Just had my first RTA on my bike

[allen-uk]

It sounds like a gentlemanly solution, but a complete nightmare to establish who was in the wrong if there is a coming together.

And at risk of reiteration, coming together of my Wisper and his Audi (or whatever) would not result in a gentlemanly discussion, but quite possibly in my second plastic leg.

The Highway Code might apply to ALL in theory; on the roads reality is different.

A

 

[onmebike]

What should happen is you should 'merge in turn'

Yes, an ideal solution and what generally happens.
This section of road being unmarked should as has been correctly pointed out by several members, be a single lane, although the two lane's still need to merge somewhere.
Vehicle's on the outside are technically already positioned for overtaking and rule 168 of the highway code says they should be allowed to pass.

If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed and if necessary slow down to let them pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass etc etc.

Maintain a steady speed and if necessary slow down?

 

[onmebike]

Well, dkohara's original thread may have wandered off topic but nevertheless it got some of us examining the highway code again.
I found it a little contradictory in places but the most useful sections relating to the original thread were, 67, 133, 163, 167 and 168.
The main instructions seem to fall under the three phrase's, "you should", "you must not" and "When safe to do so".
I think the perception of the meaning's may vary slightly between readers and could be clarified.
The first two are self explanatory and the third, "When safe to do so" clearly puts the responsibility on the rider/driver making the manoeuvre in my opinion.

Out of interest I emailed Bikeability outlining the scenario of the original thread as I thought it may assist dkohara if making a claim. Their reply follow's.

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, without being there to witness the incident it is impossible to say who may have caused the accident and be at fault.

Within the Level 2 Bikeability programme riders are taught how to move around parked cars. To perform this manoeuvre correctly the riders should cover the following points:

1, ensure they look over their right shoulder for following vehicles before moving from their primary road position into the secondary road position.

2, only move out into the secondary position when they think it is safe to do so and this may mean giving way to vehicles before reaching the parked car.

3, when it is safe to do so they should move out into a position where the parked car can be passed safely.

4, leave a car door width between them and the parked car when riding passed in case the door opens.

If the rider in question had followed the points above then they may have had to wait for the car behind them to pass before they went around the parked vehicle. They would have also made the car aware (by looking behind them) that they were moving out to pass the parked car. If the road was narrow and the rider was a door width away from the parked vehicle as they passed it, then the car behind would have had to wait as they wouldn’t have been able to pass them without crossing over onto the opposite side of the road. However, if the car was going too fast, then their only option may have been to pass the rider.

Hope this helps.

 

[tillson]

Yes, an ideal solution and what generally happens.
This section of road being unmarked should as has been correctly pointed out by several members, be a single lane, although the two lane's still need to merge somewhere.
Vehicle's on the outside are technically already positioned for overtaking and rule 168 of the highway code says they should be allowed to pass.

If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed and if necessary slow down to let them pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass etc etc.

Maintain a steady speed and if necessary slow down?

I think this rule is aimed at two types of driver: The first bring the one who puts himself and others in danger by making a reckless attempt to overtake He then puts himself into a situation whereby he will have a head-on collision unless you slow down to let him past. The second is the peevish driver who crawls along at 20 mph in a 60 mph limit (because it's his right to do so), and then, as soon as someone tries to overtake, he decides that he wants to drive at 90 mph. This decision is usually taken at the point when the overtaking vehicle has drawn level with his drivers door.

 

[onmebike]

I think this rule is aimed at two types of driver: The first bring the one who puts himself and others in danger by making a reckless attempt to overtake He then puts himself into a situation whereby he will have a head-on collision unless you slow down to let him past. The second is the peevish driver who crawls along at 20 mph in a 60 mph limit (because it's his right to do so), and then, as soon as someone tries to overtake, he decides that he wants to drive at 90 mph. This decision is usually taken at the point when the overtaking vehicle has drawn level with his drivers door.

I dare say you may be right. But just for arguments sake lets say two vehicle's cross the junction into the unmarked lane side by side. Wouldn't that put the vehicle on the outside in an overtaking position where slowing down may leave him nowhere to go on the nearside due to following traffic, forcing him to brake, causing inconvenience or worse to traffic behind? Hence the reasoning behind rule 168. Vehicle's in an overtaking position should be allowed to pass, not yield to the nearside traffic.
There is no substitute for clear signs and road marking's.
I've checked this road again and found that the only one sign is that of two way traffic at the beginning of the unmarked section of road.

 

[dkohara]

Well, dkohara's original thread may have wandered off topic but nevertheless it got some of us examining the highway code again.
I found it a little contradictory in places but the most useful sections relating to the original thread were, 67, 133, 163, 167 and 168.
The main instructions seem to fall under the three phrase's, "you should", "you must not" and "When safe to do so".
I think the perception of the meaning's may vary slightly between readers and could be clarified.
The first two are self explanatory and the third, "When safe to do so" clearly puts the responsibility on the rider/driver making the manoeuvre in my opinion.

Out of interest I emailed Bikeability outlining the scenario of the original thread as I thought it may assist dkohara if making a claim. Their reply follow's.

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, without being there to witness the incident it is impossible to say who may have caused the accident and be at fault.

Within the Level 2 Bikeability programme riders are taught how to move around parked cars. To perform this manoeuvre correctly the riders should cover the following points:

1, ensure they look over their right shoulder for following vehicles before moving from their primary road position into the secondary road position.

2, only move out into the secondary position when they think it is safe to do so and this may mean giving way to vehicles before reaching the parked car.

3, when it is safe to do so they should move out into a position where the parked car can be passed safely.

4, leave a car door width between them and the parked car when riding passed in case the door opens.

If the rider in question had followed the points above then they may have had to wait for the car behind them to pass before they went around the parked vehicle. They would have also made the car aware (by looking behind them) that they were moving out to pass the parked car. If the road was narrow and the rider was a door width away from the parked vehicle as they passed it, then the car behind would have had to wait as they wouldn’t have been able to pass them without crossing over onto the opposite side of the road. However, if the car was going too fast, then their only option may have been to pass the rider.

Hope this helps.

Have just read your post. Thanks for submitting it for comment. The reply seems to be assuming a single parked car, when in fact the parked cars were in a line 150-200 yards long, so my pull out was way back, and the car that knocked me off wasn't there then. No other cars overtook me whilst I was passing, he caught me up as we were approaching the junction ahead and squeezed me left into the parked cars. I had braked by this point (because I knew I wasn't going to get through the ever decreasing gap he was leaving), so was travelling relatively slowly, but it still hurts when you hit the road!

 

[lectureral]

I do love the way that old, familiar posts one thought were long dead can just jump up, all alive.