Re: Joining the dreaded list ...

[Mike Fleming <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Leatherbiker" <leatherbiker@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

> The policeman himself said that overtaking within the first
> zigzags was an endorsable offence, but I maintained that I had
> started long before the crossing and rather than brake, felt it
> better to continue, given that all the lights were green.

'Overtaking' refers to the specific moment when you pass the vehicle -
I think it's when your front passes his front. If you were behind the
car but in the process of going past, you didn't overtake. If you
became the lead vehicle, you did.

> The question of speeding didn't really arise, for the simple
> reason that neither of the two cars in front stopped long enough
> for anyone to even see the make, let alone the reg. no. and talk
> to the drivers. 

And your bike, sliding down the road, made no marks?

> > The same applies, incidentally, if a bike is overtaking a car which
> > turns right. It's (almost always) idiotic riding, but the driver is
> > (in terms of insurance) liable for the accident.
> 
> What martian logic is this based on? Given that overtaking a
> turning car on the right is both dangerous and illegal.

Overtaking a turning car on the right is not illegal, and you actually
have the right of way when making the overtake. The law is pretty
simple - if you are travelling along a road, you have right of way
over vehicles which are turning off that road.

It is, of course, stupidly dangerous, but anyone doing it and falling
foul of someone turning (and living) would be able to claim off the
turning vehicle's insurance.

- -- 
Mike Fleming

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 The ST Mailing list is sponsored by the Unofficial ST Website
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=