1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Overtaking parked cars

Discussion in 'Commuting' started by BentMikey, 24 Oct 2007.

  1. BentMikey

    BentMikey Rider of Seolferwulf

    Location:
    South London
    Ref this video:


    I had thought that overtaking a parked car left you in very dodgy ground if you were to have a collision, based on what my mate told me about a court case he'd been in. Essentially he'd been riding his motorbike like a silly blighter, and had hit a car that was overtaking parked vehicles. The car driver ended up having to pay for his own mirror simply because he should have waited for the oncoming traffic. It's only hearsay, mind.

    JonathanE seems to think differently. Which is correct?

    Obv. I'm talking about the legal situation here, there's no point in talking about defensive riding and staying alive as that's taken for granted.
     
  2. Tynan

    Tynan Veteran

    Location:
    e4
    what's to say, the oncoming traffic pulling wide are overtaking and as such have to do so only if safe

    I used to get this all the time in two spots on my route, pulling wide around a bus seems to be allowed, even if it means driving head on into traffic on their side of the road

    doubly so if you have no idea what's coming towards you whe you pull out

    JonathonE?
     
  3. Regulator

    Regulator Political refugee. Fan of Adrian.

    The cyclist had right of way, as his side of the road was clear. The first (white car) completed the overtake OK - second car should have seen the cyclist approaching and waited until he was clear. Plain and simple!

    However, as we all know, expecting car drivers to follow the rules of the road is like expecting Bonj to make an erudite point in an argument...
     
  4. bonj2

    bonj2 Guest

    It might be sheer pedantry, but I was taught when learning to drive that "right of way" is a crass term as it implies a concept that doesn't exist - that you have the right to plough through regardless. The correct alternative term which should be used instead is of course "priority". You may be able to argue that I'm just being pedantic like I say, and that 'right of way' has legal basis in law, yadda yadda yadda but ever since then I've always remembered that teaching and it's in turn always reminded me that I don't have the right to plough through regardless.
     
  5. col

    col Veteran

    Even though the driver is in the wrong,they should have given way,it seems this is the norm,i see a lot of this type of thing everyday,similar to the follow the car in front after traffic lights go red thing.
     
  6. domtyler

    domtyler Über Member

    The driver of the second car had already begun her manoeuvre so had right of way priority.
     
  7. col

    col Veteran

    I disagree,the car should have seen that a bike was coming,so to carry on was inviting a close pass,and the car had to go the wrong way on the other lane,it should only have passed if it was safe to do,it obviously wasnt ,on this occasion,so should have waited.
     
  8. col

    col Veteran

    I got the email notification BM,but cant find the post on here.
    I think its illegal of the car passing the bus,as its traveling the wrong way.
     
  9. OP
    OP
    BentMikey

    BentMikey Rider of Seolferwulf

    Location:
    South London
    Yes, I went to answer, and then realised what you meant, so deleted it.
     
  10. I had that not so long ago but with three cars, I got so pissed off by the time the third car tried the manouver I had positioned myself right in front of him, he wasn't very happy, but not as unhappy as I was, I made him reverse!!!!!
     
  11. Mister Paul

    Mister Paul Honky

    Location:
    North Somerset
    I disagree. If you want the definitive answer, just stop dead in front of the car. There's then only one vehicle that can move, and that's the car that's on the wrong side of the road.
     
  12. gambatte

    gambatte Middle of the pack...

    Location:
    S Yorks
    Clipped form the highway code.
    Think he got it wrong on 2 points

    163


    Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
    • not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
    • give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
     
  13. Jacomus-rides-Gen

    Jacomus-rides-Gen New Member

    Location:
    Guildford / London
    I think you missed the third point though

    Rule 163_MVD*

    163a - Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
    not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle

    163b - Give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road

    163c - Points 1&2 above are negated if the the oncoming road user is smaller than you





    *MV = Motor Vehicle Drivers revision, a wildly popular, but incredibly hard to find underground publication. Basically a black market version of the real Highway Code, whose popularity has risen astronomically in recent years.
     
  14. col

    col Veteran


    Why has its popularity risen?Actualy iv not heard of this.
     
  15. gambatte

    gambatte Middle of the pack...

    Location:
    S Yorks
    Posted a few comments, he's boring me now.

    Sounds like a driving instructor who thinks cars have priority.:evil: