I understood that "undertaking" is perfectly okay when traffic is at or near standstill. Otherwise, on a dual carriageway, vehicles in the left lane would have to wait for vehicles in the right lane (as well as those in front) to move forward before they could. Can't find anything to justify this belief in the HC though.
It's also okay to "undertake" when passing traffic that is queuing to turn right.
Personally, I use whichever side has the greater room for manoeuvre. However, I try to go only marginally faster than the traffic I'm passing, in case a driver or passenger decides to suddenly, and without looking, open a door, park up, turn around or (and this has happened to me) throw the contents of their ashtray out of the window (sadly, I failed to have the presence of mind to scoop it all up and chuck it back in their window).
- matt
Four Colleagues knocked off in a week!
Sares wrote:Do be careful when filtering past even stationary traffic as they may suddenly change lanes right into you. This happened yesterday and it hurt. And the driver didn't even stop, but I did get the registration fortunately.
I think that the filtering referred to when 'undertaking' a slower moving or stationary queue is connected to traffic not sharing the same lane. i.e. cars in the leftmost lane of a dual carriageway can pass cars in the rightmost lane if the right most lane is slower moving.
I'd urge caution no matter what Cyclecraft recommends or endorses if one decides to filter past a line of traffic in a single lane on the passenger side of the vehicles. Drivers are too unreliable to trust to stay a 'safe' distance from the kerb.
I'd only consider filtering if a cycle lane exists and even then I'd be wary as i approached parade of shops etc.
The cautions here applied to filtering are quite justified, and I don't do it a great deal myself, not least because I ride mainly in countryside and small towns. However, the idea that it is not allowed is ridiculous. There is specific guidance (rule 88 on that page) on it for motorcyclists in the HC, and there is no reason to think that they are allowed to do it and we are not.
Mick F wrote:My biggest problem is Overtakers. The roads round here are twisty and windy, with lots of double-white lines. But they still overtake when they can't see far enough ahead!
Ostrich overtaking. They wait on the straight bits when cars are coming the other way. Then they overtake when a blind corner means that "I can't see the oncoming traffic, so it is not there".
I caught up with one once - he got stuck in a jam just around the corner. I tapped on the window and pointed out that he had just waited behind me quite correctly, showing that he recognised the road as narrow, and then overtaken into a blind corner. He was perfectly polite but admitted that he had "not thought of it like that". I just feel that driver training is not teaching people to think at all if they can make basic errors like that.
Then, of course, there are the ones who take fantastic risks to get past, when both of us can see the queue two hundred metres up the road and the next place in it is theirs whatever happens. Anybody who claims that all drivers hate traffic jams is a downright liar
. Some will do almost anything to get into one just a few seconds faster.
-
freewheeler
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 3 Jan 2008, 10:31pm
How and Why Lorries Kill More Cyclists Than Other Vehicles
essexman wrote:my own house rule is never to undertake lorrys or buses.
essexman,
How wise!
I knew that HGVs / LGVs were dangerous, but I had failed to appreciate the full extent of the danger that they present to cyclists and pedestrians.
I only recently discovered by sheer chance, just how ignorant I was of their great dangers, principally due to their large blind-spots. There is a video titled '44 tonne articulated trucks and towns don't mix'. From the road casualty figures, it is clear that I was not alone in my ignorance, but luckily I found out the easy way. It seems that too many, if not most find-out the hard way and with an HGV there is no second chance.
This film was made by Robin Webb because his daughter was killed in just this way!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3219019.stm
Please note, these lorries aren't necessarily 44 tonners. But they are more than capable of killing a cyclist.
A quote from an experienced Traffic Police Officer in the film [paraphrased]:
Accidents between lorries and cyclists are always very similar. They almost invariably involve a lorry turning left, that hasn't seen a cyclist on their near-side. The lorry will have moved-out to allow himself room to make the turn, which creates an inviting lane for the cyclist – the advice to cyclists is don't go there... There are several mirrors but the area near the cab is very hard if not impossible to see into.., There will be a gentle impact at first with the side of the lorry, just enough to knock the cyclist onto the ground. Once on the ground, the cyclist will be too close to the ground to be caught by the side protection bars...,
The high percentage of red light jumping among male cyclists in London might also explain in part why female cyclists [who tend not to RLJ] are over represented in the casualty figures. From memory, a significant proportion are LGV / HGV related. TfL has recently carried out a study into cycling casualties, but most unfortunately TfL has decided to sit on the report and apparently will not be making it public.
Article
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/53/article4.html
Film
http://showcase.commedia.org.uk/article ... /390/1/13/
I'm sure that most of the regulars here will be aware of this, BUT for those who are unaware of the article or the film, please read the article and watch the the film - NOW! It just might save your life!
Please tell every cyclist you know about this! You might save theirs!
Last edited by freewheeler on 4 Jan 2008, 6:19pm, edited 3 times in total.
Cyclist since 1962 and still learning!
Just when you think you know it all, a learning experience is around the corner.
Just when you think you know it all, a learning experience is around the corner.
Re: Four Colleagues knocked off in a week!
vernon wrote:....
Have a look at Rule 139 in the Highway Code - you might choose to modify your riding and your rant...
Highway Code wrote:139
Climbing and crawler lanes. These are provided on some hills. Use this lane if you are driving a slow-moving vehicle or if there are vehicles behind you wishing to overtake. Be aware of the signs and road markings which indicate the lane is about to end.
Sorry, but the relevance of rule 139 is?
Highway Code wrote:163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
* not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
* move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car
* take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
* give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
* 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
* give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre
Perhaps the highlighted bit could be used to condone the filtering on the left? Even though we probably aren't in a separate lane.
Nigel
Today I was following a lorry and we came to a red traffic light. So I stopped and waited behind him in the centre of the carriageway. While waiting for the lights to change I noticed the cycle lane to the advanced stop line. I thought to myself "why didnt I use the lane to get to the front" especially as I was turning off the main road into a small road between the two major roads.
The reason why is that it is just too ingrained not to go there.
Sure enough as we set off the driver didnt follow the line of the road and I watched him drift straight onto the marked cycle lane. Those leaders into ASLs just seem to invite you to commit suicide.
When I was a motorbike courier I never went alongside lorries doing roundabouts even if they were multi-laned. I always stayed behind or shot through like a rocket. However as a cyclist you can not stop the lorries from coming alongside you in these dangerous places.
The reason why is that it is just too ingrained not to go there.
Sure enough as we set off the driver didnt follow the line of the road and I watched him drift straight onto the marked cycle lane. Those leaders into ASLs just seem to invite you to commit suicide.
When I was a motorbike courier I never went alongside lorries doing roundabouts even if they were multi-laned. I always stayed behind or shot through like a rocket. However as a cyclist you can not stop the lorries from coming alongside you in these dangerous places.
The point has been made before but it still stands - filtering and using ASLs may appear to provide an advantage on a personal level but scampering around cars means motorised traffic never has to accomodate what it means to have cyclists among them.
Occupying a proper space at a normal rate of acceleration would do cyclists more favours, more quickly than weaving through which suggests we are less than real traffic.
Occupying a proper space at a normal rate of acceleration would do cyclists more favours, more quickly than weaving through which suggests we are less than real traffic.
glueman wrote:The point has been made before but it still stands - filtering and using ASLs may appear to provide an advantage on a personal level but scampering around cars means motorised traffic never has to accomodate what it means to have cyclists among them.
Occupying a proper space at a normal rate of acceleration would do cyclists more favours, more quickly than weaving through which suggests we are less than real traffic.
Why stop at filtering though? Shouldn’t cyclists ride down the centre of the lane in a “vehicular” manner? Surely motorists would then know what it is to have real cyclists among them as opposed to the masses of riders who adopt a marginalised “cyclo-centric” position?
Flippancy aside, if cyclists adopted this strategy in cities that have heavy, slow moving traffic, why would people bother to cycle? For many commuters, cycling in London is one of the fastest modes of transport and this is part of its appeal.
My understanding is that 'overtaking' (by any vehicle) is legally allowed if it's safe to do so. It's just that as motorists we tend not to overtake other motorised vehicles in 30/40 mph areas. As a cyclist, I take my understanding to mean that I can overtake a queue of traffic IF I can be confident of pulling back in to safety if something appears from the other direction. The bottom line is that, rightly or wrongly, we're respnsible for our own safety, and we must keep our eyes open, think ahead, and assume that everyone apart from ourselves will do something supremely stupid at the most inappropriate time. Urban cycling is the ultimate adrenaline rush...
I have an opinion. It might not always be thoroughly thought through, but it's there.
-
Mrs Tortoise
- Posts: 453
- Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 11:44pm
- Location: Dorchester, Dorset
