This. 
1 Like
Overtaking on the right is actually not allowed for bikes when the car traffic turns right.
There apparently has been a court ruling where a truck driver who on turning right killed a cyclist was exonerated. The cyclist was overtaking the truck on the right in that moment despite the truck indicating a right turn.
haha.
The issue at this intersection is that cars, bicycles and whatever are expected to turn right. Going straight is not allowed because it’s a place where trams make their u-turn.
Regardless of the legality of the moves at this specific intersection in ZH Altstetten…the main issue here is the conflict between car traffic turning right and cyclists going straight. The design of a bike lane parallel to the car lane creates this conflict. The equivalent for cars would be a 2 lane street where a car on the left lane blocks the right lane when turning to the right. This is not allowed for cars because higher probability of crash. Somehow, it’s the normal for cars-bikes interaction. No idea how to make this better beyond telling drivers to look at the mirrors before turning right 
So the court found that the driver was not at fault, that the cyclist bore responsibility having failed to take due care. That’s not the same as saying they’re not allowed to filter.
This is what you need to bear in mind when overtaking on a bicycle:
-
Cyclists are allowed to pass on the right of stationary and moving columns of cyclists. It is forbidden to move onto the sidewalk or weave between cars.
-
Other cyclists may only be overtaken on the left on the cycle path.
-
Cyclists may only overtake a stationary or slowly moving column of vehicles on the right if this does not hinder vehicles turning right.
-
Specifically, the cyclist’s overtaking manoeuvre must be completed before the motor vehicle driver begins his or her turning manoeuvre.
Sentences for car drivers are usually quite lenient if they get one at all.
The woman in London who drove her Landrover across a pavement and into a school killing two eight-year old girls was not convicted.
She said she had an epileptic fit and lost control. She had never had one before and hasn’t had one since.
When people do have a fit or seizure (especially the first time) they have absolutely no idea what happened and definitely would not think it was any sort of fit.
That’s on a road without cycle lanes.
With cycle lanes, the cyclist has the right of way in your scenario:
Drivers of other vehicles may only cross the cycle lane if it is separated from the rest of the road by a broken line and if this does not impede bicycle traffic. The cyclist in the cycle lane therefore has right of way over other vehicles. A car driver who wants to turn right must therefore check before turning whether a cyclist with right of way is approaching on the cycle lane, otherwise he will be at fault in the event of a collision.
Original article from where your non-attributed AXA article was lifted.
Why did AXA choose to omit this bit?
I’m aware of this. But, it’s only a patch to compensate for suboptimal design.
We curse in our minds or vocally when someone in the overtaking lane of the motorway swerves across the lanes to take an exit at the last possible moment. This is what happens when a car turns right and crosses the bike lane and you see the car too close.
I guess the only action possible as cyclist is to avoid being parallel to a car, either ahead or behind, by several meters. But, this is not achievable in urban traffic. So, the design of bike lane parallel to car lane is inherently problematic. Some regulations are put in place and some recommendations are done to make it work, but the design is faulty.
Yes. Unless you build bike superlanes like in Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Even then you have deadly accidents. And the road behaviour of cyclists in Copenhagen is possibly the worst I have ever seen.
1 Like
They get round it in the UK by not stopping the bike lane at junctions - as they commonly do here.
If you cut in front of a bike when turning left (UK), even if you don’t hit it, you will, if it is seen and reported, get a fine.
Basically, the bike lane is seen as an extra l(special) lane.
The new rules form 2021 make it even simpler - no bike lane is required and the same rule is given for pedestrians:
Reading into this a bit more:
From the same link as before:
According to federal court rulings, a cyclist is only allowed to overtake a vehicle on the right with its right turn signal on if the column of vehicles is stationary. The situation is different if a driver in a moving column activates the right turn signal to turn right. Since a cyclist passing on the right in such a case impedes the turning vehicle from continuing to move, he is prohibited from overtaking on the right.
If a collision occurs, the cyclist is the person who caused the accident, provided the other driver behaved correctly.
This is bullshit and open to interpretation if a collision occurs. It gives motorists carte blanche to cut across the path of cyclists without much recourse for the cyclist:
What if the motor traffic is stationary, but starts moving when the cyclist has passed the point of no return? Modern cars can accelerate very fast.
What if the driver did not indicate that he was going to turn right but turned anyway. The cyclist will say he didn’t see the signaling and the driver could say he did signal.
In many cases, the cyclist will be expected to slow down and give way to cars - just in case they signal and turn.
It explains why marked cycle-ways conveniently disappear at junctions.
This is a good reason to have front and rear cameras on your bike.
AFAIK, no other Western European country does it this way - and for good reason.
This is the worry with urban traffic, mostly stationary. Old cars can accelerate very fast too…up to 30-50 kmh. I remember driving 50-80 HP cars with very short gearing and they accelerate fast enough to catch people off-guard.
I don’t think Axa mentioned anything about a cycle lane and it seems more likely from the context that there was none. I am also not sure what you mean with “my scenario”. You were the one claiming that overtaking on the right was perfectly legal. It seems now you are reading into the subject are your new narrative is that the rules are wrong.
Always entertaining.
No bike lane. If I were the cyclist, I would just have ridden into the empty pavement/sidewalk, come down from the bike and walk across the zebra pass. Or stay behind the 2 cars and then do the thing no one expects (go straight, not allowed).
But, I’m influenced by mountain bike where trees and rocks never move, or let you pass first. All you can do is avoid them.
From the AXA link you posted (not from @Axa)
As I wrote before, that appears to have been lifted from a longer set of rules.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear - not “your scenario” but the text in the AXA article:
- Cyclists may only overtake a stationary or slowly moving column of vehicles on the right if this does not hinder vehicles turning right.
- Specifically, the cyclist’s overtaking manoeuvre must be completed before the motor vehicle driver begins his or her turning manoeuvre.
Actually, I wrote:
Perfectly legal for a cyclist to filter on the right and get in front of the motor traffic at lights. Many junctions have a bike box marked on the road precisely for this purpose.
At junctions I remove any ambiguity to protect myself both from injury and from the pro-car laws:
If I’m moving faster than the motor traffic (which is what we are discussing here), then they can’t see it as a problem if, when approaching the junction, I move out into a more primary position, as after all, I’m going faster than them so I’m hardly holding them up.
This way, at the junction, or roundabout, I can’t get cut up by a car trying to turn right and, at roundabouts, I can’t get close-passed by a car trying to overtake me.
Perfectly legal and allows me to be in control of the situation without holding anyone up so twats like @kingkong don’t try and “punish me” for being on a bicycle.
Of course other cyclists may carry on and overtake me on the inside but they are not my problem - I don’t speak for other cyclists and their actions.
I’ve explained that I also enjoy riding my bike (though I’m not a ‘cyclist’) and have no problem with other people riding theirs - it’s the selfish blocking of traffic which I detest, regardless of the vehicle.
No wonder you have more problematic encounters in a month than normal traffic participants in their entire life.
1 Like
Explain? What, in your view, am I doing wrong?
What I wrote is the correct way of cycling safely at a junction.
You motorists complain that cyclists aren’t visible at junctions and it’s their fault but when we do something about it - remove ourselves from blind spots, you complain.
There are enough discussions earlier up the page concerning lorries which show that stopping at a side road if a lorry driver on your left is indicating that the want to turn into the road is the most ludicrously dangerous thing a cyclist can so but now you appear to condone it.
Make up your mind!
Another one who ought to hand their Fahrausweis.
I disagree with 95% of what Tom writes. But he is absolutely right that cyclists taking a middle position in the lane when approaching a roundabout or narrow section (traffic island) to prevent overtaking are doing the smart, safe and right thing.
1 Like
Only 95%, you’re too kind.