Be safe or risk injury?

[deeferdonk]

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

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...

Sorry to be obtuse, but is it not obvious that this is a hypothetical drawing of an arrangement that doesn't exist to demonstrate a point?
"You wouldn't do this, so why do this?"
Just seems odd for you to keep going on about faked images.
No offense intended.

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

Ironically, the part of the recently introduced regulations that does seem to be generally observed is that about giving priority to pedestrians crossing side roads. So you might not need to stop, though slowing to walking speed would be sensible.

[Cowsham]

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.

Ironically, the part of the recently introduced regulations that does seem to be generally observed is that about giving priority to pedestrians crossing side roads. So you might not need to stop, though slowing to walking speed would be sensible.

I might not stop completely but always check over my right shoulder -- if a car is even approaching the turn in at the same time as me -- left indicator on or not I'll always leave the benefit of the doubt.

The trouble is you probably won't remember what happened if either one of you gets it wrong. It's a horrible feeling not knowing what happened so not knowing what you did wrong. Did I check for that car? Did the car mount the pavement ? -- unless there are witnesses you've no way of knowing.

You may remember shutting the garage door after getting the bike out and the next thing your laying in the hospital Ward with doctors asking daft questions and your asking them did I lock that garage door or not and why I'm I in a hospital?

People think because they are conscious before the accident they'll know what happened but that memory can be completely and utterly wiped for ever. But it seems difficult to get that point across to people.

You only have the here and now so you've got to put the effort into making your own safety checks. If you discover something during a near miss or accident you had, something you could've done to completely circumnavigate the danger then put that in place while you can.

For example, I discovered that on a racing bike and looking behind for traffic I never veered off my line but when using an upright or mtb my line could veer off to the left a bit by the time my eyes are looking in front again. This is really bad for your ribs I've found when too close to the kerb. Solution -- A bar end mirror was purchased.

[Bmblbzzz]

Agree completely. I didn't say "slow down and check" but I certainly would do it.

[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

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...

Sorry to be obtuse, but is it not obvious that this is a hypothetical drawing of an arrangement that doesn't exist to demonstrate a point?

Not to me it wasn't. As I live near York it caught my attention.

Of course people who have spent a great deal of time and energy debating/discussing these things may think it is "obvious". Such as some posters here. I haven't, and didn't. Perhaps another example of the sometimes rather inward looking nature of this forum.

"You wouldn't do this, so why do this?"

Well the original poster could have spent a few words to explain his image. I suspect however that he's got it saved in a folder somewhere, marked "ammunition for internet arguments about junctions", so trots it out to make his "point"

Just seems odd for you to keep going on about faked images.

Well, if the poster is bothered about me "going on about" it, it would not have taken too much for him to briefly explain. But he didn't. Despite several polite requests from me for an explanation. So leaving the great ignoramus (me) guessing. If one has such strong ideas about something, then one better be prepared to explain them. He didn't have the courtesy to explain, giving nothing better than the impression of somebody so full of themselves that he's not willing to bother with the little people. I shall treat any of his other ideas with the same disdain.

[mjr]

Sorry to be obtuse, but is it not obvious that this is a hypothetical drawing of an arrangement that doesn't exist to demonstrate a point?
"You wouldn't do this, so why do this?"
Just seems odd for you to keep going on about faked images.
No offense intended.

I don't think either layout shown exists. Almost all similar real-world examples are different in minor but significant key ways.

Not that it matters because the video narrator was correct when he said the presence or absence of a cycle lane is irrelevant. Surely I'm not the only person who has had a motorist overtake and turn left across in front, requiring avoiding action, when riding in primary/control position on the carriageway?

[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!

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.

Still parading your 30+-year-old zombie statistic? Only a few more years and we can throw it a 40th birthday party.

If you really think the problem is that cyclists "sneak up from behind" rather than motorists overtaking on the approach to the junction, then you hate cyclists more than I realised.

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 you'll never see markings at a priority junction directing a stream of motor traffic across a stream of cycle traffic: there will always be some sort of markings to indicate that someone should give way, normally motorists now. How about you make a fool of yourself by trying to find one that hasn't been acknowledged as an error?

[mjr]

The highway code is quite clear. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of traffic indicating left.

You seem to have overlooked Rule 163: "Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."

[Pete Owens]

Sorry to be obtuse, but is it not obvious that this is a hypothetical drawing of an arrangement that doesn't exist to demonstrate a point?
"You wouldn't do this, so why do this?"
Just seems odd for you to keep going on about faked images.
No offense intended.

I don't think either layout shown exists.

Certainly the one on the left doesn't exist - despite your repeated attempts to claim otherwise - and extensive posting of supposed examples, which turn out on inspection not to support your case.

The one one the right is a common feature of virtually every example of roadside the cycle lanes or tracks that you endlessly campaign for.

What is bizarre is that while we all agree that overtaking left turning traffic is a bad idea, and therefore agree that the layout on the right is completely bonkers - those who promote segregation seem to be determined to perform mental gymnastics to convince themselves that the example on the right is somehow different.

[Pete Owens]

Still parading your 30+-year-old zombie statistic?

We have known how dangerous the arrangement is for very much longer than 30 years.

It was well understood when the planners first started to attempt to clear us off the carriageway in the first half of the last century. Back then the planners didn't attempt to pretend that this was intended for our benefit, and cyclists were united in opposition.

[mjr]

The one one the right is a common feature of virtually every example of roadside the cycle lanes or tracks that you endlessly campaign for.

I don't "endlessly campaign for" roadside cycleways. They are simply one tool in the box and sometimes the best option. I prefer greenways and modal filters, but I'm pragmatic and flexible, unlike the vehicular cycling zealots who want us all to pretend to be cars on unmodified roads despite the obvious problems with that.

Anyway, does this deflection mean you can't show any example of those markings used at a priority junction?

What is bizarre is that while we all agree that overtaking left turning traffic is a bad idea, and therefore agree that the layout on the right is completely bonkers - those who promote segregation seem to be determined to perform mental gymnastics to convince themselves that the example on the right is somehow different.

No, what's bizarre is your continued blaming of cyclists for "overtaking left turning traffic" when the problem is really motorists overtaking and cutting across.

We have known how dangerous the arrangement is for very much longer than 30 years.

That statistic isn't even confined to priority junctions, is it?

It was well understood when the planners first started to attempt to clear us off the carriageway in the first half of the last century. Back then the planners didn't attempt to pretend that this was intended for our benefit, and cyclists were united in opposition.

That's a lovely attempt to rewrite history, but cyclists were far from united in blanket opposition despite the vehicularist control of what was then CTC and, as the century passed, more and more cycling advocates realised that some curbs need to be placed on motorist use of the highway before cycling was bullied off by speed and mass of motoring, without the planners even having to provide the half-baked 1930s examples, let alone protected space fit for purpose.

Yet still the vehicular cycling rump try to save the motoring authorities the expense of providing any space for cycling.

[deeferdonk]

The highway code is quite clear. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of traffic indicating left.

You seem to have overlooked Rule 163: "Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."

You seemed to overlook what i actually wrote

If i said that cyclists should never filter, you would be correct - but i didn't. I said "Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of traffic indicating left" , and even pasted a copy of Rule 74 below: " Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."

[Pete Owens]

Ironically, the part of the recently introduced regulations that does seem to be generally observed is that about giving priority to pedestrians crossing side roads.

There is nothing new in that - it has always been the case that you should stop for pedestrians crossing side roads. It certainly was the case when I was learning to drive half a century ago. There is not the same problem with stopping for pedestrians since they are already at the junction when a turning vehicle is approaching so in full few of the driver. The problem comes when it is two vehicles are approaching a junction, so both drivers need to aware of vehicles approaching from behind

[Pete Owens]

... the vehicular cycling rump...

Heaven forbid that any of us should get ideas above our station and consider our bicycles as vehicles.

Of course the planners, who share your contempt for those of us actually using our bikes to get somewhere, have the traditional solution to the junction problem:

[mjr]

... the vehicular cycling rump...

Heaven forbid that any of us should get ideas above our station and consider our bicycles as vehicles.

As motor vehicles. Most people don't want to pretend and ride among heavy vehicles going brrrm brrrm toot toot if it's avoidable.

Of course the planners, who share your contempt for those of us actually using our bikes to get somewhere, have the traditional solution to the junction problem:

A sign discouraged for over 15 years now because of misuse. The misunderstanding that encouraged the misuse was removed from the highway code last year, despite your objections based apparently on hating anything that makes cycling easier and less elitist IIRC. Current junction layouts are in Chapter 10 of LTN 1/20 and none use that sign.