Turning the Corner

[david7591]

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ter-337398

[meic]

Is this actually getting somewhere now or just a re-run of an existing story?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111036&hilit=boardman+turn

I still think that the idea that enough motorists can actually manage to do this, without intimidating or slaughtering anybody brave enough to try and exercise their new found priority, is wildly optimistic.

[Pete Owens]

An absolutely bonkers proposal.

Whether it would improve safety depends on the answer to the following question:
Vehicle A is about to a junction where they are about to turn.
Vehicle B coming from behind, heading straight on is overtaking on the the side that Vehicle A is turning.
Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

If you answer A then you will support the proposal ... but does anyone honestly believe that?

I can't imagine how anyone can convince themselves that a scheme to accord priority to overtaking vehicles somehow benefits cyclists.

[Cyril Haearn]

Should save motorists six hours a year

That is not desireable, they will use the time to drive more

*Better fewer motors than more cycles! *

[mjr]

Is this actually getting somewhere now or just a re-run of an existing story?

I think there was an event about it yesterday. I'm not sure it's getting anywhere much yet, though.

I still think that the idea that enough motorists can actually manage to do this, without intimidating or slaughtering anybody brave enough to try and exercise their new found priority, is wildly optimistic.

Seems to work in other countries, in my experience. You can't totally trust them, but it does seem to increase the proportion of motorists that actually stop and give way mid-turn.

An absolutely bonkers proposal.

Whether it would improve safety depends on the answer to the following question:
Vehicle A is about to a junction where they are about to turn.
Vehicle B coming from behind, heading straight on is overtaking on the the side that Vehicle A is turning.
Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

If you answer A then you will support the proposal ... but does anyone honestly believe that?

However, it is already the situation when vehicle B is a bus in a bus lane, or when both vehicles are on a motorway. I used to see motorists get their vehicles totalled because they failed to give way in this situation. It would be in motorists' interests to have this law consistent and clearly, for the public good, buses should have priority.

The probable alternative is that we keep on with the current crap situation where bus lanes and cycle lanes cease across major junctions and motorists jam them up at almost every junction. Do you prefer that?

[PH]

Whether it would improve safety depends on the answer to the following question:
Vehicle A is about to a junction where they are about to turn.
Vehicle B coming from behind, heading straight on is overtaking on the the side that Vehicle A is turning.
Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

Is this a fill in the missing words game?

[Pete Owens]

An absolutely bonkers proposal.

Whether it would improve safety depends on the answer to the following question:
Vehicle A is about to a junction where they are about to turn.
Vehicle B coming from behind, heading straight on is overtaking on the the side that Vehicle A is turning.
Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

If you answer A then you will support the proposal ... but does anyone honestly believe that?

A take it from your usual failure to give a straight answer that you don't actually believe that drivers are more aware of the situation behind them then they are of the situation in front of them.

However, it is already the situation when vehicle B is a bus in a bus lane,

No it isn't. bus lanes (at least properly designed ones) end some distance before junctions so that traffic can get in to the correct lane in time to make a turn. Of course you do occasionally see poorly implemented bus lanes that would lead busses to the wrong position at a junction. In these cases the bus drivers will invariably leave the bus lane and take the correct lane for the direction they are heading.

or when both vehicles are on a motorway.

This is most certainly not the case. On motorways all junctions are on the left - and drivers are required to approach junctions in lane 1. Overtaking takes place on the right, so the sort of conflicting manoeuvres are designed out of the system. No drivers leave a motorway slip road anticipating being overtaken on the wrong side.

[Pete Owens]

Whether it would improve safety depends on the answer to the following question:
Vehicle A is about to a junction where they are about to turn.
Vehicle B coming from behind, heading straight on is overtaking on the the side that Vehicle A is turning.
Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

Is this a fill in the missing words game?

Indeed.

I deliberately referred to "A" and "B" because apologists for this suggestion imagine that it somehow intended to benefit cyclists over drivers, presumably thinking that cyclists never make turns or drivers never overtake cyclists.

[mjr]

Which driver is more likely to notes the other (A or B)?

If you answer A then you will support the proposal ... but does anyone honestly believe that?

A take it from your usual failure to give a straight answer that you don't actually believe that drivers are more aware of the situation behind them then they are of the situation in front of them.

How do you know what A takes? Are you imagining yourself as the driver of vehicle A? Is there where the objection comes from - lack of faith in your ability to check the mirror before signalling and moving?

Anyway, I ignored that question because I believe it's pretty much irrelevant. After all, apply it to other situations: would it really be a good general principle of road design for the faster vehicle approaching from behind to have priority?

However, it is already the situation when vehicle B is a bus in a bus lane,

No it isn't. bus lanes (at least properly designed ones) end some distance before junctions so that traffic can get in to the correct lane in time to make a turn.

Only in this country and only for major junctions. Even in many neighbouring countries, bus lanes continue through major junctions. For example, in France, bus lanes now often have easier-to-see checks painted through the junction, making it clearer that other motorists should give way. Some bike lanes have it too, but that's rarer.

Are you really claiming that continuing priority lanes through a junction isn't a proper design? I knew you were vehicularist but I didn't realise you had gone the full motoring-supremacist on this.

Of course you do occasionally see poorly implemented bus lanes that would lead busses to the wrong position at a junction. In these cases the bus drivers will invariably leave the bus lane and take the correct lane for the direction they are heading.

Hang on, vehicle B was "heading straight on," so it's not necessary that the bus lane is in the wrong position.

or when both vehicles are on a motorway.

This is most certainly not the case. On motorways all junctions are on the left - and drivers are required to approach junctions in lane 1.

Nope, they're not. While less common, there are many right-hand motorway junctions, such as leaving the M42 onto the M40, or M6 onto A14. I'm sure there's a list of others in a previous discussion, so let's not repeat it here, but the bottom line is: if you need to cross a parallel lane to reach your exit, you must give way to that lane. Why should that only apply to if you're crossing a lane containing motorists?

(Edited to rephrase a question to make it clearer by reversing the focus and to remove a duplicated word.)

[mjr]

Is this a fill in the missing words game?

Indeed.

I deliberately referred to "A" and "B" because apologists for this suggestion imagine that it somehow intended to benefit cyclists over drivers, presumably thinking that cyclists never make turns or drivers never overtake cyclists.

I think PH's comment was more directed at phrases like "about to a junction" which don't really make sense... but then the argument against making STraight Ahead as Right-of-way (STAR) a general principle doesn't make much sense to me either, so I didn't hold that against you.