Who should all those motorcycle safety signs be aimed at ?

[Cyclone]

If a motorist indicates and maneuvers in good time, and a collision occurs from an undertaking road user coming too fast or not paying attention, then the motorist is most certainly not in the wrong. Not all cyclists are drivers you know, and a lot of them are pretty dim when it comes to road sense.

 

No, indicating does not give you any right to move into another lane. You cannot and should not expect another road user to maneuver (and that includes braking) to avoid you.

 

And why are you refusing to answer the simple question about what legislation you think is required?

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 09:14 ----------

 

Whether you are "filtering", or not is irrelevant. If you are trying to pass another vehicle, then you are overtaking. So, Highway Code rule 167 is all that you need to know.

 

Just don't filter past junctions. If cyclists do that and motorists check their mirrors, far fewer people will die.

 

So cyclists should do what when using a cycle lane and passing a junction (where there is traffic moving slowly in the main carriageway)?

 

They should stop, and never proceed. Because if they proceed they will be passing a vehicle on the inside...

 

No, you're quite clearly wrong.

The cyclist has a clear lane, they should be proceeding. Cars should not turn across that lane without ensuring it is a clear, just like a car in the 2nd lane wouldn't suddenly swerve across the inner lane to the exit without confirming it was clear.

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 09:15 ----------

 

You can't educate pork.

 

Ironically, in this discussion, you're the pig.

 

Actually, with your anti cyclist avatar, it's hardly surprising that you don't know how to drive safely around them is it.

[MLAR]

 

So cyclists should do what when using a cycle lane and passing a junction (where there is traffic moving slowly in the main carriageway)?

 

They should stop, and never proceed. Because if they proceed they will be passing a vehicle on the inside...

 

No, you're quite clearly wrong.

The cyclist has a clear lane, they should be proceeding.

 

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

[JFKvsNixon]

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

 

Does that mean that cars shouldn't filter through traffic at junctions?

[stifflersmom]

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

If you are in a cycle lane or bus lane and are going faster than the traffic in other lanes you are not overtaking. It is really simple. That is why you don't see buses giving way at every side junction.

[Cyclone]

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

 

You understand that an overtake is where you are behind a vehicle, then you move out, pass it and pull back in?

At least with regards to that rule.

The actual official highway code, instead of whatever you were linking too includes several helpful diagrams for you;

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 11:02 ----------

 

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

 

This is why cyclists are in danger all the time.

 

People who simply don't understand the highway code, and will kill a cyclist because they think they have the right of way and/or can't be bothered to look in their mirrors.

[sgtkate]

If you are in a cycle lane or bus lane and are going faster than the traffic in other lanes you are not overtaking. It is really simple. That is why you don't see buses giving way at every side junction.

 

Is there a legal definition on what is overtaking? I always though the rule 167 was referring to an intentional overtake, i.e. where you switch the inside lane with the main aim of overtaking, not if it just happens that your lane is going faster than the outside lane for example in queuing traffic.

 

 

Ah cyclone may have just posted it.

[Cyclone]

This rule would seem to be key actually. 183.

 

Rule 183

When turning

 

keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable

give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

 

That makes it VERY clear that someone in the cycle or bus or tram lane has priority over someone turning.

 

Conclusive proof that Justin, scania and now MLAR were all wrong and need to go and study the highway code a bit more.

 

That said, if cycling, I wouldn't go up the inside of a vehicle that was already indicating left, as that would be putting myself at risk, the OP though had someone "forgetting" to indicate (or look) and Justin still felt that they were not in the wrong.

[Obelix]

Which bit of rule 167 do you not understand?

 

You can't just pick and choose the bits of the Highway Code that you like and disregard the rest.

 

The only thinkg you need to consider is the Road Traffic Act. 1988

 

Section 3

 

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence"

 

If you are going to turn across a lane where it is likely vehicles are using it, or overtaking, without looking for them, then you are not showing due care in your driving.

 

it's that simple. It doesn't matter if the over or undertake is illegal, unwise, foolish, unexpected or just odd. If you do anything that can cause a danger, and in doing so you fail to have reasonable consideration for other users of the highway or you fail to be sufficiently careful in the movement of your vehicle, you are going to have to accept some culpability for the outcome.

 

Changing lanes without looking or failing to see an approaching hazard is not being careful.

[peak4]

Thankyou Obelix, I sometimes wish there was a "Like" button on this forum.

[RonJeremy]

The ignorance of the highway code and the ability to understand what is dangerous on the roads on here is astonishing.