cycling in the right hand lane in two lane,one way traffic

amt27

it is illegal to cycle in the right hand lane in two lane,one way traffic? (30 mph limit roads, through a city)

i have had a quick look on http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070308

"143
One-way streets. Traffic MUST travel in the direction indicated by signs. Buses and/or cycles may have a contraflow lane. Choose the correct lane for your exit as soon as you can. Do not change lanes suddenly. Unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise, you should use

the left-hand lane when going left
the right-hand lane when going right
the most appropriate lane when going straight ahead. Remember – traffic could be passing on both sides [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & RTRA sects 5 & 8]"

thanks

always_tyred

I think it is legal.

Regardless, I do. I have spent time cycling in Glasgow city centre and in many traffic situations it is extremely difficult not to. Note, however, that I would use the right hand side of the right hand lane under most cicumstances. I would then adopt the primary position (in the right hand lane) in order to tackle a junction, unless the road after the junction was also a one way street.

So, a bit like turning right normally, I would be on the right hand side of the right hand lane approaching a right hand turn, take the centre of the right hand lane to take the right hand turn, and adopt the left hand side of the now left hand lane after the turn.

If the road you are tunring into is also a one way street, you have to take a judgement - do you have to turn right of it as well? How long and wide is it - i.e. do you have to start getting across to the left immediately? etc.

NorwegianBlue

I think the significant part of that quote is "most appropriate lane". Says it all really. In order to prove you were acting illegally surely it would be necessary to prove that your lane choice was inappropriate. Only really possible if you are turning left.

I am a bit concerned with the bit about traffic passing on both sides. According to most of the RTA it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances.

always_tyred

Exactly. For that reason it is really only practicable to take up the kerb side of any lane that you are in. We've all had that "slip road undertaking" experience.

amt27

ok thanks guys,

i was pulled over by the police last night for doing this,

basically i come into the city on a cycle lane (which suddenly ends) on a single lane which turns into 3 lanes, at this point i cross over to the right hand lane, the 2 right lanes then diverge from the other, and i remain in the right lane as i needed to turn right at the end of the road, the road becomes 3 lanes again at the end and a right lane diverges off, this is the one i need,

the police man came up behind me (on the 2 lane section) and shouted at me, which startled me a little, i thought is was a taxi, as the car was plain, so i gave him a bit of a mouthfull, before stopping,

he stopped the two lanes of car traffic and told me i should be in the left lane and had to cross the 2 lanes at the end of the road in order to get into the right lane, which i think is far more dangerous, he told me i was slowing up traffic, but i am no slouch and it was a downhill, plus like Always i tend to hug the curb,

the highway code however seems to conflict what he is saying,

BoydJ

Your policeman is most definitely WRONG. Ask yourself which lane you should be in if you were driving a motorised vehicle. That's the lane you should be in on a bicycle.

I have a similar situation cycling into Glasgow city centre. I come across the river in the centre of lane 3 of 4, which puts me in the right hand lane going up Oswald St and into Hope St - where the left lane takes cars left while buses, taxis and bike can go straight up Hope St. I stay on the right and eventually turn right at West Regent St.

Like you, I stay on the right of the right lane where it is safe to do so, and take the lane otherwise. I had a taxi tell me last week I should keep left, but that's the only comment I've had in the last year. If you stay on the left, it is much more dangerous to get into the correct lane at the last minute.

NorwegianBlue

Taking your last point first, be careful of the highway code as it is not the law as such. It is merely, as it's title suggests, a code of conduct. Although it can be used in legal arguments and insurance claims.

A lot of police officers, especially those who don't work on traffic have some very curious ideas about what constitutes the law. As a motorcyclist I was stopped by a WPC who honestly seemed to think it was illegal for me to ride without a leather jacket. As a car driver I was stopped by a PC who thought it was illegal for my Mini not to have bumpers. Both were wrong but they were both totally convinced they were right, both were in ordinary patrol cars not traffic division cars. Of course if they got as far as reporting me "with a view to prosecution" (as they like to say) it would have got no further and they would have probably got a bollocking from their boss for wasting police time. In both cases I was a bit of a stroppy twat, pointing out that they didn't know the law. Probably not a good idea in retrospect, but when you're young...

Was there actually any formal paperwork? If not he was probably just "pulling rank" as it were. It's all too common for police officers to do this when another road user pisses them off. Just like you would gesticulate, shout abuse or another driver may sound their horn many police officers will, even when off duty, pull you over and try to put the frightners on you.

I know the police whinge, in some cases justifiably, about the amount of paperwork they have to do, but I believe they should have to fill in some sort of simple form everytime they stop somebody for a supposed traffic offence. If they did it would cut down this sort of twattery by about 99%. Can you imagine the bollocking they would get?

"You stopped him for what, Constable F*ckwit?"
"Failure to wear a leather jacket, sir."
"Would I be right in assuming that this gentleman is a motorcyclist?"
"Can't say I'd noticed, sir."

Remember the Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch?

Seriously though, in my motorcycling days I lost count of the number of times I heard "I'll let you off this time, sonny" when I knew I'd done nothing wrong. I always heard it as code for: "We both know you've done nothing wrong and I know if I reported this I'd get a proper bollocking. Even so I hate people like you and I've spoiled your day, so I've got a result."

dang65

That's quite astonishingly bad policing, going by your description of the road layout and your position.

Also, I don't get this thing about "slowing up traffic" at all. I think that was also the complaint in that case a couple of years ago with the guy who was prosecuted while riding on a dual carriageway (legally). IIRC, he was completely acquitted after appeal?

Unless you were blatantly rolling along at 2mph and weaving about to stop anyone passing then I don't really see how you can be "slowing up traffic" any more than a tractor on a country lane, or a policeman on a horse, for example. i.e. You are the traffic.

Incredible.

prj45

dang65 wrote:

Also, I don't get this thing about "slowing up traffic" at all.

Maybe the policeman should've been standing at a junction booking all the cars that slow us cyclists up when we filter through them...

amt27

NorwegianBlue wrote:

A lot of police officers, especially those who don't work on traffic have some very curious ideas about what constitutes the law.

this is what i suspect

im seriously considering making a complaint (but will probably calm down after a few days), the policeman seemed to be high ranking in a high spec car,
plus i was forced to apologise several times before he would move off,

traffic was seriously building up with him blocking the two lanes, loads of clubbers and boy racers on their way into the city, not the type off people you need moaning at you for slowing them up,
the road network is lethal at the best of times, with loads of cars park in cycle paths,

always_tyred

I remember a news story of several years ago, albeit not out of the UK. A man applied for the police force, did well at interview, passed the medical and aced the aptitude test.

However, he was rejected as being "too intelligent".

This wasn't the UK - my last boss was ex-police and was a PhD physicist before he joined the force.

hoathy

What suprises me is that the police officer shouted at you to get your attention! Thats just weird, even in a plain car they normally have the facility of lights and sirens. I probably would have just carried on riding, but then i guess i wouldn't have gotten far...

NorwegianBlue

Was any paperwork completed? If not there is no point making a complaint because the officer in question will simply deny the incident occured. BTDT.

amt27

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Was any paperwork completed? If not there is no point making a complaint because the officer in question will simply deny the incident occured. BTDT.

sadly no, however a friend witnessed the incident from the roadside,

NorwegianBlue

An ex policeman I know tells me that a great way of bringing these incidents to a swift conclusion is to whip out a notebook and start taking notes. He reckons if they are not taking notes then you should. In particular when they show you their warrant card insist you get to see it long enough to note the details, then take a note of the time of day, location, their vehicle registration, etc. apparently this will put the frightners on them. Personally though I'd be a bit worried about provoking them.

An interesting thing happened to a friend of mine a few months back. He was riding home from work when policeman on foot (yes they do still exist) pulled him over. The orifice began by asking why his lights weren't on, to which my friend replied that it wasn't lighting up time yet. Plod then asked if he could switch the lights on so he could check if they were legal, when suddenly he noticed the helmet cam. "Is that switched on?" He asked. My friend was expecting to be told to switch it off when the c*ntstable very quickly wound up the interview with the usual "won't take it any further this time" sort of comments that are supposed to imply "you've been lucky to get away with this".

Interestingly our local plod are trialling wearing chest cameras. The official line is that it will discourage bad behaviour on the part of the public and greatly reduce instances of resisting arrest. However if plod are required to have them switched on all the time I think it will actually be more likely to discourage bad behaviour on the part of the police themselves.

Mithras

1. Ok firstly I can confirm that you should be riding in the appropriate lane of a multi lane road for the manouvre at the end. However a little common sense is needed as to road, visibility, speed and density of traffic. Would it be safer to get off and cross the road at the junction? I never have a problem on the two lane road I ride on when taking the third exit on a particular roundabout. Of course this is only due to the above average driving skills, knowledge and ability to anticipate a hazzard and nothing to do with my yellow jacket with the big reflective Blue and White sign on my back that says "POLICE".

2. I can also confirm that most non trafffic officers know bu**er all about traffic law, espeacially the really minor points and it takes so muuch faffing about with the various forms that most will give a verbal warning ta a ticket for anything except the most basic of infringements.

NorwegianBlue wrote:

Always Tyred
I know this happens in the Uk..Although you don't get barred from joingng the Police Force for being too intelligent, just stops you getting into CID or Traffic (or is that lack of personality?)
Was there actually any formal paperwork? If not he was probably just "pulling rank" as it were. It's all too common for police officers to do this when another road user pisses them off. Just like you would gesticulate, shout abuse or another driver may sound their horn many police officers will, even when off duty, pull you over and try to put the frightners on you.

I know the police whinge, in some cases justifiably, about the amount of paperwork they have to do, but I believe they should have to fill in some sort of simple form everytime they stop somebody for a supposed traffic offence. If they did it would cut down this sort of foolery by about 99%. Can you imagine the bollocking they would get?
"

People have different ways of dealing with different things. Off duty I have no problem in getting out of my car flashing my warrant card and having words with the driver on his mobile phone, or reporting gangerous driving and getting a witness to do a statement for the offence.

As for paperwork, we are supposed to fill in a stop and encounter form, this meant that everytime we stopped to speak to someone about thier actions/presence etc we spend 10 minutes filling in a form, then do a pnc check, filling in descriptors etc. This means a 2 minute conversation can take 15 minutes. Hey I'm paid for my shift and actually get judged on the amount of stop/search forms I produce....No skin off my nose to hold you on the side of the road because you have a flashing red rear light instead of a solid red one....Now has that law changed (see point 2) .....would that still be a £30 fine...mm lets use another 10 minutes up debating that one! Anyway point is I'd spend all my time writing out stop check forms if I wasn't able to "pull rank" every now and again.

Hoathy, contrary to popular belief, not all police cars have blue flashing lights and PA systems in them.....The brass believe that to do so means that officers could have far too much fun......erm......leads to misuse of police property!

And finally, don't believe that taking notes of what is being said by an officer will wind up a roadside stop prematurely, I have had this done too me, so I kept talking, I also made notes, got him to read, sign and date my note book. I then insisted on reading signing and dating his, which took 10 minutes of persuasion, not to mention the stop encounter form, all in all it doubled the amount of time spent with this person......however not every officer is a bleeding attention seeking prima donna like me........many are much worse!

:twisted:

Belv

Mithras,
I'm not sure you have done the perception of your profession too many favours with parts of that post.

Gambatte

Mithras wrote:

I can also confirm that most non trafffic officers know bu**er all about traffic law, espeacially the really minor points and it takes so muuch faffing about with the various forms that most will give a verbal warning ta a ticket for anything except the most basic of infringements.

Do you know of any off duty traffic cops being pulled by one of the know nowt types?

Mithras

Belv wrote:

Mithras,
I'm not sure you have done the perception of your profession too many favours with parts of that post.

Belv,
it was meant as a bit of a lighthearted reply, most who know me on here know I don't get overly serious about anything.
However in answer to your post, policing is such a wide ranging topic that it is just about impossible to know everything about every part of policing. Traffic being one of those parts. I know the basics but generally if the offence is anymore than a seatbelt, mobile phone or some such low level infrigement then I have to call traffic to deal. This is the same as a traffic officer not being able to deal with specific parts of my job or parts of the job that CID deal with.
You only have to llok at the pass rate for the Sergeants exam wich covers all police topics to know that it is just about impossible to know everything about all sections of police work.
So those of you lucky enough to get a telling off from an officer rather than a ticket are not happy, please ask the officer to call a more learned / experienced colleague who will be more that happy to give you the correct legal definition and the points and fine to go with it :P :idea:

Gambette i'm sure this hasn't happened. A traffic officer doing something wrong in thier own car and being stopped for it!!
However various chief constables have been stopped for speeding etc by thier own bobbies.

Gambatte

Mithras wrote:

Gambette i'm sure this hasn't happened. A traffic officer doing something wrong in thier own car and being stopped for it!!
However various chief constables have been stopped for speeding etc by thier own bobbies.

I was meaning more an off duty traffic cop doing nothing wrong getting pulled by an overzealous, underinformed plod. Possibly with the 1st keeping schtum until a correction on road law had maximum embarrassment factor.

whome

According to most of the RTA it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances.

I'm interested in this as while I am not a legal type I had understood there was no legislation banning undertaking.

The Highway Code doesn't appear to refer to it as illegal - i.e. it normally uses MUST / MUST NOT for points directly against the law and reference the relevant legislation.

151 says "you should ...not change lanes to the left to overtake"
and
163 "you should ... only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"
but neither uses MUST/MUST NOT or references legislation. And 165 does specifically state what you MUST NOT do and does not mention undertaking.

helz

NorwegianBlue wrote:

I think the significant part of that quote is "most appropriate lane". Says it all really. In order to prove you were acting illegally surely it would be necessary to prove that your lane choice was inappropriate. Only really possible if you are turning left.

I am a bit concerned with the bit about traffic passing on both sides. According to most of the RTA it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances.

I'd really like to know where you got that information as well because it's very important - it certainly doesn't say in the Highway Code that it's illegal to undertake. I DO undertake in certain situations (obviously slowly and carefully and when it's safe to do so etc.) so if I'm doing something that's actually illegal I'd really like to know about it!

NorwegianBlue

helz wrote:

NorwegianBlue wrote:

I think the significant part of that quote is "most appropriate lane". Says it all really. In order to prove you were acting illegally surely it would be necessary to prove that your lane choice was inappropriate. Only really possible if you are turning left.

I am a bit concerned with the bit about traffic passing on both sides. According to most of the RTA it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances.

I'd really like to know where you got that information as well because it's very important - it certainly doesn't say in the Highway Code that it's illegal to undertake. I DO undertake in certain situations (obviously slowly and carefully and when it's safe to do so etc.) so if I'm doing something that's actually illegal I'd really like to know about it!

OK here we go again. The Highway Code is NOT the law, it is a code of practice. While I don't know of any instances where it actually contradicts the law it does not constitute the law. It certainly wouldn't be much of a defence in court to say "it does't say it's illegal in the Highway Code, so it must be legal". As mentioned previously road traffic law is a complex subject and the Highway Code is an attempt to summarise road traffic law for the average road user.

Bear in mind the kerfuffle over the proposed changes regarding cycle lanes in the latest edition. The reason the CTC managed to get those changes removed was because the highway code does not constitute the law, if it did so then it would have taken a change in the law to change the HC.

However, when it comes to overtaking the Code says: "only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so." I think that is pretty unequivacable. It seems that there is only one circumstance where overtaking on the left is permissable. It the vehicle you are undertaking is not signalling to turn right then the highway code says you shouldn't be doing it.

However the Code also states that in slow moving traffic drivers should "be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side". Which seems to directly contradict the advice given above. Which is another failing of the Code, there are places where one entry will seem to contradict another, this is the problem with summarising to too great a degree. You will note, however, that no definition of the term "slow", is it 20mph, 12mph, 2mph?

The best bit of advice I have been given on deciding the legallity of undertaking is:

If the traffic to your right is turning right.
If the traffic to your right is stationary, it's legal.
If you and/or the traffic to your right is in a filter or turn lane then it's legal.
If the traffic to your right slows, then it's legal.

I read that last line to mean, if you are travelling with the flow of the traffic and the traffic to your right slows to less than your speed then it's OK to continue at the speed you were doing.

helz

Exactly, so your statement that "it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances" was nonsense.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

An ex policeman I know tells me that a great way of bringing these incidents to a swift conclusion is to whip out a notebook and start taking notes. He reckons if they are not taking notes then you should. In particular when they show you their warrant card insist you get to see it long enough to note the details, then take a note of the time of day, location, their vehicle registration, etc. apparently this will put the frightners on them. Personally though I'd be a bit worried about provoking them.

...

I like that idea- great one- I will use it

Interestingly our local plod are trialling wearing chest cameras. The official line is that it will discourage bad behaviour on the part of the public and greatly reduce instances of resisting arrest. However if plod are required to have them switched on all the time I think it will actually be more likely to discourage bad behaviour on the part of the police themselves.

I wonder how often where PC is alleged to have misbehaved that the camera is said not to be switched on or the cameraa malfunctioned and didn't record?

spen666

whome wrote:

According to most of the RTA it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances.

I'm interested in this as while I am not a legal type I had understood there was no legislation banning undertaking.

...

Whome, you are correct

NorwegianBlue

helz wrote:

Exactly, so your statement that "it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances" was nonsense.

Hardly. I think that is a very restricted set of circumstances, I would say that over my 8 mile commute I come across circumstances where I could legitimately overtake on the left over the space of less than a mile. So I think I could safely say that over 7 miles is "almost all" of 8 miles.

When out riding on roads when not commuting I would say I come across a situation where I could undertake legally less than once per mile. So I would stand my by statement that it is illegal in almostp all situtations.

spen666

NorwegianBlue wrote:

helz wrote:

Exactly, so your statement that "it is illegal to overtake on the left in almost all circumstances" was nonsense.

Hardly. I think that is a very restricted set of circumstances, I would say that over my 8 mile commute I come across circumstances where I could legitimately overtake on the left over the space of less than a mile. So I think I could safely say that over 7 miles is "almost all" of 8 miles.

When out riding on roads when not commuting I would say I come across a situation where I could undertake legally less than once per mile. So I would stand my by statement that it is illegal in almostp all situtations.

What you type is nonsense in respect of the law

You can legally overtake on the left.

Whether it is sensible or safe so to do is a different matter. However the law does not make undertaking per se illegal

whome

OK here we go again. The Highway Code is NOT the law, it is a code of practice.

OK, but it does reference the LAW when it mentions things that are backed up by law. It does not do this for undertaking and therefore I would argue it is only laying out what is sensible and not what is a legal requirement!. i.e. I don't believe there is any RTA saying you cannot undertake (even in the circumstances mentioned in the H.C.) - can you show me otherwise?

spen666

whome wrote:

... I don't believe there is any RTA saying you cannot undertake (even in the circumstances mentioned in the H.C.) ...

UNDERTAKING per se is not illegal

NorwegianBlue

OK so I'll just pop out onto the M1 (it's only a couple of miles away) and try it shall I? And when I'm stopped and charged I'll just tell them it's OK because you said it's not illegal.

Ho hum.