Inconsiderate club cyclists

[meic]

But it is illegal to overtake a vehicle that has stopped to allow somebody to cross, so all those on "our" side of the road are breaking the law, even if those on the other side are not.

Not illegal for a cyclist to overtake on a crossing approach. Only motor vehicles. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016 ... aph/6/made

Often unwise, usually rude, but not illegal.

Good to see that somebody is on the ball and up-to-date. To further keep us on the right path, that link says the regulations we were looking back to have been revoked but I cant spot the ones that replaced it.
Could you pamper my laziness with a link?

[mjr]

Good to see that somebody is on the ball and up-to-date. To further keep us on the right path, that link says the regulations we were looking back to have been revoked but I cant spot the ones that replaced it.
Could you pamper my laziness with a link?

It's mainly this schedule http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016 ... le/14/made but I've not checked that contains equivalents of all of the 1997 regs.

[foxyrider]

FWIW in the area I usually ride (southern Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Notts and Lincs) most riders I cross return my usual finger wave.

One finger or two?

Four

[thirdcrank]

FWIW, the regulation prohibiting overtaking on the approach to zebra crossings is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... on/24/made
My interpretation of that is that it doesn't prohibit a cyclist from overtaking anything.

That's obsoleted by TSRGD 2016 that I just linked. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016 ... art/1/made

Yes, like me, past its sell-by date. It is, however, the footnote legislation shown in the current online version of the HC - which is how I lazily got there. The TSRGD does repeat it amost verbatim, the only real differences being in the cross-references to other regs which are now differently numbered.

Perhaps the most significant point in this context is that the difference between vehicle and motor vehicle is preserved. Had that been some sort of legislative error, then this overhaul would have been an ideal time to correct it.

[Bez]

One finger or two?

Four

Bang on

[meic]

Perhaps the most significant point in this context is that the difference between vehicle and motor vehicle is preserved.

Do you mean just in the HC or in both HC and the law?

[thirdcrank]

... Do you mean just in the HC or in both HC and the law?

I meant the law and FWIW, this isn't a case where the spirit of the HC is different.

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians

Where the HC uses MUST NOT it indicates a statutory requirement, rather than the advice implied in SHOULD NOT. It may be that they were aiming for simplicity, but it's incomplete.