undertaking

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by James G, Feb 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James G

    James G Guest

    Ive recently foudn this group, it's nice to find some other people who share my views on motor
    vehicles. Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)? Is it even legal? What about
    when there is a mandatory/advisory cycle lane? I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes
    coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and so position themselves to the right making it
    difficult to overtake conventionally. I normally only do it in order to reach those box things in
    front of traffic lights when there is a right filter lane and i want to go left or straight on.
     
    Tags:


  2. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    james g wrote:
    > Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)?

    As with most questions asked on Usenet, the answer is "it depends".

    > Is it even legal?

    Certainly. There's nothing at all wrong with undertaking in traffic, everyone does it all the time
    (motor vehicles and cycles). However, just because it's perfectly legal doesn't necessarily mean
    you've been seen doing it. As with any overtaking on either side, proceed only after judging it to
    be safe and worth your while.

    > What about when there is a mandatory/advisory cycle lane?

    I didn't realise there was any such thing as a mandatory cycle lane, but in any case if the way is
    clear and any signs and signals don't forbid it, you should be able to proceed, whether you're in a
    cycle lane or on a road.

    > I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and so
    > position themselves to the right making it difficult to overtake conventionally.

    Try and plan ahead. I only overtake or undertake when I can see a clear space I'm going to move to,
    as that way I'm unlikely to get trapped in a vulnerable spot. I'll pass on whichever side looks
    safest in that particular situation. It does vary.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  3. Bas

    Bas Guest

    For a moment there I thought the message would be about, after your fatal accident would you like to
    be cremated or burried :)

    Bas

    "james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ive recently foudn this group, it's nice to find some other people who
    share
    > my views on motor vehicles. Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)? Is it even
    > legal? What about when there is a
    mandatory/advisory
    > cycle lane? I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes coming up
    the
    > inside (i live in Cambridge) and so position themselves to the right
    making
    > it difficult to overtake conventionally. I normally only do it in order to reach those box things
    > in front of traffic lights when there is a right filter lane and i want to go left or straight on.
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>, james g <[email protected]> writes
    >Ive recently foudn this group, it's nice to find some other people who share my views on motor
    >vehicles. Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)?

    We all do it, but care is called for. A few days ago, while in the car, I clocked something I would
    call highly dangerous. A cyclist weaving along a busy pavement (!) beside crawling traffic wanted to
    make a right turn at a junction three cars ahead of me. To do that he decided to come down onto the
    road two cars behind me and then turn right across the front of my car to reach the outside of the
    lane. Inevitably, just before he reached the front of my car and turned across my bows, the traffic
    started to move forward. He was unharmed because I'm a cyclist and I routinely check my left wing
    mirror. Most drivers don't.

    And always watch out, when the traffic you're undertaking is at a standstill, for the wally who
    opens the passenger side door and steps out.

    In other words, bear in mind that when you're undertaking you can almost guarantee you haven't been
    seen. Yes, they should have been you. But they haven't.

    > Is it even legal? What about when there is a mandatory/advisory cycle lane? I sometimes find that
    > motorists anticipate bikes coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and so position themselves
    > to the right making it difficult to overtake conventionally. I normally only do it in order to
    > reach those box things in front of traffic lights when there is a right filter lane and i want to
    > go left or straight on.
    >
    >

    --
    The Big Baguette
     
  5. dja25

    dja25 Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, james g wrote:

    > Ive recently foudn this group, it's nice to find some other people who share my views on motor
    > vehicles. Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)? Is it even legal? What about
    > when there is a mandatory/advisory cycle lane? I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes
    > coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and so position themselves to the right making it
    > difficult to overtake conventionally. I normally only do it in order to reach those box things in
    > front of traffic lights when there is a right filter lane and i want to go left or straight on.

    I have just been knocked off with damage to self and a bike "undertaking" a car in a cycle lane in
    Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it to be my fault. Neither my
    right away nor the fact that he would have been wiser not to overtake me immediately before turning
    had occurred to him!

    Had there been no cycle lane, I would not have deliberately "undertaken" unless the traffic was
    stationary or in queues and there was plenty of space.

    --
    Daniel Auger - mailto:[email protected]
     
  6. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:58:15 +0000, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >james g wrote:
    >> Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)?
    >
    >As with most questions asked on Usenet, the answer is "it depends".
    >
    > > Is it even legal?
    >
    >Certainly. There's nothing at all wrong with undertaking in traffic, everyone does it all the time
    >(motor vehicles and cycles). However, just because it's perfectly legal doesn't necessarily mean
    >you've been seen doing it. As with any overtaking on either side, proceed only after judging it to
    >be safe and worth your while.

    While it is legal, just because everyone does it all the time doesn't make it so. Pedantry aside, be
    very careful when taking the inside line, especially going on the inside of large vehicles. Watch
    out too for pedestrians crossing berween lines of stationary motor vehicles whilst you whizz up
    between them.
    >
    > > What about when there is a mandatory/advisory
    >> cycle lane?
    >
    >I didn't realise there was any such thing as a mandatory cycle lane, but in any case if the way is
    >clear and any signs and signals don't forbid it, you should be able to proceed, whether you're in a
    >cycle lane or on a road.

    Mandatory cycle lanes refers, I think, to those with solid white lines separating them from the rest
    of the carriageway. The mandatory element means motor vehicles Must Not drive or park in them.
    Advisory cycle lanes have a broken white line. Motor vehicles shouldn't park or drive in them
    "unless it is unavoidable" (HC rule 119).

    As cyclists we are free to use or ignore them. When undertaking both the motorist and (in my case)
    the cyclist tend to switch off from each other. This can be dangerous when the cycle lane ends.
    >
    >> I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and
    >> so position themselves to the right making it difficult to overtake conventionally.
    >
    >Try and plan ahead. I only overtake or undertake when I can see a clear space I'm going to move to,
    >as that way I'm unlikely to get trapped in a vulnerable spot. I'll pass on whichever side looks
    >safest in that particular situation. It does vary.

    For me I favour the outside line, but I'd agree with the planning ahead bit. Looking behind is also
    a good move - beware other two wheeled traffic doing the same as you.

    Tim
    --

    fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.
     
  7. James G

    James G Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, james g wrote:
    >
    > > Ive recently foudn this group, it's nice to find some other people who
    share
    > > my views on motor vehicles. Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking
    on
    > > the inside)? Is it even legal? What about when there is a
    mandatory/advisory
    > > cycle lane? I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes coming up
    the
    > > inside (i live in Cambridge) and so position themselves to the right
    making
    > > it difficult to overtake conventionally. I normally only do it in order
    to
    > > reach those box things in front of traffic lights when there is a right filter lane and i want
    > > to go left or straight on.
    >
    > I have just been knocked off with damage to self and a bike "undertaking" a car in a cycle lane in
    > Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it to be my fault. Neither my
    > right away nor the fact that he would have been wiser not to overtake me immediately before
    > turning had occurred to him!
    >
    > Had there been no cycle lane, I would not have deliberately "undertaken" unless the traffic was
    > stationary or in queues and there was plenty of space.
    >
    I hope you took his details, i'm not that clued up on these things but i think you should be able to
    claim off his insurance. He was probably in the wrong because vehicles turning left have to give way
    to buses/cycles in bus/cycle lanes.
     
  8. dja25

    dja25 Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, james g wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > > I have just been knocked off with damage to self and a bike "undertaking" a car in a cycle lane
    > > in Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it to be my fault. Neither
    > > my right away nor the fact that he would have been wiser not to overtake me immediately before
    > > turning had occurred to him!
    > >
    > > Had there been no cycle lane, I would not have deliberately "undertaken" unless the traffic was
    > > stationary or in queues and there was plenty of space.
    >
    > I hope you took his details, i'm not that clued up on these things but i think you should be able
    > to claim off his insurance. He was probably in the wrong because vehicles turning left have to
    > give way to buses/cycles in bus/cycle lanes.

    I did. However, my injuries were only slight and the damage turned out to be no more serious than a
    bit of misalignment. Getting it checked and straightend out only cost me ten pounds, so it's hardly
    worth the hastle of chasing him up.

    DJA
     
  9. W K

    W K Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pine.LNX.4.33.0302181610220.3559-

    > > > a car in a cycle lane in Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to
    turn
    > > > left, he believes it to be my fault.

    At what point did he overtake you? If he has only just overtaken you or are alongside him, he is in
    the wrong. How long had he overtaken you in terms of seconds or feet since the back of his car
    passed you.

    > I did. However, my injuries were only slight and the damage turned out to be no more serious than
    > a bit of misalignment. Getting it checked and straightend out only cost me ten pounds, so it's
    > hardly worth the hastle of chasing him up.

    Maybe, but next time they might do worse. AND he'll probably think he was in the right.
     
  10. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > What about when there is a mandatory/advisory cycle lane?
    >
    > I didn't realise there was any such thing as a mandatory cycle lane, but in any case if the way is
    > clear and any signs and signals don't forbid it, you should be able to proceed, whether you're in
    > a cycle lane or on a road.

    It's a case of unfortunate terminology. Lanes marked by broken lines are advisory and those
    marked by solid ones are mandatory although they may be in force at certain times only.
    "Mandatory" in this case means that motor vehicles have to keep out of them. It doesn't mean that
    cycles have to use them.

    --
    Dave...
     
  11. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:22:01 +0000, Tim Hall scrawled: ) Watch out too for pedestrians crossing
    berween lines of stationary ) motor vehicles whilst you whizz up between them.

    Yes. Ow. The memory of it makes me wince. I only wish I could do those sort of somersaults on
    demand, rather than over the handlebars and the semi-prone figure of an exchange student.

    She was short. The vehicles were tall.

    J-P
    --
    Geri Halliwell's dog has been attacked by geese.
     
  12. Daniel Auger wrote:
    > I have just been knocked off with damage to self and a bike "undertaking" a car in a cycle lane in
    > Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it to be my fault. Neither my
    > right away nor the fact that he would have been wiser not to overtake me immediately before
    > turning had occurred to him!

    After 6 years of riding about 40-50 miles a week in Cambridge, I have not been knocked off. Er, I
    have not been knocked off by a car, but I have been knocked off by a bike...

    Anyway this sort of collision is avoidable. Granted a driver should not turn left into you, whether
    or not there is a cycle lane. But this is a very common hazard, and you need to be aware of the high
    possibility of it occuring and need to avoid it at all costs. If a driver is signalling left, pass
    to the left of him ONLY if he is held up at a traffic light and you're absolutely certain that the
    light will stay red long enough for you to get by, or else the traffic is so stuck that you're
    absolutely certain that there is time for you to get by him before he comes up to his turn, or else
    you are absolutely certain that the driver has seen you, knows you are there, and will let you
    continue on before he turns left. If there is any doubt, DO NOT go to the left of him, even if you
    feel it is your right to do so. It's your skin and bike that will take the damage if you take the
    chance and get it wrong.

    -Myra
     
  13. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Myra VanInwegen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > If a driver is signalling left, pass to the left of him ONLY if ...

    Blimey! I knew Cambridge was full of intellectuals - a driver signalling! Whatever next?

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
  14. Bob Flemming

    Bob Flemming Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:58:15 +0000, Peter Clinch
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >james g wrote:
    >> Whats your take on undertaking (overtaking on the inside)?
    >
    >As with most questions asked on Usenet, the answer is "it depends".
    >
    > > Is it even legal?
    >
    >Certainly. There's nothing at all wrong with undertaking in traffic, everyone does it all the time
    >(motor vehicles and cycles).

    Hummm...I've often wondered about this. It's been a while since I looked at the highway code <that
    memorable day!!>. Whenever I undertake on the left, I am always saying to myself, 'at your own peril
    my son, if anything goes wrong here, you won't have a leg to stand on in relation to liability...not
    undertaking on the left in this situation'. ??

    And I'm refering to undertaking in a slow moving line of traffic, not undertaking a car that is
    waiting and signalling to turn right, for example.

    In pure legal/highway code laws is it not 'illegal' to undertake, within a single lane/road??

    Just not clear about this at all!

    bob

    >However, just because it's perfectly legal doesn't necessarily mean you've been seen doing it. As
    >with any overtaking on either side, proceed only after judging it to be safe and worth your while.
    >
    > > What about when there is a mandatory/advisory
    >> cycle lane?
    >
    >I didn't realise there was any such thing as a mandatory cycle lane, but in any case if the way is
    >clear and any signs and signals don't forbid it, you should be able to proceed, whether you're in a
    >cycle lane or on a road.
    >
    >> I sometimes find that motorists anticipate bikes coming up the inside (i live in Cambridge) and
    >> so position themselves to the right making it difficult to overtake conventionally.
    >
    >Try and plan ahead. I only overtake or undertake when I can see a clear space I'm going to move to,
    >as that way I'm unlikely to get trapped in a vulnerable spot. I'll pass on whichever side looks
    >safest in that particular situation. It does vary.
    >
    >Pete.
     
  15. dja25

    dja25 Guest

    On 18 Feb 2003, Myra VanInwegen wrote:

    > Daniel Auger wrote:
    > > I have just been knocked off with damage to self and a bike "undertaking" a car in a cycle lane
    > > in Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it to be my fault. Neither
    > > my right away nor the fact that he would have been wiser not to overtake me immediately before
    > > turning had occurred to him!
    >
    > After 6 years of riding about 40-50 miles a week in Cambridge, I have not been knocked off. Er, I
    > have not been knocked off by a car, but I have been knocked off by a bike...
    >
    > Anyway this sort of collision is avoidable. Granted a driver should not turn left into you,
    > whether or not there is a cycle lane. But this is a very common hazard, and you need to be aware
    > of the high possibility of it occuring and need to avoid it at all costs. If a driver is
    > signalling left, pass to the left of him ONLY if he is held up at a traffic light and you're
    > absolutely certain that the light will stay red long enough for you to get by, or else the traffic
    > is so stuck that you're absolutely certain that there is time for you to get by him before he
    > comes up to his turn, or else you are absolutely certain that the driver has seen you, knows you
    > are there, and will let you continue on before he turns left. If there is any doubt, DO NOT go to
    > the left of him, even if you feel it is your right to do so. It's your skin and bike that will
    > take the damage if you take the chance and get it wrong.

    This would have been easier had he not just overtaken me. :) I didn't really have enough
    time to stop.

    --
    Daniel Auger - mailto:[email protected]
     
  16. dja25

    dja25 Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, W K wrote:

    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pine.LNX.4.33.0302181610220.3559-
    >
    > > > > a car in a cycle lane in Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to
    > turn
    > > > > left, he believes it to be my fault.
    >
    > At what point did he overtake you? If he has only just overtaken you or are alongside him, he is
    > in the wrong. How long had he overtaken you in terms of seconds or feet since the back of his car
    > passed you.

    Not very much before - not enough time for me to avoid the collision.

    The Highway Code suggests that he would have been wrong in any case. See
    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#158

    --
    Daniel Auger - mailto:[email protected]
     
  17. Isn't it the case in the Netherlands that cyclists have absolute right of way over motorists and
    that motorists are always deemed to be at fault in incidents involving cyclists? I'm sure this has
    been explained to me by several locals when I've been in the Netherlands.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  18. [email protected] wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, W K wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pine.LNX.4.33.0302181610220.3559-
    >>
    >>>>> a car in a cycle lane in Cambridge. As the driver was indicating to turn left, he believes it
    >>>>> to be my fault.
    >>
    >> At what point did he overtake you? If he has only just overtaken you or are alongside him, he is
    >> in the wrong. How long had he overtaken you in terms of seconds or feet since the back of his car
    >> passed you.
    >
    > Not very much before - not enough time for me to avoid the collision.
    >
    > The Highway Code suggests that he would have been wrong in any case. See
    > http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#158

    Was there a give way line on your cycle path at the junction that might have suggested you should
    give way to left turning traffic?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  19. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Isn't it the case in the Netherlands that cyclists have absolute right of way over motorists and
    > that motorists are always deemed to be at fault in incidents involving cyclists? I'm sure this has
    > been explained to me by several locals when I've been in the Netherlands.

    I think you may be confusing the insurance requirements. I understand that there is effectively a no
    fault system such that the car drivers insurance pay (unless the driver can show the cyclist behaved
    maliciously). I don't think cyclist have an absolute right of way any more than pedestrians have
    here -- though it is still considered bad form to run them down -- even if they are standing in the
    middle of your lane.

    :eek:
     
  20. Tony W wrote:
    >
    > I think you may be confusing the insurance requirements.

    No, perhaps my informants were confusing the insurance requirements. ;-)
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...