Understanding Cycle Lanes

[Jdsk]

Yes, I can see what you mean about the positioning of the zigzag, and a bike coming down the L of it might have been in someone's mind. But I don't think that that makes it a cycle lane...

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

No it doesn't or at least I don't think it does, which is why I referred to "route." IMO it's worth considering why the zig-zags were put where they are and I doubt it's because the man with the white line machine lost his sense of direction. Then, in terms of the thread title, these things should be plain to the man on the Clapham omnibus without a comprehensive set of diagrams and rules.

In my search for the previous discussion about what I'll term "cycling provision" between the kerb and the zig-zags, it's occurred to me that the menagerie of pedestrian crossings used to be covered in a separate set of crossing regs, but all that's been consolidated in TSRGD 2016
====================================================================================================================

PS in the interests of broadening my mind I've searched the regs and found this with regard to zig-zags

7. The zig-zag lines may to be placed up to 2 metres from the edge of the carriageway to allow cyclists to ride on the nearside of the lines

That's in Sign table — Schedule 14, Part 2 item 57

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... le/14/made

I presume there's something else somewhere which explains the purpose of this. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that the effect of the old regs was to put that area outside the approach, which does not appear to be so here.

[MikeF]

On a bollard marked "covid lane" that used an existing cycle lane through pedestrian crossing lights, the zigzag lines were moved out. Now the "covid lane" bollards have been removed, the zigzags are back at the kerbside. I've not understood why..

[Jdsk]

PS in the interests of broadening my mind I've searched the regs and found this with regard to zig-zags

7. The zig-zag lines may to be placed up to 2 metres from the edge of the carriageway to allow cyclists to ride on the nearside of the lines

That's in Sign table — Schedule 14, Part 2 item 57

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... le/14/made

I presume there's something else somewhere which explains the purpose of this. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that the effect of the old regs was to put that area outside the approach, which does not appear to be so here.

Thank you.

That explains the marking. I don't think that makes it a cycle lane.

And I didn't know that explicitly although I might well have made use of the space. I'd guess that many other people wouldn't know either, including drivers turning R across it at that junction.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

... Thank you.

That explains the marking. I don't think that makes it a cycle lane.

And I didn't know that explicitly although I might well have made use of the space. I'd guess that many other people wouldn't know either, including drivers turning R across it at that junction.

Jonathan

I can only repeat that I said "Sort of." I don't think it makes it a cycle lane but it seems to be road space intended by the authorities for use by cyclists.

AIUI, the starting point of all our rules/legislation/ guidance is that road users must keep a good lookout.

Then, at a junction like this, traffic going straight ahead has priority over traffic turning.

The turning van driver should have been alert to the possibility of a cyclist emerging from the nearside of the waiting van. In making the turn without apparently trying to check for that the van driver has IMO acted wrongly.

The cyclist should have been alert to the possibility of there being some unseen hazard at the junction. He has also acted wrongly IMO.

The video is inadequate to show with any sort of accuracy things like the optimum stopping position of the van for the driver to have a decent view. The van has a bonnet etc so the driver's sight line isn't from the van's front bumper. Nor does the video accurately record the riders speed, which might have affected both people's view of the other.

Unfortunately, it's all academic because crashes like this seem to go uninvestigated.

Finally, more generally on the point of confusion over zig-zags, parking there attracts an endorsement but is likely to go unenforced these days because yellow line parking enforcement only covers yellow lines and the police largely don't enforce anything to do with parking.

[Jdsk]

The turning van driver should have been alert to the possibility of a cyclist emerging from the nearside of the waiting van. In making the turn without apparently trying to check for that the van driver has IMO acted wrongly.

The cyclist should have been alert to the possibility of there being some unseen hazard at the junction. He has also acted wrongly IMO.

The video is inadequate to show with any sort of accuracy things like the optimum stopping position of the van for the driver to have a decent view. The van has a bonnet etc so the driver's sight line isn't from the van's front bumper. Nor does the video accurately record the riders speed, which might have affected both people's view of the other.

Mostly agree.

I can't tell how well the van driver looked. The vehicle's speed looks slightly high just before the collision.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Mostly agree.

I can't tell how well the van driver looked. The vehicle's speed looks slightly high just before the collision.

Jonathan

On the basis of the linked CCTV I'd have been more than happy to stand up and prosecute a case on the grounds that he didn't look. All I'm saying is that it's difficult from the vid to know what difference it might have made. Criminal proceedings are not either/ or and I could have made a case for due care against the rider as well.

Incidentally, in the days when crashes routinely led to prosecutions, having footage like that available when crashes had occurred would have made life so much easier. The camera can lie, but witlesses can lie or make mistakes.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
The larger white van is impeding traffic flow (you don't stop to let other secondary traffic go)
If the larger van had not stopped then the small van would more likely have seen the cyclist.
The smaller van should of proceeded with caution.................
The cyclist maybe should of slowed down, and in this case where the pathetic cycle lane ended / continuous vague, was in a bad position crossing at a junction, traffic was heavy.............I'd be crawling riding at that junction.

[Jdsk]

The larger white van is impeding traffic flow (you don't stop to let other secondary traffic go)
If the larger van had not stopped then the small van would more likely have seen the cyclist.

I don't think that it's possible to tell why the larger white van stopped.

Does it say "Keep Clear" in front of where it stopped?

Jonathan

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I would have to look again at the junction, and look for yellow box?

Stopping on a highway to let other traffic out is a no no in your test?

Edited-

It says "Keep Clear" on a portion of road in front of big van.
But you can see clearly that the van stops when traffic is flowing......................

[thirdcrank]

I'd suggest that the driver who stopped was driving correctly and considerately.

I base that on Rule 151 of the HC of which the following are the relevant bits here

Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should

....
allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 103-to-158

I think somebody further up suggested the video showed a box junction, which may say something about eye witnesses. AFAIK, box junctions don't somehow legalise allowing access to and from side roads; on the contrary, they are painted at great expense to try to enforce a bit of consideration.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

hI,

I'd suggest that the driver who stopped was driving correctly and considerately.

I base that on Rule 151 of the HC of which the following are the relevant bits here

Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should

....
allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 103-to-158

I think somebody further up suggested the video showed a box junction, which may say something about eye witnesses. AFAIK, box junctions don't somehow legalise allowing access to and from side roads; on the contrary, they are painted at great expense to try to enforce a bit of consideration.

In general I do not stop / slow to allow side junction entry / exit, if the traffic is moving freely.
But I will slow, open up a space/ stop if the traffic is slow moving, but I tend to glance in my mirror to see if anyone is following closely, so not to hinder their progress, if few following then I ignore waiting vehicle.
Bumper to bumper then I slow / stop and do not signal to driver waiting, they can make the decision alone to pass.
I don't see why I should give way to side traffic for one car, for the inconvenience of many that may be keeping up with me.
They are called "good Samaritans" in my book.

Of course if that one car is blocking much traffic flow, then it could be considered correct to let them pass.

We will never know if the following traffic was dense or not behind bigger van.
Letting traffic in and out of junctions is problematic as other road users sometimes try and drive around you

The cyclist should use extreme caution passing either side, when traffic stops.
Its a 50/50 in this case.

[wjhall]

{/quote]
Do you imagine that a more clearly marked cycle lane would make the cyclist somehow less likely to blast through the junction, hidden from crossing traffic, at high speed?

A fair question, and one that could be asked of any cycle lane, particularly as they approach junctions, where they tend to become left filter lanes.

The issue here, as now discussed at some length by others, seems to be that the markings persuade cyclists that there is a lane, but hide it from everyone else. As third crank has elucidated, the inset zigzags are specifically designed to create a space for cyclists to move forward. However, because of what seems to be a general rule that other markings override cycle lanes, this 'lane' or 'cyclist progression space' has nothing to indicate that cyclists might be found in it, although cycle markings are fairly frequent in the simple lanes outside the area of complexity. If the inset zigzags resemble anything, it is not a lane, but a carriageway boundary marker, indicating that nothing should be using the space between it and the kerb.

[Mike Sales]

{/quote]
Do you imagine that a more clearly marked cycle lane would make the cyclist somehow less likely to blast through the junction, hidden from crossing traffic, at high speed?

A fair question, and one that could be asked of any cycle lane, particularly as they approach junctions, where they tend to become left filter lanes.

How is this problem handled in The Netherlands?

[Jdsk]

The issue here, as now discussed at some length by others, seems to be that the markings persuade cyclists that there is a lane, but hide it from everyone else.

This is a very interesting point.

(Most "accidents" don't have a single cause, and I've already expressed my views on the behaviour of the cyclist and the driver of the small white van.)

Jonathan