Pete Owens wrote:AlaninWales wrote:Filtering is legal for *cyclists. As a car driver, I expect *cyclists to pass on either side when I'm in slow moving or stationary traffic. Manoeuvring (for whatever reason) without considering that and checking mirrors, is careless.
Had there been a collision, it would have been the van driver's fault. I wouldn't expect most British juries (or police) to accept that simple fact though (given British public attitudes).
Oh dear - another case of "two wheels good - four wheels bad"
Or do you always consider it the overtakees responsibility to avoid collisions rather than the overtaker?
Not at all. Simply a case of "two wheels light and narrow - four wheels heavy and wide". On four wheels in heavy traffic there is no use to hurry. On two wheels in heavy traffic the narrow nature of the vehical allows filtering and this is accepted in the HC , by the police (who teach their riders to do this as part of normal, non-pursuit riding) and by the courts. When (most) cyclists are able to overtake heavier, wider vehicles such as vans, the heavy traffic is moving (usually well-)below the speed limit. In such circumstances, when driving, I expect *cycles to filter (and the HC warns me to). I therefore, as a careful and competent driver, make sure I don't endanger them by sudden swerves to the side.
I have no idea why you would see the expectation of such as "two wheels good - four wheels bad", except that a great many of your posts seem to oppose the idea ofcycling as an activity for all, trained or otherwise. Do you really want to keep it as a niche activity for fit young highly trained athletes with all their spidey-senses aquiver? Shouldn't we accept responsibility when driving heavy, wide, motor-powered vehicles, to avoid making life dangerous for any other road user?
