Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cyclists undertaking other cyclists

As for undertaking vehicles - I do it all the time in traffic.

Me too. I can never quite reconcile the fact that anecdotally online a lot of people seem to say they don't undertake with experience on the road in where I very very rarely see cyclists in the line of traffic not undertaking where there's an opportunity to do so.
 
iirc there is a provision in the highway code for bicycles to undertake other traffic but bicycle shall not undertake bicycle

dr_zaius_2.jpg
 
As for undertaking vehicles - I do it all the time in traffic.

I've got a horrible feeling I'm about to find out I'm a damned hypocrite for slagging off other cyclists for not following the highway code, but...


...is it really the case that undertaking slow moving vehicles on a bicycle is against the highway code? Please tell me this is not the case.

Undertaking cyclists, yep, obviously very naught. But undertaking a stopped row of cars waiting at a red light, or crawling along? Ooh, I hope that's not so.
 
...is it really the case that undertaking slow moving vehicles on a bicycle is against the highway code? Please tell me this is not the case.

Undertaking cyclists, yep, obviously very naught. But undertaking a stopped row of cars waiting at a red light, or crawling along? Ooh, I hope that's not so.

Whatever it says or doesn't say in the highway code about the issue, the whole concept of the advance stop box is making the assumption that people will/should undertake at a red light.

I think it's an area where official guidance is deliberately vague, because whilst it's a fact of life of urban cycling, it's also potentially dangerous.

Like so many things with cycling, hard-and-fast rules don't really work - it's a case of adapt to the circumstances - sometimes the benefits outweigh the risk, other times not.
 
...is it really the case that undertaking slow moving vehicles on a bicycle is against the highway code? Please tell me this is not the case.

Undertaking cyclists, yep, obviously very naught. But undertaking a stopped row of cars waiting at a red light, or crawling along? Ooh, I hope that's not so.

See my previous post on page 1 of this thread for my understanding of the Highway Code on this point.

Whatever it says or doesn't say in the highway code about the issue, the whole concept of the advance stop box is making the assumption that people will/should undertake at a red light.

I think it's an area where official guidance is deliberately vague, because whilst it's a fact of life of urban cycling, it's also potentially dangerous.

The only legitimate entry point into an ASL in traffic is via a cycle lane. AFAIK, the Highway Code doesn't specify this explicitly, but the law does.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113)

SI 2002/3113 Regulation 43 (2) said:
Meaning of stop line and references to light signals

43.


...

(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, "stop line" in relation to those light signals means -

(a) the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or

(b) the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane.

Technically, if the lights are red, you should not enter an ASL zone (even on a bicycle) through any other place than the cycle lane and should stop at the rear stop line if you cannot do so.

This does obviously encourage filtering on the left - where a cycle lane is present. Where one does not exist, it's much less clear that you can legitimately pass on the inside.
 
Which is why all ASLs have those tiny little stubs of cycle lane on the left. Quick, get over to the left and enter the ASL by the designated route!
 
I've got a horrible feeling I'm about to find out I'm a damned hypocrite for slagging off other cyclists for not following the highway code, but...


...is it really the case that undertaking slow moving vehicles on a bicycle is against the highway code? Please tell me this is not the case.

Undertaking cyclists, yep, obviously very naught. But undertaking a stopped row of cars waiting at a red light, or crawling along? Ooh, I hope that's not so.

lols! the highway code is an ass, use your sense, don't hit stuff, don't get hit by stuff and don't do stuff that makes either of the above likely.*

*unless you're in an alleycat race and you might have a chance of getting a podium place
 
If I stop at lights I stop in the middle of the road and don't pull over to the left untill I'm happy with the speed I'm going at and I feel it's safe for cars to start going past me . so if someone does undertake they have plenty of room although they don't normally get the chance because I can start off pretty quickly !
 
I undertook another cyclist today - she was wobbling along on my right, almost on the centre line of the road (there were two lanes in the direction I was going, and we were both in the same lane) - she was going so slowly that if I had waited behind her out of politeness, the lights would have changed and I'd have been stuck there for ages, so I just had to go past her.

I doubt she even noticed, there was acres of room.
 
I think the main point here is that you should never over (or under) take other cyclists so close that you're going to collide if they divert slightly from their course. Wide berths all round.

both undertaking and overtaking by other cyclists who cut very close makes me cross. It's not just that I may need to divert slightly. It's also because it can startle you very easily if the over/undertaking cyclist is very close and you weren't expecting them.

I remember seeing a post on another forum where the poster argued against cyclists using hand signals to indicate because you may hit another cyclist who was passing - if you're close enough to be hit by a cyclist who is indicating then you are too close.
 
Which is why all ASLs have those tiny little stubs of cycle lane on the left. Quick, get over to the left and enter the ASL by the designated route!

I'm sure I use some ASLs without the little cycle lane :hmm: would check but I'm on the bus today and tomorrow :o

And if there's no bus or cycle lane, i'll overtake slow/stopped traffic.
 
I undertook another cyclist today - she was wobbling along on my right, almost on the centre line of the road (there were two lanes in the direction I was going, and we were both in the same lane) - she was going so slowly that if I had waited behind her out of politeness, the lights would have changed and I'd have been stuck there for ages, so I just had to go past her.

I doubt she even noticed, there was acres of room.

bad form
 
I'm sure I use some ASLs without the little cycle lane :hmm: would check but I'm on the bus today and tomorrow :o

It's possible that some of them predate the 2002 regulations and haven't been revised since, which might make them unenforceable in principle. :hmm:

I remember LB Wandsworth was one of the early adopters with ASLs in the mid 90s and I think very few, if any, of them had a cycle lane stub at the time unless it ran on from a longer lane.
 
I remember seeing a post on another forum where the poster argued against cyclists using hand signals to indicate because you may hit another cyclist who was passing - if you're close enough to be hit by a cyclist who is indicating then you are too close.

to be honest whoever posted that is a twat because you would surely LOOK BEHIND YOU before you start the signal part of the manoeuvre then check again once you've signalled then turn .
 
Some little tosser undertook me on the west side roundabout of Elephant and then cut across my path. Whilst on the actual roundabout. Yes. The Actual Roundabout.

Fuckin tosser :mad::mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom