Cycling UK Forum

Heltor Chasca wrote:Off tangent, but maybe the right direction: If you get pulled up for a passenger not wearing a seat belt: Doesn't the driver get the ticket?

think it depends on the age/capacity of the passenger

[XAP]Bob wrote:

Heltor Chasca wrote:Off tangent, but maybe the right direction: If you get pulled up for a passenger not wearing a seat belt: Doesn't the driver get the ticket?

think it depends on the age/capacity of the passenger

Right you are. So it's an open, shut case?

Grayling in his 'capacity' should be indemnified of all responsibility. Driver's fault it is. Job done. Well done panel.

thirdcrank wrote:Apart from being a bit surprised you don't favour this element of anarchy, I'm unclear about the new rules you are proposing in your final paragraph, particularly as in stop/start traffic, passengers have a tendency to bail out on either side if they realise continued progress might be faster on foot..

My vision of anarchy doesn't include everyone doing any old thing, but instead imagines a universal and simultaneous enlightenment - by means of morphic resonance or threats of violence.

I'm not sure what I'm proposing.

I'm thinking of an average high road with cars parked both sides. In slow moving traffic the cars keep to the centre (to avoid car doors or to leave a gap for cyclists?). Or, worse, some keep left and others keep right. If they all kept left instead, in slow moving traffic, cyclists would have room to overtake on the outside, without crossing the centre line, and people in the parked cars would think twice before throwing the doors open. It's not perfect, but at least we'd all know where we are supposed to be.

As the slower vehicle should be keeping left anyway, the only change is advice to drivers, that cars travelling slower than 10mph should drive within the door zone, and passengers of parked cars should look before they leap.

What could go wrong?

The overwhelming response on that Radio2 programme was that it was the cyclist's responsibility to avoid car doors. The law that somebody quoted was easily ignored in the face of "common sense" and how it would be an effort for a car passenger to check before opening.

Hi,

kwackers wrote:

squeaker wrote:

Mick F wrote:I didn't like the cyclist riding up the left hand side past the traffic.

Me neither, but it does seem to be de rigueur in London

It's like any other manoeuvre, just needs a bit of care.

I overtake on the inside often, I also overtake on the outside. My choice depends on the road, the traffic and the conditions.
In practice I've had more issues overtaking on the outside, cars that suddenly decide they don't want to queue so they suddenly swing out as your passing or perhaps start a U turn. There's no such thing as a risk free overtake.

But which is legal and wont get you a frown from the men in black

My advise is Always do it by the book, especially for us vulnerable cyclist.

Hi,

mjr wrote:

Mick F wrote:At no time did I "undertake" any vehicle, and I had no intention of doing it either.

Congratulations - you've been doubly co-opted by the motoring lobby! Firstly, by calling it their prejudiced term "undertaking" and secondly, by refusing to overtake motorists stuck in jams of their own making unless there's some oft-ignored paint marking a lane that's usually narrower than safe.

I am with Mick F on this point/s.
How else you going to do it

Edited - I don't commonly now overtake traffic that's stationary of fear of upsetting the one ejit who takes offence and screams at me for doing what they would do if they were me, when they catch me later.
Its more stressless to stay in the traffic if its slow.

I will use a pavement occasionally when its safer and I am not inconvenienceing anyone.

Mic F's way is the best way I.M.O.

Some posters hear appear to favour car drivers view.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:My advise is Always do it by the book, especially for us vulnerable cyclist.

No, the correct advice is always do what is safe - "especially for us vulnerable cyclist"

(Not that "the book" forbids overtaking on the inside)

In my experience, cars don't always queue in a uniform fashion, especially if the traffic lane is quite wide. Some will hug the kerb/edge, most will sit in the middle and some favour the outside bit of the lane. This can make overtaking on a bike difficult. I favour the outside but it's sometimes easier on the inside if there's a wide gap between most cars and the kerb.

Stopping filtering on the inside would stop almost almost all commuter cycling in London, overnight (which many drivers would probably like, until the next day's gridlock). It would be almost impossible to ride in London without resorting to that tactic. A rush hour journey out of London (for me, 12 miles) would take twice as long, and I don't think it would be safer.

There is no neat solution to the problem.

TrevA wrote:In my experience, cars don't always queue in a uniform fashion...

Agreed. But where should they be? [See my earlier post]

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

mjr wrote:Congratulations - you've been doubly co-opted by the motoring lobby! Firstly, by calling it their prejudiced term "undertaking" and secondly, by refusing to overtake motorists stuck in jams of their own making unless there's some oft-ignored paint marking a lane that's usually narrower than safe.

I am with Mick F on this point/s.
How else you going to do it

Hi back. Errr, overtake when you judge it is safe to do so, no matter which side?

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Edited - I don't commonly now overtake traffic that's stationary of fear of upsetting the one ejit who takes offence and screams at me for doing what they would do if they were me, when they catch me later.
Its more stressless to stay in the traffic if its slow.

We obviously have different feelings about what's stressful (I'm far more stressed by breathing difficulty from the fumes and the risk of being sandwiched in the relatively frequent nose-tail shunts) and I'm disappointed that road-ragers seem to have scared you out of a legal and normally-safe behaviour.

Cycling UK CDF interested in potential for private prosecution:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ng-cyclist

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Mic F's way is the best way I.M.O.

Thank you.

I chose not to rush.
I chose not to push my luck.
I went along on the left about a yard out from the kerbs, and stayed with the traffic unless it was going faster than me. If the traffic stopped, so did I.

As for the term "undertaking", it's a word to show there's a difference from "overtaking".
We drive on the left in this country, and to "overtake" you pass down the off-side of the vehicle being overtaken.
Undertaking is not to be recommended and only acceptable when the traffic is moving along in lanes.
Highway code Rule 268
Yes, I know this is in the Motorway Section, but the principle is still valid on urban roads in cities and applies to all vehicles ............ and a bicycle is a vehicle.

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Without a dedicated lane, you shouldn't pass to the left.

Hi,

kwackers wrote:

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:My advise is Always do it by the book, especially for us vulnerable cyclist.

No, the correct advice is always do what is safe - "especially for us vulnerable cyclist"

(Not that "the book" forbids overtaking on the inside)

OK. so do it by the book BUT stay safe always.

If you are lax in your riding attitude and a incident occurs, you don't want to be the one caught riding where you should not.
Inside overtaking, its risky at any time, if the outside is more risky, that will I.M.O. not be a reason for taking a less risky manoeuvre.
If in doubt stay in the traffic, being late for work is no excuse.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:If in doubt stay in the traffic, being late for work is no excuse.

Better to be late, than dead on time.