Nearly wiped out this morning
- Thread starter lozcs
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Origamist
Legendary Member
He can and did, but he should also prepare himself for any possible consequences of submitting a film that also shows him breaking the law - arguably, in a more clear cut fashion.
Torvi
mr poopmechanic
- Location
- Wellingborough
imo if you want people to be respecting rules you should start from yourself
Yes lozcs, I agree that the overtake was too close. Also agree with benb in that you breaking the law has nothing to do with the dangerous overtake - unrelated incidents.
I'm intruiged by the term 'filtering down'. Could an informed member please tell me the difference between 'filtering down' and 'queue jumping'? I've a good mind to try out this 'filtering down' technique next time I find myself at the back of a supermarket checkout queue.
I'm intruiged by the term 'filtering down'. Could an informed member please tell me the difference between 'filtering down' and 'queue jumping'? I've a good mind to try out this 'filtering down' technique next time I find myself at the back of a supermarket checkout queue.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Sham, why is overtaking queue-jumping?
I genuinely don't know, that's why I'm asking what the difference is. Anyhow, had a bit of time earlier to 'research' this and found that the British Cycling website has a guide on filtering so I guess that's OK then. However, when I looked up the Highway Code, rule 167 states:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example...where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works.
So it's not OK?!? I'm confused. Either way, I won't be 'filtering' because to me it just feels wrong.
A car would probably come into conflict, a bike can just slip past.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
The question is: is it safe? The answer for a bicycle in that situation is: yes.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
I know the Boateng advice was a while back and under a different administration but as far as I know it still stands. If it's a dangerous bit of road and you have reasonable fears to justify going that way round then there's no offence IMO. If you went that way to save having to give way to traffic at roundabout then they might have a case to argue that there may have been an infringement. But it would be hard to establish your intention without your cooperation, no pedestrians were affected or even visible and the reduced number of intersections reduces the number of potential danger points.
On the overtake itself, I wonder whether people have forgotten how to overtake moving vehicles when there's oncoming traffic. Urban drivers have few opportunities to practice their skills.
On the overtake itself, I wonder whether people have forgotten how to overtake moving vehicles when there's oncoming traffic. Urban drivers have few opportunities to practice their skills.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Robert Goodwill recently reiterated Boateng's advice:
"Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boeteng's original guidance.
You may wish to write to Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), to bring this matter to his attention too."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/20/police-cycling-pavements
Interesting... Exactly my reasons for cutting that dangerous roundabout in my view a considerate and safe manner..
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."
A few posts back, I posted this genuine request:
As yet, no-one has answered this question (not that it's compulsory!) so should I take the lack of response to mean there is no difference?
As yet, no-one has answered this question (not that it's compulsory!) so should I take the lack of response to mean there is no difference?
glenn forger
Guest
To be fair, it's a stupid question. If drivers want to sit in a queue of traffic I'm not going to sit there with them when I can legally and safely make way.
"There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers" (Colin Luther Powell, 65th US Secretary of State)
Still waiting...
