Bicycles undertaking
Discussion
I drive in London, and occasionally ride a bicycle.
Would assume if a bicycle is to overtake, eg where traffic is queuing or stopped at lights, it should overtake in the same way as a motorbike, i.e. driver's side/middle of the road, unless there is a designated cycle lane, when undertaking can be done as long as they stay in the cycle lane only. Quite often I see bicycles overtaking on both sides, often at the same time.
How should cyclists overtake here?
Would assume if a bicycle is to overtake, eg where traffic is queuing or stopped at lights, it should overtake in the same way as a motorbike, i.e. driver's side/middle of the road, unless there is a designated cycle lane, when undertaking can be done as long as they stay in the cycle lane only. Quite often I see bicycles overtaking on both sides, often at the same time.
How should cyclists overtake here?
Overtaking on the offside is usually safer but as always there are caveats, As a rider you need to be aware just like a car driver / motorcyclist. Junctions, door hazards, vehicle language, pedestrians and certainly other cyclists amongst others.... The answer here is "it depends". I rarely undertake as I don't think it's warranted most of the time but there are situations where it is safer. Of course, the rider needs to know when to stop. In London (or any) city traffic, becoming part of the traffic when cycling at similar speeds and taking the centre of the lane is sensible and should not annoy a reasonable motorist unless you are holding them up any more than the vehicle you are following.
I've thought about doing a youtube or similar on safe cycling but thought I'd get lynched! I like all forms of wheels though....
I've thought about doing a youtube or similar on safe cycling but thought I'd get lynched! I like all forms of wheels though....
DocSteve said:
I've thought about doing a youtube or similar on safe cycling but thought I'd get lynched! I like all forms of wheels though....
There's always Cyclecraft for a spot of light reading 
Timperley said:
I do tend to queue with the traffic when I'm cycling in heavier traffic conditions. I see little point in cars (etc) overtaking me, only for me to nip back to the front at a set of lights and force them to overtake against. I'd rather keep them in front if they've already passed.
You can turn this the other way round though. When I drive to work I take quite a different route to that which I take when cycling, because I know that driving that (eight mile shorter) cycling route would take much longer. Consequently I have a hard time understanding why cars on that route seem so obsessed with overtaking bicycles, often when their manoeuvres will block the vehicle that is consistently travelling faster. The overtake up to a parked car with a stream of vehicles coming the other way is a classic example of this.Foss62 said:
Timperley said:
I do tend to queue with the traffic when I'm cycling in heavier traffic conditions. I see little point in cars (etc) overtaking me, only for me to nip back to the front at a set of lights and force them to overtake against. I'd rather keep them in front if they've already passed.
You can turn this the other way round though. When I drive to work I take quite a different route to that which I take when cycling, because I know that driving that (eight mile shorter) cycling route would take much longer. Consequently I have a hard time understanding why cars on that route seem so obsessed with overtaking bicycles, often when their manoeuvres will block the vehicle that is consistently travelling faster. The overtake up to a parked car with a stream of vehicles coming the other way is a classic example of this.Len Woodman said:
Thinking about this particular one, I’m not sure that the pejorative term ‘undertaking’ really applies here. This is a lane marked with a solid line so is equivalent, for example, to a bus lane. If the car had turned in front of a bus doing 15mph I’m not sure there would have been that much call for the bus to have been going slower?A bus is a darn sight easier to spot than a cyclist! Particularly with stationary traffic impeding the view.
All the driver of the crossing vehicle would likely to have been able to see is the top of the cyclist's helmet.
Two people with poor anticipation/observation skills end up colliding with each other.
Cyclist hardly slackens speed at all but the crossing vehicle driver has to shoulder the greater liability.
That said I don't know whether 'Aussie Rules' differ from ours.
All the driver of the crossing vehicle would likely to have been able to see is the top of the cyclist's helmet.
Two people with poor anticipation/observation skills end up colliding with each other.
Cyclist hardly slackens speed at all but the crossing vehicle driver has to shoulder the greater liability.
That said I don't know whether 'Aussie Rules' differ from ours.
Red Devil said:
A bus is a darn sight easier to spot than a cyclist! Particularly with stationary traffic impeding the view.
All the driver of the crossing vehicle would likely to have been able to see is the top of the cyclist's helmet.
Two people with poor anticipation/observation skills end up colliding with each other.
Cyclist hardly slackens speed at all but the crossing vehicle driver has to shoulder the greater liability.
That said I don't know whether 'Aussie Rules' differ from ours.
It’s not easy to judge the speed of the cyclist but there is clearly no hesitancy on behalf of the SUV. He could also have hit a pedestrian crossing the road or a filtering motorcycle.All the driver of the crossing vehicle would likely to have been able to see is the top of the cyclist's helmet.
Two people with poor anticipation/observation skills end up colliding with each other.
Cyclist hardly slackens speed at all but the crossing vehicle driver has to shoulder the greater liability.
That said I don't know whether 'Aussie Rules' differ from ours.
I have experienced some dicey stuff recently which made me think about this too; in Bristol late at night, raining, poor visibility and I was trying to park. Cue cyclists passing on my left (and right) dressed in dark gear on dark coloured bikes with no lights.
That's quite a thing to experience.
That's quite a thing to experience.
I think sensibly, yes, however the insurance companies would probably see them as a 'vulnerable' person should something happen and one would be subjected to at best a 50/50. That's even if you get that far of course, if they aren't insured and just ride off there's nothing you can really do anyway.
A while back I was turning right from a junction having been followed very closely by a motorcyclist, he overtook me mid turn, clattered into the rear side of my car causing a fair amount of denting, admitted he didn't see my indication and admitted fault. The 'vulnerable' thing was mentioned then by his and my insurance who were both looking for a 50/50 result. It took 15 months to sort out but in the end I won thankfully. One positive from the experience is that I absolutely ensure I leave room and make room if possible when being overtaken by 'vulnerable' bikers, so that's good at least.
A while back I was turning right from a junction having been followed very closely by a motorcyclist, he overtook me mid turn, clattered into the rear side of my car causing a fair amount of denting, admitted he didn't see my indication and admitted fault. The 'vulnerable' thing was mentioned then by his and my insurance who were both looking for a 50/50 result. It took 15 months to sort out but in the end I won thankfully. One positive from the experience is that I absolutely ensure I leave room and make room if possible when being overtaken by 'vulnerable' bikers, so that's good at least.
Is being a vulnerable road user what matters regarding who's at fault in English law? I'm not so sure. I expect the issue is that a car driver could be expected to check his right door mirror (or blind spot) before starting to turn right. Ditto with the left door mirror before commencing a left turn.
S0updr4g0n said:
A while back I was turning right from a junction having been followed very closely by a motorcyclist, he overtook me mid turn, clattered into the rear side of my car causing a fair amount of denting, admitted he didn't see my indication and admitted fault.
I think you're lucky that he admitted his mistake because insurers could find both parties could be jointly at fault in this circumstance. Though I'm happy to be corrected by any traffic cops, lawyers, etc.Salted_Peanut said:
I think you're lucky that he admitted his mistake because insurers could find both parties could be jointly at fault in this circumstance. Though I'm happy to be corrected by any traffic cops, lawyers, etc.
Yes I thought that initially however the insurance mentioned nothing about admitting liability. I just felt it was completely his error, which however you look at it, hit certainly was. There were two things I could have done to avoid it. One was not being there and the second would be to hit a wall to allow him the space. The very fact he hit my rear (last 1ft of the car) after I'd completed over 50% of the manoeuvre made me press for court dates and his insurance backed off. My view is a positive one however at the time I was thinking that if they are so vulnerable, why don't they act like it?I'm more reasonable and wary now it's over.
S0updr4g0n said:
I would say that's correct but what if a cyclist hits you?
I'll rephrase. If you have contact with a cyclist , the liability will be with the drivers insurance.I imagine stupid cases of cyclists ramming into you whilst parked etc do not count, but in an RTA, drivers take the hit (literally)
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff