Who should all those motorcycle safety signs be aimed at ?

[shanes teeth]

We can both agree on that one.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 17:22 ----------

 

 

Sorry, what point are you making ? Do we have a breakdown in communication ? Just to clarify : I`m saying those posters would be far more effective targeting motorcyclists like the idiot who overtook me on the inside whilst I was in the left hand lane passing a left turn, crazy riding. Overtaking in such circumstances in car is stupid enough, to do so on a bike when your limbs (and life) are in much higher danger is beyond comprehension to me. If those signs send the message to motorcyclists that all the car drivers are expecting them to make those kind of manoeuvres and will make sure they stay out of their way, they`re actually counter productive in terms of road safety. What is wrong with that, I wouldn`t have thought anyone could disagree with it.

Are you really trying to say such riding is anything other than MAD ?

On the subject of drinking, I wonder whether that motorcyclist had been ? Maybe so.[color=

 

I am a motorcyclist and have been for the last 40 years with no accidents or traffic offences. I rarely filter and when I do it is along stationary and very slow moving traffic and whenever possible on the right of the queue. I consider it to be a dangerous manoeuvre. I don't think I have any particular skills that many riders don't have but I do have experience,I ride defensively and over the years I must have had a fair amount of luck. Luck not to have encountered too many drivers as bad as you have admitted to being. You are right about the motorcyclist being the one to come off worse but in the scenario you describe in your OP the FAULT for such an accident lies with you and you alone. Think on!

Edited November 20, 2015 by shanes teeth

[MLAR]

No, you're still wrong.

 

The cycle lane is ANOTHER LANE. A car cannot be in it.

 

So if you turn left and hit a motorcycle that is (wrongly) in the cycle lane, then you are still at fault.

You should not be turning left without checking your mirrors and blind spot.

 

.

 

You aren't totally at fault though. Highway code rule 167, which is quoted above places a responsibility on the vehicle that is overtaking to do so in a safe place. That is obviously not where there is a left turn. Indeed the HC specifically mentions junctions as an example of a place not to overtake.

 

There is plenty of case law to amplify this. Many, many claims end up in shared responsibility. Quite often 60:40 one way or the other, depending upon the precise circumstances.

 

As a road user of far too many year's experience, one of the most valuable lessons that I've learned is that nothing is simple. Those who believe that fault can be simply attributed in some kind of binary way, are usually those who are wrong.

Edited November 20, 2015 by MLAR

[scania]

Highway code. Note how it doesn't say Stationary.

 

Rule 151

In slow-moving traffic. You should

 

be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

 

Rule 160

Once moving you should

 

be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room

 

Mirrors. All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should

 

use them in good time before you signal or change direction or speed

be aware that mirrors do not cover all areas and there will be blind spots. You will need to look round and check.

 

Turning left

Rule 182

... watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 09:54 ----------

 

 

Because they can safely pass a long line of cars and there is no good reason for them to wait in a pointless queue created by lots of single occupancy vehicles built to carry 5...

 

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.

 

I Cycloned this from google.

 

Theres also more stuff about how the word "should" is used, rather than the word "must". Its all about common sense and some of these motorbike lads are a bit nuts, not to mention sweaty cyclists who are too out of breath to concentrate on the road. I do agree that as a motorist, you really must check your mirrors before a manoeuvre as regardless who was at fault, non of us are murderers.

[WiseOwl182]

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre. It's 17th birthday stuff. Making a turn without looking or signalling would be pretty reckless.

[scania]

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre. It's 17th birthday stuff. Making a turn without looking or signalling would be pretty reckless.

 

I agree, but there is a point about recklessness regarding undertaking. Always check mirrors, but you can't legislate for a fast moving crazed biker or push ironist.

[Cyclone]

You aren't totally at fault though. Highway code rule 167, which is quoted above places a responsibility on the vehicle that is overtaking to do so in a safe place. That is obviously not where there is a left turn. Indeed the HC specifically mentions junctions as an example of a place not to overtake.

 

There is plenty of case law to amplify this. Many, many claims end up in shared responsibility. Quite often 60:40 one way or the other, depending upon the precise circumstances.

 

As a road user of far too many year's experience, one of the most valuable lessons that I've learned is that nothing is simple. Those who believe that fault can be simply attributed in some kind of binary way, are usually those who are wrong.

 

The maneuver he talks about is no different from someone trying to take the left hand exit from the right hand lane and crashing into someone. Arguing that they shouldn't be there doesn't mean you don't have to look in your mirror before crossing another lane (which is what the cycle lane is).

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 19:14 ----------

 

I agree, but there is a point about recklessness regarding undertaking. Always check mirrors, but you can't legislate for a fast moving crazed biker or push ironist.

 

What legislation do you imagine is needed for a cyclist using the cycle lane and passing cars that are in the next lane?

[scania]

The maneuver he talks about is no different from someone trying to take the left hand exit from the right hand lane and crashing into someone. Arguing that they shouldn't be there doesn't mean you don't have to look in your mirror before crossing another lane (which is what the cycle lane is).

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 19:14 ----------

 

 

What legislation do you imagine is needed for a cyclist using the cycle lane and passing cars that are in the next lane?

 

It does not matter a jot if cyclists are in the cycle lane. If there are roads that lead off the same road, then the cyclist must be aware there is a possibility a vehicle may indicate and turn. I also said that vehicles must use their mirrors and check, but you couldnt have read that bit. :huh:

[Cyclone]

Yes, the cyclist should be aware that a motorist might do that.

And obviously the motorist being in the wrong won't magically bring the cyclist back to life.

 

But that doesn't alter the fact that the motorist would be in the wrong.

 

So what legislation do you imagine is needed? You said

 

"but you can't legislate for a fast moving crazed biker or push ironist."

 

Implying that they're somehow in the wrong, or are they not, is the motorist who hits them in the wrong?

[scania]

Yes, the cyclist should be aware that a motorist might do that.

And obviously the motorist being in the wrong won't magically bring the cyclist back to life.

 

But that doesn't alter the fact that the motorist would be in the wrong.

 

So what legislation do you imagine is needed? You said

 

"but you can't legislate for a fast moving crazed biker or push ironist."

 

Implying that they're somehow in the wrong, or are they not, is the motorist who hits them in the wrong?

 

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.

[stifflersmom]

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.

 

Er no. It is up to the motorist turning left to ensure they do so without the cyclist having to alter their speed. Signalling an intention to turn does not mean other road users should alter their progress to accommodate that. One of the difficulties that motorists who don't cycle have is in judging the speed of cyclists, whether that is approach speed at junctions, or the speed of a cyclist in a dedicated lane in otherwise slow moving traffic where there can be a significant differential in speed.