undertaking

(Myra VanInwegen) said:

Daniel Auger said:

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.

[Good advice trimmed.]

Not passing a driver on the inside unless you are sure it is ok is one thing, but how do you avoid
the closely related problem of the driver who overtakes and immediately turns left (in my case
into a driveway, not at a road junction, and without indicating until after starting turning (not
that that stopped him saying "didn't you see me indicate?" as though I had somewhere to go when he
did)? (It was more than six years ago that that happened to me though (but with a lower town
milage than you (I was doing 10 miles each way to work at the time, but mostly out of town and it
didn't last long))).

Quoted message said:

If a driver is signalling left

Or even if he isn't signalling. Even if he is signalling right, in fact, since a driver who
realizes at the last moment that he wants to go the other way after all probably won't check his
inside first.

Quoted message said:

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

In which case you should still beware of a passenger suddenly deciding to get out here and opening a
door into your path.

Alan Braggins said:

Not passing a driver on the inside unless you are sure it is ok is one thing, but how do you
avoid the closely related problem of the driver who overtakes and immediately turns left (in my
case into a driveway, not at a road junction, and without indicating until after starting turning
(not that that stopped him saying "didn't you see me indicate?" as though I had somewhere to go
when he did)?

'Cyclecraft' says that this is one of the commonest causes of collisions with cyclists. It says the
only response is to make a tight left turn. (Excellent book - thanks to all those on this NG who
recommend it.)
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy said:

Alan Braggins said:

Not passing a driver on the inside unless you are sure it is ok is one thing, but how do you
avoid the closely related problem of the driver who overtakes and immediately turns left (in my
case into a driveway, not at a road junction, and without indicating until after starting
turning (not that that stopped him saying "didn't you see me indicate?" as though I had
somewhere to go when he did)?

'Cyclecraft' says that this is one of the commonest causes of collisions with cyclists. It says
the only response is to make a tight left turn. (Excellent book - thanks to all those on this NG
who recommend it.)

I think I shall find a quiet stretch of road and practice that one!

--
Daniel Auger - "][email hidden]

james g said:

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)?

Hi (yet another) James

As far as I am aware, undertaking in slow-moving traffic is legal. However, I have not read the
highway code for far too many years.

I do undertake other traffic myself but only when that traffic is either stationary or moving
extremely slowly. I always keep a beady eye on the indicator lights of cars I'm about to pass and
those I am currently passing, and NEVER EVER undertake HGVs, small commercial vehicles (white vans
etc) or busses. Let any medium length or long vehicle do its own thing.

If in doubt, don't do it. Better a few seconds' delay rather than a lengthy stay in
hospital, or worse.

It seems to me that when you wish to overtake on the right (correct) side, cars will move over to
the right, and vice versa. Sod's law, I guess.

Regards James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

W K said:

<[email hidden]> 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
highwaycode.gov.uk16.shtmlOpen ↗

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?

No. (It was a cycle lane on the road rather than a roadside path.)

--
Daniel Auger - "][email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, W K wrote:

>
> <[email hidden]> 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
highwaycode.gov.uk16.shtmlOpen ↗

Was there a give way line on your cycle path at the junction that might

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

suggested you should give way to left turning traffic?

No. (It was a cycle lane on the road rather than a roadside path.)

Where was it? (not that I live in cambridge any more...)

cheers, clive

Clive George said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The Highway Code suggests that he would have been wrong in any case. See
> highwaycode.gov.uk16.shtmlOpen ↗

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?

No. (It was a cycle lane on the road rather than a roadside path.)

Where was it? (not that I live in cambridge any more...)

Huntingdon Road. I was going downhill, and he was turning into Shire Hall car park.

--
Daniel Auger - "][email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

Quoted message said:

> > The Highway Code suggests that he would have been wrong in any

case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > See highwaycode.gov.uk16.shtmlOpen ↗
>
> Was there a give way line on your cycle path at the junction that

might

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> have suggested you should give way to left turning traffic?

No. (It was a cycle lane on the road rather than a roadside path.)

Where was it? (not that I live in cambridge any more...)

Huntingdon Road. I was going downhill, and he was turning into Shire Hall car park.

Ah yes - one has to be somewhat careful there (isn't it Castle Street by then?). I never used the
cycle lane, although I suspect my main reason for avoiding trouble was being later than everybody
else. 'Primary position', ie make sure nobody overtakes you. You're going downhill, ie fast, there's
going to be a queue at the lights anyway, so they can bugger off. And don't undertake to pass them,
go past on the right. If a car overtakes you then slows for no apparently good reason, be ready for
them to do almost anything. They are that stupid.

But you probably know all of this already.

Your original description said you were undertaking - if you were, then you've probably got no case.
Later on you describe it as being cut up by car turning left. The difference is was it reasonable
for you to be able to stop when the car who had just overtaken you slowed and turned. (this does
_not_ excuse the behaviour of the driver btw). If it wasn't, ie the crash wasn't reasonably
avoidable, then come down on him like a ton of bricks. It was an injury accident - it was reported
to the police, wan't it? I've always regretted not pursuing such cases, so I encourage others to do
so. (And join the ctc for legal help in cases like this - cheap rates for students. And join the
caving club, but that's nothing to do with cycling
:-)).

cheers, clive

Clive George said:

Ah yes - one has to be somewhat careful there (isn't it Castle Street by then?).

Yes - it probably is.

Quoted message said:

I never used the cycle lane, although I suspect my main reason for avoiding trouble was being
later than everybody else. 'Primary position', ie make sure nobody overtakes you. You're going
downhill, ie fast, there's going to be a queue at the lights anyway, so they can bugger off. And
don't undertake to pass them, go past on the right. If a car overtakes you then slows for no
apparently good reason, be ready for them to do almost anything. They are that stupid.

But you probably know all of this already.

Your original description said you were undertaking - if you were, then you've probably got no
case. Later on you describe it as being cut up by car turning left.

OK - maybe "undertaking" was a bad phrase. I meant that I was in the "secondary" road position
because I was using the cycle lane, and thus found my path going to the left of a left-indicating
car. My reason for posting was to emphasize that moving past on the left of a car is not a
particularly safe thing to do.

Quoted message said:

The difference is was it reasonable for you to be able to stop when the car who had just overtaken
you slowed and turned. (this does _not_ excuse the behaviour of the driver btw).

I don't think it was, since I would have done. I was fully awake and not under the influence of
anything, and did my best to stop the bike as fast as I could as soon as I realised what was
happening. Possibly a more experienced cyclist would have realised what was going on sooner, but we
are talking about fractions of a second.

Quoted message said:

If it wasn't, ie the crash wasn't reasonably avoidable, then come down on him like a ton of
bricks. It was an injury accident - it was reported to the police, wan't it?

Yes, but they told me there was nothing they could do, and they could not make a record of it.

DJA

David Pipes said:

Cyclists in the Netherlands _believe_ they have an absolute right of way irrespective of whether
the law agrees with them.

They have a certain amount of justification in that belief, AIUI....

Quoted message said:

I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.

Bicycles *are* vehicles!

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

In message <[email hidden]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:12:09 +0000, David Pipes <[email hidden]> wrote:

<Snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.

Bicycles *are* vehicles!

I don't believe I said they weren't.
--
DP

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it wasn't, ie the crash wasn't reasonably avoidable, then come down on him like a ton of
bricks. It was an injury accident - it was reported to the police, wan't it?

Yes, but they told me there was nothing they could do, and they could not make a record of it.

Tosh. They must record it, and you should insist on a reference number. They could do something too,
but without another witness it probably wouldn't achieve anything. But at least it'll get into the
statistics.

Colin McKenzie

David Pipes said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.

Bicycles *are* vehicles!

I don't believe I said they weren't.

In wihch case it would be "a motor vehicle" or "another vehicle" :-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

In message <[email hidden]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

David Pipes said:

Quoted message said:

>I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.
Bicycles *are* vehicles!

I don't believe I said they weren't.

In wihch case it would be "a motor vehicle" or "another vehicle" :-)

What if I'd seen a cyclist knocked off by something else? Which I have.
--
DP

David Pipes said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.
>Bicycles *are* vehicles!
I don't believe I said they weren't.

In wihch case it would be "a motor vehicle" or "another vehicle" :-)

What if I'd seen a cyclist knocked off by something else? Which I have.

That's not by "another vehicle" or "a motor vehicle."

I'm not putting the boot in, David, just posting the compulasory correction when a post appears to
make a distinction between a bicycle and a vehicle - a bicycle *is* a vehicle and travels on the
roads as such.

I know you had no intention to suggest the bicycle is not a vehicle.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

In message <[email hidden]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

David Pipes said:

Quoted message said:

>>>I've yet (in 35 years visiting the Netherlands) to see one knocked off by a vehicle.
>>Bicycles *are* vehicles!
>I don't believe I said they weren't.
In wihch case it would be "a motor vehicle" or "another vehicle" :-)

What if I'd seen a cyclist knocked off by something else? Which I have.

That's not by "another vehicle" or "a motor vehicle."

Indeed, it's not a vehicle of any description which is why I typed what I typed. I just couldn't be
bothered to add "....but I have seen one knocked off by a dog!"

Quoted message said:

I'm not putting the boot in, David, just posting the compulasory correction when a post appears to
make a distinction between a bicycle and a vehicle - a bicycle *is* a vehicle and travels on the
roads as such.

S'OK, perhaps I should have made it clearer - though the dog incident happened on a cycle path -
'nuff said;-)

Quoted message said:

I know you had no intention to suggest the bicycle is not a vehicle.

I know you know :-)
--
DP