AIBU to think that cyclists and drivers

[helloclitty]

might be a lot more civil to each other if it was mandatory to pass tests in both cycling and driving if using the road, whether you are a cyclist or vehicle driver.

Of course there would have to be exclusions for people unable to cycle or drive for any reason (a simulator perhaps). However, with the focus on green living and the sheer increase in road traffic on our narrow city roads something has to be done. We cannot divide up the roads there is simply not enough space, we need to be able to share them and understand all road users needs as well as our own.

Oh shut up, there's enough room for everyone. We don't need more tests or more taxes. What kind of world do you want to live in?

happy - yes there is indeed lots of room, when it's available.

oh crumbs - are you seriously saying that any road user cannot go straight ahead at a junction if the roaduser to their right is turning right?

No, you may not overtake to the left if the road user in front of you is not indicating to go left and there is not space. It is to stop exacly this sort of stupidity where the car in front stops and some dickhead behind undertakes on the blind side.

Oh shut up, there's enough room for everyone. We don't need more tests or more taxes. What kind of world do you want to live in?

One where all the users of the road understand its rules would clearly (looking at the evidence above) be a very good start.

Am I the only one who finds it absurd that the ones at the most risk on the road have no requirement to understand its rules?

I think the fact that so many posters can't agree on the rules of the road proves that both need to experience it form the other uses point of view.

As a cyclist, if a truck was stopped ahead of me and was not indicating to turn I would also stop. Just like I would in a car I would assume that someone or something was crossing and therefore I would stop.

As a driver I would do exactly the same thing.

"... Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left ..."

from " Rules for cyclists " in the Highway Code.

Quite clearly...

"... The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability ..."

Well, yes it has a bit Yon - but there really is a gap in education about what it is like to be a cyclist - it often is a lot of 'us and them', because 'them' have the careless potential to kill eve nthe most defensive of riders such as myself.

All that's happening in this bloody thread is the cyclists are declaring it's all the fault of careless drivers and vice versa.

Both sets are full of idiots as well as responsible people, but this thread has descended into the two halves trying to prove which set is to blame most.

As proved by your above post.

Coming back to this thread, I would just like to reiterate a point about the imbalance between cyclists and motorists on a road

1. Most cyclists will either have passed the driving test, or if not, will be passengers fairly regularly in cars, whereas most motorists have not been on a bike since they were children (as evidenced by one of the earlier comments) (I think 70% of people do not get on a bike in a year, and when they do, it's likely to be down the tow-path)
2. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than motorists
3. There is an undeniable feeling from many that motorists have more rights on the road because of their "road-tax". In fact, the opposite is true (motorists need a licence to drive, cyclists don't)

All these point to the fact that the emphasis for making the roads safer must lie more heavily on motorists.

I was walking on the pavement this morning and watched as a driver got her handbag from the foot well of the passenger seat, popped it on her lap and then got out her phone, which then she proceeded to text she never looked at the road and then over shot the junction, at which point she seemed to find the brake, then continued to text whilst the man in the van behind was getting bothered as to why she was sat at a junction that was now clear.

I wonder if one of the children in the back of the car is safer in the car or out of the car with this woman driving a ton of metal around without looking?

Pendeen
... Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left ...

from Rules for cyclists in the Highway Code.

Which the van driver wasn't doing. The Highway code also says this about right turns.

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

Badumdumtsh

Which van driver?

My point was about the number of cyclists who put themselves in danger by riding between a vehicle and the kerb when approaching a left turn.

The Highway Code is very clear on this matter.

3. There is an undeniable feeling from many that motorists have more rights on the road because of their "road-tax". In fact, the opposite is true (motorists need a licence to drive, cyclists don't)

What opposite - that cyclists have more rights because they are untaxed, unlicensed and require no training to use the roads responsibly?

Which the van driver wasn't doing. The Highway code also says this about right turns.

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

I think you are going to have a tough time arguing the van stopping, or cars turning were liable in any way, given the cyclist was making an illegal movement.

Both sets are full of idiots as well as responsible people, but this thread has descended into the two halves trying to prove which set is to blame most.

Yes, but at least one set knows the actual rules of the road.

And which set is that? The drivers, cyclists or the drivers who also cycle?

Pendeen

apologies for the crossed wires, I thought you were talking about the incident with whatme

Whatme

When a cyclist does this it's called filtering not undertaking, and is a perfectly legal manoeuvre, in fact it's referred to as "an advanced technique" in cyclecraft, which is the book used for bikeability (formerly cycle proficiency)
I agree the cyclist should have been more cautious approaching the junction, but then so should you.

"What opposite - that cyclists have more rights because they are untaxed, unlicensed and require no training to use the roads responsibly?"

Well, driving is a privilege, cycling is a right

When a cyclist does this it's called filtering not undertaking, and is a perfectly legal manoeuvre, in fact it's referred to as "an advanced technique" in cyclecraft, which is the book used for bikeability (formerly cycle proficiency)

"Filtering" has quite a few conditions set down for it to be legal, I suggest you study them and the case law associated with them (mainly from motorcycles), I think you will be in for an unpleasant shock.

The Highway Code is very clear, you may not overtake on the left if there is not sufficient space and the vehicle in front is not indicating to turn right. If there is a lane on the left there is sufficient space, if there is not you may not. If you filter under those conditions and cause an accident you are 100% liable.

The Highway Code applies to all road using vehicles, not just cars.

It's not over/undertaking if it's a single lane of stationery or slow moving traffic. Overtaking is between two moving objects, filtering is moving through traffic. You can't take rules strictly about overtaking and apply them to filtering, no matter how much it suits your argument. They are two separate sections in the HC

Well, why don't you try it and see for yourself then.

You may want to read the case law on the Motorcycle sections first though. Google is your friend. Filtering does not trump the other laws of the road, it is a "you may do if you are not causing other road users danger" thing.

Incidentally, the cyclists websites I was reading last night were saying that if the car you are filtering to the left of turns left across you, and it was indicating before you moved into its path, and there is an accident, then you are liable as you were driving dangerously.

Getting entirely off the point here but oh well

Well in 2006 an appeal court judge stood the whole thing on its head. In Davis vs Shrogin, the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occured if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."

Google was my friend

Of course you would be liable in that situation. The highway code is very specific about it in the "rules for cyclists" section

Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

So as long as the vehicle isn't turning left you're ok to filter

Well, if we want to get into what the law actually says - I have had a search and as far as I can find, there are no reported cases regarding situations where a cyclist was involved in an accident when passing up the left hand side of a row of cars, these two cases caught my eye:

R. v Hall (Darren Kevin): "We acknowledge that some distinction must be drawn between riding a bicycle and driving a car, since car accidents are much more likely to cause serious injury than bicycle accidents."

R.G. Jellis & Son (Haulage) Ltd v Dr Stewart Abbott: "Mr. Nixon further submits that the judge's apportionment was wrong. Whilst finding that the driver and rider were each carrying out an intrinsically dangerous manoeuvre, he should have asked why they were doing so and distinguished between them. Mr. Sibun was carrying out his manoeuvre as a result of the road conditions. Dr. Abbott was carrying out his as a matter of choice and convenience to speed up his journey. He was in the wrong place in dangerous circumstances. He failed to avail himself of the obvious option of returning to the safety of his side of the road within the line of traffic he was overtaking. I think that this is an artificial approach. Dr. Abbott was entitled to take advantage of the fact that he was on a motor cycle, which enabled him to pass slower moving larger vehicles. Merely by doing this he was not, as Mr Nixon suggested, needlessly creating a danger."

Interesting Thistledew

Two interesting links relevant to issues mentioned on the thread:

campaign lcc.org.uk/pages/go-dutch

and

HGV driver training This is an entirely voluntary scheme at the moment; Lambeth and Hackney boroughs have both signed up to it.