Page 1 of 2

Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 7:34pm
by jan19
I'm sure this must happen, but I've never seen it before and I wondered how common it is.

I needed the car for work today, and on my way in overtook two cyclists, one behind the other and both going at a good speed. A little later on, I was in a slow moving queue and the cyclists caught up. Ahead of me was a transit van. The lead cyclist went to undertake the van - he had space, and at the speed the traffic was going (ie dead slow) it wasn't a risky manoeuvre. The second cyclist went in front of me, to overtake the van on its outside. The van driver obviously saw the first cyclist and moved over to the right, giving the cyclist more room. By doing so, he moved into the path of the second cyclist, who swerved to avoid the van. It was close enough to set me thinking - if there had been a collision, whose fault would it have been?

Jan

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 8:15pm
by manybikes
Happened to Jenson Button in a F1 race. Mugged before a bend by two much faster cars either side. Think how he felt :D

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 9:02pm
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
Overtaking on the inside :?:

I never do it at even a crawl, stopped doing that a long time ago, always overtake on the outside.
Some drivers still move far left or far right to apparently help cyclist, I always stay behind when they do that.
Or wait in traffic, that way you don't annoy that driver who takes offence at a cyclist overtaking them stuck in a jam, a lot of them about :x

Recently - I now take up a car space (especially at front of queue at traffic lights) / overtake really wide / or just wait for traffic to move off and then start pedalling again slowly, I.M.O. much safer to let them go on.

The van driver was at fault because he had no reason to move right, and should have looked in mirror first.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 9:04pm
by retsofkram
6 of one half a dozen of the other I was once told when involved in a similar circumstance. Cyclist 1 shouldn't be undertaking traffic on the left unless a dedicated cycle lane, however the van made a manoeuvre without due care and attention to his surroundings. Another question would be asked were the cyclists travelling at a speed relevant to the road/traffic conditions?

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 9:25pm
by kwackers
retsofkram wrote:6 of one half a dozen of the other I was once told when involved in a similar circumstance. Cyclist 1 shouldn't be undertaking traffic on the left unless a dedicated cycle lane, however the van made a manoeuvre without due care and attention to his surroundings. Another question would be asked were the cyclists travelling at a speed relevant to the road/traffic conditions?

What cyclist 1 is doing is irrelevant and at best can only provide mitigating circumstances for the van drivers actions. Having said that, I'd question whether cyclist 2 had left enough room, obviously depends on just how much the driver moved out by.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 10:24pm
by pwa
Safety requires clarity: road users need to know where to look. By convention overtaking is on the right and that is where a driver should be expecting to see something in his/her mirror. Having people come up both sides is just a recipe for confusion and mishaps.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 9:43am
by jan19
In answer, I wasn't aware that the cyclists' speed was inappropriate - they'd slowed down from when I first overtook them.

I "know" you shouldn't undertake, but I know this road very well indeed, and at the point cyclist 1 undertook he was not (imho anyway) in any danger. There are no left turns for some considerable distance, and its a Red Route so you can neither stop nor park. Less so cyclist 2 who might have had to encroach slightly into the oncoming lane.

Putting my car driver hat on, I would have felt it rather hard on the van driver who was being courteous to Cyclist 1 by giving him more room if he'd then collided with Cyclist 2! Yes, I know the letter of the law would say he should have looked, but I doubt he'd have had enough time - Cyclist 1 having just undertaken me (I'm in a much smaller vehicle than the van so he'd have had more room) before the van driver would have seen him.

My feeling at the time was that the sensible thing for Cyclist 2 to go was the same way as Cyclist 1, and if he wanted to go the "correct" way (ie on the outside) he might have been advised to hold back a bit and let Cyclist 1 get a little way ahead, thereby reducing the likelihood of confusing motorists by having cyclists pass on both sides. Just my opinion, and it was why I posted as I was interested to see what others thought.

I often move left when being overtaken by a motorbike to give them more room - I would *hope* I'm aware enough of the road not to be causing a problem to a cyclist but this incident did set me thinking....

Jan

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 9:53am
by pwa
jan19 wrote:In answer, I wasn't aware that the cyclists' speed was inappropriate - they'd slowed down from when I first overtook them.

I "know" you shouldn't undertake, but I know this road very well indeed, and at the point cyclist 1 undertook he was not (imho anyway) in any danger. There are no left turns for some considerable distance, and its a Red Route so you can neither stop nor park. Less so cyclist 2 who might have had to encroach slightly into the oncoming lane.

Putting my car driver hat on, I would have felt it rather hard on the van driver who was being courteous to Cyclist 1 by giving him more room if he'd then collided with Cyclist 2! Yes, I know the letter of the law would say he should have looked, but I doubt he'd have had enough time - Cyclist 1 having just undertaken me (I'm in a much smaller vehicle than the van so he'd have had more room) before the van driver would have seen him.

My feeling at the time was that the sensible thing for Cyclist 2 to go was the same way as Cyclist 1, and if he wanted to go the "correct" way (ie on the outside) he might have been advised to hold back a bit and let Cyclist 1 get a little way ahead, thereby reducing the likelihood of confusing motorists by having cyclists pass on both sides. Just my opinion, and it was why I posted as I was interested to see what others thought.

I often move left when being overtaken by a motorbike to give them more room - I would *hope* I'm aware enough of the road not to be causing a problem to a cyclist but this incident did set me thinking....

Jan


I agree with all that. I would have been Cyclist 2, but I hope I would have sized up the complications of the situation and held back.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 10:13am
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
I would........................

Not take action in respect to others driving / cyclist / pedestrians.........if they are doing something not right to start with, this is where its grey.

Stick to the highway code and let others force their way through.

In this instance the van driver should NOT Do anything but stay in lane without wavering at all.

Imagine If the van driver (Good Samaritan) had knocked cyclist 2 off their bike / forced into road etc, and they were then killed by an oncoming car, then another person enters the equation.

Who then would be at fault :?:

1) Cyclist 1.

2) Van driver.

3) Cyclist 2.

4) Car driver oncoming.

:?:

I know you will say that its OK for cyclist to overtake, but I tend to wait for fear of upsetting that car driver that bulges on purpose when they see you in the mirror, just me...............

Edited - Sorry just reaffirming what I do, I sort of misread a post :? Like you do hen you think you know what you want to see :(

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 10:46am
by mjr
jan19 wrote:The van driver obviously saw the first cyclist and moved over to the right, giving the cyclist more room. By doing so, he moved into the path of the second cyclist, who swerved to avoid the van. It was close enough to set me thinking - if there had been a collision, whose fault would it have been?

Mostly the van driver for not following http://highwaycode.info/rule/211 but also the right-hand cyclist for not allowing enough space/time to react to a vehicle moving right.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 22 Oct 2015, 10:06am
by AlaninWales
Filtering is legal for *cyclists. As a car driver, I expect *cyclists to pass on either side when I'm in slow moving or stationary traffic. Manoeuvring (for whatever reason) without considering that and checking mirrors, is careless.
Had there been a collision, it would have been the van driver's fault. I wouldn't expect most British juries (or police) to accept that simple fact though (given British public attitudes).

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 22 Oct 2015, 12:10pm
by Tonyf33
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:In this instance the van driver should NOT Do anything but stay in lane without wavering at all.

Agreed

I've no problem with people wanting to come past on the inside (or outside), I'm aware if I've passed a cyclist and if it's likely they'll come past me, generally I'd leave enough room for them to potentially come past on the inside whilst I was stationary/moving slowly. if the lane is too narrow for anyone to come past safely on the inside then I wouldn't position myself to allow that to happen in the same way I would try to dictate how vehicles overtake me (when cycling).
That's not to say I'd deliberately block anyone but I'm not putting my vehicle in a position that endangers it and as a consequence others safety at risk, If a cyclist wants to filter on the offside then you should expect to have to go into the opposite lane which is what I do every time I have filtered. There should never be a reliance on other vehicles to move over and you should ride defensively should something crop up, this is most pertinent in urban traffic.

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 22 Oct 2015, 12:34pm
by jan19
I've no problem with people wanting to come past on the inside (or outside), I'm aware if I've passed a cyclist and if it's likely they'll come past me, generally I'd leave enough room for them to potentially come past on the inside whilst I was stationary/moving slowly. if the lane is too narrow for anyone to come past safely on the inside then I wouldn't position myself to allow that to happen in the same way I would try to dictate how vehicles overtake me (when cycling).
That's not to say I'd deliberately block anyone but I'm not putting my vehicle in a position that endangers it and as a consequence others safety at risk, If a cyclist wants to filter on the offside then you should expect to have to go into the opposite lane which is what I do every time I have filtered. There should never be a reliance on other vehicles to move over and you should ride defensively should something crop up, this is most pertinent in urban traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure whether this is relevant, but ..

1). The van driver hadn't overtaken the cyclists. He'd only just joined the traffic queue (I'd let him out of a junction on the other side of the road). The cyclists would still have been quite a way back.

2) IMHO it is dangerous at that point for a cyclist to overtake a vehicle if it means going into the other carriageway. At that point, it is single carriageway northbound (the side I was on) and dual carriageway southbound. An overtaking cyclist would be facing the wrong way in an overtaking lane. So I don't think (personally) that cyclist 2 should have attempted an overtake unless he could be certain he had room - doubtful even if the van had stayed in the centre of the carriageway.

Only a very short distance ahead, the northbound lane also becomes dual carriageway. At this point, cyclists *usually* take the centre way between vehicles (not all do, and some (like me) use the dual use path on the pavement although I'm not saying that's the ideal solution, it just suits me from where I join). There is a traffic light controlled junction a couple of hundred yards ahead (with an ASL) and cyclists including me usually arrive at the ASL, and then position themselves to move forward across the lights to the other side where there is a cycle lane.

Jan

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 22 Oct 2015, 4:54pm
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
AlaninWales wrote:Filtering is legal for *cyclists. As a car driver, I expect *cyclists to pass on either side when I'm in slow moving or stationary traffic. Manoeuvring (for whatever reason) without considering that and checking mirrors, is careless.
Had there been a collision, it would have been the van driver's fault. I wouldn't expect most British juries (or police) to accept that simple fact though (given British public attitudes).


Unless the van driver said I did not see the cyclist.............well documented that gets you off the hook even when you kill the cyclist.

I always say stay in lane no matter what.

I no longer filter on my bike in traffic, I at worst ride on the pavement, its a lot safer and they can do me if they catch me too.
I feel it is safer to stay in lane behind a vehicle until you no longer can keep the speed.

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-an ... st-cycling

Re: Overtaking on both sides

Posted: 22 Oct 2015, 5:33pm
by Mick F
Overtaking on the right is the norm.
However, how many motor-vehicle drivers expect to be OVERtaken by someone on a bike?

I was coming down Gunnislake hill circa 40mph+ and some divers insist on keeping to the 30mph speed limit. :lol: :lol:
I overtook on the right, and I suspect the car driver had a bit of a shock.