Cycling UK Forum

.

MikeF wrote:So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

MikeF wrote:

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

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.

So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

No.
You would treat a cycle lane (we have to decide how wide that is, some until recently near me were as wide of bars?) like a separate lane which allows moving at different speeds, like its a separate road lane. HC says that's OK.
Interrupted (councils vain attempt to tick boxes but cant fit a continuous cycle lane so its interrupted every 100 yrds) I either ignore the pathetic dangerous cycle lane which some are / join the traffic just like there is no cycle lane, interrupted cycle lanes are adding more danger to cyclist and I rufuse to use them where using them is more likely to bring you grief.
Swapping from interrupted cycle lane and joining traffic then overtaking will probably irritate other users as well as being more hazardous to yourself, I would of thought.
I tend not to make quick manoeuvres unless I am completely alone.

I only overtake when I can safely, which I do do.
And then if the jam is likely to clear within 30 seconds, lights etc, I just wait.
I have modified my stance on overtaking in the last few years as the 110Mil road works were being done, some here have suffered even died with the frustrations of drivers, I had several Very close passes all unneccesay of course as I caught them in a about 100 yards anyway

You have to read the road as necessary, Like I said further up I DO sometimes use a pavement when road is jammed and road is narrow so pavement is safer and I don't irritate car users who don't like anyone skipping the queue.

Do car drivers use there mirrors often? we all know they don't, some do some don't, and they are a hazardous to all of us.
Stay safe Guys.

Hi,

Stevek76 wrote:

MikeF wrote:So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

+1
If you doing a clean overtake (when its safe for you) you are not traveling in the same lane, this to me is safer than any other undertake option.

Stevek76 wrote:

MikeF wrote:So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

If I remember correctly, the cycle lane in the video leads to a kerb-protected lane with its own traffic lights that release you into Parliament Square before motorists (well, unless they jump a red light). It's worth using. The flaw is that there's a gap in the cycle lane where the road is narrowed by Parliament's security barriers jutting into the road. The authorities should have marked a wide advisory lane there IMO, to remind everyone there will obviously be cyclists on the left.

Stevek76 wrote:

MikeF wrote:So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

As someone who prefers filtering on the outside i tend to consider such 'infrastructure' as a health hazard and ignore it.

But if there's a wide cycle lane as shown in the original post most cyclists will be using it. I wouldn't regard it as filtering.

Of course the Dutch also have the problem of how to stop their citizens getting doored

Their solution seems pretty reasonable with the emphasis very much on the car drivers/passengers:

http://99percentinvisible.org/article/dutch-reach-clever-workaround-keep-cyclists-getting-doored/

MikeF wrote:So when you are approaching a cycle lane which is on the left or are in an interrupted left hand cycle lane you overtake on the offside where there isn't a lane, but then cut back in to join the cycle lane?? That's effectively what you saying.

No.

I'm saying that "undertaking" ............ or overtaking on the left ............ isn't a good idea.
However, using the lane system as per the HC is ok, but you have to be aware of the dangers.

bovlomov wrote: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.

London suffers from stationary or almost stationary traffic. The only way of getting anywhere during peak hours is on two wheels, wether motorised or pedal powered and by filtering, otherwise you're equally stationary as the tin boxes. I filter on the left, on the right, between lanes of cars...anywhere there is a gap to get through.
Royal Jordanian's you tube channel shows effective and gutsy filtering, albeit on a motorcycle and the sort of snarled up traffic one has to deal with.
Drivers and especially passengers have an obligation to look before opening car doors, few passengers do....cyclists and bikers get doored frequently.
Grayling like many others tried to put the blame on the cyclist. In the light of his behaviour I leave you to consider his suitability as Minister of Transport.

Mick F wrote:I'm saying that "undertaking" ............ or overtaking on the left ............ isn't a good idea.

How can you possibly know? Answer is you can't - you're simply applying your idea of what it means and assuming that applies to all scenarios. In practise it's a decision you can make at the time when you're coming up on your queue of cars.

Over the years I've had a few near misses overtaking on the outside and none overtaking on the inside, so in that regards and using my experience I'd say overtaking on the outside is the more dangerous.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cycling-uk-offers-help-prosecution-transport-secretary-dooring-incident-304307

Is this a good idea?

kwackers wrote:

Mick F wrote:I'm saying that "undertaking" ............ or overtaking on the left ............ isn't a good idea.

How can you possibly know? Answer is you can't - you're simply applying your idea of what it means and assuming that applies to all scenarios. In practise it's a decision you can make at the time when you're coming up on your queue of cars.

Over the years I've had a few near misses overtaking on the outside and none overtaking on the inside, so in that regards and using my experience I'd say overtaking on the outside is the more dangerous.

Overtaking is dangerous in general.
If the traffic is stationary, and there is room, no doubt you can weave in and out ............ I've done it any number of times.

As for the basic idea of passing on the left is concerned, if there's room to keep away from the door zone, or you can see that there is't a passenger in the car, you could pass with barely a hair's breadth to spare. If there's a chance that the vehicle could move left, it could put you in harm's way.

Obviously, each situation needs assessing on its merits at the time. You pays your money, and you takes your chance.

My advice is not to overtake or undertake. Better safe than sorry. However, do what you want if you want to.

Mick F wrote:Obviously, each situation needs assessing on its merits at the time. You pays your money, and you takes your chance.

I think that was my entire point.

So you're travelling on in your car and the lane you are travelling along just abruptly stops with no warning. The tarmac is still there, but it's now just unmarked.

Do you a) continue to where you can see the lane marking another twenty metres along the tarmac or b[i][\i]) stop, waiting for some workers to come and put some more paint down?

thirdcrank wrote:The Secretary of State was a passenger. (Like so many politicians.)