Be safe or risk injury?

[Pete Owens]

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

The trouble is that planners are increasingly installing infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. It is one thing hoping for all this hyper vigilant observation. The trouble is that humans make mistakes. A cyclist may not notice that another vehicle is signalling or a driver may forget to signal. A driver or cyclist may not notice another road user approaching from behind - most of our attention is ahead of us.

Conventional highway engineering designs out the problem by avoiding conflicting streams of traffic having to cross over through a junction.

[maximus meridius]

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

The trouble is that planners are increasingly installing infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. It is one thing hoping for all this hyper vigilant observation. The trouble is that humans make mistakes. A cyclist may not notice that another vehicle is signalling or a driver may forget to signal. A driver or cyclist may not notice another road user approaching from behind - most of our attention is ahead of us.

Yes. Which is why Ashley Neal's advice is appropriate.

[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

The trouble is that planners are increasingly installing infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. It is one thing hoping for all this hyper vigilant observation. The trouble is that humans make mistakes. A cyclist may not notice that another vehicle is signalling or a driver may forget to signal. A driver or cyclist may not notice another road user approaching from behind - most of our attention is ahead of us.

Conventional highway engineering designs out the problem by avoiding conflicting streams of traffic having to cross over through a junction.

Unless cyclists are removed from the highway I can't see how it can be completely practically designed out, you can split out a left turn lane ahead of the junction but you're just changing the location a car may cross a cyclists path.

On a different note I would just add a note of caution on Ashley Neal videos, most of what he says is standard /sensible stuff, but then he comes up with something silly and he can be aggressive (he has been to me when I commented on one of his videos where he said drivers should sound their horn before overtaking cyclists and i said i wouldn't appreciate it). Have also seen him get into some nasty spats with "cycling twitter", including showing the twitter profile of a lady who disagreed with him on one of his videos (doxxing?). He has set up a cycling specific channel alongside his main driving channel - but still seems to do some subtle cyclist bashing. I suppose its good for views and ad revenue.

[peetee]

Regarding the left turn across a cycle lane, I’m not sure that in most cases the rules of the road create the issue. Mostly I believe it is a combination of arrogance or ignorance. Arrogance because there will always be a large contingent of drivers who consider themselves superior and without fault when their vehicles are in close quarters with a cyclist. Ignorance when they simply don’t observe AND consider situations in detail (see aforementioned content by Ashley Neil) or they don’t understand the rules of priority on the highway. And on the latter point it’s worth noting that highway rules are well established that vehicles in multiple lane carriageways concede priority to those in the left lane unless stated otherwise. Anything not in the leftmost lane is, in effect, overtaking so should yield to anything that is to the left of them.
To my mind the most significant part of the recent highway legislation changes was the emphasis on universal responsibilities to lesser vehicles. Specifically it reinforces the fact that motor vehicles should respect non-motorised road users. That message cannot be understated but neither too can the fact that respect breeds respect and a sense of entitlement is no substitute for common sense.

[plancashire]

The left turn problem exists even with separated lanes, at least it does here in Germany, where it is the right turn. Traffic lights here do not have a phase where all road traffic is stopped, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to move. Instead the right-turning traffic must give way to pedestrians and cyclists moving straight ahead. This is part of the driving culture here. At many junctions there is a light for pedestrians and cyclists which switches back to red before the main lights - this gives the motor traffic an opportunity to turn right. Additionally on some junctions there are flashing yellow lights to tell car drivers that the crossing has right of way. The rule is constant but not the infrastructure. Trams make it even more confusing as they have their own separate light system. Drivers not used to this system, the confused and the aggressive can all cause right-turn accidents. HGVs with a blind spot are a particular problem. Too many German bike riders assume that the rules protect them and do not pause or look before riding across the junction.

[Cowsham]

If I deem it's too dangerous I use the footpath. If there's people on the footpath I either pass with caution or get off and walk past. Playing with the traffic is not what cycling is about for me.

[maximus meridius]

On a different note I would just add a note of caution on Ashley Neal videos, most of what he says is standard /sensible stuff, but then he comes up with something silly and he can be aggressive (he has been to me when I commented on one of his videos where he said drivers should sound their horn before overtaking cyclists and i said i wouldn't appreciate it). Have also seen him get into some nasty spats with "cycling twitter", including showing the twitter profile of a lady who disagreed with him on one of his videos (doxxing?). He has set up a cycling specific channel alongside his main driving channel - but still seems to do some subtle cyclist bashing. I suppose its good for views and ad revenue.

I think Ashley Neal's youtube output, including his cycling output, is largely positive in effect. His comments in the video at the start of this thread all made perfect sense to me, unlike the idea that we should "stand up for our rights" by adopting cycling habits that might get us killed.

Yes, like any of the "professional" Youtube/Twitter people, he does get into spats that drag on. There was one on his driving channel about somebody who went up a very long single lane road, created because of road works and controlled by temporary traffic lights. That's one of those awkward situations where flexibility and common sense are needed. But Ashley went to great lengths to prove who was "right" and who was "wrong". But at least they were all in cars. Stationary cars, as it happens, because nobody could move. So still alive.

Whereas a cyclist who, coming up on the inside of a vehicle which is indicating to turn left, decides to carry on with their straight ahead course, may well be completely "in the right". But also completely dead.

[Pete Owens]

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

The trouble is that planners are increasingly installing infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. It is one thing hoping for all this hyper vigilant observation. The trouble is that humans make mistakes. A cyclist may not notice that another vehicle is signalling or a driver may forget to signal. A driver or cyclist may not notice another road user approaching from behind - most of our attention is ahead of us.

Conventional highway engineering designs out the problem by avoiding conflicting streams of traffic having to cross over through a junction.

Unless cyclists are removed from the highway

Removing cyclists from the carriageway IS the infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. You are positively encouraging cyclists to ride up the inside of turning vehicles - engineering a conflict at the junction.

Arranging for two parallel streams of traffic to cross over at a junction is so obviously dangerous that they never do this for two streams of motor traffic. If it is too dangerous for motorists, why on earth subject cyclists to it?

[maximus meridius]

The trouble is that planners are increasingly installing infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. It is one thing hoping for all this hyper vigilant observation. The trouble is that humans make mistakes. A cyclist may not notice that another vehicle is signalling or a driver may forget to signal. A driver or cyclist may not notice another road user approaching from behind - most of our attention is ahead of us.

Conventional highway engineering designs out the problem by avoiding conflicting streams of traffic having to cross over through a junction.

Unless cyclists are removed from the highway

Removing cyclists from the carriageway IS the infrastructure that encourages precisely that behaviour. You are positively encouraging cyclists to ride up the inside of turning vehicles - engineering a conflict at the junction.

Arranging for two parallel streams of traffic to cross over at a junction is so obviously dangerous that they never do this for two streams of motor traffic. If it is too dangerous for motorists, why on earth subject cyclists to it?

So is the solution to have the left-most lane be a straight on or left turning lane, and motor vehicles share it with cycles?

Or (thinking about some new highway engineering near me) to have lights for the cycles to go straight on, while the (potentially) left turning vehicles held by red lights? Cycles aren't allowed to turn left at that junction, as it leads onto a motorway. That's not relevant, though it may have had some influence on the designers choices.

[Pete Owens]

If I deem it's too dangerous I use the footpath.

The problem under discussion is caused by cyclists riding to the left of turning traffic. ie Exactly, what you are doing by riding on the pavement. Unless of course you turn left at every junction you come to - which rather limits the destinations available to you.

[maximus meridius]

In the interests of transparency, and especially for new readers who may not be aware of the background, this image posted by axel_knutt:

Absurd Lanes.jpg (10.76 KiB) Viewed 678 times

is fictitious. That specific road layout on the left doesn't exist. The one on the right may, I don't know York well enough.

According to another poster, faked images are something axel_knutt has done before:

...faked layout pics...

[Cowsham]

If I deem it's too dangerous I use the footpath.

The problem under discussion is caused by cyclists riding to the left of turning traffic. ie Exactly, what you are doing by riding on the pavement. Unless of course you turn left at every junction you come to - which rather limits the destinations available to you.

I'm on the footpath so I'll be stopping at the junctions to check for traffic turning into it. That's when traffic is too busy etc to be on the road along with it.

[Pete Owens]

So is the solution to have the left-most lane be a straight on or left turning lane, and motor vehicles share it with cycles?

Yes.
Whatever the vehicles concerned you should never put a lane for left turning vehicles to the right for a lane for vehicles heading straight on through a priority junction.

Or (thinking about some new highway engineering near me) to have lights for the cycles to go straight on, while the (potentially) left turning vehicles held by red lights? Cycles aren't allowed to turn left at that junction, as it leads onto a motorway.

Yes, that is a solution, as is grade separation (a bridge or tunnel). And one that is applied in every circumstance where two parallel streams of motor traffic would otherwise cross at a junction. But it means that for any cycle lane or track running parallel to a carriageway you need to install traffic lights or build a bridge at every single side road junction.

[Pete Owens]

If I deem it's too dangerous I use the footpath.

The problem under discussion is caused by cyclists riding to the left of turning traffic. ie Exactly, what you are doing by riding on the pavement. Unless of course you turn left at every junction you come to - which rather limits the destinations available to you.

I'm on the footpath so I'll be stopping at the junctions to check for traffic turning into it.

In that case you would like Harlow:
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... er2007.htm

[pwa]

I won't pretend to have all the answers on this, but as an individual who has to deal with cycle lanes running parallel to general traffic lanes, sometimes as a motorist and sometimes as a cyclist, I hate this arrangement. It is awkward. The choreography required can be testing. I feel tense cycling past junctions, but I also feel tense when I want to turn left in a motor vehicle. Feeling tense can be useful, of course, because it makes you alert. But it is a problematic arrangement. The problem is, I can't think of anything better that can be applied on streets that already exist.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5000459 ... ?entry=ttu

This industrial estate has the examples I see most, and when I am driving there (as opposed to cycling) I am often in work vans with no over-the-shoulder view, so reliant on a combination of mirrors and memory of who I may have just passed. I do have a good look and take care, but there is always the fingers crossed hope that I can in fact see all that I need to see and am not missing anything. On the plus side, traffic levels are never very high there so it is easy to arrange things in advance so that I don't get to a junction at the same time as a cyclist I will be passing.