Mistaken is much easier to swallowI 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 right )
Didn't know you could do that?
Mistaken is much easier to swallowI 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 right )
I think our posts crossed onmebike. I hadn't seen your update after viewing the photograph.Since seeing the photo I realise there was no lane change. 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.
I think our posts crossed onmebike. I hadn't seen your update after viewing the photograph.
I still can't agree with your thoughts on slow moving traffic having to give way to faster traffic on the approach to a parked vehicle. You can't just force slow movers into the gutter and make them wait. It is the responsibility of the driver making the overtake manoeuvre to make sure that it is safe to do so. You can't expect everyone to pull over into your wake as you steam roller your way through the hazard.
You don't drive an Audi do you?
Onmebike, your views are quite scary! Just think, there are many out there who share them and that makes me wonder whether I should be venturing out on the roads tomorrow.Not my thoughts, its in the highway code. I assume passing parked vehicle's is technically overtaking.
Its not a case of forcing anyone into the gutter, being on the inside of faster moving traffic they are already there and need to pull into the faster flowing traffic to manouvre around the parked vehicle's. You could say that its the slower moving traffic that must anticipate the hazard ahead and prepare for it early or get stuck behind it waiting for a break in the flow of traffic. Forcing faster moving traffic on the outside of you to slow down suddenly could cause all sorts of problems.
I suppose the simplest way of determining who has priority is the vehicle with the hazard/obstruction directly ahead is the one who should give way because it is they that need negotiate around the hazard. Its exactly the same with oncoming traffic, if the obstruction is on your side of the road you must give way to oncoming traffic.
I can only think that we may be talking at slightly cross purposes. If we are considering a dual carriageway and cars are parked in the left hand lane, forcing slower cars into the right hand lane, then I think you are right in what you / the highway code says. However, on a single carriageway, which I believe is the type of road on which this incident occurred, then it is never the case that the driver in front has responsibility to give way to a following driver wanting to go through the hazard three abreast whilst initiating an overtake that he may or may not be able to pull off.Not my thoughts, its in the highway code. I assume passing parked vehicle's is technically overtaking.
Its not a case of forcing anyone into the gutter, being on the inside of faster moving traffic they are already there and need to pull into the faster flowing traffic to manouvre around the parked vehicle's. You could say that its the slower moving traffic that must anticipate the hazard ahead and prepare for it early or get stuck behind it waiting for a break in the flow of traffic. Forcing faster moving traffic on the outside of you to slow down suddenly could cause all sorts of problems.
I suppose the simplest way of determining who has priority is the vehicle with the hazard/obstruction directly ahead is the one who should give way because it is they that need negotiate around the hazard. Its exactly the same with oncoming traffic, if the obstruction is on your side of the road you must give way to oncoming traffic.
I'm not talking about the narrow residential road highlighted in this thread and you can check my claims in the highway code, section 133 and 167.Onmebike, your views are quite scary! Just think, there are many out there who share them and that makes me wonder whether I should be venturing out on the roads tomorrow.
No I don't think going past a parked car is over-taking - as I said you are just riding down the road and it doesn't matter whether there are parked cars or not, you have a right to do so. Anybody in front of you has automatic right of way if they are on the road, regardless of whether they are a car, motorcycle or bicycle. Do you constantly drive on other cars tails trying to over-take them? I must admit there is nothing more annoying than that sort or driver.
Be careful out there.
Also see,Passing parked cars would be seen as the road narrowing, however, Overtaking is detailed in the HWC here:
Overtaking (162-169) : Directgov - Travel and transport
and....
Road users requiring extra care (204-225) : Directgov - Travel and transport
Yes, anticipation always tends to work in your favour, and prime riding position is great, but when the guy commits himself to get past you by driving on the opposite side of the road, then moves back to squeeze your pips, there's not a lot of 'road command' you can do without making yourself even more vulnerable. Pushing him further onto the wrong side of the road would have just resulted in a more violent side swipe as he tried to avoid the oncoming car. I had slowed down anyway because I had a junction coming up behind a white van parked on my left, and I couldn't see beyond the van. I was braking to try to get him past me, but he decelerated at the same rate and moved across into me. Thankfully, speeds were low, but he could easily have run over my arm or something as I came off. Once I knew the collision was inevitable, reducing the speed of it was the only thing I could do.There is an important point here.
Those of us who have done advanced driver training of any sort will recall being berated by our (usually) sergeant police drivers telling us that almost NOTHING on the road happens 'all of a sudden' or 'without warning'. (Exceptions might include being struck on the head by a meteorite.)
Thus, as a following driver, seeing
a) a line of parked cars on the left, and
b) a cyclist on our side of the road approaching those cars,
a good driver will ANTICIPATE what is almost certainly going to happen next.
Add a
c) car coming towards us, not to mention
d) parked cars on the OTHER side of the road
and even the doziest driver could probably work out the next scene.
Similarly, a good cyclist would read the possible scenario in the same way, and plan his reaction to the forthcoming 'hazard' accordingly.
This might mean moving out into 'primary' so that the following car had no choice but to slow down and wait, or, in exceptional circumstances, to stop before the parked cars and wait. On rare occasions I have done the latter, particularly if my mirror has told me that the following vehicle was a skip lorry, for example, being driven too fast!
Oh for wide roads and intelligent road users!
Allen.
Well, yes, applicable for multi-lane, the other links are more relevant.
I agree with most of what you say but my comments aren't restricted to dual carriagways and motorways that are separated from oncoming traffic by a central reservation. I also include the average main road where there are two or more lanes in either direction separated by a central white line.I can only think that we may be talking at slightly cross purposes. If we are considering a dual carriageway and cars are parked in the left hand lane, forcing slower cars into the right hand lane, then I think you are right in what you / the highway code says. However, on a single carriageway, which I believe is the type of road on which this incident occurred, then it is never the case that the driver in front has responsibility to give way to a following driver wanting to go through the hazard three abreast whilst initiating an overtake that he may or may not be able to pull off.
I've not got a copy of the highway code to hand, but I think you have been looking at dual carriageways or motorways. At least I hope you are.
Please don't take this the wrong way onmebike, but it frightens me to think that you might own a car and actually drive it in places to which the public have access.
Oh for the almost empty roads that were the norm when I first rode bicycles in 1946 and first road motorbikes in 1950. World War 2 had got rid of most of the pre-war vehicles by requisition for war needs and all post war production was for export to pay off our war debts.Oh for wide roads and intelligent road users!
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.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.
Sounds like Total Nirvana.Imagine riding a motorbike as I did once in the daytime from Bournemouth to Southampton for 25 miles through the New Forest and not seeing one other vehicle on the road.
Those really were the days to be mobile.
.