Motorcycle 'filtering'.

[Mulski]

There's no question of blame. The biker can blame no one but himself.

Perhaps he needs to develop spatial awareness.

Sod spatial awareness, some brain cells would be a good start.

Cheers

[Kimosabe]

One of the most frequently given reasons given to me to check all three mirrors more than I do is the 'what if a motorcyclist or cyclist were to try to pass me on the inside (undertake) and I hadn't seen them coming when I last looked a short while ago?' In nearly three decades of driving, this has never happened, so why am I checking? The reply normally given is 'there's always a first time'. It's the 'what ifs'.

I find dealing with hypothetical non-outcomes such as this mildly frustrating to say the least, given that it appears to be the case that if I were to squish someone that daft, part of the blame would be directed at me for not first checking for another's stupidity and changing my plan accordingly.

So the grey area where filtering becomes undertaking between moving cars, is also my responsibility. At what speed and under which circumstances does a motorcycle filtering become undertaking or even recklessness?

[Mulski]

So the grey area where filtering becomes undertaking between moving cars, is also my responsibility. At what speed and under which circumstances does a motorcycle filtering become undertaking or even recklessness?

This question was asked during a Bikesafe course, run by serving police motorcyclists, who said each case of filtering needs to be considered carefully given the road type, weather, space, congestion levels along with the speed of the moving vehicles. However, any filtering with vehicles travelling at 30mph+ would NOT be considered appropriate (the example given was of traffic on a motorway with no roadworks etc). It was also caveated that the speed differntial of the filtering bike, should not be greater than c.10mph.

He did also add that non-motorcyclist police may take a different view.

Cheers

[Kimosabe]

Thanks Mulski.

[Ancient]

One of the most frequently given reasons given to me to check all three mirrors more than I do is the 'what if a motorcyclist or cyclist were to try to pass me on the inside (undertake) and I hadn't seen them coming when I last looked a short while ago?' In nearly three decades of driving, this has never happened, so why am I checking? The reply normally given is 'there's always a first time'. It's the 'what ifs'.

I find dealing with hypothetical non-outcomes such as this mildly frustrating to say the least, given that it appears to be the case that if I were to squish someone that daft, part of the blame would be directed at me for not first checking for another's stupidity and changing my plan accordingly.

So the grey area where filtering becomes undertaking between moving cars, is also my responsibility. At what speed and under which circumstances does a motorcycle filtering become undertaking or even recklessness?

Hmmm...
I haven't yet come flying 'round a blind bend and hit a pedestrian or cyclist. In fact with all the blind bends around here where I ensure I 'could' stop if anyone was there, there never is! Only the occasional oncoming car or van which would be more easily be avoided if I assumed there would be no vulnerable road user further over to my left. It's only a hypothetical outcome after all!! Who would be stupid enough to walk along a country road with no pavements? I'll still carry on making allowances though, for the potential presence of a vulnerable road user around each bend, despite it never having happened in my experience to date.

As for 'undertaking' being "stupid": I wonder why road engineers put the cycle lane up the nearside of the road so often (even when it is narrower than the typical bicycle).

[fungus]

As for 'undertaking' being "stupid": I wonder why road engineers put the cycle lane up the nearside of the road so often (even when it is narrower than the typical bicycle).

Or this one that's so wide you have to drive in it if there is oncoming traffic.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=50.739082,- ... 47,,0,4.75

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

On my first RoSPA test, commentating for the benefit of the examiner, driving round a blind bend in a very narrow road - "Taking it very steady round here, I've just come back from a holiday in Devon ..." Bingo! "Local" lady coming towards us at 40mph in the middle of the road. Stop, wait for her to sort herself out. "It's the roads you know that will kill you" says the examiner. We go on our way ...

[TripleS]

Who would be stupid enough to walk along a country road with no pavements?

Well, me, for a start.

As a matter of fact, when I'm in the car I quite often meet people walking on country roads where there are no pavements. Many of them are people doing the Coast to Coast walk, but the Whitby area is good walking country generally; and it is not rare to encounter horse riders too.

I wouldn't want any of them to be deterred from using the road, just because there is no pavement.

[TripleS]

As for 'undertaking' being "stupid": I wonder why road engineers put the cycle lane up the nearside of the road so often (even when it is narrower than the typical bicycle).

Or this one that's so wide you have to drive in it if there is oncoming traffic.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=50.739082,- ... 47,,0,4.75

The same thing is seen on the A591 at Ambleside & Waterhead in Cumbria; and along Station Road, the A61, in Thirsk the lane marked out for vehicles is barely sufficient to accommodate a tidy driven small car, let along anything larger.

[Ancient]

Who would be stupid enough to walk along a country road with no pavements?

Well, me, for a start.

As a matter of fact, when I'm in the car I quite often meet people walking on country roads where there are no pavements. Many of them are people doing the Coast to Coast walk, but the Whitby area is good walking country generally; and it is not rare to encounter horse riders too.

I wouldn't want any of them to be deterred from using the road, just because there is no pavement.

Which was in fact the point I was making. Cyclists (motor or otherwise) have a legal right to filter, it's what any AD should be expecting them to do. People also have a right to walk on country roads, it's what any AD should be expecting. Either can be done well or stupidly, but calling filtering along the inside stupid per se (as Kimosabe appeared to do) is mistaken and not a good attitude for an AD (IMO): I tried to illustrate the other scenarios where we should expect other road users to appear in vulnerable positions.

As for 'undertaking' being "stupid": I wonder why road engineers put the cycle lane up the nearside of the road so often (even when it is narrower than the typical bicycle).

Or this one that's so wide you have to drive in it if there is oncoming traffic.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=50.739082,- ... 47,,0,4.75

The same thing is seen on the A591 at Ambleside & Waterhead in Cumbria; and along Station Road, the A61, in Thirsk the lane marked out for vehicles is barely sufficient to accommodate a tidy driven small car, let along anything larger.

Actually the lane illustrated by fungus makes perfect sense, it's just that most drivers (including fungus? and TripleS??) don't understand what cycle lanes are.
Firstly what they are not is 'A lane in which the cyclists are supposed to ride, keeping off of our road'. Nor are they always 'A lane that motor vehicles must keep out of'; that is indicated in the normal way - solid white line means don't drive in there, broken white line means you can drive in there, but remember that this is a lane specifically marked as part of a cycle route. Expect Cyclists Here. If you overtake a cyclist, don't do so in their lane.
The illustrated lane is the correct width for a cycle lane. Cycle lanes should be at least 2.5m wide, narrowing to 1.5m in exceptional circumstances. Most cycle lanes in this country are nothing like that. The illustrated cycle lane has broken white lines to indicate that drivers can enter it if necessary.
Of course if everyone drove correctly, there would be no need whatsoever for such cycle lanes, because all drivers would expect cycles on the road, pass them only when they could do so without entering the cycle's lane (the same size lane as for a car - not that the cyclist is that wide, but they are allowed to wobble, avoid potholes etc and your slipstream is considerably wider than your vehicle).

[TripleS]

My thanks to Ancient for his comments.

TBH I would prefer not to have cycle lanes or special provision for particular groups. What I would rather have is a situation where all road user groups understand each others situation and requirements, and make suitable accommodation for each other.

....but then I do get some very odd ideas at times.

[Ancient]

My thanks to Ancient for his comments.

TBH I would prefer not to have cycle lanes or special provision for particular groups. What I would rather have is a situation where all road user groups understand each others situation and requirements, and make suitable accommodation for each other.

....but then I do get some very odd ideas at times.

Sorry TripleS, I didn't mean to lecture .

Indeed, within the 'cycling community' (as I'm sure you know) there is a strong feeling that cycle farcilities promote the attitude that cyclists are somehow a group of 'others'. Most experienced cyclists (IME), especially those who view cycling as a means of transport rather than a leisure activity, dislike these lanes intensely. On the other hand, many who don't cycle (but would like to do so, for transport, health benefits or simple enjoyment) feel that the roads are too unsafe unless there is special provision for them. Once they gain confidence however, some of these convert to the understanding that the roads are often safest without the lanes ...

[jont]

My thanks to Ancient for his comments.

TBH I would prefer not to have cycle lanes or special provision for particular groups. What I would rather have is a situation where all road user groups understand each others situation and requirements, and make suitable accommodation for each other.

....but then I do get some very odd ideas at times.

Sorry TripleS, I didn't mean to lecture .

Indeed, within the 'cycling community' (as I'm sure you know) there is a strong feeling that cycle farcilities promote the attitude that cyclists are somehow a group of 'others'. Most experienced cyclists (IME), especially those who view cycling as a means of transport rather than a leisure activity, dislike these lanes intensely. On the other hand, many who don't cycle (but would like to do so, for transport, health benefits or simple enjoyment) feel that the roads are too unsafe unless there is special provision for them. Once they gain confidence however, some of these convert to the understanding that the roads are often safest without the lanes ...

It's why it bugs me when the government pisses away huge sums of money on inadequate facilities in the name of "cycling" rather than focusing on the basics - like, say, pothole free roads

[Kimosabe]

My thanks to Ancient for his comments.

TBH I would prefer not to have cycle lanes or special provision for particular groups. What I would rather have is a situation where all road user groups understand each others situation and requirements, and make suitable accommodation for each other.

....but then I do get some very odd ideas at times.

Hippie!

[fungus]

Actually the lane illustrated by fungus makes perfect sense, it's just that most drivers (including fungus? and TripleS??) don't understand what cycle lanes are.

Actually I do understand what a cycle lane is, and I understand the rules relating to them. I also understand that a cyclist is under no obligation to use them. Some don't for varying reasons, debris and poor surface come to mind. IMO white lines on the road like this doesn't make it any safer for cyclists as it encourages motorists to pass too close.

I'm sorry but this touches a raw nerve with me. Call it bad attitude if you like, but the cyclist that filters up the N/S of an LGV waiting to turn left is asking for trouble. I happen to check both N/S and O/S before moving in heavy stop start traffic and before turning left, as I'm sure that those contributing to this forum do, but most drivers probably do not. I'm sure that LGV/ bus drivers etc. check before moving off, but there must be blind spots that their mirrors do not cover. Cyclists who cycle on a regular basis should be aware of this. It is as much their responsibility as to take reasonable steps to ensure their own safety as it is other road users to look out for them.