Turning left into a cycle lane

[franz10mp]

Hi,

I cannot find an answer in the highway code and I had an argument about this with a motorist this morning.

When turning left into a cycle lane from a minor road with no cycle lane to a main road with a cycle lane (see https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9466452 ... 384!8i8192), should I give way to cars?

My view is that I should not give way to cars because cars must be off the cycle lane. But I can't find a reference in the highway code for this scenario.

Please could you help?

Thank you,

Franz

[Jdsk]

Is the car in the image following the same path that you are describing when riding a bike?

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD schedule 9 parts 7 and 8
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203

Jonathan

[franz10mp]

Hi Jonathan,

To answer your question, the car in the picture has a much wider trajectory since the car wants to occupy the center of the car lane. My trajectory was much narrower (exactly following the two yellow lines next to the kerb) since I wanted to be on the cycle lane (rather than the car lane).

Thanks for the reference. So, is that the general and universal rule regardless of the presence of a cycle lane and the trajectory of the cyclist as in this case?

[Jdsk]

I'm not aware of an exception to Rule 172 because you're turning into a cycle lane.

Jonathan

PS: The road user on the major road doesn't know where you're intending to end up, and you're not obliged to use the cycle lane...

[Nearholmer]

I certainly would stop (or at least come right down to snail’s pace, ready to stop on a sixpence) at that junction before turning left into the cycle lane, for my own safety, as much as legal reasons, because there is no guarantee that a a vehicle won’t be coming from the right, driving wholly or partially in the cycle lane.

Whether vehicles are allowed in cycle lanes marked with a dotted line is always a moot point (I think they are, and that the lane is largely advisory both to cyclists and motorists), but even if they aren’t, a driver could make an error, or be legitimately crossing the cycle lane to get into that lay-by where the post van is.

TBH, I’m no great fan of cycle lanes designated by nothing but paint, especially broken white lines, because to me they seem to offer the cyclist a false assurance of safety, and they somehow delegitimise riding on the main part of the carriageway, even when it’s safer to do so, encouraging bullying by impatient motorists.

[franz10mp]

Thank you Nearholmer for your reply.

I, of course, looked to the right and made sure nobody or nothing was coming from that direction on the cycle lane. Also the car of the motorist that stopped to argue was fairly far away from me (more than 50cm away), so I found the argument quite pretentious since there was not a situation of visible danger.

To me, it is more about the law and a matter of principle really.

[Pastychomper]

I think it comes down to whether the cycle lane counts as, well, a lane. I think it should do, but don't really know the legal situation - and I agree one should be cautious in accordance with the life-paintwork hypothesis.

The normal practise for entering a multi-lane road is to give way to traffic in the lane you're trying to enter (and any other lane you plan to cross) and ignore traffic that's staying in a different lane. On dual carriageways it's common for car drivers to move to the outer lane if there's someone waiting at a junction, so the person waiting is free to join the inner lane, and that's still done (legally, I hope) when the junction has broken white lines. I don't see that a "single" carriageway with a cycle lane is any different, but I'd be interested to hear if the law takes a different view.

[Nearholmer]

I found the argument quite pretentious since there was not a situation of visible danger.

It is possible that you simply alarmed the motorist by “popping out in front of them”, they having no idea where exactly you were intending to go. It’s not unusual for people to get angry when alarmed/startled; some people are just very jumpy.

I do think that cycle lanes marked with dashed lines are a fruitful source of confusion though. My understanding is that it is legal to drive wholly or partly in one if that is “unavoidable”, as it would be to cross that one to get to the lay-by, or if one was driving an exceptionally wide vehicle.

[slowster]

Thank you Nearholmer for your reply.

I, of course, looked to the right and made sure nobody or nothing was coming from that direction on the cycle lane. Also the car of the motorist that stopped to argue was fairly far away from me (more than 50cm away), so I found the argument quite pretentious since there was not a situation of visible danger.

To me, it is more about the law and a matter of principle really.

You committed an offence (breach of Rule 172 of the Highway Code as quoted above). Given that the benchmark separation distance for motor vehicles to avoid committing a close pass when overtaking a cyclist is 1.5m, 'more than 50cm away' was probably nowhere near enough.

The fact that the motor vehicle was too close to the cycle lane is not a defence to the charge of you having committed an offence. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your argument that there was not a 'situation of visible danger' is the same one that many motorists use when it is pointed out to them that they have committed a close pass. You were pulling out from a side road with give way markings into a main road. The onus was on you to complete that manoeuvre safely.

[irc]

I aree you were in the wrong OP. Regardless of the law which seems clear the motorist sees a cyclist emerging from a side road and has no idea which part of the road you are heading for.

A 50cm gap is too small. If I was the motorist and oncoming traffic prevented me from moving onto the far side of the road I'd be considering an emergency stop if a cyclist pulled out in that situation

Different angle here. Perhaps in rush hour stop start traffic edging slowly onto the cycle lane would be OK. With cars doing 25-30mph no. IMO.

https://goo.gl/maps/RKAgBSyjSEZFksfv8

[Nearholmer]

And that street view illustrates my point about vehicles legitimately impinging on the cycle lane, in this case a wide vehicle.

Or, is it illegitimate? Could the bus driver have slowed right down and thereby avoided impinging? There are no cyclists about in the views, so probably didn’t need to.

Oh, and how far out should one ride in the cycle lane? Quite far, to avoid being “doored” from a parked car ….. but then one would be too close to overtaking traffic. All of which reinforces why I’m wary of these lanes and think they provide false assurance.

[franz10mp]

Just to clarify that it could have been a distance of 1.50m between me and the car as I did not feel in danger. I did not have a measuring tape with me but I felt there was enough distance between me (the cyclist) and the car. I have been cycling on that cycle lane every day for years and this situation was no particularly different from what usually happens and nobody ever argued with me about this before.

That said, if there are no exceptions to rule 172, then this implies I was wrong legally speaking. Will keep that in mind next time.

[slowster]

I would suggest focusing more on on safe cycling and good roadcraft, than who is legally in the right in a given situation. Being in the right and knowing that a motorist committed an offence is not much consolation if you are injured in a collision.

I would recommend you look into getting some training to improve your roadcraft. The urban cycing skills training advertised by York Council for £5 looks an absolute bargain.

https://www.itravelyork.info/cycling-training

[franz10mp]

Again, my question was merely about the law as the argument with the motorist was about the law. Nobody's safety was threatened in this case so I have no concerns about me riding my bike dangerously.

[Jdsk]

I would suggest focusing more on on safe cycling and good roadcraft, than who is legally in the right in a given situation.
...

Excellent advice.

Jonathan