That's not correct. The "driver of the vehicle" refers to "a motor vehicle". If it meant any vehicle including bicycles it would say "driver of a vehicle" not "driver of the vehicle". Therefore the subsequent two clauses refer only to motor vehicle drivers, not cyclists.
Overtaking Stationary Traffic
- Thread starter Edge705
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That's not correct. The "driver of the vehicle" refers to "a motor vehicle". If it meant any vehicle including bicycles it would say "driver of a vehicle" not "driver of the vehicle". Therefore the subsequent two clauses refer only to motor vehicle drivers, not cyclists.
skudupnorth
Cycling Skoda lover
- Location
- Astley,Manchester
Outside for me but always being aware of "escape" space if traffic is coming the other way.Left hand of traffic backed up is not normally a good option due to lack of space in the gutter,grids and general crap plus there is normally a good chance of the passenger thinking (or not in most cases) "sod it,i will walk the rest of the way" and opens a nice big metal door on you !
400bhp
Guru
Depends entirely on the situation, but if we are talking about a long queue of cars that are stationary, then I will choose the inside, mainly because I prefer being on the correct side of the road.
I also unclip from the left hand pedal and generally stand off the seat too. I do this because standing and unclipping means I can control the bike better, are more likely to be seen and I can see further forward. and can quickly put a foot down on the floor.
I also unclip from the left hand pedal and generally stand off the seat too. I do this because standing and unclipping means I can control the bike better, are more likely to be seen and I can see further forward. and can quickly put a foot down on the floor.
I choose the side with more space. I'm happier when that's the outside, because less chance of being doored or of collecting dozy pedestrians, but if there's a decent space on the inside there will also most likely be other cyclists using that space (at least, on most of the roads I ride in town) so my appearance won't be completely unexpected for the queuing traffic.
He would have to argue that in direct contradiction to the wording of the law. If he made that argument in a case I was involved in, I certainly wouldn't be paying his costs
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
the explanatory notes are even more confusing , and if you read them in conjunction with the other acts referenced then abandon hope of getting any sense. all 3 contradict each other. wonder which the primary legislation is if any
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
The Highway Code rules on overtaking are here:
Overtaking (162-169) : Directgov - Travel and transport
165
You MUST NOT overtake
Overtaking (162-169) : Directgov - Travel and transport
165
You MUST NOT overtake
- if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
- if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
- the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
- if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
- after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction
166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
- a corner or bend
- a hump bridge
- the brow of a hill
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
- approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
- where the road narrows
- when approaching a school crossing patrol
- between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
- where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
- when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
- at a level crossing
- when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
- stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
- when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic
Check out this thread, posted on yesterday. Pretty similar circumstances. Copper at the scene didn't know his job and was going to write it off. After being told at the scene by the cyclist that he wasn't going to (..
..) it transpires the driver was offerred an awareness course, which was refused.
End result?
guilty
£350 fine
£100 costs
6 points
and obviously a much more open door for any claim.
Pleased you weren't injured. Don't forget, if any do manifest, you've 3 years to claim.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/right-hooked-today.82193/post-1654229
..) it transpires the driver was offerred an awareness course, which was refused.End result?
guilty
£350 fine
£100 costs
6 points
and obviously a much more open door for any claim.
Pleased you weren't injured. Don't forget, if any do manifest, you've 3 years to claim.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/right-hooked-today.82193/post-1654229
C
chillyuk
Guest
After 50 odd years cycling I should have known better, but, I was filtering up the inside of a queue of virtually stationary traffic through Epping recently when a car suddenly without signalling or warning pulled out of the queue into a parking space on the left. I had to brake hard to avoid a collision. Words were exchanged, but I couldn't argue with the drivers comment that I shouldn't have been undertaking him. There was no harm done and I went on my way. The silly thing is I know I shouldn't filter on the inside but we sometimes take chances that we shouldn't. Mostly we stay safe, occasionally things have the potential to go tits up. I agree with Uncle Mort. The nearside is not for overtaking/filtering.
PpPete
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chandler's Ford
+1
That's not to say I don't do it very occasionally, but only if for some reason there is no space on the outside, and then only with extreme caution/at very low speed to minimise the consequences if door opened unexpectedly.
400bhp
Guru
Why?
400bhp
Guru
Is the "you" above any road user? No capital Y so I would guess yes, however it's not a legal document as such?
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Yes, this applies to any vehicle, not just motor vehicles.
MUST NOT means there is a specific law prohibiting it, DO NOT and SHOULD NOT are advisory (though courts are likely to assign blame on the basis of compliance or otherwise).
MUST NOT means there is a specific law prohibiting it, DO NOT and SHOULD NOT are advisory (though courts are likely to assign blame on the basis of compliance or otherwise).
CopperCyclist
Veteran
I agree with Red Light on this one. It specifically refers to 'motor vehicle'. Therefore we can filter all the way up to the front legally on a cycle, although of course we still have to comply with the crossing itself, and shouldn't be filtering over the stop lines.
This is my interpretation of the law, and has as much weight as anyone else's here - I've never had a situation where I've seen this tested in court, so can't offer this as 'gospel'.
400bhp
Guru
I agree with Red Light on this one. It specifically refers to 'motor vehicle'. Therefore we can filter all the way up to the front legally on a cycle, although of course we still have to comply with the crossing itself, and shouldn't be filtering over the stop lines.
This is my interpretation of the law, and has as much weight as anyone else's here - I've never had a situation where I've seen this tested in court, so can't offer this as 'gospel'.
Is the fact that it hasn't been tested therefore make the law non-existent?
