Overtaking is alright, but veering isn't, apparently

[Chris Johns]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, raisethe wrote:

> then the motorcyclist should not be blamed for the accident, as the
> cyclist moved into the motorcyclists right of way.

If a child runs out into the road is it okay to run them down and kill
them, because they ran into your "right of way"?

> In order to blame the motorcyclist it would be necessary to prove that
> he was speeding and / or did not respond adequately to conditions in
> front of him. Of course, the key witness was killed so it would have
> been very difficult to prove that the defendent was lying.

Given the conditions in front, i'd say he didn't respond adequately. The
cyclist had to go somewhere with the parked car in his way. Given cyclists
can't levitate, you should be prepared for them to veer into your path
(they might hop onto a pavement of slam on the anchors too, of course).
--
Chris Johns

 

[Chris Johns]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ekul Namsob wrote:

> However, I was trained to think of cyclists as likely to veer sharply to
> avoid such things as potholes, broken glass, etc. which can do rather
> more damage to them than to motorists. Consequently, as a driver, I give
> cyclists lots of space and, as a cyclist, I demand lots of space, mostly
> to my left.

Highway code rule 189 .. "Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddently need to
avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily,
wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room.".

There are at least two that say give cyclists plenty of room, 188 and 139.
--
Chris Johns

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Johns <[email protected]> writes:
|> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ekul Namsob wrote:
|>
|> > However, I was trained to think of cyclists as likely to veer sharply to
|> > avoid such things as potholes, broken glass, etc. which can do rather
|> > more damage to them than to motorists. Consequently, as a driver, I give
|> > cyclists lots of space and, as a cyclist, I demand lots of space, mostly
|> > to my left.
|>
|> Highway code rule 189 .. "Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddently need to
|> avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily,
|> wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room.".
|>
|> There are at least two that say give cyclists plenty of room, 188 and 139.

Also 138, 142, 143 and others. Plus consider the situation if the
cyclist had been a milk-float. The motorcyclist is required to
consider whether the cyclist would need to pull out before deciding
to overtake. In theory.

While there is no clear right of way in that case, the general
assumption is that it would be the forward vehicle if there were
no lane markings and the outside vehicle if there were and the
forward vehicle's lane was blocked. That is why it makes a major
difference whether there was a psychle lane or not.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Ziggy]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:11:50 +0100, Chris Johns <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, raisethe wrote:
>
>> then the motorcyclist should not be blamed for the accident, as the
>> cyclist moved into the motorcyclists right of way.
>
>If a child runs out into the road is it okay to run them down and kill
>them, because they ran into your "right of way"?
>
>> In order to blame the motorcyclist it would be necessary to prove that
>> he was speeding and / or did not respond adequately to conditions in
>> front of him. Of course, the key witness was killed so it would have
>> been very difficult to prove that the defendent was lying.
>
>Given the conditions in front, i'd say he didn't respond adequately. The
>cyclist had to go somewhere with the parked car in his way. Given cyclists
>can't levitate, you should be prepared for them to veer into your path
>(they might hop onto a pavement of slam on the anchors too, of course).

I think you've got that all back to front.

It is the responsibility of the person moving right to ensure that s/he will not
get in the way of other traffic, not that of people moving straight ahead to
second guess the intentions of someone to their left.

I would never, never, NEVER, *NEVER* move to the right on the basis that traffic
behind and to the right of me will guess what I'm about to do and take action to
protect me.

Nor signal and move quickly to the right on the same basis.

There are various reasons why the motorcyclist in this case *might* have borne a
proportion of the responsibility for the accident (possibly up to 100% if he was
going fast enough), but simply failing to expect the cyclist to carry out a
suicidal manoeuvre of lurching right into another traffic stream isn't one of
them.

 

[Ziggy]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:42:10 GMT, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:

>I think you've got that all back to front.
>
>It is the responsibility of the person moving right to ensure that s/he will not
>get in the way of other traffic, not that of people moving straight ahead to
>second guess the intentions of someone to their left.
>
>I would never, never, NEVER, *NEVER* move to the right on the basis that traffic
>behind and to the right of me will guess what I'm about to do and take action to
>protect me.
>
>Nor signal and move quickly to the right on the same basis.
>
>There are various reasons why the motorcyclist in this case *might* have borne a
>proportion of the responsibility for the accident (possibly up to 100% if he was
>going fast enough), but simply failing to expect the cyclist to carry out a
>suicidal manoeuvre of lurching right into another traffic stream isn't one of
>them.

When I wrote the above the picture in my mind was of a road where there was room
for two streams of traffic in the direction the accident happened, and that the
blockage was in the left hand lane. (A situation I frequently see in London).

If the accident happened on a road where there is only room for one stream of
traffic in the direction the accident happened, the above would not, of course,
apply.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I loose count of how many times I am passed with only a few inches to
> spare.....

Not only that but they will often do this whilst racing directly towards
another vehicle coming the other way! They assume that the other vehicle
has an obligation to give way or slow down for them while they overtake a
cyclist.

 

[Chris Johns]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Adrian Boliston wrote:

> Not only that but they will often do this whilst racing directly towards
> another vehicle coming the other way! They assume that the other vehicle

Or towards a red traffic light, like the twunt on Hull Road out of York
the other day, who also decided that blowing his horn and revving his
engine were essential in passing too.
--
Chris Johns

 

[Budstaff]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rob Morley wrote on 15/04/2007 02:37 +0100:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Squashme [email protected] says...
>>
>>> I guess that any motorist or motorcyclist would have expected that,
>>> faced with the obstruction, the cyclist would have just cycled
>>> into it, morphed through it, or just stopped dead. Who would expect
>>> veering, especially sharply?
>>>
>> I'd have expected him to look (and possibly signal) before pulling
>> out, and not to do anything that caused other road users to have to
>> take sudden evasive action.
>
> UR Simon Finnigan AICMFP
>
>

The newspaper article now has this vile comment from 'Simon of Merseyside'.

"Serves him right. The roads are for cars, not bikes - they don't pay road
tax, they get in the way, they don't have to pass any kind of test.

The cyclist should have looked behind before wandering out into the middle
of the road. If I had been driving along, well, I 'm in a car, with crumple
zones to protect me - the cyclist has only his skin; of course he should be
more careful. Unless and until cyclists start riding safely, I will not get
out of their way - I know who'll get hurt more!"

The arguments and phraseology are creepily reminiscent of the wretch who was
infesting this newsgroup last week. Could _this_ be Simon Finnigan, in which
case I'll have the fiver. ;-)

 

[raisethe]

On 14 Apr, 20:38, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> raisethe wrote on 14/04/2007 20:16 +0100:
>
>
>
> > It certainly would, though it might be difficult to protect an
> > innocent motorist from rogue cyclists and peds.
>
> Not as difficult as protecting an innocent dead cyclist from a rogue
> motorist. This motorcyclist got his day in Court but irrespective of
> the outcome there was no reprieve for the cyclist.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
> is no good evidence either way."
> - Bertrand Russell


Agreed.

The difficulty would be getting the law changed to effectively force
motorists to travel at the speed of cyclists in built up areas.

 

[Tony Raven]

Budstaff wrote on 15/04/2007 18:40 +0100:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Rob Morley wrote on 15/04/2007 02:37 +0100:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Squashme [email protected] says...
>>>
>>>> I guess that any motorist or motorcyclist would have expected that,
>>>> faced with the obstruction, the cyclist would have just cycled
>>>> into it, morphed through it, or just stopped dead. Who would expect
>>>> veering, especially sharply?
>>>>
>>> I'd have expected him to look (and possibly signal) before pulling
>>> out, and not to do anything that caused other road users to have to
>>> take sudden evasive action.
>> UR Simon Finnigan AICMFP
>>
>>
>
> The newspaper article now has this vile comment from 'Simon of Merseyside'.
>
> "Serves him right. The roads are for cars, not bikes - they don't pay road
> tax, they get in the way, they don't have to pass any kind of test.
>
> The cyclist should have looked behind before wandering out into the middle
> of the road. If I had been driving along, well, I 'm in a car, with crumple
> zones to protect me - the cyclist has only his skin; of course he should be
> more careful. Unless and until cyclists start riding safely, I will not get
> out of their way - I know who'll get hurt more!"
>
> The arguments and phraseology are creepily reminiscent of the wretch who was
> infesting this newsgroup last week. Could _this_ be Simon Finnigan, in which
> case I'll have the fiver. ;-)
>
>

Maybe but since it is a verbatim quote of his I copied here earlier from
another newsgroup I suspect someone here has copied and pasted it onto
the article and signed it as Simon for him. OTOH they are his words
originally, just taken from a slightly different context.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

raisethe wrote on 15/04/2007 19:40 +0100:
> On 14 Apr, 20:38, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> raisethe wrote on 14/04/2007 20:16 +0100:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It certainly would, though it might be difficult to protect an
>>> innocent motorist from rogue cyclists and peds.
>> Not as difficult as protecting an innocent dead cyclist from a rogue
>> motorist. This motorcyclist got his day in Court but irrespective of
>> the outcome there was no reprieve for the cyclist.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> The difficulty would be getting the law changed to effectively force
> motorists to travel at the speed of cyclists in built up areas.
>

They do in London or even slower. But its not necessary to travel at
cyclist speed or not overtake. You just need to do it with care, when
it is safe to do so and leaving as much room as you would overtaking a
car. Now where have I heard that before?

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[raisethe]

On 14 Apr, 20:49, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> raisethe ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> > > If the motorcyclist was not speeding, and if the cyclist did not
> > negotiate his position correctly toward the middle of the road, but
> > simply moved out at the moment the motorcyclist was about to pass,
> > then the motorcyclist should not be blamed for the accident, as the
> > cyclist moved into the motorcyclists right of way.
>
> Which highway code do you work from, dear boy? The one from this Universe
> doesn't seem to apply to you.
>
> What part of rules 139 to 143 inclusive do you not understand?

I understand them all, old bean.

It is possible that the motorcyclist obeyed all of those rules and yet
the cyclist was killed. My point is that it is necessary to prove that
the motorcyclist did not overtake safely in order for him to be
successfully prosecuted. He may have been lying, or he may not.




>
> > In order to blame the motorcyclist it would be necessary to prove that
> > he was speeding and / or did not respond adequately to conditions in
> > front of him.
>
> The cyclist was killed. Therefore, there is irrefutable evidence that the
> motorcyclist did not respond adequately to conditions in front of him.
>
>

Not as the law stands.

During an overtaking manouvre between any two vehicles there is
generally a period when the vehicle being overtaken can veer into the
path of the one which is overtaking it. The highway code requires
extra care to be taken for cyclists. It does not say that the motorist
should not overtake a cyclist if there is any chance at all that the
cyclist could veer into the motor vehicle.

It is therefore possible that the motorcyclist in this case overtook
the cyclist in the way laid down by the highway code and yet it still
resulted in a fatal accident.

As a cyclist, I would not be against a law which charged a motorist
with manslaughter automatically for every cyclist or pedestrian death.
However, as I said in a previous post, any motorist who wanted to
avoid a possible manslaughter charge would be forced to travel at a
cyclist's speed in town, or slower if there were peds about. Such a
change will not happen, at least in the near future.

Cyclists therefore need to be responsible for how they ride in
traffic, and adopt the primary position in a road with parked cars.

 

[raisethe]

On 15 Apr, 00:08, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If rule 139 was enforced, then there would be a huge reduction in road
> "accidents".
>
> Martin.

I would say that rule 138 and / or 139 is not complied with in a very
large percentage of the times I am overtaken on my bike. It is
outrageous.

In my locality, I am frequently overtaken whether or not there is a
bend ahead, and sometimes in the face of visible oncoming traffic.

 

[raisethe]

On 15 Apr, 10:11, Chris Johns <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, raisethe wrote:
> > then the motorcyclist should not be blamed for the accident, as the
> > cyclist moved into the motorcyclists right of way.
>
> If a child runs out into the road is it okay to run them down and kill
> them, because they ran into your "right of way"?


I can't see the tragedy being any worse for the death being a child's
rather than an adult's. The apportionment of blame should be the same
in either case.

Do you think that an adult should give up his seat to a child on a
busy bus? I've heard that it happens.

 

[raisethe]

On 15 Apr, 10:50, [email protected] (Ziggy) wrote:
>
> If the accident happened on a road where there is only room for one stream of
> traffic in the direction the accident happened, the above would not, of course,
> apply.-

Why?

 

[raisethe]

On 15 Apr, 20:03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
You just need to do it with care, when
> it is safe to do so and leaving as much room as you would overtaking a
> car. Now where have I heard that before?
>

But I am arguing that you can do all that and still kill an errant
cyclist. There will always be a point of no return when the cyclist
may suddenly veer into the path of the overtaker. For sure, many
motorists don't obey the highway code, and maybe this motorcyclist
didn't either, we shall never know. However, all vehicles have a right
of way in the space they occupy plus the area immediately to the sides
and to the front and back. An overtaking vehicle who complies with the
highway code also has this right of way, and cyclists have to take
responsibilty for not violating that.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <1hwlr6f.k97vq34uyqi5N%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
>
> This was initially my thinking. I'm not defending the biker here, for
> whom it seems rather convenient that he had only been breaking the law
> 'further up the road',

Much too convenient, but presumably the crash detectives couldn't prove
he was going way over the limit.

> but I wonder how on earth the illegally parked
> car could be considered an unexpected obstruction.
>
> However, I was trained to think of cyclists as likely to veer sharply to
> avoid such things as potholes, broken glass, etc. which can do rather
> more damage to them than to motorists. Consequently, as a driver, I give
> cyclists lots of space and, as a cyclist, I demand lots of space, mostly
> to my left.
>
Me too, but the motorcyclist doesn't have to demonstrate more than
normal care/skill in his driving, and the norm is unfortunately low.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...

> UR Simon Finnigan AICMFP

Not even five pence, I'm afraid.

>
> Do you look, signal, manoeuvre, round every single parked vehicle when
> you are cycling in town?

No, but I look if I'm going to change direction significantly. If there
was a Harley coming up behind me I probably wouldn't even have to look
to know it was there.

> If you were approaching a cyclist coming up to
> a parked car, what would you expect them to do next? Pull out to go
> round or as Squashme suggests, ride through it or stop dead? Which do
> you think is most likely and how will you respond in your driving to
> prepare for that?

Obviously I'm an excellent motorist, motorcyclist and cyclist, I'd never
be surprised by anyone doing anything in front of me and I'd always have
sufficient control of my speed and direction to take appropriate action.
>
> Sudden evasive actions are only necessary for truly unpredictable
> occurrences or by the unobservant and unprepared. Perhaps all current
> license holders need to undergo the current hazard perception test for
> learners in order to keep their license.
>
Agreed. Theory test too. And periodic retests.

 

[Tony Raven]

raisethe wrote on 15/04/2007 21:01 +0100:
> On 15 Apr, 20:03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> You just need to do it with care, when
>> it is safe to do so and leaving as much room as you would overtaking a
>> car. Now where have I heard that before?
>>
>
> But I am arguing that you can do all that and still kill an errant
> cyclist. There will always be a point of no return when the cyclist
> may suddenly veer into the path of the overtaker.
>

Only a problem if the motorcyclist a) hasn't left enough room overtaking
the cyclist to allow for deviations in path b) motorcyclist is unable to
spot a parked car that the cyclist is going to have to go round and does
not make allowances and c) motorcyclist is overtaking too fast to be
able to react.

I agree if the cyclist were to suddenly turn right across the road in
front of the motorcyclist but this sounds like a motorcyclist going too
fast too close and noticing at all that there was a parked car there.
Remember he was doing 50mph in a 30mph limit at the time of the collision.

Your excusing a speeding motorcyclist here is not disimmilar to Simon's
excusing the killer of another cyclist but meanwhile two children are
without a dad and their mother without her partner.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[raisethe]

On 15 Apr, 21:32, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree if the cyclist were to suddenly turn right across the road in
> front of the motorcyclist

Yes, that is what I am saying.

but this sounds like a motorcyclist going too
> fast too close and noticing at all that there was a parked car there.
> Remember he was doing 50mph in a 30mph limit at the time of the collision.

No, you are misreading the OP. The prosecutor alleged that the
motorcyclist was riding at 50 mph, the motorcyclist denied it.


>
> Your excusing a speeding motorcyclist here is not disimmilar to Simon's
> excusing the killer of another cyclist but meanwhile two children are
> without a dad and their mother without her partner.


I would never excuse a speeding motorcyclist from killing a cyclist
and I have not played down the impact of the tragedy to the family of
the deceased. See my earlier post when I had to explain to Chris that
an adult road death is as serious as a child's.

The OP merely alleges that the motorcyclist was speeding, it wasn't
proven.

I don't understand the reference to Simon, I must have missed that
thread.

I understand the emotional need to blame someone when there is a
tragedy, but it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
motorist is to blame. In this case, maybe he is to blame, maybe he
isn't.