What's the legal situation here?

[DBrown67]

I'm a new member but I'm not a cyclist. I'm a taxi driver in Leeds. But I take my job seriously and there are quite a few occasions when I feel the need to clarify situation I've been involved in. Or could have been involved in. Like this morning for example.....

I'm travelling up a straight, single carriageway road coming out of Leeds. My lane is clear with no traffic ahead. The other lane (again single carriageway) going into Leeds is practically at a standstill. However I need to turn right into a car park for my next pick up.

I wait patiently for the traffic to move a little so I can move right if someone leaves me the space. A van does so and then I begin to move right across the traffic. Then a cyclist comes flying down the insdie of the stationary traffic... one second later and he would have been over my bonnet. The van in question is a Luton van.... it;s impossible for me to see anything on the blind side of this line of traffic. Had I hit him what would have been the legal stance?

Highway Code 167 states "Do NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users." and then goes on to mention other situations like queuing at road junctions and also where they may cause other road users to swerve or slow down.

I understand cyclists will filter... but on the inside is a liability to yourselves. I can see how tempting it is in stationary traffic there's always a chance someone needs to come across into a side road. The Luton van could just have easily been a bus. Overtaking on the left of large vehicles is a no-no surely?

 

[rbreid]

No idea what the legal position is. Think I'd be hard put to blame you if there was a collision in that circumstance but that's only my feeling.

 

[clockman]

The cyclist is an idiot! Period!!! Wasn't he lucky you (I hope) where edging your way through, slowly, so as you could react to this sort of situation.

 

[Spinney]

I suppose it could be said that you shouldn't have crossed in front of a van you couldn't see around, but it would be difficult not to if the guy had left you the space to cross the traffic. I think all you can do in that situation is to edge very slowly out, as you did, so anyone going up the inside has a chance to see you and avoid, until you can actually see yourself.

 

[redcard]

Overtaking on the left is usually perfectly fine. Overtaking on the left and not anticipating, or being aware of your surroundings is obviously not.

You'll see a lot of cyclists rushing around like this. Probably needed to get home in time for Hollyoaks.

 

[400bhp]

I think you'd both be partly at fault.

Your emotive language is interesting ("flying").

Not clever by the cyclist at all, but without being there it's difficult to comment. You are cutting across traffic and should be very careful. Let's be honest, if we see a gap in the traffic we are often releived and momentarily lapse concentration. I don't mean that negatively, it's just what we do.

It's nice to see a non cyclist come on here with a sensible question so thank you for that.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

... it;s impossible for me to see anything on the blind side of this line of traffic.

There you go then, why were you making the move?

 

[buggi]

the cyclist is legally allowed to filter and it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they look before they pull across. Do not take the van drivers word that the way is clear, if you can't see, then you should not proceed. It's tricky for you, it would have been best if you let the van carry on and gone behind it but i can see why you didn't if you had never encountered this before. Next time you will know to look.
just so you know, the more experienced of us filter on the outside for this very reason and try to encourage those less experienced to do the same, and to look out for this if they don't . This is the exact reason we don't like cycle lanes, as they encourage cyclists to do this. This is a classic case of both of you not being in this scenario before, or not being told about it. The important thing is no one got hurt and you are now a better driver for it.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I don't know the law but I'd guess that you'd cop the blame for ''stealing'' the cyclist's road space when you couldn't see. That said, the general refrain that you'll here time and time again is that filtering on the outside is far, far safer. I'll occasionally filter on the inside but very slowly - slow enough to be able to stop before entering a bit of road that I can't see. And with particular caution at junctions: people will occasionally leave gaps for traffic to cross in front of them when the traffic's going nowhere but, just as importantly, the vehicle you're undertaking may do a left turn without having bothered to indicate.

Incidentally, thanks for posting on here. It's good to know that there are concerned taxi drivers out there.

 

[Smurfy]

The cyclist is an idiot!

Sorry, I can't agree with that. It's for the driver turning across a line of traffic to be sure that the way through is safe and clear, and that includes cyclists that may not be queuing, if that means moving forward inch by inch then so be it. Don't forget, cycle lanes are always on the left, and if our stupid government and local authorities had more vision we'd have a lot more of them.

 

[400bhp]

the cyclist is legally allowed to filter and it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they look before they pull across. Do not take the van drivers word that the way is clear, if you can't see, then you should not proceed. It's tricky for you, it would have been best if you let the van carry on and gone behind it but i can see why you didn't if you had never encountered this before. Next time you will know to look.
just so you know, the more experienced of us filter on the outside for this very reason and try to encourage those less experienced to do the same, and to look out for this if they don't . This is the exact reason we don't like cycle lanes, as they encourage cyclists to do this. This is a classic case of both of you not being in this scenario before, or not being told about it. The important thing is no one got hurt and you are now a better driver for it.

To the OP - the above is not necessarily true. It depends upon the situation, the conditions and the road.

 

[DBrown67]

When I say "flying" it is of course in comparison to the rest of the traffic. If traffic is at a standstill and someone is doing 25mph, that is "flying" in comparison.

I suppose I can count myself lucky to not be needing legal representation. No accident occurred. But it was single lane traffic, with no cycle lane. I certainly wasn't accepting that the van driver had checked it was clear. It would be hard to see a cyclist over normal cars or SUVs, never mind a van or bus. If I'm expected to wait till it's "clear" I'd be there all morning!

Of course I went across slowly. But had the cyclist been 15 yards or so further on he would have still hit me. No way would he have stopped in time.

 

[buggi]

To the OP - the above is not necessarily true. It depends upon the situation, the conditions and the road.

why is it not necessarily true? The driver is cutting across the cyclists lane. Therefore cyclist has priority. True he needs to be aware of traffic cutting across but he still has priority.

 

[Dan B]

As far as I know there's not a lot of precedent regarding liability when cyclists filter and a collision results, but standard practice for motorcyclists (absent any particular circumstances which would swing it one way or the other) is to settle for 50:50 . Filtering is perfectly legal, but people doing it are expected to take extra care

 

[400bhp]

why is it not necessarily true? The driver is cutting across the cyclists lane. Therefore cyclist has priority. True he needs to be aware of traffic cutting across but he still has priority.

I was commenting on the bit emboldened?