Cycling UK Forum

Cowsham wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 6:39pm There is one big caveat about this road layout though and it's something my brother highlighted to me when the new rules came in about stopping in the flow of traffic to let a pedestrian or whatever cross at junctions.

This is not a new rule. The 2007 edition included it. I expect that it has been there much longer. It was merely clarified in the latest edition.

He was on a road safety committee before his current job and didn't agree with the new rules / guidelines as he had to investigate the causes of some nasty road crashes. One cause was drivers waiting to turn right at lights but being hit from behind by an unobservant driver.

If the waiting driver had the steering wheels straight ( which is where they should always be when stopped at the lights ) the car would be pushed by the car behind straight on but if the waiting driver had the wheels turned in anticipation of turning right their car can be pushed straight into oncoming traffic.

It occurred to me the same could happen to a car awaiting a cyclist going past on the left lane. ( or a pedestrian crossing a junction on the left )

Both the cyclist and waiting driver may be in the right but a dreadful accident can still easily happen and also easily be much lessened by the cyclist giving way to the turning driver thus not getting involved.

That would be my default action. I think the new rules / guidelines or whatever they are, are extremely dangerous, so is that type of road layout.

Those are very good points, but when I was learning, I was taught to wait for a turn with my wheels facing forward. This is also important for right turns, where a shunt would put you into oncoming traffic.

This problem exists at other sorts of crossings, as well. My son was almost struck once in a signal crossing by a shunted vehicle.

Going up the inside of moving traffic is asking for trouble,I would only ever ride up the inside if traffic is stopped and knew it wasn't about to start moving and even then I'd be riding slowly and be looking for "gaps are traps" scenarios between the traffic I'm undertaking,but I'd most likely get off and walk it if anyway unsure.

Priority is of little use to someone after being wiped off and injured or worse by a left turning vehicle many time bigger than a cyclist.
Assume the worst case scenario and work to that possibility,always expect the unexpected,and every other road user is trying to kill me is a safe way to ride IMO.

Vorpal wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 11:11am

Cowsham wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 6:39pm There is one big caveat about this road layout though and it's something my brother highlighted to me when the new rules came in about stopping in the flow of traffic to let a pedestrian or whatever cross at junctions.

This is not a new rule. The 2007 edition included it. I expect that it has been there much longer. It was merely clarified in the latest edition.

He was on a road safety committee before his current job and didn't agree with the new rules / guidelines as he had to investigate the causes of some nasty road crashes. One cause was drivers waiting to turn right at lights but being hit from behind by an unobservant driver.

If the waiting driver had the steering wheels straight ( which is where they should always be when stopped at the lights ) the car would be pushed by the car behind straight on but if the waiting driver had the wheels turned in anticipation of turning right their car can be pushed straight into oncoming traffic.

It occurred to me the same could happen to a car awaiting a cyclist going past on the left lane. ( or a pedestrian crossing a junction on the left )

Both the cyclist and waiting driver may be in the right but a dreadful accident can still easily happen and also easily be much lessened by the cyclist giving way to the turning driver thus not getting involved.

That would be my default action. I think the new rules / guidelines or whatever they are, are extremely dangerous, so is that type of road layout.

Those are very good points, but when I was learning, I was taught to wait for a turn with my wheels facing forward. This is also important for right turns, where a shunt would put you into oncoming traffic.

This problem exists at other sorts of crossings, as well. My son was almost struck once in a signal crossing by a shunted vehicle.

Rule H2 applies to drivers, motorcyclists horse-drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists. It reads:

“At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.”

From January 2022 a pedestrian waiting to cross should be given priority. Previously, drivers were told to give way to pedestrians if they ‘have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road’.


https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/lega ... 20priority.

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 1:13pm From January 2022 a pedestrian waiting to cross should be given priority. Previously, drivers were told to give way to pedestrians if they ‘have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road’.

Are you quoting someone there? Because they're mistaken. A pedestrian waiting to cross should always have been given priority. It just wasn't stated explicitly in the crossing rule because, back when the rules were first written, the authors probably considered it bleeding obvious and didn't realise drivers had to be told in multiple possible rules not to bully pedestrians. They failed to foresee how low driving standards would fall.

reohn2 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 1:11pm Going up the inside of moving traffic is asking for trouble,I would only ever ride up the inside if traffic is stopped and knew it wasn't about to start moving and even then I'd be riding slowly and be looking for "gaps are traps" scenarios between the traffic I'm undertaking,but I'd most likely get off and walk it if anyway unsure.

Priority is of little use to someone after being wiped off and injured or worse by a left turning vehicle many time bigger than a cyclist.
Assume the worst case scenario and work to that possibility,always expect the unexpected,and every other road user is trying to kill me is a safe way to ride IMO.

Exactly -- hence why there's signs ( on Ulsterbus / Translink ) on the back of the bus to alert cyclists to the dangers of cycling up the left blind side of any bus to the front of a junction.

Look at the position of the wheels at the front of the silver car !

And that's from the governments own website about waiting for a pedestrian to cross !
If that white van ploughs into the back of the silver car that girl crossing the road is toast. Gulp -- just noticed the van is towing a trailer !

It's a bloody dangerous rule.

Vorpal wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 10:53am

gcogger wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 4:57pm

I can't say that I see those 2 phrases in the same way but, if you don't like the former, how about something like:
"Don't assume it's safe to enter a space just because you have priority".

I think that "priority is given not taken" is more succinct, but each to their own.

Those are two very different things. If priority is 'given' it can be taken away.

I think this demonstrates that Ashley Neal should be clearer about what he means, rather than relying on a 'catchy' phrase that's open to interpretation. In the context of everything else he talks about, it seemed clear enough to me, but we obviously have different interpretations.

Probably better always to emphasise what the Highway Code actually says, and then explain how that may be applied when considering a specific scenario or video

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)

Signals, stopping procedures, lighting, control of the vehicle, speed limits, stopping distances, lines and lane markings and multi-lane carriageways, smoking, mobile phones and sat nav.

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 1:50pm ..... It's a bloody dangerous rule.

It's another case of s/he had priority,written on the tombstone!

slowster wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 2:14pm Probably better always to emphasise what the Highway Code actually says, and then explain how that may be applied when considering a specific scenario or video

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)

Signals, stopping procedures, lighting, control of the vehicle, speed limits, stopping distances, lines and lane markings and multi-lane carriageways, smoking, mobile phones and sat nav.

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

I did notice that where it says must you are committing a criminal offense when disobeying the code but in general the rest ( when it doesn't say must ) can be used in court against you when disobeying that. To my mind that's just confusing the normal road user so they should just state it's the law and be done with it.

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 2:25pm ...... To my mind that's just confusing the normal road user so they should just state it's the law and be done with it.

It seems logical doesn't it?

That said outside of Internet forums and people taking their driving test,who reads the HC anyway?

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 1:50pm Look at the position of the wheels at the front of the silver car !

And that's from the governments own website about waiting for a pedestrian to cross !

Screenshot_20230920-134626_Chrome.jpg

If that white van ploughs into the back of the silver car that girl crossing the road is toast. Gulp -- just noticed the van is towing a trailer !

It's a bloody dangerous rule.

Stopping for pedestrians crossing side roads has always been in the highway code - it was certainly the case when I was learning to drive half a century ago. There is absolutely no problem with it. It is easy for the driver to see a pedestrian in front of them and stop (and vice versa). The rule is basically the same as for zebra crossings.

The logic of your argument is absurd in that it implies that once a driver has started they should never ever stop for anything whatsoever.
Stop for a red traffic light? No, too bloody dangerous - blast on straight through, the car behind might not stop.
Slow down for a cyclist in your path? No, too bloody dangerous - mow them down, the car behind might not slow.
Stop for level crossing barriers? No, too bloody dangerous - blast on straight through, the car behind might not stop.
Stop when you reach your destination? No, too bloody dangerous - keep on driving, the car behind might not stop.
...

The problem with the new HC is not that it has clarified the situation for pedestrians crossing side roads, but has extended that to give priority to moving vehicles (ie bicycles) approaching from behind where they out of sight of each other.

Pete Owens wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 10:15pm

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 1:50pm Look at the position of the wheels at the front of the silver car !

And that's from the governments own website about waiting for a pedestrian to cross !

Screenshot_20230920-134626_Chrome.jpg

If that white van ploughs into the back of the silver car that girl crossing the road is toast. Gulp -- just noticed the van is towing a trailer !

It's a bloody dangerous rule.

Stopping for pedestrians crossing side roads has always been in the highway code - it was certainly the case when I was learning to drive half a century ago. There is absolutely no problem with it. It is easy for the driver to see a pedestrian in front of them and stop (and vice versa). The rule is basically the same as for zebra crossings.

The logic of your argument is absurd in that it implies that once a driver has started they should never ever stop for anything whatsoever.
Stop for a red traffic light? No, too bloody dangerous - blast on straight through, the car behind might not stop.
Slow down for a cyclist in your path? No, too bloody dangerous - mow them down, the car behind might not slow.
Stop for level crossing barriers? No, too bloody dangerous - blast on straight through, the car behind might not stop.
Stop when you reach your destination? No, too bloody dangerous - keep on driving, the car behind might not stop.
...

The problem with the new HC is not that it has clarified the situation for pedestrians crossing side roads, but has extended that to give priority to moving vehicles (ie bicycles) approaching from behind where they out of sight of each other.

Have you been following this thread ???

Cowsham wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 2:25pm

slowster wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 2:14pm Probably better always to emphasise what the Highway Code actually says, and then explain how that may be applied when considering a specific scenario or video

General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)

Signals, stopping procedures, lighting, control of the vehicle, speed limits, stopping distances, lines and lane markings and multi-lane carriageways, smoking, mobile phones and sat nav.

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

I did notice that where it says must you are committing a criminal offense when disobeying the code but in general the rest ( when it doesn't say must ) can be used in court against you when disobeying that. To my mind that's just confusing the normal road user so they should just state it's the law and be done with it.

But it's only the law (or more correctly, refers to situations covered by law) where it says "must", so if they just say "it's the law" then either they need to make a lot of new law or they're lying.

"Can be used in court" doesn't mean they'll win in court. I also refer you to Cyclecraft's description of Highway Code advice and how it is motor-centric and often exhibits poor understanding of other modes. And it's right: next time you see anyone walking along a pavement chatting with someone note that they're breaking Rule 1, if it's after sundown and they're wearing dark clothes (e.g., typical business attire) they're breaking Rule 3, and so on.

Pete.

Pete Owens wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 1:53am

deeferdonk wrote: ↑15 Sep 2023, 11:29am I find it weird that "Cyclists dismount" signs are never followed by another sign saying "Cyclists Remount"

Usually a cyclist dismount sign denotes the end of a cycleway - so there will be a cycleway sign on the reverse side showing the start of the cycleway approaching from the opposite direction.

The "Cyclists Dismount" sign has never been approved for the end of a cycleway unless it was a dead-end onto a footpath or similar. Currently, the recommended signs for the end of a cycleway are "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" and/or "Give Way" if there is no merge lane. Previously (1994-2020 IIRC), it was the ambiguous "End of Route".

"End of Route" first appeared in the 1994 signs regulations, at the same time as "Cyclists Dismount". Before that, the end of a cycleway was officially marked by a no-cycling sign or simply the absence of a cycle sign/symbol after a junction, although some places (Cambridgeshire, notably) used the cycle sign with "End" underneath it, which seems to have been as unauthorised as using "Cyclists Dismount" for a merging end.

The most common use is where a roadside cycle path crosses a side road. Since this is an unsafe arrangement for vehicles, the solution is to end the cycleway before the crossing, for cyclists to dismount, approach the crossing on the footway, cross the road as a pedestrian, then get on again when the cycleway restarts shortly beyond the crossing::

That's a failure, not a solution, the exact sort of faulty thinking done by the motorway engineers who designed even the smallest roads.

A safe solution is to continue the cycleway across the side road and require vehicles entering/exiting to give way, encouraged by markings and ramps.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... er2007.htm

That doesn't exist any more, does it? If it's where I think it is, most of the turnings have been closed and access concentrated on one no-right-turn-for-motors junction.

Note it is not the signs themselves that are the problem, but the dangerous segregated infrastructure design that makes them necessary in the first place.

Now that I do agree with. At least as far back as the 2008 edition of Cycle Infrastructure Design, highways designers have been told "Cyclists Dismount" is a symptom of a scheme that needs improving.