Cyclists in the inside lane

thistledome

Anybody who thinks their Car's paintwork is more important than the safety of a person shouldn't be allowed to drive IMO.

And if the youtube link is the cyclist that I think it is (didn't click the link), he's also a Doctor at a Glasgow Hospital (possibly Yoker?), so he sees the consequences of human stupidity and arrogance every day. I don't blame him for getting angry at the moronic drivers he meets.

mikey72

Flossiesdoll wrote: »

No, it's about a cyclist being justifiably angry at moronic driving and the OP not understanding what the problem is.

The OP has changed his story but it's clear that either

- his brother saw the cyclist join the main road from a side road and catch up with them and decided to turn across the cyclist anyway
- his brother has no idea where the cyclist came from and turned across him because his observation skills are awful

There is nothing in the Highway Code forbidding cyclists from passing motor vehicles on their left. The motorist is the one at fault.

Well apart from this bit.

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

The_Banker_5

mikey72 wrote: »

Well apart from this bit.

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

A cycle isnt classed as a vehicle.;)

mikey72

Fair enough, if a cyclist is turning right, I'll feel free to overtake him then.

But what has that to do with the part of the highway code I quoted, that deals with cyclists overtaking any other vechicle, as defined in the link I supplied?

Or if you really believe the highway code honestly doesn't apply to cyclists, click through from "cyclists" then "using the road" then "overtaking"

neilmcl

mikey72 wrote: »

Well apart from this bit.

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

That assumes that both vehicles are in the same lane, which of course in this case they weren't. Your link also goes onto say

"stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"

mikey72

neilmcl wrote: »

That assumes that both vehicles are in the same lane, which of course in this case they weren't. Your link also goes onto say

"stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"

First lane was full of parked cars. Second lane was the only lane that was being used by traffic.

But really, so what, if you want to undertake, and view it as your right, I will never be able to stop you. Go for it, feel indignent, blame me later if you want to. It won't change the fact that if I can't see you, I won't be stopping. My insurance will deal with it.

neilmcl

mikey72 wrote: »

First lane was full of parked cars. Second lane was the only lane that was being used by traffic.

But really, so what, if you want to undertake, and view it as your right, I will never be able to stop you. Go for it, feel indignent, blame me later if you want to. It won't change the fact that if I can't see you, I won't be stopping. My insurance will deal with it.

Yes, first lane had parked cars along it but the OP never said the cyclist was in the outside lane, there still may have been plenty of room for the cyclist on the inside. As far as your insurance dealing with it, do you think they'll be dealing with it when you get done for careless/dangerous driving for killing the cyclist you had failed to even bother checking for coming up on your inside.

mikey72

Wasn't I here 3 pages ago

mikey72 wrote: »

Oh, and it's not "kill", I would prefer the term "assisted suicide".
For the record, I have a car that's old enough not to have a nearside mirror, so if you want to trust your life to my phychic ability, you've got even less chance.

The_Banker_5

mikey72 wrote: »

First lane was full of parked cars. Second lane was the only lane that was being used by traffic.

But really, so what, if you want to undertake, and view it as your right, I will never be able to stop you. Go for it, feel indignent, blame me later if you want to. It won't change the fact that if I can't see you, I won't be stopping. My insurance will deal with it.

If you overtake a cycle and turn left into the path of that cycle you are at fault. End of.

Read your highway code properly or get the f00k off the roads.;)

mikey72

The_Banker wrote: »

If you overtake a cycle and turn left into the path of that cycle you are at fault. End of.

Read your highway code properly or get the f00k off the roads.;)

If I ever pulled out in front of a cyclist I'd be at fault too, but what's that got to do with a cyclist undertaking a car indicating left?
I could quote loads of other examples were if I see a cyclist I wouldn't hit him.
Let's stick to the subject of this thread, were I am trying to get across the very specific set of circumstances were I may not see you, and if I don't see you don't rely on me to stop.
If you want to rely on the motorist in this case though, like I said earlier, go for it, feel indignent, blame me later if you want to.
Now though I give up, you can keep posting if you want to.