The highway code is quite clear about the amount of room you should leave when over-taking a bicycle. Rule 165 give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215). I am afraid your neighbours driving falls way below the standard required on the road. If you are required to go to hospital for any injury you should report this to the police within 24 hours. Obviously if he has injured you he should report this to the police within 24 hours and failure to do so could result in points/fines etc.
Just had my first RTA on my bike
- Thread starter dkohara
- Start date
Seems a slightly bruised thumb is the only real damage. I'll monitor my physical state for the next week or so to make sure I don't suffer anything untoward. I'm back on the road today.
If we had strict civil liability regarding motorists and vulnerable road users in the UK (as many continental countries have) there would be no question whether this collision was the cyclist's or the driver's fault. The latter would be held liable. Lacking strict liability, however, all UK vulnerable road users, no matter how slight the injury or damage to property, should make a claim, via any insurance which covers the case, or CTC membership services, or a no win, no fee lawyer.
If we cannot get government to impose strict liability we should all do our very best to impose liability on drivers where there is the slightest degree of fault on their part.
If we cannot get government to impose strict liability we should all do our very best to impose liability on drivers where there is the slightest degree of fault on their part.
Pic of the road
Here's a view of a section of the lateral road repairs. They're deteriorated a lot over the winter since this Google Maps pic was taken. To cycle through here safely, you really need to be in the middle of the road!
Here's a view of a section of the lateral road repairs. They're deteriorated a lot over the winter since this Google Maps pic was taken. To cycle through here safely, you really need to be in the middle of the road!
Attachments
All is not what it seem's then. Rather than automatically pointing the finger of guilt at the car driver without hearing both side's of the story is a tad unfair.
My impression on reading the thread was that as the cyclist and car were level passing the first car it may have been that the cyclist may have pulled into the path of the car leaving him insufficient time to slow down, its not an impossibility.
Had the cyclist been another car or motorcycle travelling along the nearside and encountered parked vehicle's to manouvre around, they should indicate their intention to pull out into the faster moving traffic and wait until that traffic has past and its safe to do so. Simply expecting faster moving traffic to slow for you is asking for trouble in my opinion. You wouldn't pull over into the fast lane of a motorway to pass a slower vehicle in front without first indicating and waiting until its clear to do so.
If this is the road you were cycling along I can now see your predicament. Passing a cyclist on this road even without parked car's would take a degree of care, especially with oncoming traffic. I mistakenly assumed you were on a much wider road from your description of cars parked on both side's.
There is a difference between this situation and the motorway example you give. Unlike a motorway these are not marked lanes we are riding down, but roads. What you are saying is that we should ride in the gutter and if a car parks in your way you have to ask permission to go round it! It is a just a road and it is your right of way to cycle down the road regardless of whether or not there are parked cars in the way. Drivers should expect you to go past the parked car in the same way any other vehicle would go past that parked car. It is not common practice for cars to indicate to go past parked cars, certainly not in London anyway. I think a lot of drivers think that cyclists are of a lower status and they "allow" them to use the road as long as they stick in the gutter and don't hold them up but it is not like that. You have equal status and it is up to the vehicle behind to over-take safely.
Personally I am out in the road whenever I see a parked car and don't move over even in the gaps where I could - I have met far too many drivers like you who don't let me out again once in the gutter, so their loss.
Last edited:
I think you have answered this yourself in your post...
"If this is the road you were cycling along I can now see your predicament. Passing a cyclist on this road even without parked car's would take a degree of care, especially with oncoming traffic. I mistakenly assumed you were on a much wider road from your description of cars parked on both side's."
Well you must admit the description of cars parked both side's with traffic passing between them doesn't exactly fit the description of a narrow residential road, as shown in the picture.I think you have answered this yourself in your post...
"If this is the road you were cycling along I can now see your predicament. Passing a cyclist on this road even without parked car's would take a degree of care, especially with oncoming traffic. I mistakenly assumed you were on a much wider road from your description of cars parked on both side's."
Err, I didn't. Read the rest of my posts. I was already overtaking cars and had 'stayed out' for these two. No pulling out in front of faster vehicles or anything like that.
Last edited:
No lane changing took place onmebike. That is an entirely different situation covered by different rules.
You seem to be suggesting that any slow moving vehicle should in someway come to a halt behind a line of parked cars in order to give way to faster moving traffic. Only once all the faster cars have passed, should the slow vehicle pull out and overtake the stationary vehicles. It doesn't work like that. The faster moving driver should anticipate the potential hazard (slow vehicle pulling out), and plan accordingly. In this case, slow down, follow the slow vehicle through the hazard and then overtake once clear. To just, "go for it" because a bike is narrow and you might be able to squeeze through isn't really an option.
Having seen the photo, I can now see my mistake. I wrongly assumed from the description of cars parked both sides with moving traffic passing between them that the road was much wider, possibly two lanes in either direction?
No I don't agree, I had a clear picture of the incident from the original post, and that was then confirmed by further posts by the op.
Yes, that's the very same road, although not at the point the accident happened. Houses on the right have drives, houses on the left mostly do not, so typically park in the street. I included the car to show how much of the road a parked car takes up, and also to give an indication of where a car overtaking me must have been relative to the rest of the road. In short, he'd be on the wrong side of the road. When a junction is 50 yards ahead, this is not a clever place to be, especially when he notices oncoming traffic, so he pulled over left, sandwiching me into an ever decreasing gap. He slowed as I slowed, so we stayed alongside one another, then he clipped me.
Since seeing the photo I realise there was no lane change although the original post doesn't actually state this. I thought from the description the road was several lane's in either direction? Parked cars both side's with traffic passing between them etc.
With regard to slow moving or parked vehicle's moving out into the flow of faster moving traffic its the vehicle pulling out that is ultimately responsible for doing so safely. Yes in an ideal world the faster moving traffic will slow to allow you to pull out but thats only etiquette not law. The highway code actually state's that when overtaking or changing lane's you must not force other road user's to slow down, change course or swerve. Indicate your intention's and proceed when safe to do so. Section 133 Lane discipline and section 167 Overtaking.
Last edited:
Yes, I was mistaken in my assumption of it being a wider road. My apologies if I offended you in any way.
Cars parked opposite each other with cars passing in between them as described in the original thread would need a much wider road than that shown in the picture. I must therefore assume the parked cars were actually staggered and not opposite each other.
I don't think you have offended anybody. We all have our views on these things and you are entitled to your views on this forum (even if on this occasion you are wrong
)Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
