Be safe or risk injury?

[maximus meridius]

I've argued this point on Twitter countless times, including a few minutes ago.

If he's been following this subject on Twitter he'll have seen that motorists carry on arguing long after they've been made aware what the Highway Code says, so it's patently about arrogance, not ignorance. Their attitude is that "You're the vulnerable road user, so I can do as I please and rely on you to give way, confident that I won't be the one who gets hurt if you don't". This attitude doesn't just apply to turning left, either.

So yes, cyclists can keep backing down all the time, but if they do that nothing will ever change.

On the other hand, I have also said a lot about the wisdom of traffic management that deliberately puts left-turning vehicles on the right of those going straight ahead.

Absurd Lanes.jpg
Cycle path diagram #5.JPG
So which is it.png

Where is this junction?

[CyberKnight]

questioning the right in the second part where the cyclist is behind the van and claims even though the van is in front and indicating the cyclist has the right to cycle up the inside

[Pinhead]

Surely only a fool would pass a lorry on the inside until it has PASSED the junction, drivers, cars, vans etc do NOT always indicate to turn, or forget they are still indicating.

I remember an idiot at our club years ago said he hit a car because ...

It was indicating left so he pulled out, the car wasn't turning he forgot to cancel the indicator, so NOT his fault, don't turn pull out 'till SURE and never pass a vehicle like a lorry at a junction, the B********* sign is large enough

[maximus meridius]

questioning the right in the second part where the cyclist is behind the van and claims even though the van is in front and indicating the cyclist has the right to cycle up the inside

I assume you're talking about the video at ~ 1:06?

Yes, I questioned that too. Turns out it's correct:

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/#:~:tex ... necessary.

There's no cycle lane or marking there. No indication to any road user that a cycle might be coming up the inside of the van. Frankly any cyclist who cycles up the inside of the van needs to have their bumps felt. What's wrong with taking the lane and going through like any other vehicle?

Just a thought. Some helpful, co-operative road users like to enable smooth traffic flow. Perhaps the van driver is one. Perhaps he knows that junction very well, and knows only too well how hard it is turning right coming from the opposite direction. So, though he is turning left, he pauses, flashes somebody turning right from the opposite direction. Meanwhile Mr Assertive Cyclist Who Know His Rights goes up the left of the van, where he is obscured. Guess the rest.

EDIT: In fact, watch the video again. The scenario I give, in my last paragraph, is even more possible, having viewed the video again. There is indeed a van waiting to turn right (coming from the opposite direction). Perhaps our van driver's mate, you never know. What's more, a vehicle going the same way as the cyclist is also turning right. There don't seem to be any road markings, but either by tacit agreement, custom, or because of some signage/marking I can't see, the two right turning vehicles aren't going round each other (the "usual" way), right side to right side, but are going left side to left side. The possibility that our van driver might allow the right turning van to "nip" through early is increased, especially as the traffic in the outside lane has now cleared, and the only thing stopping the right turning van is traffic in our van's lane.

[maximus meridius]

I've argued this point on Twitter countless times, including a few minutes ago.

If he's been following this subject on Twitter he'll have seen that motorists carry on arguing long after they've been made aware what the Highway Code says, so it's patently about arrogance, not ignorance. Their attitude is that "You're the vulnerable road user, so I can do as I please and rely on you to give way, confident that I won't be the one who gets hurt if you don't". This attitude doesn't just apply to turning left, either.

So yes, cyclists can keep backing down all the time, but if they do that nothing will ever change.

On the other hand, I have also said a lot about the wisdom of traffic management that deliberately puts left-turning vehicles on the right of those going straight ahead.

Absurd Lanes.jpg
Cycle path diagram #5.JPG
So which is it.png

Where is the junction in your picture?

[plancashire]

I have just listened to a German podcast "Radwissen" in which some researchers described a large project they are doing to find out what road features make people on bikes feel safe, are convenient, etc. There's some trade-off between the two, also depending on the rider demographic. They use a simulator to present sets of three random mixes of road features to people actually riding a bike - a bit like a driving simulator. Over thousands of tests they can separate out the individual features.

They found that exposed positions at junctions such as a lane between cars were felt to be very unsafe. I know one of these in Düsseldorf and I do feel a bit exposed. There is always motor traffic crossing the bike lane before this point, which makes most riders want to check behind traffic behind them - this is unusual in a network of bike lanes at the side of the road, so many riders here are not good at looking over the shoulder. Mirrors are quite common. I have them.

The subjective safety feel of a bike lane essentially depended on the distance and robustness of the physical separation from motor traffic. Painted lines were perceived as less safe than a protected bike lane with posts, concrete blocks were even better. Adding parked cars, pedestrians and tram tracks into the mix complicates it a great deal. Young men were less sensitive to the differences. No surprise.

I imagine this research would not translate to Britain, where infrastructure for bikes and expected driver behaviour are both very different. Is anyone doing any similar research in Britain? Surprise me.

[mjr]

On the other hand, I have also said a lot about the wisdom of traffic management that deliberately puts left-turning vehicles on the right of those going straight ahead.

The guy narrating the video gets it right when he says it doesn't matter whether it's a cycle lane. Motorists cut cyclists up whether it's a lane, mixed traffic or sometimes even on bridleways!

I disagree with your faked layout pics but we've discussed them before and they're not relevant here.

Change will come but not if we all take the video narrator's view and refuse to even try cautiously to seek priority. But let's leave ourselves an escape route if priority is usurped and not end up run over avoidably.

[Pete Owens]

On the other hand, I have also said a lot about the wisdom of traffic management that deliberately puts left-turning vehicles on the right of those going straight ahead.

The guy narrating the video gets it right when he says it doesn't matter whether it's a cycle lane. Motorists cut cyclists up whether it's a lane, mixed traffic or sometimes even on bridleways!

Indeed, but they are very much more likely to fail to notice you if you sneak up from behind them. Junctions are where crashes occur, which is why installing infrastructure that increases the crash rate by a factor of THREE is such an extraordinarily bad idea.

The planners are keen to prevent us obstructing the flow of motor traffic (the only thing that really concerns them) hence their enthusiasm for segregation. But they understand how daft such designs are. That is why you will never see lane markings leading to a priority junction directing a stream of motor traffic heading lo the left to the right of a stream of traffic heading to the right.

And don't bother making a fool of yourself by posting a list of junctions where the lane markings are perfectly sensible.
To be clear - I mean approaching a PRIORITY junction where the streams of traffic cross paths - not grade separated junctions where they cross at different levels, or signal controlled junctions where they are separated by time, nor for a junction half a mile down the road.

[maximus meridius]

I've argued this point on Twitter countless times, including a few minutes ago.

If he's been following this subject on Twitter he'll have seen that motorists carry on arguing long after they've been made aware what the Highway Code says, so it's patently about arrogance, not ignorance. Their attitude is that "You're the vulnerable road user, so I can do as I please and rely on you to give way, confident that I won't be the one who gets hurt if you don't". This attitude doesn't just apply to turning left, either.

So yes, cyclists can keep backing down all the time, but if they do that nothing will ever change.

On the other hand, I have also said a lot about the wisdom of traffic management that deliberately puts left-turning vehicles on the right of those going straight ahead.

Absurd Lanes.jpg
Cycle path diagram #5.JPG
So which is it.png

So, it turns out your failure to answer my question - "where is that junction please" - which I asked repeatedly, was because your picture of a junction is indeed a fake. And you know it's a fake.

The road markings on axel_knutt's picture do not exist (hint, the A3 goes from London to Portsmouth, nowhere near York).

So I won't be taking any advice to throw myself under vans in order to support the dishonest preachings of axel_knutt. It makes his "case" (whatever that is) look pretty poor if he has to make stuff up to support it.

[Post edited by moderator because of breach of forum guidelines]

[Pete Owens]

Is that a picture of a current junction in York? Does the A3 even go anywhere near York? The picture on the left looks bonkers, are there any real junctions like that?

Of course it isn't a real junction. The whole point is that the picture on the left is so obviously bonkers that you will never see an example in real life. The trouble is that the picture on the right is exactly equivalent - it is just as dangerous so equally bonkers - yet unfortunately commonplace.

[maximus meridius]

Is that a picture of a current junction in York? Does the A3 even go anywhere near York? The picture on the left looks bonkers, are there any real junctions like that?

Of course it isn't a real junction. The whole point is that the picture on the left is so obviously bonkers that you will never see an example in real life. The trouble is that the picture on the right is exactly equivalent - it is just as dangerous so equally bonkers - yet unfortunately commonplace.

Excuse me, but there's no "of course" about it. Please don't make such arrogant assumptions. If somebody posts a picture like that, with real place names and road numbers on it, then it's being given as a real example. There will be plenty of people who don't know the A3, or York, well enough to realise it's a fake. If axel_knutt wanted to compare two things, one of which is "obviously bonkers" as you put it, he should have made it clear that it was fictional. And he didn't.

The picture on the right is not "exactly equivalent". In the picture on the right the leftmost lane is a cycle lane. Which means cycles can go in it, but not motorised cars, vans etc. Whereas in the "obviously bonkers" lefthand picture, any vehicle can take the leftmost lane. Those two pictures may be partially equivalent as far as a cyclist wanting to go straight on is concerned. But they aren't equivalent for other road users.

The rightmost picture looks a little fictional to me too, to be honest. Why would there be a "straight on" arrow in the cycle lane, when there's clearly a left turn coming up. Presumably cyclists are allowed to turn left there.

[Post edited by moderator because of breach of forum guidelines]

[Jdsk]

The point about the overwhelming importance of trying to avoid harm has been well made by several posters.

Language matters:

AFAIK the Highway Code never uses "x has the right to y". (Now there's a hostage to fortune!)

It often uses "give way to". That seems appropriate.

It sometimes uses: "have priority". I wonder if all of those could or should be reworded to "give way to". "Have priority" obviously still requires "don't be stupid" and "don't harm others" but those can easily be forgotten, especially when the red mist of tribal othering descends. "Give way to" would seem less likely to have that effect.

Jonathan

PS: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk isn't the official site for the Highway Code. I don't know why it exists. The official site is:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

[deeferdonk]

The highway code is quite clear. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of traffic indicating left. Drivers indicating left shouldn't turn in front of cyclists. If everyone follows that to the letter, you will both come to a stop until thirst or hunger leads you to abandon your vehicles

I'm being facetious of course - its just common sense really. If you are turning left in your car don't do it whilst there's a cyclist approaching up your inside. If you are a cyclist don't go up the inside of a vehicle indicating left unless its clear that they have seen you and are waiting for you to pass.

Source data from the HWC

For cyclist:
Rule 74
Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

For driver:
Rule H3 - Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve.

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

approaching, passing or moving off from a junction
moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
travelling around a roundabout

[Cowsham]

The point about the overwhelming importance of trying to avoid harm has been well made by several posters.

Language matters:

AFAIK the Highway Code never uses "x has the right to y". (Now there's a hostage to fortune!)

It often uses "give way to". That seems appropriate.

It sometimes uses: "have priority". I wonder if all of those could or should be reworded to "give way to". "Have priority" obviously still requires "don't be stupid" and "don't harm others" but those can easily be forgotten, especially when the red mist of tribal othering descends. "Give way to" would seem less likely to have that effect.

Jonathan

PS: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk isn't the official site for the Highway Code. I don't know why it exists. The official site is:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

There's only one problem with rules or in the case of the highway code 'guidelines' which can or maybe used in court, the thing that's trying to follow them is not a machine, they are human. Humans make mistakes hence I never trust they will do what the guidelines say they should.

Works both ways too, the cyclist may do something daft too, I know I have done and thanks to a motorists vigilance I'm still here to admit it.

[Jdsk]

The highway code is quite clear. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of traffic indicating left. Drivers indicating left shouldn't turn in front of cyclists. If everyone follows that to the letter, you will both come to a stop until thirst or hunger leads you to abandon your vehicles

I'm being facetious of course - its just common sense really. If you are turning left in your car don't do it whilst there's a cyclist approaching up your inside. If you are a cyclist don't go up the inside of a vehicle indicating left unless its clear that they have seen you and are waiting for you to pass.

Source data from the HWC

For cyclist:
Rule 74
Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

For driver:
Rule H3 - Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve.

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

approaching, passing or moving off from a junction
moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
travelling around a roundabout

Yes. And no mention of "priority" or "has the right to". And it works well without them.

Jonathan