Overtaking Stationary Traffic

[CopperBrompton]

I know courts treat it as evidence of Careless Driving when a motorist does it. I would imagine in a civil case, a cyclist who was overtaking past a junction would be deemed to be at least partially responsible for a collision with a car turning right at that junction.

 

[Red Light]

I've had a brief look and can't see anything which specifies that the regulations referred to apply to motor vehicles only - do you have a direct link?

Look them up in http://www.legislation.gov.uk. Most of them are specific to motor vehicles.

 

[gaz]

I know courts treat it as evidence of Careless Driving when a motorist does it. I would imagine in a civil case, a cyclist who was overtaking past a junction would be deemed to be at least partially responsible for a collision with a car turning right at that junction.

What is the difference between a cyclist filtering passed a car and a car overtaking a car?

 

[Riding in Circles]

What is the difference between a cyclist filtering passed a car and a car overtaking a car?

The car pays road tax so is entitled to pass of course. (warning, post may contain sarcasm)

 

[pshore]

What is the difference between a cyclist filtering passed a car and a car overtaking a car?

There is NO difference - they are both overtaking manoeuvres.

Filtering is overtaking where the overtaker uses or drops back into road-space that the car cannot use because of its size. Normal road rules apply, such as no overtaking at zig-zags and no crossing solid white lines.

Filtering as a concept is recognised and legitimised by a brief mention in the Highway Code (rule 88) in rules for Motorcyclists: ... "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

 

[gaz]

Normal road rules apply, such as no overtaking at zig-zags and no crossing solid white lines.

Oh come on, I've already posted about cyclists overtaking on Zig Zag lines, it is perfectly legal.

 

[pshore]

Oh come on, I've already posted about cyclists overtaking on Zig Zag lines, it is perfectly legal.

Easy up Gaz. I didn't read the rest of thread in detail, sure that was a bad example, but now I might as well have an opinion ...

That snippet of law you posted regarding it being for motor vehicles only. If someone takes that as read, overtakes the lead vehicle on a bicycle and mows down a ped, they will be prosecuted in some way. That's the spirit of the law.

Merry Christmas.

 

[gaz]

Easy up Gaz. I didn't read the rest of thread in detail, sure that was a bad example, but now I might as well have an opinion ...

That snippet of law you posted regarding it being for motor vehicles only. If someone takes that as read, overtakes the lead vehicle on a bicycle and mows down a ped, they will be prosecuted in some way. That's the spirit of the law.

Merry Christmas.

I don't think anyone would argue against that. The principle of overtaking a vehicle on zigzags how ever is perfectly legal (for a cyclist).

 

[Alun]

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).

I can't see how " You MUST NOT overtake if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation" applies to cycles or indeed buses and trams. Anyone care to explain how it does?

 

[Red Light]

If someone takes that as read, overtakes the lead vehicle on a bicycle and mows down a ped, they will be prosecuted in some way. That's the spirit of the law.

But a law that has nothing to do with overtaking and everything to do with failing to yield to a pedestrian on a crossing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[pshore]

But a law that has nothing to do with overtaking and everything to do with failing to yield to a pedestrian on a crossing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yes, I agree with that.

The motor vehicle part of the law is obviously there to prevent a fast motor vehicle coming through when they cannot see what is on the crossing. The omission of the cyclist from the rule is likely to be a consideration that the bicycle cannot obscure a drivers view of the crossing. Secondly, if it is assumed that cyclists are slow, the cyclist will have enough time to see what is on the crossing when they arrive at the front of the queue even if the cyclists view is obscured by a motor vehicle. But, a road bike is plenty fast enough to make the rider not have enough time to react to what is on the crossing.

 

[pshore]

I know courts treat it as evidence of Careless Driving when a motorist does it. I would imagine in a civil case, a cyclist who was overtaking past a junction would be deemed to be at least partially responsible for a collision with a car turning right at that junction.

I am not sure this is directly related to this thread anymore, but having read plenty of threads on motorcycling forums about filtering accidents (for right turn and u-turn into path of overtaker), I conclude from the outcomes that the split of insurance liability is affected by: 1) how much warning the the overtaker had regarding the motorist turning across their path. 2) the speed of the overtaker which lengthens the stopping distance in what is deemed a risky manoeuvre.

 

[Red Light]

Yes, I agree with that.

The motor vehicle part of the law is obviously there to prevent a fast motor vehicle coming through when they cannot see what is on the crossing. The omission of the cyclist from the rule is likely to be a consideration that the bicycle cannot obscure a drivers view of the crossing. Secondly, if it is assumed that cyclists are slow, the cyclist will have enough time to see what is on the crossing when they arrive at the front of the queue even if the cyclists view is obscured by a motor vehicle. But, a road bike is plenty fast enough to make the rider not have enough time to react to what is on the crossing.

Number of pedestrians killed per annum on pedestrian crossings by motorists ~70.
Number of pedestrians killed per annum on pedestrian crossings by cyclists ~0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[CopperBrompton]

It's not zero - I remember a case when a 70yo man was killed on a zebra by a cyclist. I've also personally witnessed a pedestrian hit and knocked down by a RLJing cyclist, and that was very unpleasant. Sure, the risk is much lower when the offending vehicle is a bicycle, but we still have a responsibility to slow to whatever speed is necessary to be able to stop in the distance we can see to be clear.

 

[ComedyPilot]

It's not zero - I remember a case when a 70yo man was killed on a zebra by a cyclist. I've also personally witnessed a pedestrian hit and knocked down by a RLJing cyclist, and that was very unpleasant. Sure, the risk is much lower when the offending vehicle is a bicycle, but we still have a responsibility to slow to whatever speed is necessary to be able to stop in the distance we can see to be clear.

This is possibly the best cycle/road safety advice available.

Always ride and drive anticipating having to stop and you'll be fine (as will others).