Like I'm listening to some guy from the sticks. Call them stupid all you want.

The 16M+ ppl in the London commuter zone will disagree and continue to use them.

According to commentary in Youtube: "Rennradfahrer nehmen in der StVO eine Sonderstellung ein. So besteht bei Trainingsausfahrten ein Wahlrecht zwischen der Benutzung von Radfahranlagen und der für den Verkehr bestimmten Fahrbahn. Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass das Fahrrad ein Rennrad entsprechend den gesetzlichen Vorschriften ist."

So, according to the traffic law, bike racers in training have the right to choose between using bike infrastructure or the traffic lane, as long the bike is a racing bike in accordance with legal guidelines. This seems very precise, in that Teutonic sort of way.

There's a lot of push back in the comments, essentially, the cyclists was doing nothing dangerous, nothing illegal, and the driver was making things dangerous by not understanding the law.

while i dont wear a helmet i am not anti helmet. those who are rabid about it are probably also anti seatbelt and pro smoking. the reason i dont wear a helmet is because my neck feels much better when i dont. i think i am healthier riding without a helmet than not riding.

It has to be a ”rennrad", which has certain weight maxima and is also exempt from the StVZO lighting rules.

It's not about push back, it's about the regs (gesetz.)

There's a little more information here:

https://fahrrad.bussgeldkatalog.org/rennrad/

Err, right, that's what it, and I, said, "ein Rennrad entsprechend den gesetzlichen Vorschriften", a racing bike in accordance with legal guidelines.

And, yes, the comment do push back against the headline and OP's comment, that the bike racer is using the street despite being right next to the bike path, and that he's thereby endangering himself and others, by saying that the cyclist didn't do anything wrong, and the OP doesn't understand the law.

Try the Giro Synthe or Lazer Z1 nice and light, I sometimes forget I am wearing mine. Not trying to debate helmets just a suggestion if you want to wear a helmet that doesn't weigh much.

I'm agains helmets being obligatory. Many people regard cycling to be a dangerous activity. Having grown up and living in a cycling town, with a good cycling infrastructure where practically no one wears a helmet. Depending on the type of riding, one should be allowed to choose for themselves. Yes, when you fall on your head it's better to have a helmet, but it's about probability (risk), otherwise, wearing helmets when walking (especially in the winter, when there's ice) could also be obligatory by law.

How long did you give the helmet? It can take a while for your neck to build up the muscles to support the extra weight of a helmet, it took around 2 months for me to get used to a Nutcase helmet (which are heavy), there are lighter helmets out there which should minimize the discomfort or time to get used to.

What about cars that pass a cyclist only to stop in front of them? Buses that do that?

I've never really understood the purpose of those. I suppose I never see more than 2 or 3 bikes stopped at a light at a time though.

There are some oddly placed left turn boxes. Still, I'd rather be either to the side of the road, or in a lane.

We don't have them, but I take up the same position anyway when it's possible. I assume it's so we don't get right-hooked, and it's sometimes a good idea to be in the lane until we're through. The bike box, starting out in front, makes that the de facto situation

Yep.... better to just get steamrolled flat. :innocent:

I like to line up to the side of the road, but vary my position somewhat.

If I expect several right on red turns, then I'll hang back a bit to allow cars to get around me. There is one intersection that is substantially a T, where I'll line up on the left side of the right turn lane, allowing cars to do right on red to my right side. I'm technically in the straight through lane, but nobody goes straight, and it drops me into the bike lane going left.

If traffic is mostly going straight, then I will sometimes line up as far forward as I possibly can, while still on the right side of the road. I.E. on the forward side of the crosswalk, assuming not a lot of walkers. That way, I hope I'm visible to right turn traffic, but not standing directly in front of them.

I suppose I could imagine a street with lots of bikes, as well as right turning vehicles would benefit from moving the bikes forward so the bikes would proceed in a pulse, allowing cars to turn after that pulse, rather than having a steady stream of bikes passing to the right. I just never see that many bikes. I suppose I should hang out around the university campus a bit more in the spring.

He's an oil industry shill and just writes fear mongering articles against cycling of any kind for transportation. I've read his articles and they seem to be aimed that the newbie cyclist considering bike commuting to work. I guess the thought process is that if you can prevent people from trying bike commuting, they won't get hooked on it and continue driving cars. Not sure if this guy is also part of the oil/auto industry lobbying for bike helmet laws (as they reduce cycling as well).

They usually hang back even more than necessary IME. When you're right in front of them, stopped at a light, it's impossible to not know that you're there. Angle towards the far right side, they can swoop around if they really want to.

I do all of that too. As long as you're in front of them, directly or over to the right, a driver knows that you are there and he knows that you're going through the intersection. That's probably the main justification of the bike box. Being directly in front stifles the close pass during the intersection, which is sometimes safer if you don't have that nice wide bike lane at the other side. It all depends.

Yep...

A major hassle. Cars will park just behind the red light trigger. And my bike just doesn't quite trigger it unless I'm pulling the trailer. So we end up waiting, car and bike with a dead red.

I often have to motion for the cars to pull forward to activate the trigger.

Perhaps that would be a benefit of bike boxes. Reminding engineers to put bike sensitive triggers into the boxes, and car sensitive triggers where the cars stop.

I go by the mantra "First Come, First Served". If the car(s) is/are there first, why should I (cyclists) be allowed to go around them, and then force them to have to move slowly past the intersection until such time as they can get around me, especially if they have already passed me previously? If I'm there first, well then the cars have to wait because I was obviously there before they were.

And yeah it's stupid when a car passes immediately before an intersection or stop sign. But generally I'd rather have them in front of me so that they can go on ahead since they can accelerate faster, than have them on my ass behind me as we're going through the intersection.

been wearing one for about 5 years and sitting more and more upright to relieve the pain of arthritis in my neck. one day while making a bank run at my job i forgot to put the helmet on. i realized it at the bank and couldnt believe how good i felt. i really dont want to go back but i sure appreciate folks worrying enough to suggest solutions. it means you care. thankyou.

Nah, guys. The bike boxes make sense in southern England as the traffic density is huge (larger than anywhere I've been except expect Asia/India.)

Have the bikes at front and filtering through the stopped traffic is the safest and they're aren't any hidden cyclists.

Maybe in a rural area they don't make sense, but everywhere I've seen them they're heavily used. Even at a midnight on a weekday there'll be multiple bikes in them.

I like segregated stuff better (like CPH) but that's not available is ultra dense 1000-year old cities always.

Me too. That’s why I was interested to hear the counter arguments. I am surprised by the hostility of some respondents but I guess that’s why there is so much bad feeling between drivers and riders. Too much heat, not enough light!

I've been hit from behind in a (not very small) CAR, standing stopped at a traffic light. Never underestimate the power of stupidity. :)

I'm not really sure I get the point of the boxes. What are they supposed to accomplish, anyway? It will inevitably cause a jam up when they have to filter back down to the narrower lane, no?

Makes perfect sense for motorcycles - they're usually faster accelerating than cars, not sure about bicycles. Maybe Acidfast can explain it better.

As for bicycles, I often filter all the way to the first car when there's a traffic jam. Filtering to the front is more "traumatic" for the drivers, but starting behind the first car - they get into the intersection first (if anyone's running a "late green", the car gets hit), I use the windshield of the car in front to accelerate easier, the first car controls the pace so I get no horns from the drivers behind - and the cars can easily go past one bicycle since I leave enough room when filtering.

Having said this, local bike associations are trying to enforce a minimum 1m passing distance when overtaking bikes - along with lane changing when overtaking bikes on out of urban areas. I believe this, if enforced, would make filtering with a bicycle a lot less fair towards drivers - making them do just what you said: bothering to take you over later on. It would also cause more jams and tension - especially on twisty, one lane per direction, out of city roads, climbs even more so.

Someone mentioned eliminated a long line of bikes that would prevent driver from making right turns for a while when the light turns green, and I guess this makes sense, but it still seems far from ideal.

When I used to ride a motorcycle, I filtered to the front all the time. This was perfectly normal and acceptable in Italy, but in the US it caused many a driver to freak out and/or get mad. They just don't get it. You are using a fraction of the gas and the road space, so your compensation should be going to the front if there is space to do so. But I even had a cop start screaming in my face and give me a ticket for it (which I later beat).

I see no reason why you shouldn't do it on a push bike, and if anyone gets mad that's their problem, as long as you leave room or don't purposely obstruct them if they want to pass you back.

I am not a fan of the bike box.
It's fine when the cyclist passes stopped motorists on their curb side while they are stopped and gets in front of them before the light turns green.
But, the cyclist who is moving forward to the bike box when the light turns green is vulnerable to being hit by a driver who turns right or left (whichever side curb is on) when the light turns green. In the U.S. drivers aren't trained to look for a cyclist passing next to the curb before turning right on green.

There isn't a countdown timer on traffic lights for me to know when a red is about to change to green.

North Italy is a (motor)cycling heaven IMO. Love the way those people ride and drive. All starting almost at once at green lights, drivers watching out for (motor)cyclists, allowing each other to filter and move on whenever there's room.