Just had my first RTA on my bike

[onmebike]

Now there's an idea. What about a cycle helmet with a blue light on the top?

onmebike seems to referring to a completely different set of circumstances to mine. Wasn't on a dual carriageway (never ever said I was), there was a car parked on the other side of the street (not that cars were parked in parallel on both sides of the street). Assumed i'd pulled out in front of someone (when i'd been on the same lateral for 200yds). Said I should give way to a faster outside lane (there wasn't one, up here in North East England we call it 'the other side of the road'). You say we should anticipate the hazard ahead. There wasn't a hazard ahead in my case, the hazard approached from the rear, then the side.

Please ask in future onmebike, before assuming things and condemning without the full facts.

I've already apologised for my mistake regarding the type of road but that doesn't appear good enough?
I never assumed it was a dual carriageway which obviously wouldn't have parked cars nor cars trying to pass between them due to a central reservation, not that you seem to have noticed that minor flaw in your assumption? So your perception of my comments are equally inaccurate.
With regard to anticipating a hazard ahead, that was not in answer to your original post. It was in reference to a multilane situation.

 

[HarryB]

As you say everyone has a right to use the road, on that we agree. But, there are proper procedure's to follow. Whether the obstruction ahead is a single parked car, road works, stationary bus at a bus stop or anything else that involve's slower moving vehicle's having to pull out into the flow of faster moving traffic, they simply shoudn't pull out forcing the faster moving traffic to slow or brake suddenly. Its the same for stationary vehicle's pulling out into the flow of moving traffic, they wait for a break in the flow of traffic.

You are quite wrong in all these scenarios, they are not the same as pulling out from stationary and I don't know how you could think that. Now you can see why so many cyclists take a very dominant road position to avoid being squashed. As I said I am very aware of the large number of ignorant drivers on the road, more so now I have conversed with one!

PS if I followed your advice in London I reckon it would take me about 2 hours to get home rather than the more usual 50 minutes!

 

[onmebike]

You are quite wrong in all these scenarios, they are not the same as pulling out from stationary and I don't know how you could think that. Now you can see why so many cyclists take a very dominant road position to avoid being squashed. As I said I am very aware of the large number of ignorant drivers on the road, more so now I have conversed with one!

PS if I followed your advice in London I reckon it would take me about 2 hours to get home rather than the more usual 50 minutes!

Not my advice its in the highway code section 133 and 167. You do not force faster moving traffic in the outside lane to slow down by pulling out in front of them.

 

[onmebike]

Surely neither, the expectation is that the traffic blends one from each lane in turn, the vehicle slightly leading any pair having precedence. That may not be referred to in any law, but it is what the police expect to be practiced and it's a matter of common courtesy anyway.

Personally I never have a problem since I'm happy to give way to anyone and always give certain priorities like public transport first. I never worry about anyone coming up behind very fast, I just let them pass since it's not for me to judge why they are going fast, that's their business.
.

The outside lane has priority as they are following the central white line. The road narrows from the nearside not the center. In practice the traffic generally alternate but the answer was given by a traffic cop who was there settling an argument.

 

[trickletreat]

Just out of interest, is there a white van man in the house. {or retired wvm}

 

[Mussels]

The outside lane has priority as they are following the central white line. The road narrows from the nearside not the center. In practice the traffic generally alternate but the answer was given by a traffic cop who was there settling an argument.

That would work if there were two lanes, there weren't so they were both sharing the same lane the whole time.

 

[tillson]

The outside lane has priority as they are following the central white line. The road narrows from the nearside not the center. In practice the traffic generally alternate but the answer was given by a traffic cop who was there settling an argument.

The outside lane does not have priority when a dual carriageway ends and becomes a single carriageway. I've tried to explain this but you seem to be unwilling or unable to understand it. You seem to be the anecdotal driver quoted in the horror stories you tend to hear on driving courses.

Not wishing to be unkind, but your interpretation of this situation makes you a menace on the road. Whenever I drive or cycle, I always try to assume that other drivers have your take the rules of the road. The strategy has kept me safe for many years and will hopefully continue to do so.

 

[onmebike]

In answer to your question Onmebike. Where a dual carriageway ends and returns to a single carriageway, it is the driver in the right hand lane who is responsible for adjusting his speed to that of the slower moving vehicles in the left hand lane and then finding a safe gap to blend into that lane. Never do you just hammer it down the outside lane and barge into the left lane at the last minute expecting everyone to give way.

I'm relieved that Onmebike is talking about multi-lane carriageways when he mentions slower vehicles leading a line of traffic giving way to faster vehicles wanting to overtake. For example, if you are travelling at 40 mph in the left hand lane of a dual carriageway which has a 60 mph and you encounter an obstruction in the left hand lane. Of course, the slower vehicle in the left hand lane must not just blindly pull across into the path of the faster traffic in the right hand lane. If necessary, the slower car should be prepared to stop until a safe gap appears.

Take the same situation on a single carriageway. The single lane is blocked ahead meaning that traffic has to move close to or over the centre White line. In this case, the traffic should, "flow" around the obstruction at the pace of the slowest vehicle. If some ******* in an Audi then decides that they can overtake the obstruction and slow vehicle simultaneously, by going three abreast down the road, then the onus does not fall on the slower car to give way or make room for Audi Man.

Please, Onmebike, tell me that this us what you are thinking too.

If you are on a push bike, it might be best not to try and enforce this principle too vigorously. You nay have the moral high ground but you may also be in hospital with a Continental Eco Contact tread pattern embossed into your face.

Regarding the lane's converging, its the outside lane that has priority as they are folowing the central white line. The road narrows from the nearside not the center in which case the central white line would come to an abrupt halt, but it doesn't. This was explained by a traffic cop who arrived on the scene because two arguing drivers were holding up the traffic.
Regarding overtaking on a dual carriageway we agree so no argument there.
Regarding the single lane, I've never said it would be right to overtake a slower vehicle while negotiating the obstruction.
I was mistaken in my reply to the original post. I thought the description of a road with cars parked both sides and traffic passing between them fitted the average main road where two lanes of moving traffic passed freely between the parked cars on either side of the road. Not a dual carriageway with a central reservation but two lanes in either direction separated by a central white line. If there were no parked vehicle's as on red routes there would be two lane's of moving traffic. If traffic in either lane encounter an obstruction say roadworks or broken down vehicle the procedure to pass the obstruction is the same as any lane change, you don't force your way into the another lane causing other traffic to brake. The same applies where a similar road has the odd parked vehicle's. If passing those vehicle's require that you change lane to do so the procedure is the same.

 

[allen-uk]

Now you can see why so many cyclists take a very dominant road position to avoid being squashed......

Trouble is, Harry, many cyclists ARE squashed. Stats on whether they adopted primary or secondary positions would be revealing.

PS if I followed your advice in London I reckon it would take me about 2 hours to get home rather than the more usual 50 minutes!

Ah, again the difference between the quick and the old. When I'm planning a route across north London's suburbs my first priority is safety, with speed coming 2 or 3 down the list.

A.

 

[onmebike]

The outside lane does not have priority when a dual carriageway ends and becomes a single carriageway. I've tried to explain this but you seem to be unwilling or unable to understand it. You seem to be the anecdotal driver quoted in the horror stories you tend to hear on driving courses.

Not wishing to be unkind, but your interpretation of this situation makes you a menace on the road. Whenever I drive or cycle, I always try to assume that other drivers have your take the rules of the road. The strategy has kept me safe for many years and will hopefully continue to do so.

I didn't mention a dual carriageway. Its a 30mph road in town and the central white line is the only road marking. The nearside kerb is shaped to filter the nearside traffic over into the outside lane. 44yrs of virtually accident free motoring say different to your opinion.

 

[Mussels]

Trouble is, Harry, many cyclists ARE squashed. Stats on whether they adopted primary or secondary positions would be revealing.

The stats say that most cyclists killed in London are women, that probably answers your question.

 

[tillson]

Onmebike, I think that we agree regarding the original scenario. I'm still not sure about the dual carriageway bit though. In reality, I don't know enough about the layout ofvthe road at that particular location to pass comment.

 

[onmebike]

That would work if there were two lanes, there weren't so they were both sharing the same lane the whole time.

Wasn't in reference to original post.

 

[HarryB]

Trouble is, Harry, many cyclists ARE squashed. Stats on whether they adopted primary or secondary positions would be revealing.



Ah, again the difference between the quick and the old. When I'm planning a route across north London's suburbs my first priority is safety, with speed coming 2 or 3 down the list.

A.

Your points are answered by taking a dominant position on the road. It is a commute, not a pleasure trip. Life is full of risks and if I wanted to minimise those risk I would get the tube. Just to balance that.... I would be more likely to die of stress and lack of exercise if I did, so the grim reaper gets you whatever you do!

 

[HarryB]

Not my advice its in the highway code section 133 and 167. You do not force faster moving traffic in the outside lane to slow down by pulling out in front of them.

Yet again you are assuming that we are talking about dual carriageways - so you are still talking at cross purposes. You are also assuming that going past a parked car is over-taking and you can use the highway code in all your answers to prove your point. However it is the vehicles behind the bicycle that are doing the over-taking and they should follow the rules (and in particular rule 163 that you seem to have forgotten).

I am just getting the suspicion that this is all a wind up by you - am I right?

 

[Patrick]

A question for you. Two lanes in either direction separated by a central white line converge into single lane's in either direction still separated by the same central white line to pass under a railway bridge. Does the nearside or outside lane have priority? The reason I'm asking is this is a situation close to where I live and many drivers don't seem to know the answer as there's frequent disagreements there.

The more I think about this the more questions I come up with:

If the only road marking is the central white line then are there two lanes in either directions, or is it just one very wide lane each way that narrows down?

If there are two lanes then how do you tell how many lanes a road has? When does a single wide lane become two lanes?

If there is just one lane and the traffic is running two abreast then are the inner cars overtaking (in which case it is the responsibility of the drivers in the inner cars to make sure they can rejoin the lane safely before the road narrows) or are the outer cars the ones that haven't joined the lane yet (in which case they should give way to the inner cars and wait for a gap in the lane)?

 

[flecc]

Trouble is, Harry, many cyclists ARE squashed. Stats on whether they adopted primary or secondary positions would be revealing.

Such stats as we have on the recent year of 13 cyclists deaths with the majority of them women show that they were not in dominant primary positions. Any cursory observation of women cyclists clearly reveals them to be more cautious for what they probably perceive as safety reasons. The reverse is true for bikes, one should always dominate and control following traffic where you would if you were driving anything slow but larger.

A milk float is a perfect example, following drivers don't expect it to vanish, no more should they expect a cyclist to be invisible and they should be just as content to wait for cyclists until it's safe to pass.
.

 

[dkohara]

I've already apologised for my mistake regarding the type of road but that doesn't appear good enough?
I never assumed it was a dual carriageway which obviously wouldn't have parked cars nor cars trying to pass between them due to a central reservation, not that you seem to have noticed that minor flaw in your assumption? So your perception of my comments are equally inaccurate.
With regard to anticipating a hazard ahead, that was not in answer to your original post. It was in reference to a multilane situation.

If you didn't want to talk about the original post, why didn't you start your own thread, rather than confusing things by starting another conversation about another topic on this thread?

 

[onmebike]

Yet again you are assuming that we are talking about dual carriageways - so you are still talking at cross purposes. You are also assuming that going past a parked car is over-taking and you can use the highway code in all your answers to prove your point. However it is the vehicles behind the bicycle that are doing the over-taking and they should follow the rules (and in particular rule 163 that you seem to have forgotten).

I am just getting the suspicion that this is all a wind up by you - am I right?

My comments aren't refering to the original post, and I've never assumed we were talking about dual carriageways which are separated by a central reservation and have no facilities for parking.
I'm talking about two lanes in either direction separated by a central white line. If a parked car is obstructing the nearside lane so that vehicle's travelling along it[not neccessarily cyclists] have to change lane's to avoid the parked car, they do not simply pull out into the outside lane forcing other vehicle's to slow down or brake suddenly. A real life example of this is, a car travelling along Tottenham Court road in the nearside lane, driver apparently looking for an address, came up behind a bus stationary at a bus stop. Without checking it was clear to do so he pulled into the outside lane to pass the bus and was hit in the side by a car travelling along the outside lane. The driver pulling out was at fault.
I took your lead regarding quoting the highway code and section 163 advises you too indicate when safe to do so and then pull out. "When safe to do so" is the key here, you don't blatantly pull out into the path of other vehicle's forcing them to brake, as advised in section 167.
Given the advised clearance a cyclist should give a parked car, its pretty safe to say that would involve him/her moving into the outside lane. The cyclist like any other vehicle should not cause traffic in the outside lane to slow, brake, swerve or change direction. Look in your mirror, take a sideways glance to make sure other vehicle's aren't about to overtake you, when safe to do so indicate and start to move out. Why would you need do all that if you have right of way to simply pull out regardless, as you seem to be suggesting? Also, vehicle's in an overtaking position should be allowed to pass? Rule 168.

 

[onmebike]

If you didn't want to talk about the original post, why didn't you start your own thread, rather than confusing things by starting another conversation about another topic on this thread?

I started off wanting to talk about your thread but just like most others it got lost among the many and varied comments.
I would have started another but yours had already died so I tried to revive it. You should be grateful. Hope your hands feeling better.