parked cars - etiquette

jedster

So this morning I was using the cycle crossing on Park Lane from Hyde Park into Upper Brook Street. Upper Brook Street is one way with two lanes. The bike lane sends you into the LH lane with cars going straight on into the right. Things can get a bit messy because there are often parked cars on both sides meaning that a bunch of cyclists and cars need to negotiate through the gaps. I came a cropper here a couple of years ago.

Anyway, I had arrived at the front of the bike lane and was waiting for the lights. As the lights changed I accelerated and went straight on. I could see a parked car ahead and started shoulder checking knowing that I would need to pull out around it. As I checked, I saw that the cyclist behind me had pulled out alongside me but was making no progress getting passed me. If he held is line I was going to be heading straight for the back of the parked car. I couldn't indicate because if I had I would have hit him with my arm, he was that close.

So I turned to him and said "can you move over".

No action

Try again, louder " CAN YOU MOVE OVER"

No action, gap closing on parked car quite fast now.

"MOVE OVER!"

Him, finally moving over, something to the effect of "alright you pr1ick".

How would you have handled it?

I mean I could have slammed the brakes on but there was a stream of cars and bikes behind me - didn't seem like a good idea.

I don't really know what he was playing at. If you are going to overtake another cyclist then you should give them room and get past quickly, surely?

J

Clever Pun

technically you should have let him pass before making your manuo... manouvr... move

but being a fellow cyclist he should have seen what you were going to do and made space for you

I don't know what I'd have done on the same situation but an indication right with a hand in front of his face or sprinting for the gap would have been more likely

PBo

unconventional use of my d-lock?

Jamey

This is a classic theory / practice situation...

In theory it depends whether you were switching lanes into his lane or whether he was overtaking you in your lane. If he was overtaking in your lane he should perform the move in a safe manner, and the same applies to you if you were trying to change lanes into his lane.

However neither of those matter because in practice he should have either moved over or hung back to allow you to get passed the parked car.

Or gone past you quicker and made it someone else's problem.

rjsterry

One of my pet hates that, either by another cyclist or a motor vehicle tailgating me. Heading west as you leave the lights by Stockwell Tube is particularly bad as there is always a stationary bus in the LH lane, and a load of wobbling nodders all trying to squeeze past between the bus and the moving traffic. I always find it difficult to judge whether to hang back or sprint through, and have got it wrong/cut people up a few times.

jedster

technically you should have let him pass before making your manuo... manouvr... move

perhaps but technically he should never have been that close to me in the first place, should he?

CiB

How would you have handled it if you were both driving in the same situation? Applying that test you'd expect to wait, rather than move over and force the other guy across into oncoming traffic. But yeah - unauthorised use of a D Lock might have been the simpler get-out.

lost_in_thought

I'd have just put the brakes on. Not worth the aggro, and theoretically he's not obliged to move. I cycle through there every time I head into Mayfair - the best bit is cars trying to squeeze past you over the speedbump at the embassy.

jedster

In theory it depends whether you were switching lanes into his lane or whether he was overtaking you in your lane

Yeah, he was in my lane (well we were both in the same lane but he started behind me).

Obviously I was also p1ssed off because although I raised my voice I didn't give him any colourful language (which I thought was pretty restrained). And yet he gave me a mouthful.

:x
J

Porgy

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd have just put the brakes on. Not worth the aggro.

yeah, but what if you're not a girl? :P

jedster

the best bit is cars trying to squeeze past you over the speedbump at the embassy.

yeah, I tend to me moving as fast as the cars at that point so I just sit in the middle of the lane

jedster

Applying that test you'd expect to wait, rather than move over and force the other guy across into oncoming traffic

That's true and if there had been no room for him to safely move out then that's what I would have had to do. But he had plenty of time to find a gap - after all I had time to ask him three times. And if he wasn't competent/confident to make that kind of manouvre then what was he thinking of with the aggressive overtake?

always_tyred

Clever Pun wrote:

technically you should have let him pass before making your manuo... manouvr... move

but being a fellow cyclist he should have seen what you were going to do and made space for you

I don't know what I'd have done on the same situation but an indication right with a hand in front of his face or sprinting for the gap would have been more likely

I disagree slightly. Technically, you sould indicate right to pass the parked car. Aside from that, he's overtaking you in the same lane (assuming there aren't two lanes maked in that direction) and his actions should not cause you any inconvenience.

Overtaking cars to this to cyclists a lot. Personally, I get a mite peeved when a vehicle tries to run me into a parked car.

The guy was an idiot. A mouthful of invective would have been justified.

Personally I'd have just moved over on him and let him figure it out.

will3

I don't understand, unless you were undertaking him (naughty) what how did he end up on your right hand side?

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd have just put the brakes on. Not worth the aggro, and theoretically he's not obliged to move. I cycle through there every time I head into Mayfair - the best bit is cars trying to squeeze past you over the speedbump at the embassy.

What am I missing - why is he technically not obliged to move?

One lane, two vehicles; surely the onus is in the following vehicle to not run into the leading vehicle.

Its not as though, when you are driving, as soon as someone starts to try to overtake, you are obliged to let them - that would cause Vauxhall Astra related mayhem.

Bikequin

I cross Hyde park at the same point on my commute - Whilst waiting at the lights I take primary in the car lane and ignore the bike lane - its two traffic lanes into 1 plus the bikes trying to filter in from the left and is a nightmare sometimes.

My suggestion get in primary in the left hand lane for cars and give it some off the lights, if some taxi wants to pass then tough, they're just going to have to wait at the lights in 100m anyway.

will3

jedster wrote:

How would you have handled it?



J

Bunny hopped the car 8)

(if only)

Clever Pun

jedster wrote:

technically you should have let him pass before making your manuo... manouvr... move

perhaps but technically he should never have been that close to me in the first place, should he?

two wrongs and all that

gaz545

out the saddle and floor it. I took that road this morning, and there was some roadworks on the right of the road just before the parked cars. i held my line going towards it but some car i was infront of still tried to squeze around it and infront of me. out the saddle and i left him!

benno68

If he has held his line and you are changing direction he's done no wrong technically.

Technicalities aside, I think the guy is a d!ck and could/should have moved over. I wonder if he was taking extreme measures in the midst of SCR action - anyone on here like to own up, come on who was it?

The way I feel at the moment, I'd have tried to put the hammer down, failing that drop the shoulder and pretend I hadn't seem him (in reality I'd probably have bottled it)

This is a situation where a pocket full of drawing pins would have come in handy.

oscarbudgie

Why do you think God gave you elbows?

always_tyred

Benno68 wrote:

If he has held his line and you are changing direction he's done no wrong technically.

Again, how does that work? Changing direction with respect to what? An immovable object clearly in view to all parties the whole time? I still don't see that argument as being valid.

If it is a wild animal, yes, you have to run it over in theory. But if its a bit of road furniture, that reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it is okay to force people into all manner of objects.

Clever Pun

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd have just put the brakes on. Not worth the aggro, and theoretically he's not obliged to move. I cycle through there every time I head into Mayfair - the best bit is cars trying to squeeze past you over the speedbump at the embassy.

What am I missing - why is he technically not obliged to move?

One lane, two vehicles; surely the onus is in the following vehicle to not run into the leading vehicle.

Its not as though, when you are driving, as soon as someone starts to try to overtake, you are obliged to let them - that would cause Vauxhall Astra related mayhem.

not start but the OP said the guy was parallel with him so that's pretty much fully committed

you're right it's rude as hell and he's clearly an ignorant to$$er but he's not in the wrong in the eyes of the law/highway code... from my understanding

Jamey

Despite the road in question being a two-lane one-way street, doesn't the old rule of "if the obstruction is on your side of the road..." come into effect?

So a parked car blocking your lane coupled with traffic in the next lane unfortunately means you have to stop until the lane clears and you can move over?

However that's a moot point because I think the opening poster said they were both technically in the same lane so it's an overtaking argument rather than a lane-changing one and therefore the responsibility definitely falls on the person behind to keep everything safe.

waddlie

Forget etiquette and to a lesser extent, forget the highway code. City cycling is dangerous enough without putting myself in danger for the sake of being polite or legally "in the right." I'd've done whatever was safest - primarily for myself and secondarily for the other road users - either gassing it to get ahead or easing off gently enough to let him through without giving following motorists the opportunity to follow him. As far as is practically possible, I take responsibility for my own road position and don't rely on others getting out of the way to keep me safe.

benno68

Always Tyred wrote:

Benno68 wrote:

If he has held his line and you are changing direction he's done no wrong technically.

Again, how does that work? Changing direction with respect to what? An immovable object clearly in view to all parties the whole time? I still don't see that argument as being valid.

If it is a wild animal, yes, you have to run it over in theory. But if its a bit of road furniture, that reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it is okay to force people into all manner of objects.

It would be great to be able to swerve around to avoid manhole covers, potholes or any other obstacles without having to give a sh!t about anyone to the side or behind me. But it's ultimately up to the person changing course to do so safely.

If I was "the other cyclist" I'd have given the OP room out of courtesy, but I wouldn't have felt obliged to.

Forcing people into objects...this would be the case if the "other cyclist" had altered his course and moved toward the OP making him alter course, that would be bang out of order no question. if I understand the situation correctly, he held his line on this occasion.

Nonetheless he was a to$$er.

jimmypippa

Always Tyred wrote:

Its not as though, when you are driving, as soon as someone starts to try to overtake, you are obliged to let them - that would cause Vauxhall Astra related mayhem.

biff55

Waddlie wrote:

Forget etiquette and to a lesser extent, forget the highway code. City cycling is dangerous enough without putting myself in danger for the sake of being polite or legally "in the right." I'd've done whatever was safest - primarily for myself and secondarily for the other road users - either gassing it to get ahead or easing off gently enough to let him through without giving following motorists the opportunity to follow him. As far as is practically possible, I take responsibility for my own road position and don't rely on others getting out of the way to keep me safe.

bingo !
law of the jungle applies at all times.
never rely on politeness or highway code rules to protect your own safety.
that is all.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I'd have just put the brakes on. Not worth the aggro, and theoretically he's not obliged to move. I cycle through there every time I head into Mayfair - the best bit is cars trying to squeeze past you over the speedbump at the embassy.

What am I missing - why is he technically not obliged to move?

One lane, two vehicles; surely the onus is in the following vehicle to not run into the leading vehicle.

Its not as though, when you are driving, as soon as someone starts to try to overtake, you are obliged to let them - that would cause Vauxhall Astra related mayhem.

Ahhhhh but in the particular bit, upper brook st. W1K for gmaps, it's (in my view) more like 2 lanes, the LH one of which is unfortunately filled with parked cars. Because of that, my opinion is that if you don't make it into the RH lane, thereby avoiding the parked cars, it's your fault. Essentially, it's a lane change, not an overtake. Does that make any sense?

Probably not.

realALBERTAN

don't ride in the park lane... I would never cut in and out of parked cars, that's asking for a door prize... traffic can wait if it's narrow....

PBo

Jamey wrote:

However that's a moot point because I think the opening poster said they were both technically in the same lane so it's an overtaking argument rather than a lane-changing one and therefore the responsibility definitely falls on the person behind to keep everything safe.

I think that this is absolutely right - and if I've understood right, the argument that AT is making too. It's the same when a car does it to cyclists too - they should weigh up the situation before their manouvre, Do they expect the parked car to dematerialise when the cyclists get to it......?

You see, I have no problem cycling in primary when neccessary - if there was a whole string of parked cars I would, rather than weave in and out - but on a busy road, with the odd parked car, I'd move to secondary to not hold people up as an act of politeness. but if that politeness is not returned, by drivers letting me out when appropriate, it all just gets nasty and selfish, I might then always ride primary, and everyone is worse off!

I know we are talking about a cyclist, not a car, but the principle's the same.....