Is cycling through stationary traffic illegal?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
M.G
Posts: 42
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 8:50am

Postby M.G » 30 Jul 2008, 5:49am

OT, but, you have a black mamba! Currently mine is somewhere between here and slavinia.

EMD_Nic

Postby EMD_Nic » 30 Jul 2008, 10:55am

patricktaylor wrote:It's a manoeuvre you're entitled to make but I'm sure a large proportion of motorists would think otherwise, and that you have no right to 'butt in' in that fashion. It's why filtering on the left is often the safest option.

It's so long since I took my driving test that I don't know if learner drivers are instructed properly on this. Somehow I doubt they are.


Perhaps because I am a cyclist I am something of a sympathetic motorist when I see others getting around by bike.

There are times when I have to drive (like the quick turn around between work and getting to Okehampton in half an hour) so I do try and be nice to someone on a bike because I have been in their shoes.

James1822
Posts: 66
Joined: 1 Mar 2007, 5:55pm

Postby James1822 » 4 Aug 2008, 3:42pm

I almost always overtake on the outside. There can be no complaints from drivers then, and it's usually safer as you're less likely to be squashed against the kerb of have someone open the door on you. Motorists are less likely to open a door on the right because they think a motorbike might be filtering through. You can then ride through with the smug satisfaction that you're getting further than them, despite having a vehicle that costs a fraction of the cost.

User avatar
petercook80
Posts: 190
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 3:38pm

Postby petercook80 » 4 Aug 2008, 5:09pm

As a driver and a cyclist I feel that cyclists need to consider the drivers and conditions of cars to a big degree with coming down either side.

For instance as a car driver I know how very hard it is to see sometimes at night in the rain in the wing mirrors in traffic, now when I am cycling home (which is most of the time) its easy to think that car driver should easily spot you as your view of the world as a cyclist in those conditions is so much clearer, its easy to forget how bad the view is through a rain soked mirror with headlights behind relfecting in the raindrops etc.

Just perhaps worth bearing in mind now the nights are fair drawing in :D

Ambermile
Posts: 335
Joined: 26 Jun 2008, 3:35pm
Location: South Norfolk
Contact:

Postby Ambermile » 4 Aug 2008, 5:12pm

Not sure I can let you get away with that one... if drivers cannot see in the conditions (whatever they are) then they should either slow down until they can see and take in their surroundings, stop and walk, or hand in their license.

Arthur
I make stuff, that's all.

User avatar
petercook80
Posts: 190
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 3:38pm

Postby petercook80 » 4 Aug 2008, 5:21pm

Ambermile wrote:Not sure I can let you get away with that one... if drivers cannot see in the conditions (whatever they are) then they should either slow down until they can see and take in their surroundings, stop and walk, or hand in their license.

Arthur


Not sure I have anything that needs 'getting away with' just pointing out a simple truth,
1. If you drive a car you will know what I mean
2. Even if one were to agree with you (which I dont), the simple fact is thats what its like on the road in those conditions and we need to allow for it.

Ambermile
Posts: 335
Joined: 26 Jun 2008, 3:35pm
Location: South Norfolk
Contact:

Postby Ambermile » 4 Aug 2008, 5:25pm

Oh, I have a car (which I like to think I drive with due consideration to the local conditions) but your post seemed to, (and still does, on re-reading), imply that rain and darkness is a defence for running over a cyclist.

Arthur
I make stuff, that's all.

User avatar
petercook80
Posts: 190
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 3:38pm

Postby petercook80 » 4 Aug 2008, 5:36pm

Ambermile wrote:Oh, I have a car (which I like to think I drive with due consideration to the local conditions) but your post seemed to, (and still does, on re-reading), imply that rain and darkness is a defence for running over a cyclist.

Arthur

Not in the slightest was I implying such a thing, I did not even mention hitting a cyclist (don't read what is not written please). As a daily cyclist I would find that idea abhorrent.

Look if you think that the average car driver sees just as well in their wing mirrors at night in the rain on the way home from work then fine, if you dont think we (as cyclists) should allow for poor visability conditions then fine.
I think we should and that is what I was trying to get accross.

Euskadi
Posts: 165
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 8:16am
Location: London

Postby Euskadi » 6 Aug 2008, 8:09am

For one's own self-preservation I would have thought it imperative you treat all motorists with great care and never assume they have seen you, or will behave in a rational sane manner. I'm not a motorist, I can't drive, but I have heard that most motorists in the UK rarely use their left wing-mirror. It makes sense therefore to pass stationary traffic on the right, as well as being quicker.

kwackers
Posts: 15290
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Postby kwackers » 6 Aug 2008, 9:09am

Euskadi wrote:For one's own self-preservation I would have thought it imperative you treat all motorists with great care and never assume they have seen you, or will behave in a rational sane manner. I'm not a motorist, I can't drive, but I have heard that most motorists in the UK rarely use their left wing-mirror. It makes sense therefore to pass stationary traffic on the right, as well as being quicker.


The problem with assuming they've not seen you is that when cycling down the road with the traffic you pretty much have to assume they have.

I always found it slightly strange that the advice for a ped who has to use the road is to go against the traffic so they can get out of the way if they're not seen, yet for a bicycle (same width and often not a lot faster) you're forced by law to cycle with the traffic...

User avatar
cranky
Posts: 538
Joined: 3 Jul 2008, 11:28pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby cranky » 6 Aug 2008, 9:48am

patricktaylor wrote:It's a manoeuvre you're entitled to make but I'm sure a large proportion of motorists would think otherwise, and that you have no right to 'butt in' in that fashion. It's why filtering on the left is often the safest option.

It's so long since I took my driving test that I don't know if learner drivers are instructed properly on this. Somehow I doubt they are.


Sometimes it doesn't matter which side you filter on, it's your presence on the road that they object to. Take this bus drivers view
Iain

Ridgeback Genesis Day 2
Surly Long Haul Trucker

User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2302
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

Postby patricktaylor » 6 Aug 2008, 10:12am

Should the cyclist have given a hand signal? I would have.

User avatar
cranky
Posts: 538
Joined: 3 Jul 2008, 11:28pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby cranky » 6 Aug 2008, 10:17am

patricktaylor wrote:Should the cyclist have given a hand signal? I would have.


Possibly, but he is in a mandatory right turn lane and it's really his presence the bus driver objects to ("butting in").

Personally, I don't think the cyclist put a pedal wrong. He maneuvered safely and didn't impede the bus at all. At least, that's my view.
Iain



Ridgeback Genesis Day 2

Surly Long Haul Trucker

User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2302
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

Postby patricktaylor » 6 Aug 2008, 10:32am

cranky wrote:Personally, I don't think the cyclist put a pedal wrong. He maneuvered safely and didn't impede the bus at all. At least, that's my view.

Mine too, and he filtered on the left.