Please look at the video of a Lorry knocking me off.

[horizon]

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable.

It was practicable and he did. And nearly got killed. If anyone still thinks the Highway Code is worth the paper it is written on then think again.

[karlt]

Kwackers - I'm fairly confident that "incompetent" would pass muster in a libel trial as fair comment. Accusations of intent to kill would not. And yes, people have before now taken official action over things published in media such as bulletin boards.

karlt: like kwackers. I have doubts that what I said would have been libellous but I have taken your other point about malice. The phrase I was looking for this morning was "We might be forgiven for thinking that....." in a humorous way. Unfortunately it came out a bit stronger!

It seemed humorous to me...
Quite the contrary, I think an OTT suggestion can't be seen as anything but, but claiming incompetence would actually require evidence.

Either way, it's nonsense to assume that highway engineers as a group are going to start throwing around lawsuits, I suspect to even suggest as much is more down to trying to make a point than any real conviction.

If I came across a forum where I was accused of trying to kill people, I'd be extremely <inappropriate term removed> off, and would at the very least demand a retraction. You might not find false accusations like that a serious issue, but some people do. It was far from obvious to me that Horizon was joking.

In libel, a statement of fact - "they want to kill us" - needs to be justified. A value judgement on the other hand - "I think they are incompetent" - does not. You can think, and within pretty wide bounds express any opinion you like. What you cannot do is make specific defamatory accusations.

[kwackers]

If I came across a forum where I was accused of trying to kill people, I'd be extremely <inappropriate term removed> off, and would at the very least demand a retraction. You might not find false accusations like that a serious issue, but some people do. It was far from obvious to me that Horizon was joking.

Seriously. Lighten up dude, either that or admit you were trying to make a point.

I mean come on! How can anyone take the claim that the highway agency are deliberately setting out to kill anyone!
To believe this you've got to have serious issues.

[stewartpratt]

From this:

your riding style is an accident that was waiting to happen, IMO.

Obviously I've extrapolated from what you said (to make the point) but the point is that the OP followed the rules in terms of the cycle lane and from where it ended. You and I are both horrified that he did this but nevertheless he was only doing, as far as I can see, what he was meant to.

That's in no way "suggesting that the OP should have ignored and flouted the directions given by the road markings". The road markings absolutely do not give the direction "undertake moving traffic to your right", and pretty much all I'm suggesting is that he should not have undertaken moving traffic to his right.

Highway code point 163:
"- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"

I would contend that neither scenario in which it is acceptable to pass on the left was the case here: the lorry was not signalling to turn right right, and the traffic was not in slow-moving queues. I'm not aware of any points which exempt cycle lanes from the normal rules of overtaking (though am willing to be corrected).

[karlt]

If I came across a forum where I was accused of trying to kill people, I'd be extremely pissed off, and would at the very least demand a retraction. You might not find false accusations like that a serious issue, but some people do. It was far from obvious to me that Horizon was joking.

Seriously. Lighten up dude, either that or admit you were trying to make a point.

I mean come on! How can anyone take the claim that the highway agency are deliberately setting out to kill anyone!
To believe this you've got to have serious issues.

[rude word removed]. I took horizon's comment at face value. I admit nothing, and I'm fairly <inappropriate term removed> off that you claim to know what's going on in my head.

The only "point" I was trying to make is that conspiracy theories make us look stupid and can leave you open to action. I'm pleased that horizon was exaggerating for effect, but it was not obvious. There's plenty of people on here frequently suggest that many car drivers don't care if they kill us, which I find an equally ridiculous supposition.

[kwackers]

If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left[/i]"

I would say that applies. The very fact he was undertaking and then being overtaken suggest the traffic is forming queues which slow it down and allow him to pass on the left, the queue starts to clear and it starts travelling faster again.
Classic multi-lane behaviour imo - with the exception the lane in question is a bicycle lane.

[kwackers]

and I'm fairly <inappropriate term removed> off that you claim to know what's going on in my head.

Only because it's obvious. I doubt anyone else really thinks that the highway engineers are out to get us and to my mind the point made was clearly OTT.
You simply jumped on it to make a point and now don't want to back down. Classic human behaviour, don't worry, you're not alone...

[karlt]

and I'm fairly pissed off that you claim to know what's going on in my head.

Only because it's obvious. I doubt anyone else really thinks that the highway engineers are out to get us and to my mind the point made was clearly OTT.
You simply jumped on it to make a point and now don't want to back down. Classic human behaviour, don't worry, you're not alone...

Sod off Kwackers. You don't know me, you don't know what I did or didn't think. Call me a liar if you like, but I did not see Horizon's comment as humorous when he first made it. It didn't seem any more ridiculous than some of the other conspiracy crap that comes up on here from time to time.

Consider yourself on ignore, and go and patronise someone else.

[horizon]

[The only "point" I was trying to make is that conspiracy theories make us look stupid and can leave you open to action. I'm pleased that horizon was exaggerating for effect, but it was not obvious.

karlt: I'm happy to accept that road engineers are not trying to kill people. However, some sentiment must have triggered my analogy. After all, here are professional people putting possibly inexperienced cyclists into extraordinarily dangerous situations. (The worst of these is to funnel cyclists from cycle lanes on otherwise quite wide roads into pinch points where the road narrows.) We are talking about someone who could easily have been killed. My theory is justifiably called "stupid" - it was meant to call attention to this matter, which it has done. But we still need a rational explanation - incompetence isn't enough as that would not be accepted in a court of law. This cycle lane is an appalling dereliction of professional duty - what now? We don't call people who don't check railway points "incompetent"; I don't know anything about criminal negligence but as a mere layman I would use that term here.

[horizon]

That's in no way "suggesting that the OP should have ignored and flouted the directions given by the road markings". The road markings absolutely do not give the direction "undertake moving traffic to your right", and pretty much all I'm suggesting is that he should not have undertaken moving traffic to his right.

Highway code point 163:
"- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"

I would contend that neither scenario in which it is acceptable to pass on the left was the case here: the lorry was not signalling to turn right right, and the traffic was not in slow-moving queues. I'm not aware of any points which exempt cycle lanes from the normal rules of overtaking (though am willing to be corrected).

stewart: with the greatest respect, I would have thought it reasonable for the OP to assume that is what he was supposed to do, to proceed on the left of the lorry if he was travelling faster. BTW I would look forward to other views on this other than my own to get a sense of what people generally feel is intended by this white line.


(In fact at the time of the accident the cycle lane had ceased, and the lorry was overtaking, so nothing of what we have been discussing applies but many replies on this whole thread are responding to all asepcts of the video.)

[horizon]

and I'm fairly pissed off that you claim to know what's going on in my head.

Only because it's obvious. I doubt anyone else really thinks that the highway engineers are out to get us and to my mind the point made was clearly OTT.
You simply jumped on it to make a point and now don't want to back down. Classic human behaviour, don't worry, you're not alone...

Sod off Kwackers. You don't know me, you don't know what I did or didn't think. Call me a liar if you like, but I did not see Horizon's comment as humorous when he first made it. It didn't seem any more ridiculous than some of the other conspiracy crap that comes up on here from time to time.

Consider yourself on ignore, and go and patronise someone else.

Come, come now gentlemen - I wouldn't like to think that anything I posted here caused personal disaffection.

[stewartpratt]

I would say that applies. The very fact he was undertaking and then being overtaken suggest the traffic is forming queues which slow it down and allow him to pass on the left, the queue starts to clear and it starts travelling faster again.
Classic multi-lane behaviour imo - with the exception the lane in question is a bicycle lane.

I think either point is arguable - at what point does a flow of traffic become a queue? (Rhetorical question.)

If we make an analogy to multi-lane behaviour, though, then where the cycle lane diverts left we have a cyclist entering the main lane at a point (a) where a vehicle is already in it and (b) by crossing a solid line. This manoeuvre is reasonable if you argue that the white paint of the cycle lane is to be ignored, but that argument is directly at odds with defending the undertaking on the grounds of being in the cycle lane. It's either one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it.

[kwackers]

Come, come now gentlemen - I wouldn't like to think that anything I posted here caused personal disaffection.

No need to apologise to me. I'm finding the whole thing fairly hilarious!
I *got* your reference immediately, I reckon he did too but tried to use it to make a point and then kept digging...

[stewartpratt]

I would have thought it reasonable for the OP to assume that is what he was supposed to do, to proceed on the left of the lorry if he was travelling faster.

So you're saying each lane is entitled to do its own speed independently of the other? Then you must also argue that if you're driving on a dual carriageway and there's a car in the outside lane doing 65mph, the correct course of action is to undertake it at 70mph in the inside lane. Which, to the best of my knowledge, you shouldn't - that's how American freeways work, not British roads. In the UK you can undertake only when the outside lane is queuing or "slow-moving". Those terms are clearly a little ambiguous but I personally don't think either really apply in this case. YMMV.

In any case, there is nothing in the Highway Code (as far as I can see) to suggest that the painted white line makes undertaking either more legal or more sensible than it would be without the paint.

[kwackers]

I think either point is arguable - at what point does a flow of traffic become a queue? (Rhetorical question.)

If we make an analogy to multi-lane behaviour, though, then where the cycle lane diverts left we have a cyclist entering the main lane at a point (a) where a vehicle is already in it and (b) by crossing a solid line. This manoeuvre is reasonable if you argue that the white paint of the cycle lane is to be ignored, but that argument is directly at odds with defending the undertaking on the grounds of being in the cycle lane. It's either one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it.

I think it most definitely is arguable.

To my way of thinking cycle lanes are lanes, there's no wishy washiness about them. The rest of it is simply bad design, but fundamentally I think they're lanes and should be treated as such.
Undertaking in the context of what he was doing isn't to my way of thinking a huge no no, (although superficially if it really was like the camera makes it appear then I wouldn't...)

If you can't undertake in a cycle lane then what exactly is the point of them? Someone above (Si?) mentioned they'd be happy to do it in a wide cycle lane (i.e. a bus lane) as would I but I'm sure point of law doesn't specify a minimum width before undertaking is legally OK (with slow moving provisos) so you have to assume that any width is acceptable.

If we accept that they really are lanes then the only point of discussion is whether the traffic to the right is slow moving - yes?
If that's the case then consider this:-
Mostly it's moving faster than him so overtakes him, but then it slows and he undertakes it, this is exactly the situation that is allowed in multi-lane traffic, if the outside lane of a dual carriageway brakes nobody expects the inner lane to brake also. It's allowed to continue at it's own pace - something I believe he was doing.
i.e. The undertaking was a function of the traffic slowing to his right rather than a deliberate manoeuvre on his part.