Undertaking in traffic

tomasrojo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Regarding the link to that accident in London. Again, it's irrelevant as it involves a pedestrian and many in the legal profession will consider a pedestrian to have right of way at all times. If I recall correctly, the cyclist in that incident was riding a fixie with no brakes (open to correction).

You might be thinking of the Alliston case.

Wishbone Ash

tomasrojo wrote: »

You might be thinking of the Alliston case.

Yes, apologies - I confused the two.

beauf

Heres another...contributory negligence...

https://www.cyclelawscotland.co.uk/why-choose-us/case-law/junctions/mcgeer-v-mcintosh-2017/

The point of this, is not to fix blame but to look at why these things happen.

Its about road craft when cycling. I personally like cycling in heavy traffic because it reduces the speed of vehicles.
But I also dislike it because it forces me to slow down as its very unpredictable and reduces sight lines to hazards.

Also some situations require you to go inline, or overtake instead of undertaking.
But its not black and white, its a judgement call based on experience.

^ Some interesting reading on that site.

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

I personally like cycling in heavy traffic because it reduces the speed of vehicles.

i've always reckoned that it feels safest when the motorised traffic is matching your speed. you're not passing them, they're not passing you.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've always reckoned that it feels safest when the motorised traffic is matching your speed. you're not passing them, they're not passing you.

It should be but I come through Shankill most days, I slow to match traffic speed rather than overtaking if it is moving as the road is not that wide. The amount of cars who beep, tail gate you, over rev etc. is insane. I am literally leaving enough space in front of me for breaking, I am not being dropped, you are not losing time, how can you be that stupid and unobservant. I have slowed to your speed, you are delaying me, not the other way round. You don't see me going mental over it.

PhilOssophy

Can't read the 9 pages, but my answer is "it depends". I often go past cars etc on the left - lets be real, is it really more dangerous than overtaking with traffic coming the other way? I don't think so and don't see why anybody would have a problem with this? I always watch for the turning left indicator and if they are in front of me I let them on, if they are beside me I do my best to make sure they know I'm there.
I often overtake if there is absolutely no traffic coming the other way, and then cut in.
But I think its the usual "respect is a 2-way street". Don't be an ass, share the road and yield if its safest to do so.

Madd Finn

eclipsechaser wrote: »

That's the exact scenario I was thinking of as a better comparison. If you think the red car going straight would have been at fault in the scenario you outline, then we simply disagree fundamentally.

Madd Finn wrote: »

OK then. Lets continue with the example of that video you posted
What should the grey car have done? Assuming that it was permitted to turn left (the equivalent of a right turn in this left-hand drive jurisdiction) It clearly can't see what's in the inside lane. Traffic in the two outer lanes have stopped. How should it have proceeded?

Video under discussion

Deafening silence from correspondent so I will attempt to answer it myself.

Assuming the grey car was making a legal left (equivalent to right here) turn and knowing that there were other lanes of traffic inside the car that had stopped to let him through, and realising that he couldn't see what was in those lanes from where he was thanks to the backed up traffic obscuring his view, he had two options.

One was to wait until the traffic cleared from the outside lane, which is impractical, especially in rush hour, because even if he waited for those cars to move off, there were likely others behind him;

or he could CAREFULLY edge in front of the stationary traffic in the outside lanes and inch around to see what was coming in the inside lane. He would have to be covering the brake and be ready to stop in an instant. Of course in the video, he didn't do that. He just ploughed across without looking and hit the oncoming red car.

Therefore the grey car was in the wrong. Or had the greater share of the wrong.

But so saying he had inched forward so that the nose of his car was in the inside lane. He would have to do that to be able to see what was coming. The red car is approaching at speed, or at least at an inappropriate speed for a car overtaking in the inside lane (undertaking). It is very likely that the grey driver would have seen him late; slammed on the brakes but the red car might have been going at such a speed that the driver might have reacted hastily and swerved, possibly ending up on the kerb and probably endangering the lives of any pedestrian there.

In that scenario, in my view, the red car would have been at fault.

Duty of care is the critical issue. The grey car was entitled to attempt that manoeuvre, as long as he did it carefully (ie being able to stop instantly) The red car, if it felt the need to swerve, would have been behaving dangerously. Or at least recklessly.

And that's very similar to the scenario that happened yesterday between the car and cyclist.

Madd Finn

PhilOssophy wrote: »

my answer is "it depends". I often go past cars etc on the left - lets be real, is it really more dangerous than overtaking with traffic coming the other way? I don't think so and don't see why anybody would have a problem with this?

I don't think anybody has a problem with overtaking on the left per se. I certainly don't--do it all the time. But there is a duty of care on a cyclist, as much as anybody else, to be able to react to foreseeable events. Especially if that "event" is somebody behaving perfectly legitimately and carefully.

So speed is an issue.
Appropriate speed.

Utter Consternation

I was nearly taken out of it today, turning right off Gardiner Street Lower. I was going through a yellow box turning down a side road with two lanes of traffic stopped on both sides of the yellow box. As i was turning in, a guy on a high powered motorbike came up the opposite cycle lane at speed. He came very close to hitting me. It was hard see him because of a double decker bus stopped at the junction.

It was the inverse of this situation.

Oh well.

Madd Finn

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I was nearly taken out of it today, turning right off Gardiner Street Lower. I was going through a yellow box turning down a side road with two lanes of traffic stopped on both sides of the yellow box. As i was turning in, a guy on a high powered motorbike came up the opposite cycle lane at speed. He came very close to hitting me. It was hard see him because of a double decker bus stopped at the junction.

It was the inverse of this situation.

Oh well.

Sounds very similar. Somebody on a smaller nimbler vehicle travelling too fast through stationary traffic. Only he was putting even smaller vehicles (ie yours) at risk.

Are motorbikes allowed in cycle lanes?

eclipsechaser

Madd Finn wrote: »

Video under discussion

Deafening silence from correspondent so I will attempt to answer it myself.

Thanks.