Why do some cyclists overtake on the left?

John Benn wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the
left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking
why they did this and held up traffic.

Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to
overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior.
=============================

I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if
they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass.

Some roads and places traffic huggs the center line, or there is a half
decent Bike lane.

once it gets chocker though mostly I find you need to swap sides since
space and visablity changes,

likewise get some roads where it's wide and straight with out oncomming
traffic that I can just roll down the right lane.

simple hard rules don't work there are places where to filter/overtake
is foolish and where it makes sence to go left or right.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 18/08/2012 09:17, Colin Reed wrote:

On 18/08/12 00:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2012 23:32, Colin Reed wrote:

[ ... ]

I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order to do
so you must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all the
motorists, most also do not leave enough room between themselves and
the vehicle in front for an overtake on the right side.

If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so that
you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so
much an overtaking move as a queue-jump.

So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued
on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue
jumping?

...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved
and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's
speed.
Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit?

I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not
walking past cars.

What *on* *the* *carriageway*, and plonk themselves in a queue of motor
vehicles, such that the motor vehicles behind them could move only at
the pedestrians' speed?
What happened after you woke up?

You appear to be arguing with yourself. Only you have mentioned
plonking pedestrians right in front of cars.

Don't wriggle.

You said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" in the context of
overtaking and/or queue-jumping. That means within the same traffic stream.

The only traffic stream within which pedestrians habitually move is the
quasi-cycle-path known as the footway.

A pedestrian walking on the footway past a stationary vehicle on the
carriageway cannot credibly be said to be either overtaking or queue-jumping.

I repeat: if you need a space between the front of the stationary vehicle you
are overtaking and the rear of the stationary vehicle in front of him, you
are not overtaking. You are queue-jumping.

I suppose you are trying
to make a comparison that cyclists "queue jump" and then immediately
(and possibly deliberately) hold up the traffic. However, everyone else
has merely written about overtaking queueing traffic, as have I.

If you can overtake without queue-jumping (it IS possible in some
circumstances, using any type of vehicle), all well and good. But if you
intend (or need) to pull into a space between two queueing stationary
vehicles ahead of you, you are simply queue-jumping. There is no other
description that fits. It is a lousy way to behave, BTW.

[ ... ]

He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that
visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down
the LHS.

The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side -
geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods
that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more
effective on the driver's side?

The driver has a better view of what is on the offside of his vehicle because
he hasn't got the mass of the vehicle between him and it. Sit in the driving
seat of a lorry and experience the lack of vision down the nearside for yourself.

If you think the size of the upper B post is a bigger problem than that, your
car must look very odd.

You reckon that the offside A post blocks rearward vision down the
offside flank of the vehicle?
I see.

No, I said that the closer an obstruction is to the observer, the wider
the angle of the blind spot - and that there are potential methods to
reduce the blind spot for the driver. What do you suggest makes them
always more effective on the driver's side?

I don't know that they are more "effective".

And doubly wrong if he thinks that it justifies the stupidity
of overtaking on the nearside:

Apart from it being your opinion, what makes you so sure about this?
What made you form this opinion?

Did you read the recent report of the cyclist killed when he tried to
undertake a left-turning bus (as retold by another cyclist who witnessed
the incident but was far too canny and cautious to try the same trick)?

Are all vehicles buses? Were we talking about general points or do you
now want to specify purely left turning buses? I understand if you wish
to move the goalposts of the discussion - it's ok.

The stupidity of passing a large vehicle on the nearside should obvious
enough - it's all to do with bad things that might happen to you.

The stupidity of passing any vehicle on the nearside may be a little too
subtle for you and certain others. The basic principle is that we make
progress on the left and overtake on the right. That means that any road-user
is actually under an obligation to keep left and others are under an
obligation to allow him to do so (after all, he might need to stop). Passing
on the nearside breaches that fundamental rule of the road. So it's just as
much about the bad things you are doing to the people you undertake as about
the bad things that might happen to you.

Of course, I quite understand that you might not be very bothered about doing
bad things to other people as long as you feel you can get away with it.

The rule about not overtaking on the nearside
applies in many countries, and for several reasons, including the
driver not normally being on that side of the vehicle.

On 18/08/12 19:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/08/2012 09:17, Colin Reed wrote:

On 18/08/12 00:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2012 23:32, Colin Reed wrote:

[ ... ]

I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order
to do
so you must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all
the
motorists, most also do not leave enough room between themselves
and
the vehicle in front for an overtake on the right side.

If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so
that
you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so
much an overtaking move as a queue-jump.

So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is
queued
on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be
queue
jumping?

...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved
and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's
speed.
Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit?

I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not
walking past cars.

What *on* *the* *carriageway*, and plonk themselves in a queue of motor
vehicles, such that the motor vehicles behind them could move only at
the pedestrians' speed?
What happened after you woke up?

You appear to be arguing with yourself. Only you have mentioned
plonking pedestrians right in front of cars.

Don't wriggle.

You said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" in the context of
overtaking and/or queue-jumping. That means within the same traffic stream.

You are making another good job of defining what the other person is
arguing. I said "I have seen pedestrians walk past cars" after
previously having asked "So if you're walking on a lane with no
pavement, and traffic is queued on it, then you should not walk past the
traffic as that would be queue jumping?"

I have a road around 400 metres from my house where there is no
footpath. If there is a traffic jam, and I am walking into town, would
walking past the stationary traffic where there is no footpath be
considered queue jumping in your mind? It's a straight forward question
- and no where did I say that they must be in the same traffic stream,
or anything about plonking themselves in front of traffic. You added
that all by yourself. All your own work. Well, done, but read the
question fully before starting your answer.


The only traffic stream within which pedestrians habitually move is the
quasi-cycle-path known as the footway.

A pedestrian walking on the footway past a stationary vehicle on the
carriageway cannot credibly be said to be either overtaking or
queue-jumping.

I repeat: if you need a space between the front of the stationary
vehicle you are overtaking and the rear of the stationary vehicle in
front of him, you are not overtaking. You are queue-jumping.

Although no-one else has mentioned space between the front and rear of
two vehicles for taking the space - only for passing a stationary queue.
It's called making way.


I suppose you are trying
to make a comparison that cyclists "queue jump" and then immediately
(and possibly deliberately) hold up the traffic. However, everyone else
has merely written about overtaking queueing traffic, as have I.

If you can overtake without queue-jumping (it IS possible in some
circumstances, using any type of vehicle), all well and good. But if you
intend (or need) to pull into a space between two queueing stationary
vehicles ahead of you, you are simply queue-jumping. There is no other
description that fits. It is a lousy way to behave, BTW.

We get it - you don't like queue jumping - even to the point where
you'll think that people are describing it when they're not. After all,
just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that everyone *isn't* out
to get you.


[ ... ]

He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that
visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down
the LHS.

The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side -
geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods
that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more
effective on the driver's side?

The driver has a better view of what is on the offside of his vehicle
because he hasn't got the mass of the vehicle between him and it. Sit in
the driving seat of a lorry and experience the lack of vision down the
nearside for yourself.

If you think the size of the upper B post is a bigger problem than that,
your car must look very odd.

You reckon that the offside A post blocks rearward vision down the
offside flank of the vehicle?
I see.

No, I said that the closer an obstruction is to the observer, the wider
the angle of the blind spot - and that there are potential methods to
reduce the blind spot for the driver. What do you suggest makes them
always more effective on the driver's side?

I don't know that they are more "effective".

And doubly wrong if he thinks that it justifies the stupidity
of overtaking on the nearside:

Apart from it being your opinion, what makes you so sure about this?
What made you form this opinion?

Did you read the recent report of the cyclist killed when he tried to
undertake a left-turning bus (as retold by another cyclist who witnessed
the incident but was far too canny and cautious to try the same trick)?

Are all vehicles buses? Were we talking about general points or do you
now want to specify purely left turning buses? I understand if you wish
to move the goalposts of the discussion - it's ok.

The stupidity of passing a large vehicle on the nearside should obvious
enough - it's all to do with bad things that might happen to you.

The stupidity of passing any vehicle on the nearside may be a little too
subtle for you and certain others. The basic principle is that we make
progress on the left and overtake on the right. That means that any
road-user is actually under an obligation to keep left and others are
under an obligation to allow him to do so (after all, he might need to
stop). Passing on the nearside breaches that fundamental rule of the
road. So it's just as much about the bad things you are doing to the
people you undertake as about the bad things that might happen to you.

Of course, I quite understand that you might not be very bothered about
doing bad things to other people as long as you feel you can get away
with it.

The rule about not overtaking on the nearside
applies in many countries, and for several reasons, including the
driver not normally being on that side of the vehicle.

Jolly polly wrote:
"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"Jolly polly" wrote in message
...

"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass
on the left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by
a driver by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind
spots to the right of vehicles because of the position of the
driver.

This topic is being discussed in the censored, err. moderated
group at the moment but posts are being deliberately delayed so
much that it's pretty much unusable unless you are on the
whitelist.

whitelist?

Or white list - a list of people who get their posts auto-approved.
Having a chiark email address guarantees being on the white list.

mmm I've posed many times there

I expect there are plenty of admirers.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:38:29 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:21:19 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the
left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the
right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking
why they did this and held up traffic.

Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to
overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior.
=============================

I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it if
they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass.


All cars have been fitted with mirrors on the left hand side for at
least a generation.
=============================

But humans are only fitted with one pair of eyes and they have been for at
least a generation.

They also have a neck that can move through at least 180 degrees

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
...
John Benn wrote:
snip

I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it
if
they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass.

Some roads and places traffic huggs the center line, or there is a half
decent Bike lane.

once it gets chocker though mostly I find you need to swap sides since
space and visablity changes,

likewise get some roads where it's wide and straight with out oncomming
traffic that I can just roll down the right lane.

simple hard rules don't work there are places where to filter/overtake
is foolish and where it makes sence to go left or right.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com


sounds good to me

Colin Reed wrote:
On 16/08/12 22:47, JNugent wrote:
On 16/08/2012 22:36, Colin Reed wrote:
On 16/08/12 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 16/08/2012 15:22, Jolly polly wrote:

"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on
the left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a
driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the
right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

I do sometimes overtake motor vehicles on there right, in order to do
so you
must 'take the lane' this is often not appreciated by all the
motorists, most
also do not leave enough room between themselves and the vehicle in
front for
an overtake on the right side.

If you need space left between vehicles in a stationary queue so that
you can overtake (whether on the left or the right), that is not so much
an overtaking move as a queue-jump.

So if you're walking on a lane with no pavement, and traffic is queued
on it, then you should not walk past the traffic as that would be queue
jumping?

...if you were going to stand in front of one of the vehicles involved
and then hamper the occupants by moving forward only at a pedestrian's
speed.

Have you ever actually seen a pedestrian do as you posit?

I have seen pedestrians walk past cars. I have seen pedestrians not
walking past cars.


As many cyclists do not wish to hinder the progress of a motor vehicle
they will usually stay to the left of a lane, even when overtaking.
I disagree about the blind spots, the obstructions like roof pillars
are
closer to the drivers head on the right, so hide a greater amount of
whatever maybe there.

You are wrong to think so.

He's wrong to think that geometry works?

He is wrong if he thinks that proximity to the A post means that
visibility down the RHS of the vehicle is inferior to visibility down
the LHS.

The blind spot caused by the pillars is larger on the driver's side -
geometry basically shows this to be true. There are potential methods
that can reduce these. What do you suggest makes them always more
effective on the driver's side?

the eyes are positioned considerably nearer to the offside A post thus
movement of the head will enable a view around, on the near side movement
of the head will not enable clear vision past the A post.

with commercial vehicles there are blind spots caused principally by the
height of the eyeball relative to the road.
cyclists near my near side front wheel are visible, they are covered by the
horizontal mirror above the side window whereas cyclists ahead of the scope
of this mirror cannot be seen from the driving position, cyclists towards
the rear of the vehicle can be in a blind spot when they are behind the
scope of the horizontal mirror yet not back far enough to appear in the
normal near side rear view mirror.

--
ennemm

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2012 10:46, Cassandra wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:36:58 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 18/08/2012 10:31, Cassandra wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on
the
left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a
driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the
right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking
why they did this and held up traffic.

Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to
overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior.

Pushbikeists are only able to over (or rather undertake) stationary
traffic. Once moving the child's toy is left behind.

There appears to be a serious design flaw in cars as a means of
transport if they can be beaten by childrens toys.

As I said above, they can only be beaten when stationary. Which bit of
that didn't you understand?

But why are they stationary?

If they are so good they should be moving all the time!

Alan

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/2012 12:43, Cassandra wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:41:42 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 18/08/2012 10:46, Cassandra wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:36:58 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 18/08/2012 10:31, Cassandra wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on
the
left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a
driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to
the right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking
why they did this and held up traffic.

Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to
overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior.

Pushbikeists are only able to over (or rather undertake) stationary
traffic. Once moving the child's toy is left behind.

There appears to be a serious design flaw in cars as a means of
transport if they can be beaten by childrens toys.

As I said above, they can only be beaten when stationary. Which bit of
that didn't you understand?

If I'd bought a vehicle that ceases to function on a regular basis I'd
take it back.

Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending?

One thing is absolutely certain, she is nowhere as stupid as you!

Alan

"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"Cassandra" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:21:19 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Cassandra" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:58:25 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
news:502cf39b$0$3602$7120d902@karibu...
On 16/08/2012 14:14, John Benn wrote:
The Highway Code 163 says:

If the queue
on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the
left


You have published the answer. Please learn to read.

Why not overtake on the right? You are more likely to be seen by a
driver
by passing on the right. There are generally fewer blind spots to the
right
of vehicles because of the position of the driver.

If cyclists overtook on the right the usual trolls would be asking
why they did this and held up traffic.

Although they never seem to ask why bicycles are in a position to
overtake the motor vehicles they consider far superior.
=============================

I have no objection to being overtaken by a cyclists but would prefer it
if
they did it on the right where I would normally expect traffic to pass.


All cars have been fitted with mirrors on the left hand side for at
least a generation.
=============================

But humans are only fitted with one pair of eyes and they have been for at
least a generation.

Does that include car drivers?