Dumbass cyclist morons who overtake traffic on the left

[sir.clip]

.stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

What about that then...

 

[gentlegreen]

Maybe you need to retake your driving license exam.. 30 years of driving is a long time without a re-take or refresher & it could be a good thing to be brought up in line with modern highway rules and regulations..

Possibly.

I fully admit that I made the transition to greater than two wheels without a single lesson. (I bought a Reliant 3-wheeler and drove it round an industrial estate for an hour )

I'm an atypical motorist (I got grief from my ex and her teenage daughters for driving "too slowly" and giving hand signals )

Just lately I have semi-seriously considered signing up for an advanced motorists course. (mainly so I can stick the badge on the back of my pushbike )

 

[Ribbit]

You've lost me.

 

[gentlegreen]

.stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

What about that then...

The gutter is not a "lane".

 

[cybertect]

.stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left

What about that then...

That only applies when you're in a separate lane. That is certainly what I was taught on my Cycling Proficiency course (aged 12, I'll admit it was a long time ago) and later when learning to drive.

If there is a designated cycle (or any other) lane in which you can pass freely then you're correct, you're entitled to pass slow-moving or stationary traffic queued to your right, but AFAIK that is not the point under discussion.

There's no other special exemption mentioned in the Highway Code's Rules for Cyclists

 

[Ribbit]

Who cares about the highway code anyway? A lot of drivers don't follow it.

 

[Crispy]

It's so different in London. Nearly all major roads have a bus lane, so riding on the right is almost unthinkable.

 

[gentlegreen]

It's so different in London. Nearly all major roads have a bus lane, so riding on the right is almost unthinkable.

Fair enough - I'm all for cycle lanes where they are actually sensible, but my DIY lighting has evolved partly due to an "advisory" mad: ) cycle lane I use on a daily basis .. I've hurt my gloved hand more than once from thumping cars that drift into it.

Pretty soon they'll be stalling their cars as my laser beams scythe through their back and side windows

 

[Pingu]

That only applies when you're in a separate lane. That is certainly what I was taught on my Cycling Proficiency course (aged 12, I'll admit it was a long time ago) and later when learning to drive.

If there is a designated cycle (or any other) lane in which you can pass freely then you're correct, you're entitled to pass slow-moving or stationary traffic queued to your right, but AFAIK that is not the point under discussion.

There's no other special exemption mentioned in the Highway Code's Rules for Cyclists

i think the term is

pwned

 

[cybertect]

Who cares about the highway code anyway? A lot of drivers don't follow it.

Er.

I do.
The police and courts do.
So does your insurance company.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

You ought to



[emphasis added]

What you quoted is advice for cars though - 'use your mirrors' & 'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking' kind of give the game away, imo.

I think its bonkers to say don't overtake on the left on a bike, and i think its equally bonkers to say that you should ride down the middle of the road whenever possible - i do the latter but usually when traffic is stopped at lights - as soon as its moving again, I'm back on the left sharpish.

 

[gentlegreen]

i think its equally bonkers to say that you should ride down the middle of the road whenever possible - i do the latter but usually when traffic is stopped at lights - as soon as its moving again, I'm back on the left sharpish.

I don't think anyone was suggesting anything different

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I don't think anyone was suggesting anything different

Um, thread title of 'Dumbass cyclist morons who overtake traffic on the left' certainly had me fooled, as did cybertect quoting overtaking instructions for cars as a reason why ribbit should cycle down the middle of the road.

Maybe I'm missing something here

 

[cybertect]

What you quoted is advice for cars though - 'use your mirrors' & 'give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking' kind of give the game away, imo.

No. It's advice for all road users. It's placed in the Using the Road section on the Highway Code web site.

Introduction
1-33: Rules for pedestrians
34-44: Rules about animals
45-66: Rules for cyclists
67-71: Rules for motorcyclists
72-84: Rules for drivers and motorcyclists
85-134: General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders

135-179: Using the road

135-137: General rules
138-145: Overtaking
146-159: Road junctions
160-166: Roundabouts
167-175: Pedestrian crossings
176-179: Reversing​

180-200: Road users requiring extra care
201-212: Driving in adverse weather conditions
213-226: Waiting and parking
227-247: Motorways
248-261: Breakdowns and accidents
262-264: Road works
265-272: Railway level crossings
273-278: Tramways

 

[Pingu]

love - 30

 

[cybertect]

The whole question, of course, may be moot

138: Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• the vehicle behind is not beginning to overtake you
• there is a suitable gap in front of the vehicle you plan to overtake.

 

[Ribbit]

Er.

I do.
The police and courts do.
So does your insurance company.

What insurance company? I'm a cyclist.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

No. It's advice for all road users. It's placed in the Using the Road section on the Highway Code web site.

But squarely aimed at car drivers don't you agree? Most bikes don't have mirrors, most bikes don't pull back in front of the vehicle that they have overtaken, as yourself note, the fact of having a suitable gap to go into doesn't apply.

 

[gentlegreen]

What insurance company? I'm a cyclist.

And by the sound of it the sort of cyclist that will eventually force the authorities to make registration and insurance complusory and screw it up for the rest of us .

 

[cybertect]

What insurance company? I'm a cyclist.

Touché. Whole other can of worms in there

Though, if you're a member of the London Cycling Campaign, you automatically have third-party liability insurance which you may need to rely on some day.

[wonders if Paulie also suggests cyclists can freely ignore any of the other non-car/motorcycle-specific rules]

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I freely ignore guidance that quite clearly is more dangerous than the act I'm carrying out i.e. going past cars on the left.

 

[Pingu]

out of interest would you accept a similar attitude from a car driver?

 

[cybertect]

And it's my view that, with the appropriate degree of road-confidence that is required to cycle effectively in an urban environment it's both

- safer
- more legal

to pass vehicles on the off-side.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

 

[sir.clip]

Um, thread title of 'Dumbass cyclist morons who overtake traffic on the left' certainly had me fooled, :

innit. its nutz.....

I mean who would try and cycle at 40 mph + to over take a car on the outside..
If the traffic is stationary then sure overtake on the right hand side..
if there is a cycle lane/bus lane/cycle path on the left then i'm sure going to use it and over take on the nearside..
If at a junction there is a space for me to fit on the near side where traffic has not pulled into the curb I'll slip down the inside space/lane/gap/area. this is promoted a lot at London Junctions highlighted by green tarmac..

If the traffick is stationary and cars are all over the show,
Then i will try middle, left & right all applies to advancing my course..

I'm just pissed at the fact that gentle green is deliberatly driving cyclists into the curb, because they belive the cyclist to be in the wrong or against the highway codes regulations..

the highway code is very skecthy in dealing with cyclists rights.. as it seems to asume that cyclists travel at the same speeds as motorvehicles which is obviously not the case...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

But you're not a cyclist so your view on safe procedures on such a carriage carries little weight imo. I've been cycling for ~35 years, i feel i have a fairly good understanding of what keeps me safe.

 

[cybertect]

II mean who would try and cycle at 40 mph + to over take a car on the outside..
If the traffic is stationary then sure overtake on the right hand side..
if there is a cycle lane/bus lane/cycle path on the left then i'm sure going to use it and over take on the nearside..
If at a junction there is a space for me to fit on the near side where traffic has not pulled into the curb I'll slip down the inside space/lane/gap/area. this is promoted a lot at London Junctions highlighted by green tarmac..[/QUOTE

Yep. There's usually a lead-in lane approaching junctions with reserved space for cyclists.

If the traffick is stationary and cars are all over the show,
Then i will try middle, left & right all applies to advancing my course..

I won't do that.

I'm just pissed at the fact that gentle green is deliberatly driving cyclists into the curb,

TBH, I think you're quite justified in that.

the highway code is very skecthy in dealing with cyclists rights.. as it seems to asume that cyclists travel at the same speeds as motorvehicles which is obviously not the case...

Especially in London, where bicycles must average twice the speed of cars

 

[fortyplus]

I cycle to and from work every day and I'd never consider cycling down the middle of the road - I didn't even know anyone did that until I saw this thread. It's far more dangerous cycling down the centre of the road, into oncoming traffic than it is on the left where I only have to deal with one set of cars. Additionally, if I choose to turn left and I'm in the centre of the road, I have to hope someone let's me cut across in front of them (which is a bloody big risk) and if they don't, then I am forced to stop in the middle of the road with traffic speeding past me in either direction. No thanks.

I'll be sticking to the left hand lane where I feel safe.

You might feel safer, but you may not be. The safest place to be is where you can be seen, and that is often on the outside.

True, if you get hit by an oncoming car it will hurt more and may kill you. But the vision for everyone is so much better that it's less likely.

In slow-moving traffic your place is in the lane - in the primary field of vision of the driver behind you. The gutter isn't an unmarked cycle lane, it's a gutter. When the car behind you wants to pass, it's courteous but not compulsory to pull over to the left - when there's space, preferably without getting trapped between two parked cars - to let them go past on the right; which is also where you should pass them.

Having said that, everyone cycles how they feel most comfortable doing it. I scare the wits out of the ms when I take the lane round a busy junction like Vauxhall Cross or the Elephant.
I've been freaked out a few times when driving by a cyclist on the inside in my blindspot; and I know I'd rather be stuck behind a slow cyclist I could see than accidentally cut up an undertaking cyclist I couldn't see.

 

[tommers]

Though, if you're a member of the London Cycling Campaign, you automatically have third-party liability insurance which you may need to rely on some day.

you also get money off at most bike shops, and you increase the visibility of cycling in london. I can't see a reason not to join.

every cyclist should do it.

 

[gentlegreen]

I'm just pissed at the fact that gentle green is deliberatly driving cyclists into the curb, ..

FFS !

 

[sir.clip]

. I can't see a reason not to join..

It costs money!