They've been trained by suburban driving where lights are triggered and not timed. The light time is basically random, so gunning it does give you a small time advantage in that it increases your chance of making the next light.

Of course, looking ahead and being thoughtful can provide a lot of insight and a useful level of forecasting to be more efficient. However, your efficiency will not get you to your destination faster when you're up against the kind of horsepower available to a modern motorist (you might glide through a light almost at speed, but the stopped car next to you can get up to speed in a couple of seconds).

Having bright lights on makes letting them go by make you more noticeable. I usually have this problem on side streets with stop signs, and drivers seem to realize I'm closer than they thought after they pass me.

Actually, in many cities during rush hour on the main roads, lights are in fact timed in sequence to produce the most effecient average traffic flow for the direction that rush hour traffic moves.

At night and during some non-rush hour times, the lights revert back to the sensors.

One highway on my commute is timed for a 20 mph speed.

Well, When there is no passing lane and, the only thing they are doing is, looking for something. Instead of passing them, I could just wait until they are done.:) I wouldn't die, if I wait.:eek: It comes down to patience and, not having a 'me first' attitude.:)

Ah Grasshoppah...waiting behind is not necessarily safer.

What would I do? Sit back and enjoy this "instructional" video:

http://vimeo.com/7171146

Use what you want...ignore the rest.

On an urban or otherwise narrow street, time it in the lane (the whole lane) to avoid the situation in the first place, or wait behind those who pass.

If there is a shoulder ahead, especially if a car passes just to rush to a red light, I filter, as it's no real hassle for the cars I pass at the light to then pass me again.

If the road is narrow ahead, I wait.

It depends on the pass. Loud aggressive motoring across double yellow lines into the face of oncoming traffic, just to get around a bike and then to slam on the brakes to stop before a red light... I wouldn't exactly that that a "legal pass of a car..." Just crossing the double yellow solid lines makes it an illegal move. But really I think it is the intensity of the situation that depicts the "rage" aspect.

I once had a guy in a Mustang move to the center lane of a 3 lane road to "get around me..." it was a perfectly "legal" move, but the way he did it was with quite a bit of violence and bravado. First he rev'ed the engine a number of times (no doubt he was just trying to keep that cam warm... right?) He then abruptly moved from behind me, cutting off a car to his left, then accelerated hard, and then swung it right, hard and fast... gaining only about 12-16 feet, but causing the motorists to the left and behind to lock up their brakes in the mean time. A perfectly legal lane change (albeit no turn signals), but executed in a way that was filled with rage.

^^^
Genec, consider the difference of written words such as "a legal pass of a car" verses "a legal pass by a car". In context of my reply to prior post calling cyclist a form of road ragers for passing a car that had previously passed the cyclist, it should be clear that my words spoke of legal passing of a car by "the cyclist" is not road rage.

And that actually constitutes "Reckless Endangerment". I got a guy with a CDL prosecuted for that once.

Sorry, read it wrong. "pass by a car" sounded like the car was doing the "passing by."