Cycling

[OneDragons]

I know this isnt really supposed to be part of this forum but Id like to get some feedback on it either way.

What is the official (if there even is one) view of cyclists passing cars on the left hand side?

E.g. in slow moving traffic is it OK to make progress on the left by the footpath (but still on the road obviously)?

Is it OK to pass stationary cars?

An example that springs to mind is when approaching traffic lights that had just gone red I passed a car ahead of me who was at the front of the queue indicating left, ahead of him was about a car length of free space before the white line.
So I passed him on the left, rode up to the white line and waited for the lights, when they changed I set off straight ahead but when the car set of and turned he then started hurling abuse about, well to paraphrase 'illegalities of undertaking', but in much more colourfull language.

So what are peoples thoughts on this generally?

[Nigel]

All the greenies will tell you this is ok.

I hate it, both when done by cyclists and motorcyclists.

I'm always being told there is no offence of undertaking, its dwdca.

The worst part of this from a car drivers perspective is miss just one cyclist doing this....and for some reason the resulting accident is all your fault, poor poor cyclist can't be expected to take any responsibility for his actions.

Red lights, undertaking, wrong way up a one way street, cycling on the pavement...they are seemingly exempt every rule in the book.

If we follow europes lead...its set to get worse for drivers.

[BillZZR600]

Why am I not surprised that you would say that Nigel.

If the cyclist is coming up the inside because traffic is moving slowly then I have no problem.

If the Trafic is Stationary then again I have no problem

You moved up to and stopped at the white line and waited whilst the signal was red, so I have no problem there

I may have to hold back a little to let you negotiate the corner before being able to pass you, but again I have no problem.

[7db]

Obviously not on if the lights are a pelican crossing and the car is in the protected zone (lead car moving or lead car stationary for pedestrian phase).

Basically bloody silly, too. Gets you to the front of a queue qhere motorists do all sorts of silly things to overtake you. I don't mind the odd ZZR weaving onto my front tyre at the lights but a bloody Vespa sitting on me when I'm in pole (I mean at the front of the traffic queue) - that's a pain.

[BillZZR600]

Ah! but I had read it as a light controlled junction. (Cyclist went straight on, car turned left) so the car would only have been impeded for seconds before being able to execute the left turn.

I certainly if I were the cyclist wouldnt have wanted to be alongside the car, as how many actually would have done a nearside shoulder/miror check before moving off from stationary, so was safer up front.

[Nigel]

Ah! but I had read it as a light controlled junction. (Cyclist went straight on, car turned left) so the car would only have been impeded for seconds before being able to execute the left turn.

I certainly if I were the cyclist wouldnt have wanted to be alongside the car, as how many actually would have done a nearside shoulder/miror check before moving off from stationary, so was safer up front.

But the cyclist put himself in the sitaution to start with, if its dangerous, and your so vunerable...why do it ?

Imagine this lot in the forces...well I was only standing there sarge, and the enemy soldier shot me !

If you dont want to be squashed by something larger, heavier, and already in an established position...don't ride up the inside of it , its not rocket science.

[OneDragons]

Ah! but I had read it as a light controlled junction. (Cyclist went straight on, car turned left) so the car would only have been impeded for seconds before being able to execute the left turn.

I certainly if I were the cyclist wouldnt have wanted to be alongside the car, as how many actually would have done a nearside shoulder/miror check before moving off from stationary, so was safer up front.

In this particular instance the 'cyclist' was not alongside the car but occupying the space left in front of the lead car which was presumably left there for someone such as a bike to occupy .

Im not convinced the car was held up at all.

[waremark]

A chap I know recently had a cycling accident doing this. He was passing a lorry on the kerb side towards a left junction. The lorry flashed to invite another lorry coming the other way to turn right across him, and the turning lorry knocked him down. All three riders and drivers at fault in my opinion.

And a long time ago a motorcycling friend was passing an HGV on the kerb side when it turn left into a side road. Nasty mess (three weeks in hospital).

But it is fine for a cyclist to continue past slow or stopping traffic down the kerb side so long as he is prepared for such hazards at left junctions.

[Nigel]

In this safety concious time, with the blame the car driver for everything including the weather...why is it fine to do this ?

We encourage safer driving, why not safer cycling ?

[waremark]

We should certainly encourage safer cycling - but I thought that was compatible with cyclists filtering down the left side of very slow or stopped traffic. What would you prefer them to do - weave through the traffic to overtake down the center of the road, and then weave back somehow if the traffic starts to move or at the next lights? I think it is OK for them to filter down the left, but they should be ready to give way and maybe get out of the way at left junctions.

[Nigel]

Without a lane to filter in, there is no such manouvre, unless you can point me to it in the highway code.

I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to encourage one set of road users to do something that would be treated as dwdca if another set of road users did it.

What I really struggle to get to grips with is cyclists think they have some god given right to dangerously put themselves on the nearside of vehicles, and then regard themselves as having priority over the vehicle they are undertaking.

[The Thinker]

The IAM have spoken

http://www.iam.org.uk/pressroom/drivingtips/dt30.htm

[waremark]

Well found, Thinker. It is implicit that IAM expect cyclists to filter down the nearside of traffic. And whether they are allowed to do it or not, drivers have to be ready to find them there.

The HWC does not deal with this practise explicitly - so it neither encourages nor bans it. However, para 57 says: "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." I think it is implicit from the wording that it is reasonable to fliter on the left so long as you are not on the inside of a potentially turning vehicle.

[BillZZR600]

Ah! but I had read it as a light controlled junction. (Cyclist went straight on, car turned left) so the car would only have been impeded for seconds before being able to execute the left turn.

I certainly if I were the cyclist wouldnt have wanted to be alongside the car, as how many [drivers] actually would have done a nearside shoulder/miror check before moving off from stationary, so was safer up front.

In this particular instance the 'cyclist' was not alongside the car but occupying the space left in front of the lead car which was presumably left there for someone such as a bike to occupy .

Im not convinced the car was held up at all.

Agreed and my My point also.

If you dont want to be squashed by something larger, heavier, and already in an established position...don't ride up the inside of it , its not rocket science.

Again I would suggest that the cyclist was safer moving to the front of the que.
If he had maintained position amongst the other vehicle, I would expect at least half the drivers in the que would have when they moved off, have tried to slide past either him without giving enough clearance , or worse if sitting central to the lane by overtaking and cutting in, thus putting him in even greater danger.

It is implicit that IAM expect cyclists to filter down the nearside of traffic. And whether they are allowed to do it or not, drivers have to be ready to find them there.

The HWC does not deal with this practise explicitly - so it neither encourages nor bans it. However, para 57 says: "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." I think it is implicit from the wording that it is reasonable to fliter on the left so long as you are not on the inside of a potentially turning vehicle.

Agreed, but if the motor vehicles are stationary at a set of lights then assuming you can reach the head of the column before they change then they are probably for the reasons I have given less at risk there.

The cycalist had in effect used the space at the front in exactly the way that is engineered into advanced stop lines.

[Nigel]

The IAM have spoken

http://www.iam.org.uk/pressroom/drivingtips/dt30.htm

I see nothing that advises them to try and commit suicide on the nearside of motor vehicles.