Martin Underwood wrote:
Adrian wrote in
70:
(snip)
As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

I can totally understand not overtaking slow traffic on the left, as
that can get you squashed easily. However, I'm unconvinced that
overtaking stationary traffic is a problem. Stationary = not moving =
not a risk, unless someone is getting out of a vehicle. I would (slowly)
overtake stationary traffic until it begins to move again, at which
point I'll ease myself back into the stream as appropriate to make sure
that I am visible.

An inability to overtake stationary traffic renders the
congestion-busting benefit of cycling pointless. The only rule should be
to cycle at an appropriate speed to take avoiding action when necessary.
Obviously particular care should be taken at side roads.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London