gentleman.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-02 12:35 pm (UTC)I also feel confused as to what possible purpose there is in the car making that overtake, whereas I see major benefits for cyclists in keeping going whenever (safely) possible.