# Poor driving from someone who should have known better.



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Give way means give way ( to me ).

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTBOmcOTwM


This particular bit of infrastructure is not ideal, but if I’ve got my arm out to the right, it means they give way. It’s a good job I didn’t take it for granted he was going to give way.


----------



## winjim (25 May 2020)

I read that as both he and you give way to the cycle path that crosses the road, but he has priority over you as you're crossing his path.


----------



## Twilkes (25 May 2020)

Agree with the other poster's interpretation, the give way lines are for the crossing; you both had give way lines and the van had crossed theirs before you crossed yours so even with your interpretation there's no reason they should have stopped for you. It's a normal 'turn right when it's clear to do so' situation.


----------



## Profpointy (25 May 2020)

Sorry mate but looked more like bad cycling than anything wrong with the van driving


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

winjim said:


> I read that as both he and you give way to the cycle path that crosses the road, but he has priority over you as you're crossing his path.


Nope. I give way to anyone turning in to the storage place on the left, if I’m going straight on. If I’m going across to the right, the traffic gives way to me. Everyone gets that wrong. The infrastructure isn’t brilliant, someone is going to get flattened sooner or later.


----------



## AndyRM (25 May 2020)

Total non-event.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Profpointy said:


> Sorry mate but looked more like bad cycling than anything wrong with the van driving


yeah right. You need to brush up on your Highway Code.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> Agree with the other poster's interpretation, the give way lines are for the crossing; you both had give way lines and the van had crossed theirs before you crossed yours so even with your interpretation there's no reason they should have stopped for you. It's a normal 'turn right when it's clear to do so' situation.


You’re wrong as well. It’s not rocket science. This is exactly what causes the issue.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

AndyRM said:


> Total non-event.


You wouldn’t think that if you got clipped by a bloody great van, getting it wrong.


----------



## Twilkes (25 May 2020)

Oh my god.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> Oh my god.


Care to elucidate?


----------



## Twilkes (25 May 2020)

No because you've already made up your mind that you are correct.


----------



## Spiderweb (25 May 2020)

The van driver was in the wrong but like you said the infrastructure there is poor and quite confusing, if I’d have been driving the van and wasn’t familiar with the area I’m sure I could have made the same mistake.

I’m not sure it’s worth a complaint against the van driver, I think I would be complaining to council/highways to sort the infrastructure out, it’s an accident waiting to happen for sure.


----------



## marzjennings (25 May 2020)

I think you'll find the giveway signs at to give priority to crossing traffic. You were not crossing the road, you were assuming right of way to turn right to which you have none.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> No because you've already made up your mind that you are correct.


Simple fact is, I am right. The design was intended as I explained, drivers continually get it wrong, that bit of infrastructure is getting a real reputation round here. I’m just glad I got an example of what’s wrong on camera, without getting killed.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

marzjennings said:


> I think you'll find the giveway signs at to give priority to crossing traffic. You were not crossing the road, you were assuming right of way to turn right to which you have none.


Wrong again. I had my arm out early. Jesus, I don’t get what’s so hard about it. Sooner or later someone’s going to get hurt / killed.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Spiderweb said:


> The van driver was in the wrong but like you said the infrastructure there is poor and quite confusing, if I’d have been driving the van and wasn’t familiar with the area I’m sure I could have made the same mistake.
> 
> I’m not sure it’s worth a complaint against the van driver, I think I would be complaining to council/highways to sort the infrastructure out, it’s an accident waiting to happen for sure.


You’re right, I’m not going to kick off about it, I don’t think there was any malice, it’s not worth causing a stink. But my comments will be in a big pile of comments about that junction.


----------



## rualexander (25 May 2020)

The van is almost at the give way lines before you even turn left onto the same road as he is on. 
He had no way of knowing you were intending to turn across in front of him at that point.
At what point did you indicate for a right turn with your arm?
If you indicated your right turn after you joined the road he was on, he did not have time to stop before the give way lines.
If you indicated your right turn before you joined the road he was on, how would he have known your intention to cut across onto the cycle path?
Perhaps you should have moderated your speed a bit and everything would have worked out just fine.


----------



## Spiderweb (25 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> You’re right, I’m not going to kick off about it, I don’t think there was any malice, it’s not worth causing a stink.


I think it’s important footage that you should send to the council, I’ve never seen a junction, if that what you call it, quite like that, someone could get killed!


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

Spiderweb said:


> I think it’s important footage that you should send to the council, I’ve never seen a junction, if that what you call it, quite like that, someone could get killed!


There have already been numerous near misses, and one old guy ending up in hospital after being clipped into the grass on the right, and it’s only been in place for a year or so. It really isn’t great.


----------



## Racing roadkill (25 May 2020)

rualexander said:


> The van is almost at the give way lines before you even turn left onto the same road as he is on.
> He had no way of knowing you were intending to turn across in front of him at that point.
> At what point did you indicate for a right turn with your arm?
> If you indicated your right turn after you joined the road he was on, he did not have time to stop before the give way lines.
> ...


He should have seen me with my arm out, and augmenting it by pointing, in plenty of time. I could tell by the engine note, that he hadn’t worked it out, hence why I got on the brakes, and pulled up. Sooner or later, that’s going to go badly wrong.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (25 May 2020)

The give way lines aren't for you turning right


----------



## rualexander (25 May 2020)

But there wasn't plenty of time if you indicated after joining the road he was on.
He was already almost at the give way lines.


----------



## newts (25 May 2020)

At this point you both have give way lines in front of you, the van is already alot closer to crossing said lines?


----------



## Dave Davenport (25 May 2020)

If the title of the thread had been 'rubbish, confusing road/cyclepath layout' you'd have a point, not so sure about the poor driving assertion.


----------



## Vantage (25 May 2020)

Doesn't matter what the road markings say. If there's a big van coming towards you in the opposite lane and it's showing no signs of slowing down and stopping, it's generally accepted by most people that crossing or attempting to cross in front of it is well, stupid. 
There's no upside to being in the right if you're dead.


----------



## marzjennings (25 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Wrong again. I had my arm out early. Jesus, I don’t get what’s so hard about it. Sooner or later someone’s going to get hurt / killed.


 Having your arm out has nothing to do with it, there's nothing in your video that shows that a cyclist on the road has priority to turn right in front of oncoming traffic. If the van had been another cyclist would you have priority to turn right in front of them? I'd be interested to see the sign that indicates to the driver of the van that cyclists on the road have have priority to turn right. The junction seems to have been designed to give folks on the hike/path priority over road traffic.


----------



## DRM (25 May 2020)

To me the van was on the lines before you got there, I personally would have slowed and crossed behind it, it's bad infrastructure but the fact you know it's a bad junction means six of one and half a dozen of the other from what I saw.


----------



## Seevio (25 May 2020)

The Southampton authorities may have intended to for it to be a priority right turn for cyclists but the road markings do not show that. Indeed as can be seen from streetview, all they have done is painted what may or may not be a crossing on top of an existing cycle lane. I doubt this meets regulations for road marking and should probably be reported.


----------



## rualexander (26 May 2020)

There is less than two seconds between the point at which you turn left off the main road and enter the road the van is on and the point where the van crosses the giveway lines.
Now if you raised your arm to indicate at the point where you enter the road, there is no way that the van can possibly stop and give way considering that the average driver's reaction time is between 1 and 2 seconds.


----------



## semislickstick (26 May 2020)

From the road markings you two would both give way to anyone already on the cycle track you are both about to cross. Unless van driver has different signs? If your side didn't have give way markings, you'd be right. But as you are turning right, across someone already past the give way markings, you wait for them to clear the junction, doesn't matter if you are already signalling, from the road markings you don't seem to have any special priority coming from that direction.


----------



## PaulSB (26 May 2020)

Two things caught my eye, whether or not the van driver has priority stopping would be a good plan. Personally I'd give way, probably without registering a single thought about the "incident."

I watched the rest of the video which highlighted for me why I generally feel safer on the road than on a cycle path or route. The number of potential hazards in a five minute clip was really surprising.

If I lived in the area I doubt I would use this path/route though I can see why one wouldn't want to be on sections of the road it runs parallel to.


----------



## HMS_Dave (26 May 2020)

Im afraid i disagree with the OP here.

The stopping distance according to the highway code for a family car at 20mph is 12 metres or 3 car lengths. The sainsburys van is much heavier but i would estimate the driver is travelling close to that speed as you turn in to the road with the cycle lane junction. Id ascertain that the driver could not have possibly stopped safely or reasonably to giveway. Not only that, if he did brake hard to let you go, id wager some people are going to complain about the driver about their damaged and crushed food. The driver can't really win can he? 

You were fully in control of the situation and was in no danger at all of ending up twisted around the axles of the van. Personally, i'd have not turned in until the van had fully passed me and then cycled on my merry way...

I do agree that junction is silly, you'd have to have arms like a robot to safely signal one way and then the next. Best to take that junction easy and have your head on a swivel....


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

I don't think the infrastructure is designed for a cyclist to turn right onto the cycle path from the cycle lane. It assumes that cyclists are already on the cycle path and crossing the road, or are on the cycle lane and progressing along the road. I can't see anything that says give way to right turning traffic for the van, or as mentioned, for the cyclist. 

In fact, giving priority to right turning traffic, including traffic turning across a cycle lane, and that close to another junction, is such a fantastically dangerous thing to do that I would be astonished if that was the intent, and I would expect it to be clarified by a sign saying 'give way to right turning traffic' or something.

I can't interpret that junction any other way than 'give way to traffic crossing on the cycle path'. The fact that 'everybody gets it wrong' and that there appear to be quite a few experienced cyclists here disagreeing with the OP's interpretation is quite telling. OP, you mentioned the highway code upthread, perhaps you could pooint us in the direction of the specific sections of the code that deal with a junction like this one, or which you think are relevant?


----------



## steveindenmark (26 May 2020)

There are give way on the cycle path as well. I think this is a a case of 50-50. But statements like "Simple fact is, I am right" doesnt help your case and neither does the swearing. If you do not show consideration to other road users. You really cannot whinge when they do the same to you.

A blind man in a snow storm could see what the driver was going to do all the op had to do was slow down a bit. It would have been no issue at all.

I dont see the point in posting a total non event on here and then arguing with all and sundry because they dont agree with you.

Its a case of give a man a camera and he will make a drama series for you.


----------



## wheresthetorch (26 May 2020)

This strikes me as being much the same as swerving right onto a zebra crossing and expecting oncoming traffic to give way. The 'give way' lines are to enable people to use the crossing.


----------



## PaulSB (26 May 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> There are give way on the cycle path as well. I think this is a a case of 50-50. But statements like "Simple fact is, I am right" doesnt help your case and neither does the swearing.
> 
> A blind man in a snow storm could see what the driver was going to do all the op had to do was slow down a bit. It would have been no issue at all.
> 
> ...


Very accurate and the last sentence oh so very true.


----------



## Brandane (26 May 2020)

Perhaps "I've got priority coz I'm a BMW driver" mentality sets in when one gets behind the handlebars of a £12k Bianchi? 
Cycling twattery on a grand scale; as is the "I'm right and that's the end of it" attitude in the aftermath.


----------



## Globalti (26 May 2020)

The driver wasn't even looking at you and probably blocked you out as of no threat to himself of herself. Your error was in not spotting that. It's a non-event and not "worth a complaint" as you comment.

And yes it's a lousy bit of box-ticking cycle lane and probably not even in the Highway Code as a recognised scheme.


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

Bit of context here.

https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/


----------



## Globalti (26 May 2020)

Doesn't that just illustrate how far the UK has lagged so far behind the Netherlands in giving space to cyclists? That small scheme must have cost a fortune.


----------



## sheddy (26 May 2020)

Never mind, what is the camera please ?


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2020)

sheddy said:


> Never mind, what is the camera please ?


Could do with cleaning that white squiggle off the lens....


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

I think it's a 50:20:30 - van-driver just about in the wrong, as he crossed a clear give-way triangle on the road in front of him; with 20% given to the cyclist as he must have known the problem.

But the design is sooooo ambiguous, it's earned its 30% of the blame!


----------



## Milkfloat (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> I think it's a 50:20:30 - van-driver just about in the wrong, as he crossed a clear give-way triangle on the road in front of him; with 20% given to the cyclist as he must have known the problem.
> 
> But the design is sooooo ambiguous, it's earned its 30% of the blame!


It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply

*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.

Where the green cycle path is the main road.

In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black. 






It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply
> 
> *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.
> ...


My interpretation too, two opposing give-ways so the user going straight on should be given priority.


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply
> 
> *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.
> ...


Exactly so. I was going to look that diagram up later myself.


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> *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.
> 
> Where the green cycle path is the main road.


But here the cyclist had no " _‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).

p.s. if you don't agree that there is ambiguity, *I* am right, and YOU are wrong!


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black.
> 
> View attachment 525071
> 
> It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.


p.s. where did you find that drawing? I can't see it at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203


----------



## Drago (26 May 2020)

At the point the van driver was duty bound to give way, there was no one to give way to. You crossed your give way markings after he had already stared to do so, and as a 'new' user of that stretch it is you who has to give way to any vehicle already established upon it.

As a general aside, the general manner of riding is not entirely conducive to safe passage. No slowing or defensive positioning as you passed side roads and entry/access points, no moderation of speed when close passing pedestrians (yet wed scream blue murder if a motorist did that to us) and while we cant see for ourselves I'd warrant that observation skills are similarly lacking - certainly the cadence and behaviour of the bike does not suggest a rider taking the time to ensure good obs drills are executed prior to manoeuvring. Indeed, we can be sure they weren't, else you'd have accounted for the presence of that vehicle long before you actually encountered it.

If you're going to criticise a road user for their poor roadcraft one ought to ensure their own is above criticism, else it undermines the entire effort.


----------



## Twilkes (26 May 2020)

[


matticus said:


> But here the cyclist had no " _‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).



Those double dashed lines on the ground mean exactly the same as the white triangle, there doesn't need to be a sign or a triangle.


----------



## steveindenmark (26 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> My interpretation too, two opposing give-ways so the user going straight on should be given priority.


Plus the fact he is in a bloody great van. Common sense should come into play as well


----------



## Milkfloat (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> But here the cyclist had no " _‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).


As I wrote in Rule 172, "You *MUST* give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road. " I don't think a give way sign and/or triangle is necessary to make it a give way.

As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from a big driving instructors site.


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
_How could this be prevented_?

ONE approach in this case would be a "_Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " on the cycle-path.
(better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)

I'll leave to you guys to assign blame , assuming you think that is useful ...


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from a big driving instructors site.


(Thanks.)
In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.


----------



## Milkfloat (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
> _How could this be prevented_?
> 
> ONE approach in this case would be a "_Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " on the cycle-path.
> ...


You won't find me disagreeing with that, although I would like to add the infrastructure seen here is a million times better than what I have locally. Not that I would be likely to use either.


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> (Thanks.)
> In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.


Which is why my previous reply was very carefully worded thus...



I like Skol said:


> ...so the user going straight on should be given priority.


I am sure the highway code points out that priority cannot be assumed or taken, and can only be given by other road users.


----------



## newts (26 May 2020)

I used to have a dashcam in my van when i was regularly working in London a few years back. 
I'd regularly review 'incidents' that caused me to rage. Bad driving, cycling & pedestrians, many deliberate & some just misreading signs/lines on the road. My initial rage was usually diminished after reviewing, there's often ambiguity in every situation (apart from chelsea tractor drivers trying to cut you up at every oppurtunity). It soon became apparent that i had to anticipate the situations better & do all i could to prevent any accident regardless of other road users actions. If you're previosuly aware of a very poor/dangerous junction layout, should you not take extra care as you approach?


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from* a big driving instructors site*.


So ... how big are these instructors? Are we talking just large, or ... you know, "well-built"?


----------



## Milkfloat (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> (Thanks.)
> In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.



I assume that is covered by rule 180 which discusses when turning right 

*"Rule 180*
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle."

I agree that at all times that all road users should act to avoid a collision, but that does not mean one user can decide to make up their own rules and conventions and not be expected to get criticised.


----------



## Milkfloat (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> So ... how big are these instructors? Are we talking just large, or ... you know, "well-built"?


I would like to introduce you to Linda from Rochdale a 40 year old body building driving instructor.





True story.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Give way means give way ( to me ).
> 
> View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTBOmcOTwM
> 
> ...





I don't see anything in that layout to suggest that anyone turning right across the path of the van can expect right of way.

If the same situation occurs on a normal junction where you are travelling towards a give way sign, as is a van driver coming the other way, would you assume you had priority to turn across his path?


----------



## Globalti (26 May 2020)

Agreed with Drago, the OP was wobbling and hugging the edge of the road and not riding in a way that asserted his rights as a road user. In my experience motorists give space and respect to cyclists who they see obeying the Highway Code because they take them more seriously.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> I would like to introduce you to Linda from Rochdale a 40 year old body building driving instructor.
> View attachment 525077
> 
> True story.



Ooh, by her expression she needs some of these...


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2020)

Just took a moment to watch the full video. 20mph on a mixed use path in close proximity to pedestrians 

Doesn't DfT guidance suggest max 12mph on shared pathways?


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
> _How could this be prevented_?
> 
> ONE approach in this case would be a "_Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " on the cycle-path.
> ...


No, because OP accepts that there is a give way line on each side of the road but interprets it as meaning give way to traffic turning right.

Possibly a sign saying 'cycles crossing, give way' or similar would clarify things?

In terms of blame, if the party involved entered the discussion with the attitude of wanting to learn what other people thought and maybe see if there was any way they could themselves modify their behaviour, rather than assert simply that they are correct and that everybody who disagrees with them is wrong, then it might change the dynamic of the conversation.


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

winjim said:


> ...
> In terms of blame, if the party involved entered the discussion with the attitude of wanting to learn what other people thought and maybe see if there was any way they could themselves modify their behaviour, rather than assert simply that they are correct and that everybody who disagrees with them is wrong, then it might change the dynamic of the conversation.


That would be an Ecumenical matter


----------



## Daninplymouth (26 May 2020)

I can’t see the van driver doing anything untoward you don’t expect to come down a road and have a cyclist cut right across from the opposite side of the road.
I was always taught as a motorcyclist to ride defensively. if you are aware of issues with this crossing then you should approach it with more care. Also no point in arguing or proving a point when your squashed under a lorry, you could be in the right bit you’d still be dead


----------



## si_c (26 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Just took a moment to watch the full video. 20mph on a mixed use path in close proximity to pedestrians
> 
> Doesn't DfT guidance suggest max 12mph on shared pathways?



I thought it was 18mph, but your point still stands. I'd be on the road once I'm going more than twice walking speed, so say what 10mph?


----------



## MontyVeda (26 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Wrong again. I had my arm out early. Jesus, I don’t get what’s so hard about it. *Sooner or later someone’s going to get hurt / killed.*


Only if they insist on taking a pig headed approach.

There's a bit in the highway code that says something along the lines of... no one has ultimate right of way and everyone should take necessary action to avoid an incident or collision ...and this includes you, regardless of what you're doing with your arm.


----------



## matticus (26 May 2020)

But ideally the junction should have been designed to be no more dangerous to a pig-headed cyclist than any "normal" junction.

It clearly IS more dangerous than it needs to be.


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> But ideally the junction should have been designed to be no more dangerous to a pig-headed cyclist than any "normal" junction.
> 
> It clearly IS more dangerous than it needs to be.


Of course, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it. QED.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> But ideally the junction should have been designed to be no more dangerous to a pig-headed cyclist than any "normal" junction.
> 
> It clearly IS more dangerous than it needs to be.


No more dangerous than a zebra crossing (IMO), on which pedestrians have _right of way_, but only a pig-headed fool would walk onto one without first making sure that _right of way_ had been granted to them.

Is this particular crossing a known accident black spot?


----------



## winjim (26 May 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> No more dangerous than a zebra crossing (IMO), on which pedestrians have _right of way_, but only a pig-headed fool would walk onto one without first making sure that _right of way_ had been granted to them.
> 
> Is this particular crossing a known accident black spot?


Yeah but we all need to go at the pace of the slowest rider.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (26 May 2020)

I have made the startling discovery that when I go looking for p***ks they are everywhere, really not worth the effort and hide the nice things about a bike ride from view.


----------



## HMS_Dave (26 May 2020)

Milkfloat said:


> I would like to introduce you to Linda from Rochdale a 40 year old body building driving instructor.
> View attachment 525077
> 
> True story.



Im hoping there is a toilet underneath her and she sure could use more fibre to help her in her constipation efforts... 



PS Please don't hurt me...


----------



## Globalti (26 May 2020)

A year or so ago GtiJunior and I needed to turn right at a mini-roundabout in the centre of a village. We indicated but a Land Rover 110 pickup coming down towards us simply did not see us; the driver was staring fixedly into the distance and steamed across our path at about 35 mph. Happily we HAD anticipated this and had stopped. I thought about chasing him down as he was about to hit traffic in the village but couldn't be bothered. A close shave though.


----------



## Ajax Bay (26 May 2020)

matticus said:


> Are we talking just large, or ... you know, "well-built - @Drago-like"?


FTFY
Shades of 'Pretty Woman' there


----------



## sleuthey (26 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Give way means give way ( to me ).
> 
> View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTBOmcOTwM
> 
> ...



What camera or app was that filmed on please?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 May 2020)

Heres how it used to look.


----------



## boydj (26 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Simple fact is, I am right. The design was intended as I explained, drivers continually get it wrong, that bit of infrastructure is getting a real reputation round here. I’m just glad I got an example of what’s wrong on camera, without getting killed.



The design may well be intended as you say, but there's nothing there to say that a driver has to give way to turning traffic


Racing roadkill said:


> Wrong again. I had my arm out early. Jesus, I don’t get what’s so hard about it. Sooner or later someone’s going to get hurt / killed.



It's crap infrastructure. Drivers do not expect to have to give way to traffic turning across them and the signing is inadequate, so these incidents will continue to happen.


----------



## Racing roadkill (26 May 2020)

sleuthey said:


> What camera or app was that filmed on please?


That’s a Garmin VIRB ultra 30.


----------



## Racing roadkill (26 May 2020)

Globalti said:


> A year or so ago GtiJunior and I needed to turn right at a mini-roundabout in the centre of a village. We indicated but a Land Rover 110 pickup coming down towards us simply did not see us; the driver was staring fixedly into the distance and steamed across our path at about 35 mph. Happily we HAD anticipated this and had stopped. I thought about chasing him down as he was about to hit traffic in the village but couldn't be bothered. A close shave though.


That’s a big issue though. There’s a lot of inexperienced riders about at the moment, and they may not be able to anticipate this sort of thing so well.


----------



## Kempstonian (26 May 2020)

winjim said:


> *Possibly a sign saying 'cycles crossing, give way' or similar would clarify things?*


^^^ This.

The question of who was in the right doesn't matter. In a collision it wouldn't be the van that got squished, would it?


----------



## HLaB (26 May 2020)

I'm not familiar with that exact location but I can't see clear markings that suggest the OP had priority, it looks to me that the crossing works purely on a courtesy basis rather than being a semi controlled zebra crossing or a fully controlled toucan crossing. So driver could have stopped out of courtesy but they are not legally obliged to the markings are just advisory and the OP did well to anticipate that. If they are legal markings there'll be TRO which lists it. I hate however, advisory or even legal stop/ priority crossings just before a junction as folk are usually concentrating on the junction and fail to yield/stop anyway.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

Kempstonian said:


> ^^^ This.
> 
> The question of who was in the right doesn't matter. In a collision it wouldn't be the van that got squished, would it?


Quite right. That exact bit of the route is getting a real reputation for being a bit poor, with people that use it. If you’re going straight over, from the cycle path on the left, people doing what I did are supposed to give way to them, even though it’s sometimes really difficult to see them if you’re approaching from the direction I was, add to that the traffic has to give way to anything on the green mat, heading over to my right ( from the perspective of the clip, and you’ve got a potential nightmare situation. There have been several close shaves, and a couple of nasty accidents there already. Then I’ve actually seen drivers approaching from behind where I was, driving through the no entry, and going left into the storage facility place to the left, because they “can’t be bovered wiv going all the way round and back on themselves”. You’ve got to have eyes in the back of your head, and your head on a swivel.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

Globalti said:


> Agreed with Drago, the OP was wobbling and hugging the edge of the road and not riding in a way that asserted his rights as a road user. In my experience motorists give space and respect to cyclists who they see obeying the Highway Code because they take them more seriously.


Right. You should try riding a bike with deep section rims in a gusty side wind, with your arm out to indicate where you’re going, whilst trying to aim for a tiny gap, and braking. I’d love to see it.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Just took a moment to watch the full video. 20mph on a mixed use path in close proximity to pedestrians
> 
> Doesn't DfT guidance suggest max 12mph on shared pathways?


It’s not a shared path. That’s a dedicated cycle way. The footpath is on the other side of the road. They’ve even painted bikes on the bike bit, and people on the people bit, but that doesn’t seem to stop people walking in the dedicated cycle bit.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

Drago said:


> At the point the van driver was duty bound to give way, there was no one to give way to. You crossed your give way markings after he had already stared to do so, and as a 'new' user of that stretch it is you who has to give way to any vehicle already established upon it.
> 
> As a general aside, the general manner of riding is not entirely conducive to safe passage. No slowing or defensive positioning as you passed side roads and entry/access points, no moderation of speed when close passing pedestrians (yet wed scream blue murder if a motorist did that to us) and while we cant see for ourselves I'd warrant that observation skills are similarly lacking - certainly the cadence and behaviour of the bike does not suggest a rider taking the time to ensure good obs drills are executed prior to manoeuvring. Indeed, we can be sure they weren't, else you'd have accounted for the presence of that vehicle long before you actually encountered it.
> 
> If you're going to criticise a road user for their poor roadcraft one ought to ensure their own is above criticism, else it undermines the entire effort.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Right. You should try riding a bike with deep section rims in a gusty side wind, with your arm out to indicate where you’re going, whilst trying to aim for a tiny gap, and braking. I’d love to see it.



There was no requirement for you stick your arm out to indicate your intentions to the van driver - you should not have done so especially if that compromised directional control and simultaneously made the front brake lever unreachable as you were about to need it.

The requirement was for you to stop at the give way line in front of you until the approaching van had passed, and then ensured that no cyclists were passing either way across the road in front of you on the green coloured zone. The green coloured zone across the road indicates that crossing cylists are on a route designed not to be interrupted from traffic on the road. That's a good thing for them, but means they have the right of way over you.

I also think that your speed was too high for the circumstances when you were approaching pedestrians, especially from behind.

''We all make mistakes'' said the dalek climbing off the dustbin, but the bigger mistake is to then blame others.

Frankly, you were lucky not to have been hurt.


----------



## I like Skol (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> It’s not a shared path. That’s a dedicated cycle way. The footpath is on the other side of the road. They’ve even painted bikes on the bike bit, and people on the people bit, but that doesn’t seem to stop people walking in the dedicated cycle bit.



Look mate, it really is time you stopped digging! As a cyclist, a driver and a rational person, I can see you are barking up the wrong tree....

This is the last sign you passed before entering the bridge(?) and you hit 20mph just after close passing a pedestrian from behind at 17mph!














NOTHING to indicate that this is a cycleway that excludes pedestrians.

You just need to wind your neck in and admit you are wrong. This is the one lesson I am perpetually trying to teach my kids. We all get it wrong sometimes and the decent and honorable thing to do is to hold our hands up and admit it. You will get a lot more respect if you do, rather than trying to wrongly argue your case.....


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> The requirement was for you to stop at the give way line in front of you until the approaching van had passed,


You’re absolutely wrong. And therein lies a big part of the problem, lots of people Completely misunderstand that first little give way is for me to give way to anything approaching from the left or right, if I’m going straight on, not going to my right, it’s not give way to stuff on the road. There’s a give way on the road which is for ( in this case ) the van to give way to anything approaching ( or on ) the green bit. I’ve seen plenty of drivers drive straight over their give way, when a I’ve been in the green box, from the left or the right ( I’ve been riding on the cycle path ). What the van did was not completely unexpected, hence me covering the brakes just in case, but there have been far more blatant cases where the vehicles haven’t had any intention of giving way, despite people from the path being virtually in front of them.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Look mate, it really is time you stopped digging! As a cyclist, a driver and a rational person, I can see you are barking up the wrong tree....
> 
> This is the last sign you passed before entering the bridge(?) and you hit 20mph just after close passing a pedestrian from behind at 17mph!
> View attachment 525298
> ...


That bit’s a shared path, the earlier bit ( the bit with the clear sign with just a bike on it , and pictures of bikes painted on it) isn’t, the pedestrian bit, is on the opposite side of the road. I’m not your “mate” either.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> You’re absolutely wrong. And therein lies a big part of the problem, lots of people Completely misunderstand that first little give way is for me to give way to anything approaching from the left or right, if I’m going straight on, not going to my right, it’s not give way to stuff on the road. There’s a give way on the road which is for ( in this case ) the van to give way to anything approaching ( or on ) the green bit. I’ve seen plenty of drivers drive straight over their give way, when a I’ve been in the green box, from the left or the right ( I’ve been riding on the cycle path ). What the van did was not completely unexpected, hence me covering the brakes just in case, but there have been far more blatant cases where the vehicles haven’t had any intention of giving way, despite people from the path being virtually in front of them.



I don't wish for a scrap with you Roadkill, but I disagree. You are not on the non-interrupted route, you are on the road just like the van, neither of you may pull across the road in front of the other. I suspect that had you been going straight on and the van had pulled across your path, you'd have been furious then too, only then with justification. 

I feel your confidence is misplaced - perhaps you could consult a qualifed driving instructor familiar with the area?


----------



## I like Skol (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> You’re absolutely wrong. And therein lies a big part of the problem, lots of people Completely misunderstand that first little give way is for me to give way to anything approaching from the left or right, if I’m going straight on, not going to my right, it’s not give way to stuff on the road. There’s a give way on the road which is for ( in this case ) the van to give way to anything approaching ( or on ) the green bit. I’ve seen plenty of drivers drive straight over their give way, when a I’ve been in the green box, from the left or the right ( I’ve been riding on the cycle path ). What the van did was not completely unexpected, hence me covering the brakes just in case, but there have been far more blatant cases where the vehicles haven’t had any intention of giving way, despite people from the path being virtually in front of them.


Give way is give way, there is no misunderstanding. You both have to give way! You interpret this as you having priority which is fine (but wrong) if you have the desire to throw yourself in front of a 3.5T vehicle. The rest of the world see it differently, but don't let that change your point of view......
Please feel free to post official guidance that supports your interpretation of the layout


----------



## classic33 (27 May 2020)

Having seen the three stills/pictures posted by I Like Skol, I'm in agreement. You are/were on a seperate cycle facility, albeit one that is shared with pedestrians. Your speed on that is above the point at which you're expected to be on the road. With other road vehicles.

The start of your video shows a sign that is placed there mainly to warn pedestrians, then show you and others that you have the right, so long as you obey the rules, to use the shared footway. If you can't use the shared path correctly, get on the road.


----------



## I like Skol (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> I’m not your “mate” either.


Just trying to be civil. If you like I can call you a self abuser, but that probably isn't permitted by forum guidelines


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Your speed on that is above the point at which you're expected to be on the road. With other road vehicles.


It’s not a H.U.D. and I’m not looking at my Garmin at that point, so I’m just riding at the speed I always ride at, on that bit of the route in those conditions, using ‘feel’ not knowing what that speed actually is, at the time. It really doesn’t feel like 20 mph ( or whatever ) from my perspective. Looking at the Garmin to check at that point would not be a great idea either. The road at that point, really isn’t a sensible option, it’s a flyover, very narrow, a rubbish surface, and lots of lorries and other heavy stuff use it


----------



## classic33 (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> It’s not a H.U.D. and I’m not looking at my Garmin at that point, so I’m just riding at the speed I always ride at, on that bit of the route in those conditions, using ‘feel’ not knowing what that speed actually is, at the time. It really doesn’t feel like 20 mph ( or whatever ) from my perspective. Looking at the Garmin to check at that point would not be a great idea either. The road at that point, really isn’t a sensible option, it’s a flyover, very narrow, a rubbish surface, and lots of lorries and other heavy stuff use it


Never said it was a HUD, nor that you should be checking your speed more than what's around you. Just that at a certain speed you're required to use the road, not the shared footway.

At the point you met the van on the crossing, you'd pulled out of your lane, presumably because of the crossing from pavement to pavement, and into the path of a van coming the other way. All with very little loss in speed, on your part. 

Accept that you were at fault, and learn from your mistakes.


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

The green crossing strip connects the two sides of the shared cycle/pedestrian pavement on either side of the road where there is a shared drop-kerb. The road users approaching the green cycle/pedestrian crossing from either side have to give way to anyone using the green crossing point, ie the van driver has a give way dotted line and you, on the road approaching the green crossing point, have a give way dotted line. Both you and the van driver have to give way [ie stop] if there is a pedestrian or a cycle on the pavement crossing point.

What the green crossing point does NOT do is give a cyclist, on the road marked cycle lane, the right to turn right from the road onto the green crossing. That is the equivalent of approaching a zebra crossing or a pelican crossing and then turning right off the road in front of traffic onto the opposite pavement and expecting any traffic coming from the opposite direction to stop for you because you are then on the crossing..

The only direction a cyclist using the road cycle lane should follow is the indicated cycle lane straight on over the green crossing, stopping to give way if anyone is using the crossing. It does NOT give anyone using the road the right to turn right off the road cycle lane at that point, as shown on the still where you can clearly see the straight on arrow marked on the road marked cycle lane - if the road cycle lane users had the right to turn right in front of approaching traffic at the green crossing point there would be an arrow also pointing to the right on the marked straight-ahead arrow.

However, if there is nothing coming and no-one is adversely affected then who would be bothered if you do turn right there?
Just don't blame the van driver for not stopping or giving way to you in this instance.


----------



## Milkfloat (27 May 2020)

@Racing roadkill Please post any evidence that supports your view that you were right about the interaction with the van. I have posted Highway Code extracts and a link to driving school explanations, all we get from you is a stubbornness without any supporting evidence.


----------



## PaulSB (27 May 2020)

@classic33 - I've never heard before that there is a speed above which cyclists are expected to be on the road rather than follow a dedicated or shared route.

I rarely use cycle paths/routes but would be interested to have this bit of info.

Thanks


----------



## Brandane (27 May 2020)

I'm probably still on the OP's "ignore" list from many years ago, as were a lot of others at the time, so he might not read this, but.....
Normally, I'm not one for blowing my own trumpet, however since the OP is not one for keeping his powder dry I will make an exception here.
I've passed more driving tests than most. Motorbike; car; standard Police driving involving a 3 week full time course; driving instructors driving test; HGV class 2; and HGV class 1 (artics). I've been cycling since I was 5, so 53 years experience. Still driving cars and motorbikes as I have been for 35+ years and many hundreds of thousands of miles; drove Police vehicles for about 15 years of my service; drove HGV's full time for 6 years and part time for another 5 years. In all that time, and in all those miles - I've never had a single penalty point on my licence (hope that's not tempting fate!).
So I feel that I'm not too badly qualified to tell you Mr Roadkill, on this occasion, you are VERY *WRONG, *for reasons that are very clearly explained to you in several posts*. *Just suck it up and learn from your mistake before you and that nice Bianchi end up as errrm; racing roadkill.


----------



## wheresthetorch (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> ''We all make mistakes'' said the dalek climbing off the dustbin


----------



## Globalti (27 May 2020)

Watch any video of thousands of cyclists using the networks in Holland or Belgium and you'll have hundreds of illustrations of give-and-take in a world where people cycle for fun and for daily transport rather than to prove their masculinity.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (27 May 2020)

Reminds me of the scene from Bad Day at Black Rock, just before the bar fight, where Spencer Tracy says "you're not only wrong, but you're wrong at the top of your voice". Sorry don't know how to embed the clip.


----------



## Mr Whyte (27 May 2020)

I think we all have to be very careful when going out for a ride, we have to be very sharp eyed when near other traffic.


----------



## double_dd (27 May 2020)

As a cyclist I would turn right onto that path if nothing was coming; but the fact is the give way lines mean you give way to whatever is on that crossing/shared path and so does the van. As a driver I wouldn't have given way to you either. You're turning right in front of me and there's no people waiting to cross so I have right of way.


----------



## Brandane (27 May 2020)

Tail End Charlie said:


> Reminds me of the scene from Bad Day at Black Rock, just before the bar fight, where Spencer Tracy says "you're not only wrong, but you're wrong at the top of your voice". Sorry don't know how to embed the clip.



Sorry, don't know how to shorten the clip! But the quote is at 2.40....


----------



## Milzy (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Give way means give way ( to me ).
> 
> View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTBOmcOTwM
> 
> ...



It's not worth a complaint though is it?
Either they're not familiar with the infastucture or just don't care about you. All you can do is ride defensive because nobody will listen.


----------



## Drago (27 May 2020)

double_dd said:


> As a cyclist I would turn right onto that path if nothing was coming; but the fact is the give way lines mean you give way to whatever is on that crossing/shared path and so does the van. As a driver I wouldn't have given way to you either. You're turning right in front of me and there's no people waiting to cross so I have right of way.


There is no such thing as right of way. It's an abstract concept that people use to justify killing other people with vehicles.

There is only priority, which is a commodity you give to others or allow to be given to you by others - you never just blindly take it for yourself, ever.


----------



## double_dd (27 May 2020)

Drago said:


> There is no such thing as right of way. It's an abstract concept that people use to justify killing other people with vehicles.
> 
> There is only priority, which is a commodity you give to others or allow to be given to you by others - you never just blindly take it for yourself, ever.



You're right re: 'right of way'. But anyone turning right across a vehicle or cyclists path has to give priority to the oncoming vehicle which isn't turning unless the road markings or signs say otherwise. In this instance - they don't. I would definitely slow down but I would do that at any junction or crossing.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> You should try riding a bike with deep section rims in a gusty side wind



A suggestion that riding a bike without deep section rims when there's a gusty wind might be a good plan in future?


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

Drago said:


> There is no such thing as right of way. It's an abstract concept that people use to justify killing other people with vehicles.
> 
> There is only priority, which is a commodity you give to others or allow to be given to you by others - you never just blindly take it for yourself, ever.


... but would the man on the street actually see any difference? "right of way" may be wrong, but it's a widely understood concept, like it or not!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Right. You should try riding a bike with deep section rims in a gusty side wind, with your arm out to indicate where you’re going, whilst trying to aim for a tiny gap, and braking. I’d love to see it.



Are you saying you were having trouble controlling your bike in the given circumstances?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Completely misunderstand that first little give way is for me to give way to anything approaching from the left or right, if I’m going straight on, not going to my right, it’s not give way to stuff on the road.



The van has the same give way markings on the road as you, just before the green cycle crossing. So if it means as you say above then it means the same for the van. The van entered onto the green markings before you. At that point there was nothing for them to give way to.

It is somewhat arrogant to assume sticking your arm out to indicate means oncoming traffic needs to give way to you. It’s like me driving down the road and indicating right and pulling across oncoming traffic. Indicating is indicating your intentions, nothing more, it doesn’t establish priority.


----------



## Milzy (27 May 2020)

Drago said:


> There is no such thing as right of way. It's an abstract concept that people use to justify killing other people with vehicles.
> 
> There is only priority, which is a commodity you give to others or allow to be given to you by others - you never just blindly take it for yourself, ever.


Not unless you want a Darwin award. When on roundabouts and it's give way to the right, I make sure vehicles on the left stop.


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

> The van has the same give way markings on the road as you


Not quite - the van has a big white triangle filling his lane.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (27 May 2020)

Blimey! Interesting thread - think I’m living on a different planet! OPs name seems to say it all!


----------



## Phaeton (27 May 2020)

If you wanted priority over the Sainsbury's van then you should have already been on the cyclepath, as you were not, then you do not get that priority, you were as other have already advised effectively turning right at a crossroads where the vehicle going straight ahead has priority.

Just an observation on your observation, I have just watched the whole video & apart from a very brief occasional shoulder check at occasional junctions you appear never to take observation looks around to see what other vehicles are around you, you wouldn't last very long on a motorcycle with such lack of observation.

But the succinct answer on this is you are wrong, you do not have priority over the van, he/she did nothing wrong, take it onboard & learn from it.


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Blimey! Interesting thread


The good news is, it could still have many pages still to go!


----------



## Milkfloat (27 May 2020)

matticus said:


> Not quite - the van has a big white triangle filling his lane.


However, the pair of dashed lines is the important bit, the presence of a triangular sign (physical or painted) is not mandatory, it just helps.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 May 2020)

matticus said:


> Not quite - the van has a big white triangle filling his lane.



Ok we can both agree the OP and van driver have give way symbols ahead of the green crossing. The triangle is not essential for indicating give way.


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2020)

It looks like the planners of this route considered that the vast majority of cyclists would use the shared use path on the approach to the Third Avenue crossing and not the contraflow cycle lane if they were proceeding along the SCN Route 1. As Racing Roadkill has found this is a potential conflict point and it's not immediately obvious how to proceed from the contraflow cycle lane. Although the give way marking is pretty clear in both directions, albeit slightly different, I can't see how the cyclist would have priority over the van. It would be less clear cut if the cyclist was already on the crossing, but this was not the case here.

I think the best approach to this junction would be to move from the cycle lane just before the junction and use the shared use path, taking advantage of the give ways in both directions. It means you don't have to potentially give way or indicate right. I'd approach this crossing assertively but definitely look both ways...

To me this cycle route has the feel of a work in progress and the infrastructure needs more clarity and better design.


----------



## kynikos (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Right. You should try riding a bike with deep section rims in a gusty side wind, with your arm out to indicate where you’re going, whilst trying to aim for a tiny gap, and braking. I’d love to see it.


Save up and spend a bit more money on a bike more suited for purpose?


----------



## Milzy (27 May 2020)

Just another helmet cam warrior giving us all a bad name. We're not entitled cyclists, we must all share the road sensibly and remain calm.


----------



## winjim (27 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> If you wanted priority over the Sainsbury's van then you should have already been on the cyclepath, as you were not, then you do not get that priority, you were as other have already advised effectively turning right at a crossroads where the vehicle going straight ahead has priority.


I think there's a bit of wanting to have it both ways. As cyclists we're privileged in that we can choose to use either the road or cycle paths, where provided, as we see fit. So the choice here is: if you want priority on that crossing join the cycle path earlier but be prepared to ride a bit more slowly and watch out for pedestrians, if you want to ride faster then stay on the road but be prepared to give way to other vehicles as appropriate.

I wonder if the junction could be fixed by getting rid of that one way cycle lane altogether and pushing all the cyclists on to the bike path. Then have the bike path branch, with one branch going over the crossing and one branch joining the cycle lane on the road. This might create some conflict between cyclists crossing each others paths though.


----------



## Phaeton (27 May 2020)

winjim said:


> I wonder if the junction could be fixed by getting rid of that one way cycle lane altogether and pushing all the cyclists on to the bike path. Then have the bike path branch, with one branch going over the crossing and one branch joining the cycle lane on the road. This might create some conflict between cyclists crossing each others paths though.


That does sound like a better solution, but possibly due to budget constraints it was decided to leave the island along with the bollards in place. However I still wouldn't blindly ride across the road without being prepared to stop for that vehicle that doesn't.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Drago said:


> There is no such thing as right of way. It's an abstract concept that people use to justify killing other people with vehicles.
> 
> There is only priority, which is a commodity you give to others or allow to be given to you by others - you never just blindly take it for yourself, ever.



That's a really useful way to explain to novices and help keep them safe. However, the term 'right of way' is actually extensively used in law, eg the Highways Act 1980 ...


> The Highways Act 1980 provides for the improvement, maintenance and creation of roads in England and Wales. The Act is divided into 14 parts and split into 345 sections.
> 
> The main part of the Highways Act 1980, relevant to cyclists, is Part 4 (Sections 36 to 61), which covers the maintenance of highways.
> 
> Before looking at Part 4 in more detail, Section 329(1) *is also relevant to cyclists*. This section states that a cycle track is a way, constituted or comprised in a highway, over which there is a public *right of way* on pedal cycles, with or without a *right of way *on foot and over which there is no other *right of way*. Whether the cycle track is part of a highway does not matter, the highway authority for the associated highway will be responsible for maintaining it.


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Ok we can both agree the OP and van driver have give way symbols ahead of the green crossing. The triangle is not essential for indicating give way.


You're not wrong - we went through this upthread 

I made the point because clarity of signage is important, and I think there is consensus here that's it's an ... _ambiguous _layout.


----------



## Twilkes (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> That's a really useful way to explain to novices and help keep them safe. However, the term 'right of way' is actually extensively used in law, eg the Highways Act 1980 ...



Right of way in that sense means right of access, it's nothing to do with priority over other road users, that's why misusing it is misleading, there is no 'right' of anything while negotiating other road users, it's about giving priority.


----------



## figbat (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> That's a really useful way to explain to novices and help keep them safe. However, the term 'right of way' is actually extensively used in law, eg the Highways Act 1980 ...


Context is important. In the legislation the term "right of way" is used to identify a legal right to use a 'way' (path/track/whatever). It isn't used in the context of priority over other users. So yes, there _is_ such thing as "right of way", but not in the way most people use it.


----------



## matticus (27 May 2020)

winjim said:


> I think there's a bit of wanting to have it both ways. As cyclists we're privileged in that we can choose to use either the road or cycle paths, where provided, as we see fit. So the choice here is: if you want priority on that crossing join the cycle path earlier but be prepared to ride a bit more slowly and watch out for pedestrians, if you want to ride faster then stay on the road but be prepared to give way to other vehicles as appropriate.


Just as motorists can choose to drive on their own (expensive) dedicated motorways; or drive on handy local roads where they have to share with soft squishy people.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Twilkes said:


> Right of way in that sense means right of access, it's nothing to do with priority over other road users, that's why misusing it is misleading, there is no 'right' of anything while negotiating other road users, it's about giving priority.





figbat said:


> Context is important. In the legislation the term "right of way" is used to identify a legal right to use a 'way' (path/track/whatever). It isn't used in the context of priority over other users. So yes, there _is_ such thing as "right of way", but not in the way most people use it.



Then we agree. There is such a thing as 'right of way'. I can see the need to explain the concept of priorities to a novice, but it really shouldn't be necessary to explain this to someone with a driving licence. A novice cyclist will survive on the roads without a knowledge of 'right of way', but a good sense of priorities is obviously essential. I accept that I could have expressed my thoughts more clearly before.

Sorry @Drago, I was nitpicking unnecessarily - I am the original uber pedant


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Another type of line marking is the so-called 'elephants' footprints'. I wonder if that junction might be more clearly marked if the edges of the green zone was marked with them. A low cost solution I would have thought. What do others here think?


----------



## Phaeton (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> Sorry @Drago, I was nitpicking unnecessarily - I am the original uber pedant


No I think you were correct, the use of 'Right of Way' is often misused by the average member of the public when they actually mean 'Priority' it's use within the common vernacular I suspect is extensive


----------



## Dave Davenport (27 May 2020)

RR; Having read the nine pages of replies to this thread it's obvious that the junction is, to say the least, confusing, even after studying it at leisure. Can you not at least acknowledge that it wasn't really a case of poor driving and that the driver couldn't really be blamed for getting it wrong even if you're completely correct about priorities etc,?


----------



## Milzy (27 May 2020)

It was smooth driving. I might phone them up and praise the driver.


----------



## Phaeton (27 May 2020)

Dave Davenport said:


> RR; Having read the nine pages of replies to this thread it's obvious that the junction is, *to say the least, confusing*, even after studying it at leisure. Can you not at least acknowledge that it wasn't really a case of *poor driving and that the driver couldn't really be blamed for getting it wrong* even if *you're completely correct *about priorities etc,?


Green = It's not
Red = He/she didn't
Blue = He isn't


----------



## Dave Davenport (27 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Green = It's not
> Red = He/she didn't
> Blue = He isn't


Yep, I know. I was just interested to see whether RR would acknowledge that maybe he wasn't 100% right, but I'm probably on his ignore list anyway.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> No I think you were correct, the use of 'Right of Way' is often misused by the average member of the public when they actually mean 'Priority' it's use within the common vernacular I suspect is extensive



To be fair, I'm someone who uses 'right of way' incorrectly from time to time despite knowing the legal difference.

I wasn't going to go into this, because for one thing I'm not a qualified lawyer, and there's a risk that I don't know what I'm talking about, but as you've raised it, I'll touch on this thought ...

Priorities are relevant when two or more road users are using the same road system. In this particular situation that does not seem to be the case, it's an intersect between two systems with differing 'rights of way' for each - one being the highway, the other a dedicated cycleway (and footpath I think), where rights of way are different. It's one reason I felt the elephants' footprints' might be useful at this intersection.

Any lawyers in the house?

Addendum: no takers? I'm going to do a Sir Humphrey here and suggest that, 'in this particualr circumstance, the intersection in question places the right of way of those users upon the cyclepath in competition with the right of way with those users upon the Queen's highway. However the planners have resolved this competition of rights of way by sensible use of the currently available techniques, primary legislation, case law, planning protocols, and all other precedents in careful consulation with, and consideration of all interested parties including local road user groups, specilialists and consultants in the fields of urban planning, road traffic engineering, and road safety campaign groups in order to establish which of the rights of way of are to be exercised as priority over the right of way over the other. Therefore the duality of the aspects of the rights of way of one group of users and the other, and the priority of them has been sensibly established and designed into a system of compexity with elegant simplicity.'


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2020)

It looks like the plans were originally for a parallel crossing, but that has not been implemented. It also looks like there was not originally a give way marking in the cycle lane. That said, it would be helpful to see the final design schematics for this junction treatment as it all seems rather inchoate to me.


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

Thanks Origamist, excellent ferreting!

Temporary and permanent diversions of Rights of Way under the Planning Act and Highways Act take time and expense to get approval and are often delayed or prevented by objections during the consultation period. Highway engineers have complex and contradictory requirements to balance when designing junctions and sometimes have to compromise on best practice. `The Right of Way priority for users of the green corridor crossing should have been perpendicular to the road it crosses but the presence of the existing tree and the adjacent existing junction to the west made it difficult, but not impossible, to do that, so it makes the green crossing point less user friendly but, regardless, the Highway Code does not allow someone on the road to turn right using the green crossing to cut across oncoming traffic.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (27 May 2020)

@Origamist and top use of inchoate aswell! I only knew the legal sense.


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> Thanks Origamist, excellent ferreting!
> 
> Temporary and permanent diversions of Rights of Way under the Planning Act and Highways Act take time and expense to get approval and are often delayed or prevented by objections during the consultation period. Highway engineers have complex and contradictory requirements to balance when designing junctions and sometimes have to compromise on best practice. `The Right of Way priority for users of the green corridor crossing should have been perpendicular to the road it crosses but the presence of the existing tree and the adjacent existing junction to the west made it difficult, but not impossible, to do that, so it makes the green crossing point less user friendly but, regardless, the Highway Code does not allow someone on the road to turn right using the green crossing to cut across oncoming traffic.



You obviously know your stuff, nice to see something coherent as opposed to my waffling. I have a question if I may; your opinion please, with reference to this diagram, there seems to be a row of black dots alongside the edges of the green zone, do these denote the intention of using elephants' footprints? If so, do you think this shows the intersection as a work in progress, a rethink, or an omission?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 May 2020)

Brandane said:


> Sorry, don't know how to shorten the clip! But the quote is at 2.40....


If you right click on the timeline while on youtube you get a number of options to copy the link, one of which is 'copy video URL at current time'. You do that at a point where you want the scene to begin, such as 
View: https://youtu.be/9gX2pK1mioU?t=145
.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (27 May 2020)

matticus said:


> The good news is, it could still have many pages still to go!


Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 May 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If you right click on the timeline while on youtube you get a number of options to copy the link, one of which is 'copy video URL at current time'. You do that at a point where you want the scene to begin, such as
> View: https://youtu.be/9gX2pK1mioU?t=145
> .



Well, I never knew that. Excellent. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 May 2020)

swee'pea99 said:


> Well, I never knew that. Excellent. Thanks for the tip.


Or you can copy the original URL and suffix it with t=x where x= number of seconds into the clip you want it to begin playing. 👍

Edit to add: You can also suffix it with t=2m35s if you don't want to bother working out how many seconds that is.


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> You obviously know your stuff, nice to see something coherent as opposed to my waffling. I have a question if I may; your opinion please, with reference to this diagram, there seems to be a row of black dots alongside the edges of the green zone, do these denote the intention of using elephants' footprints? If so, do you think this shows the intersection as a work in progress, a rethink, or an omission?



I think SCN 1 is still a work in progress: https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/ There is a confusing mixture of existing cycle lane signage and markings still in situ and new infrastructure. The schedule of works listed suggest that further work is planned. This will hopefully make things a bit clearer and less dangerous to navigate. If it's finished, it's decidedly underwhelming.

To try and answer your first question, if a parallel crossing is still planned, I'd expect elephant footprints to delineate the crossing. If it's just a cycle crossing, I'd still expect them to be employed. It used to be the case that DfT authorisation was required for their implementation. To be honest, as they don't relate to priority they are really the equivalent of a highlight marker on an essay...


----------



## Jody (27 May 2020)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.



Not sure anyone has agreed with the OP but he's still fighting his corner. No sign of  yet.

I can't side with the van driver being wrong but the infrastructure looks rubbish and a little confusing. Think I would have preferred riding there before the "improvements".


----------



## monkers (27 May 2020)

Origamist said:


> I think it's a work in progress: https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/ There is a confusing mixture of existing cycle lane signage and markings still in situ and new infrastructure. The schedule of works listed in the link above suggests that further work is planned. This will hopefully make things a bit clearer and less dangerous to navigate.
> 
> To try and answer your first question, if a parallel crossing is still planned, I'd expect elephant footprints to delineate the crossing. If it's just a cycle crossing, I'd still expect them to be employed. It used to be the case that DfT authorisation was required for their implementation. To be honest, as they don't relate to priority they are really the equivalent of a highlight marker on an essay...



Thank you for your reply. It seems between yourself and @Archie_tect there's a wealth of useful knowledge here.

I understand your point about the EFs not relating to priority, but as a layperson, I just think they may add clarity.


----------



## I like Skol (27 May 2020)

Jody said:


> Not sure anyone has agreed with the OP but he's still fighting his corner. No sign of  yet.


Going off previous interactions I think the OP arrived looking for a fight, much like his approach to cycling. He got what he wanted....


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

The green coloured crossing point isn't very obvious- to allow road users to cross over any white lining it has to be dotted- so yes I agree elephant feet squares would help, in the absence of any street lighting, to define the edges of crossing point for approaching traffic.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 May 2020)

Is there a typo in the thread title? It appears to say driving when it should say cycling. Maybe a mod could fix it.


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2020)

monkers said:


> Thank you for your reply. It seems between yourself and @Archie_tect there's a wealth of useful knowledge here.
> 
> I understand your point about the EFs not relating to priority, but as a layperson, I just think they may add clarity.



Yes, they usefully highlight the crossing.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 May 2020)

I predict that @rr's new toy is going to offer him plenty to bump his gums about for at least the rest of the year. But I suggest that this is not going to enhance his mental well-being and I recommend to him (though likely he has me on ignore ) that he thinks carefully about this in the round. Of course, a counter argument is that this is all 'chat',. And the last few pages have offered some interesting insights into cycle path/road interface/design (so thanks to @Archie_tect and @Origamist ).


----------



## Jody (27 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> Going off previous interactions I think the OP arrived looking for a fight, much like his approach to cycling. He got what he wanted....



I've not seen any of his posts in a while


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.


Clarity is important... is anyone local to the crossing able to let the Local Authority know that the crossing is ambiguously set out so that RR's experience using it leads to a useful adjustment?


----------



## I like Skol (27 May 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> Clarity is important... is anyone local to the crossing able to let the Local Authority know that the crossing is ambiguously set out so that RR's experience using it leads to a useful adjustment?


I'm not sure any alterations are necessary. The OP crossed a giveway and attempted to cycle in front of an oncoming vehicle. My understanding of giveway is that it means cross only if your path is clear, which it very obviously wasn't.


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

I agree that users shouldn't flout the Highway Code.

The green crossing should, by Highway standards, be perpendicular to the Highway and isn't, so it needs to be adjusted and ideally a small 'give way' triangle be painted on the cycle lane, there should be white lining defining the edge of the green surfacing unless street lighting is provided and the two bicycle symbols painted on the green surfacing repositioned on the shared path edge on the cyclepath side of the pedestrian raised paving inbound of the drop kerbs.

There are set standards for everything in Highway Design manuals.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

PaulSB said:


> @classic33 - I've never heard before that there is a speed above which cyclists are expected to be on the road rather than follow a dedicated or shared route.
> 
> I rarely use cycle paths/routes but would be interested to have this bit of info.
> 
> Thanks


There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> I'm not sure any alterations are necessary. The OP crossed a giveway and attempted to cycle in front of an oncoming vehicle. My understanding of giveway is that it means cross only if your path is clear, which it very obviously wasn't.


Yeah that’s right, I was going to cycle “in front of the van” of course I was. I was never going to risk going straight over expecting the van driver to obey the clear give way sign, hardly any drivers ever do there, I know this.


----------



## classic33 (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.


DFT guidelines which say if you are travelling at over 18mph you should be on the road.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.



You are Dominic Cummings AICMFP


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> DFT guidelines which say if you are travelling at over 18mph you should be on the road.


“Guidelines” that means absolutely nothing in reality. And without looking for an indicated speed, how would you know? You couldn’t for sure, which just adds to the fact it’s total nonsense.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 May 2020)

I like Skol said:


> I'm not sure any alterations are necessary. The OP crossed a giveway and attempted to cycle in front of an oncoming vehicle. My understanding of giveway is that it means cross only if your path is clear, which it very obviously wasn't.





Racing roadkill said:


> Yeah that’s right, I was going to cycle “in front of the van” of course I was. I was never going to risk going straight over expecting the van driver to obey the clear give way sign, hardly any drivers ever do there, I know this.


@I like Skol Please give due credit to the OP's intelligence and sense of self-preservation. @rr is a cyclist of both experience and considerable knowledge.
Remember: guidelines are just that: for the the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.


----------



## Phaeton (27 May 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> @I like Skol Please give due credit to the OP's intelligence


He's not showing much currently


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

Anyway, let’s not forget that the only bit I give a tinker’s about, and the point of the thread is couple of seconds which show the hooky infrastructure, and the potential issues.


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 May 2020)

Generosity and kindness to all.


I like Skol said:


> Look sir, it really is time


FTFY


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.



Were you riding along to test your eyesight before a bigger trip?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Anyway, let’s not forget that the only bit I give a tinker’s about, and the point of the thread is couple of seconds which show the hooky infrastructure, and the potential issues.


You titled it "Poor driving from someone who should know better" and stated clearly in the OP and throughout the thread that you had right of way (when you didn't)

The thread was never about infrastructure in any sense other than your blatant misunderstanding of it.


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

For the bigger picture... https://assets.publishing.service.g...9150/ltn-2-08_Cycle_infrastructure_design.pdf

and for detail see the diagram below: 
[replace the 'up' traffic lane with a dedicated contra-flow cycle lane to replicate the cycle/path crossing point RR encountered. Note the extended green surfacing, corduroy paving and the flat topped road bump suggested- which in the absence of street lighting could be replaced with elephant feet white lining for improved visibility]


----------



## Jody (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> .......the point of the thread is couple of seconds which show the hooky infrastructure, and the potential issues.



Your thread title would disagree


----------



## HLaB (27 May 2020)

PaulSB said:


> @classic33 - I've never heard before that there is a speed above which cyclists are expected to be on the road rather than follow a dedicated or shared route.
> 
> I rarely use cycle paths/routes but would be interested to have this bit of info.
> 
> Thanks


There was something in the Highway Code back when shared farcilities (converted footways) started to become popular but that was quietly withdrawn


----------



## Ajax Bay (27 May 2020)

Jody said:


> Your thread title would disagree


Thobut:
Heed verb sap (@Shaun )
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tips-on-how-to-get-the-best-response-to-your-threads.224694/


----------



## newts (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Simple fact is, I am right. The design was intended as I explained, drivers continually get it wrong, that bit of infrastructure is getting a real reputation round here. I’m just glad I got an example of what’s wrong on camera, without getting killed.


The only exmaple shown in the video is a cyclist messing up & needlessly shouting at another road user who did nothing wrong


----------



## HMS_Dave (27 May 2020)

With this thread we have gone up the mountain, down the other side and now we have realised we have left the oven on and we need to go back again...


----------



## MontyVeda (27 May 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> For the bigger picture... https://assets.publishing.service.g...9150/ltn-2-08_Cycle_infrastructure_design.pdf
> 
> and for detail see the diagram below:
> [replace the 'up' traffic lane with a dedicated contra-flow cycle lane to replicate the cycle/path crossing point RR encountered. Note the extended green surfacing, corduroy paving and the flat topped road bump suggested- which in the absence of street lighting could be replaced with elephant feet white lining for improved visibility]
> ...


How does that crossing work for pedestrians? Is it like a zebra? ...or something else??


----------



## Archie_tect (27 May 2020)

Yes, it's a combined cycle/footpath, so people wishing to cross have right of way over those using the road, hence the partially sighted bubble paving for pedestrians and the give way road markings for the vehicular and contra flow cycle lanes, but the triangular 'Give Way' signs are missing.


----------



## boydj (27 May 2020)

Archie_tect said:


> The green crossing strip connects the two sides of the shared cycle/pedestrian pavement on either side of the road where there is a shared drop-kerb. The road users approaching the green cycle/pedestrian crossing from either side have to give way to anyone using the green crossing point, ie the van driver has a give way dotted line and you, on the road approaching the green crossing point, have a give way dotted line. Both you and the van driver have to give way [ie stop] if there is a pedestrian or a cycle on the pavement crossing point.
> 
> What the green crossing point does NOT do is give a cyclist, on the road marked cycle lane, the right to turn right from the road onto the green crossing. That is the equivalent of approaching a zebra crossing or a pelican crossing and then turning right off the road in front of traffic onto the opposite pavement and expecting any traffic coming from the opposite direction to stop for you because you are then on the crossing..
> 
> ...



That's an excellent analysis.


----------



## upandover (27 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.



From the highway code.
"If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary."

However vague. I absolutely wouldn't be confident of stopping at those speedd if someone sidestepped or fell.

I cycle on shared paths daily, (in normal times), and wouldn't dream of this speed unless it was absolutely empty. It concerns me


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 May 2020)

upandover said:


> From the highway code.
> "If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary."
> 
> However vague. I absolutely wouldn't be confident of stopping at those speedd if someone sidestepped or fell.
> ...



I suspect the brakes on his new bike weren’t working.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 May 2020)

upandover said:


> From the highway code.
> "If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary."
> 
> However vague. I absolutely wouldn't be confident of stopping at those speedd if someone sidestepped or fell.
> ...


Don’t worry poppet, I can stop perfectly well. I have brakes, they’re very good.


----------



## upandover (28 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Don’t worry poppet, I can stop perfectly well. I have brakes, they’re very good.



Well, that's patronising, angry and arrogant.

As I said, I couldn't stop safely at that speed if someone sidestepped right in front of me. I suppose we might say you could because you're a better cyclist, but then we've all seen the video...


----------



## winjim (28 May 2020)

upandover said:


> Well, that's patronising, angry and arrogant.
> 
> As I said, I couldn't stop safely at that speed if someone sidestepped right in front of me. I suppose we might say you could because you're a better cyclist, but then we've all seen the video...


I do think that as the op has discussed upthread the difficulty he has in keeping the bike under proper control, it's a valid concern. It might be an idea either to take the bike somewhere quiet in order to practise basic bike handling skills, or even perhaps join in some organised rides where he can ask the ride leader to talk him through some simple manoeuvres, observation and roadcraft.

Failing that, maybe it would be an idea to look at the suitability of the bike itself. As mentioned, the deep section rims make it difficult to handle so there are probably better choices of bike for that type of riding. I would think that for pootling around town on the cycle paths, you don't need anything fancy, a cheap hybrid would be just the job.


----------



## Jody (28 May 2020)

winjim said:


> I would think that for pootling around town on the cycle paths, you don't need anything fancy, a cheap hybrid would be just the job.



Skippy might have something more suitable


----------



## AndyRM (28 May 2020)

Personally I've never experienced any problems with stability when using my deep section rims, unless I've been out when it's blowing a hoolie. It looks pretty calm in the OPs video, so now I'm concerned that I'm perhaps doing something wrong? 

Any advice gratefully received.


----------



## Phaeton (28 May 2020)

AndyRM said:


> Any advice gratefully received.


Clearly that is what you are doing wrong


----------



## Ajax Bay (28 May 2020)

AndyRM said:


> Any advice gratefully received.


Andy - are you seriously inviting constructive advice? Please stay 'on topic' for this thread.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 May 2020)

OTOH 🤔


View: https://youtu.be/AMF28Or8fzo


----------



## Phaeton (28 May 2020)

Still waiting for soemthing to happen?


----------



## monkers (28 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Still waiting for soemthing to happen?



I thought the same, so I watched again.

It seems to me that the bus must have cut in pretty close to avoid the parked cars on the opposite side of the road that become visible just as the bus passes. I guess the camera doesn't manage to pick that up being rear-facing as it is.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 May 2020)

monkers said:


> I thought the same, so I watched again.
> 
> It seems to be that the bus must have cut in pretty close to avoid the parked cars on the opposite side of the road that become visible just as the bus passes. I guess the camera doesn't manage to pick that up being rear-facing as it is.


Yup, I could have touched the bus


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

steveindenmark said:


> There are give way on the cycle path as well.


Where? Not at the first crossing. Only the carriageway and cycle lane have them.



steveindenmark said:


> A blind man in a snow storm could see what the driver was going to do all the op had to do was slow down a bit. It would have been no issue at all.


I agree it should have been avoided (and it was) but it's not exactly "no issue at all". A driver blasting through a junction at a speed where s/he couldn't stop if someone was crossing their path (according to posts above) is careless driving, isn't it?


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> DFT guidelines which say if you are travelling at over 18mph you should be on the road.


Wasn't that just a consultation draft which was flamed to death because it would have meant no council ever repaired any design errors ever?


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

HLaB said:


> There was something in the Highway Code back when shared farcilities (converted footways) started to become popular but that was quietly withdrawn


It never actually got into a published edition of the Highway Code, did it?


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

si_c said:


> I thought it was 18mph, but your point still stands. I'd be on the road once I'm going more than twice walking speed, so say what 10mph?


Your masochism is your own choice. Please do not seek to force it on others - I think it's fine to do even 30mph on empty good-visibility sections of some cycleways, but of course, I agree that the OP should not be skimming walkers at high speeds.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

HLaB said:


> I'm not familiar with that exact location but I can't see clear markings that suggest the OP had priority, it looks to me that the crossing works purely on a courtesy basis rather than being a semi controlled zebra crossing or a fully controlled toucan crossing. So driver could have stopped out of courtesy but they are not legally obliged to the markings are just advisory and the OP did well to anticipate that. If they are legal markings there'll be TRO which lists it. I hate however, advisory or even legal stop/ priority crossings just before a junction as folk are usually concentrating on the junction and fail to yield/stop anyway.


The markings look like pretty normal give-ways, which do not require a TRO, zebra or toucan to take effect and woe betide any driver or rider blasting on through!

You may be right that folk are usually concentrating on the faraway junction, but it's really not an unusual layout in other countries and the UK really should weed out incompetent drivers who can't cope with it. There looks more than a car length between the crossing and the junction, so drivers should deal with the crossing and then the junction. It's difficult to see what more could be done by design except grade-separation.

However, because the OP had a give-way as well, you are correct that the OP didn't have priority to turn right there.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

matticus said:


> In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
> _How could this be prevented_?
> 
> ONE approach in this case would be a "_Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road_ " on the cycle-path.
> (better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)


Well, give-ways on the cycle path would turn the layout into a 4-way give-way, which is treated like an invisible mini-roundabout and @Racing roadkill would then have had priority turning right across the oncoming van!


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

upandover said:


> From the highway code.
> "If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary."


Although the sentiment remains the same, that is not the current highway code, so you might like to bring yourself up to date at www.gov.uk/highway-code


----------



## figbat (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> A driver blasting through a junction at a speed where s/he couldn't stop if someone was crossing their path (according to posts above) is careless driving, isn't it?


It is. But the driver in the OP is not "blasting through a junction" and there was nothing to stop for, save for a misguided cyclist under the impression they had priority.


----------



## matticus (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> _matticus said:
> In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
> How could this be prevented?
> 
> ...


No, what I meant was: where there are now just double-dashes across the cycle-lane (I probably shouldn't have written cycle-*path *above), they could ADD a give-way sign for increased clarity.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

figbat said:


> It is. But the driver in the OP is not "blasting through a junction" and there was nothing to stop for, save for a misguided cyclist under the impression they had priority.


They still should be driving so they could stop safely if needed, even for a misguided cyclist, and - having rewatched it - I think I agree with posters above that they wouldn't have been able to. It looks entirely too fast into the crossing.


----------



## upandover (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Although the sentiment remains the same, that is not the current highway code, so you might like to bring yourself up to date at www.gov.uk/highway-code



Thanks.  I was quoting from the website 'Highway Code for Cyclists, which is a summary. You're right, it's essentially the same, but useful to see.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

matticus said:


> No, what I meant was: where there are now just double-dashes across the cycle-lane (I probably shouldn't have written cycle-*path *above), they could ADD a give-way sign for increased clarity.


Ah, OK. I assumed the " was a typo for &.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

upandover said:


> Thanks.  I was quoting from the website 'Highway Code for Cyclists, which is a summary. You're right, it's essentially the same, but useful to see.
> 
> https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists


That's not a trustworthy summary. It's a scammy website produced by a driving school (UAB DrivingEd) to recruit people for their online driving licence theory tests, apparently based on the idea that cyclists are people who haven't yet learned to drive or are up for a retest. The real website is www.gov.uk/highway-code


----------



## Phaeton (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> It looks entirely too fast into the crossing.


Unless you were sat behind the wheel at that time you, I, nor anybody else has enough information to make that call, we all do not know what field of vision the driver had. If he/she had clear vision down the cycleway in both directions then it was safe to proceed, as upthread he/she arrived at the give way before the OP, had priority over the OP who still obstinately still hasn't admitted he has read the signage incorrectly.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Unless you were sat behind the wheel at that time you, I, nor anybody else has enough information to make that call,


That's not true else no-one would ever be prosecuted for any driving offence.



Phaeton said:


> we all do not know what field of vision the driver had. If he/she had clear vision down the cycleway in both directions then it was safe to proceed, [...]


If the give-way marking on the road is the regulation 3.75m long and the video timekeeping (at quarter speed) is accurate, then the van driver seems to take 0.4s to travel 3.75m, so is doing about 21mph on arrival at the give-way line. I'm sure someone with the original video could estimate it more precisely. While probably not lethal if there was a collision, I think that's still too fast to enter a crossing in a big van with thick A pillars that might obscure an cyclist approaching down the slope from the left slightly behind square.

Of course, the measurements and the visibility out of the cab would need checking if anyone was going to actually prove this to any standard, but I think it looks likely that they were going too fast. In one way, I'm surprised anyone approves of that intimidating speed of entry into a crossing against priority, but in another way I'm not because such bullying of more vulnerable road users is really really widespread in the UK.

I'm leaving aside the OP's non-priority as we basically agree there.


----------



## Rusty Nails (28 May 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Don’t worry poppet*, I can stop perfectly well. I have brakes, they’re very good.*


That sounds like the sort of thing Trump might say.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

Rusty Nails said:


> That sounds like the sort of thing Trump might say.


Surely Trump would have "excellent brakes, great brakes, the best brakes"?


----------



## classic33 (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Where? Not at the first crossing. Only the carriageway and cycle lane have them.
> 
> I agree it should have been avoided (and it was) but it's not exactly "no issue at all". A driver blasting through a junction at a speed where s/he couldn't stop if someone was crossing their path (according to posts above) is careless driving, isn't it?


As was the OP/cyclist, who turned right out a marked contra flow lane then across a crossing that went through both lanes from pavement to pavement. 

This done after the van had already gone over the road markings before the crossing, and before reaching the same markings in their lane.

Sustran, according to you*, have a 12mph design speed limit for shared footways. DFT guidance still says above 18mph and you should be on the road. Which is where the OP is in the video posted, in a seperate contra flow cycle lane, not the shared footway.

*You don't feel this is fast enough, but you do point this limit out.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Surely Trump would have "excellent brakes, great brakes, the best brakes"?


And he would know more about brakes than anyone, believe him


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> As was the OP/cyclist, who turned right out a marked contra flow lane then across a crossing that went through both lanes from pavement to pavement.


I didn't comment on the OP there.



classic33 said:


> Sustran, according to you*, have a 12mph design speed limit for shared footways.


Design speed, not "design speed limit", plus 12mph is for a "local access route" (a feeder track from housing, typically) or "significant interaction with pedestrians" (a shopping street, basically). On "main routes, designers should aim to provide a higher design speed of 20mph." (Sustrans Design Manual, April 2014, p7).



classic33 said:


> DFT guidance still says above 18mph and you should be on the road.


Where? I never saw that get past a draft consultation.


----------



## HLaB (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> It never actually got into a published edition of the Highway Code, did it?


I definitely seen it written down somewhere as a kid when I first passed my driving test but that was a long time ago


----------



## classic33 (28 May 2020)

Last part July 2019.

You acknowledge there is a speed limit, but you don't agree with it. You want to be able to travel as fast as is possible between your points of travel, with as little regard as possible for others. That's an argument that is often used by drivers.


----------



## MontyVeda (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> ...
> I think that's still too fast to enter a crossing in a big van with thick A pillars that might obscure an cyclist approaching down the slope from the left slightly behind square.
> ...


as with a zebra crossing, only a fool would cross without either ensuring the road was clear or that right of passage had been granted to them by road users. Give way markings only require one to check, rather than stop, and if your estimate of 21mph is accurate, I think that's a reasonable speed.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Last part July 2019.
> 
> You acknowledge there is a speed limit, but you don't agree with it. You want to be able to travel as fast as is possible between your points of travel, with as little regard as possible for others. That's an argument that is often used by drivers.


I do not acknowledge there is a speed limit (feel free to cite where you think a limit applying to the route in the OP is set), nor do I have "little regard [...] for others". Making stuff up about me, Sustrans or the DfT is not the basis of a reasonable discussion, so please link to what was actually said if you'd like to discuss.


----------



## Cuchilo (28 May 2020)

I think the OP just wanted to show how fast he can ride , he was puffing a bit though


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 May 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> as with a zebra crossing, only a fool would cross without either ensuring the road was clear or that right of passage had been granted to them by road users. Give way markings only require one to check, rather than stop, and if your estimate of 21mph is accurate, I think that's a reasonable speed.



I would doubt the estimate is accurate and will have a large degree of error. Not sure how @mjr came up with 0.4s as the time displayed is only showing it down to seconds not fractions there of.


----------



## newts (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> If the give-way marking on the road is the regulation 3.75m long and the video timekeeping (at quarter speed) is accurate, then the van driver seems to take 0.4s to travel 3.75m, so is doing about 21mph on arrival at the give-way line.


I think you've over estimated the speed of the van. Clicking through frame by frame from from 19 to 20 seconds, the front wheels are about 0.75m from the end of the painted triangle. At 20 seconds the rear wheels have just passed the triangle. Within this time frame the van has travelled it's wheelbase (mercedes sprinter) 3.1m + 2.0m (in reality only 1.0m but i've added a metre in so as not to underestimate)= 5.1m/s or 11.4mph


----------



## Cuchilo (28 May 2020)

newts said:


> I think you've over estimated the speed of the van. Clicking through frame by frame from from 19 to 20 seconds, the front wheels are about 0.75m from the end of the painted triangle. At 20 seconds the rear wheels have just passed the triangle. Within this time frame the van has travelled it's wheelbase (mercedes sprinter) 3.1m + 2.0m (in reality only 1.0m but i've added a metre in so as not to underestimate)= 5.1m/s or 11.4mph


Fantastic waste of time  Well done


----------



## Ajax Bay (28 May 2020)

And the van's driver was preparing to stop/give way just beyond the cycle-path crossing because its driver could see a cyclist approaching fast and indicating, helpfully and for the avoidance of doubt, his intention to bear right, following the road with precedence. In the event the cyclist kept left so the van driver, who had an excellent view, proceeded. My effort to estimate the van's speed came out lower than 20mph with a significant possible error. I reckon the cyclist and the van were approaching the junction at about the same speed (see video).


----------



## newts (28 May 2020)

Cuchilo said:


> Fantastic waste of time  Well done


I felt that the delivery driver did't deserve any criticism for excess speed in the approach to the give way lines


----------



## DRM (28 May 2020)

For what it's worth, and I'll probably get flamed for suggesting this, in order to cross that road (I:e in front of the van) I think it would be safer if it was traffic light controlled, as you press the button, light goes red for traffic on the road, cyclist/pedestrian crosses over, even to turn left, if the other road users are anything like on one cycle lane near me, motor vehicles inevitably have their near side wheel inside the cycle lane, so I would also be very wary turning left too.
I think sooner rather than later, someone will get killed on that shambles of a cycle lane.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

DRM said:


> For what it's worth, and I'll probably get flamed for suggesting this, in order to cross that road (I:e in front of the van) I think it would be safer if it was traffic light controlled, as you press the button, light goes red for traffic on the road, [...]


Nope, you lost me there! If that's a main cycle route crossing a minor carriageway, obviously the light should stay red for traffic on the carriageway, with a change only triggered when a vehicle crosses its approach sensor and the cycleway IR sensors don't detect any cyclists approaching.

But we really shouldn't need lights at every minor carriageway crossing. The penalties for motorists failing to yield should be severe enough to encourage compliance. I'm not sure whether they are or not.


----------



## classic33 (28 May 2020)

Cyclist wasn't using the seperate, shared footway, facility it was placed there for. He was travelling in a seperate, clearly marked contraflow lane, with it's own markings.


----------



## DRM (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Nope, you lost me there! If that's a main cycle route crossing a minor carriageway, obviously the light should stay red for traffic on the carriageway, with a change only triggered when a vehicle crosses its approach sensor and the cycleway IR sensors don't detect any cyclists approaching.
> 
> But we really shouldn't need lights at every minor carriageway crossing. The penalties for motorists failing to yield should be severe enough to encourage compliance. I'm not sure whether they are or not.


I would say that 99.99% of motorists do comply with give way signs, the rest make an honest mistake, it would make it safer to have a crossing there, what if your suggested automatic i.r sensors fail, and believe me they do, I've seen HGV's go straight through barriers, fork trucks hit roller shutter doors, all because the sensor that detects an approaching vehicle fails, and the driver carries on thinking the barrier/door will open, as it always has done, except this time it doesn't, except in the case of that crossing you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a new barrier or door.


----------



## mjr (28 May 2020)

DRM said:


> I would say that 99.99% of motorists do comply with give way signs, the rest make an honest mistake, it would make it safer to have a crossing there, what if your suggested automatic i.r sensors fail, [...]


Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!



DRM said:


> [...] except in the case of that crossing you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a new barrier or door.


One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.

In practice, we don't put crossings everywhere because it would cost lots and reduce peak capacity of both routes.


----------



## DRM (28 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!
> 
> 
> One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.


Your deliberately taking it out of context, cyclist on the lane EXPECTS the lights to change automatically and goes across the road when the lights haven't changed because their presence hasn't been detected, equals disaster, it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.


----------



## classic33 (29 May 2020)

mjr said:


> Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!
> 
> 
> One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.
> ...


It's a shared footway, not cycleway. The original cycling facility is what was being used. With the expectation of getting the benefits of the shared footway.


----------



## classic33 (29 May 2020)

Reverse the situation.

The van has crossed into the cyclists lane, making an unsignalled turn, to go where the driver wants to go. 

Who'd be willing to say the driver of the van was in the right?


----------



## winjim (29 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Reverse the situation.
> 
> The van has crossed into the cyclists lane, making an unsignalled turn, to go where the driver wants to go.
> 
> Who'd be willing to say the driver of the van was in the right?


OP has claimed exactly that, apart from the signalling.


----------



## classic33 (29 May 2020)

winjim said:


> OP has claimed exactly that, apart from the signalling.


Van has stayed in its lane, travelling in the opposite direction, going straight on. The OP(cyclist) crossed into the opposing lane.


----------



## PaulSB (29 May 2020)

16 pages of debate on a subject with a clear and simple answer. A cyclist wants to cross a road used by drivers. Any sensible cyclist stops and waits until the way is clear and it is safe to do so. The design, construction, layout of the local piece of infrastructure is irrelevant. Stop. Stay safe. Only an obstinate fool would insist on trying to enforce a perceived right of way.


----------



## winjim (29 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> Van has stayed in its lane, travelling in the opposite direction, going straight on. The OP(cyclist) crossed into the opposing lane.


They've made that claim about your hypothetical. That the cyclist should give way to a right-turning van going into that side road.


----------



## mjr (29 May 2020)

DRM said:


> Your deliberately taking it out of context, cyclist on the lane EXPECTS the lights to change automatically and goes across the road when the lights haven't changed because their presence hasn't been detected, equals disaster,


You're ignoring the context: in normal operation that I suggested, the lights would be green for the cyclist and would not need to change.



> it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.


Is "why" because might makes right?

If we're serious about encouraging cycling, we must stop making cyclists stop, press beg buttons and wait tugging their forelocks at junctions.


----------



## mjr (29 May 2020)

classic33 said:


> It's a shared footway, not cycleway.


No such thing in law. It's cycleway with right of way on foot, or a highway with right of way on cycle or foot. "Shared footway" is a bulldog phrase used by politicians unwilling to stand up properly for cycling or walking.



> The original cycling facility is what was being used. With the expectation of getting the benefits of the shared footway.


Indeed and I don't disagree about that, so why keep banging on about it?


----------



## DRM (29 May 2020)

mjr said:


> You're ignoring the context: in normal operation that I suggested, the lights would be green for the cyclist and would not need to change.
> 
> 
> Is "why" because might makes right?
> ...


No might is not right, but as people have testified on various threads, if you get hit by a moving vehicle it hurts, breaks bones and sometimes kills, and in your scenario the wire in the road that detects the presence of a vehicle fails, cycle lane on green, bike lane on green is not going to end well.


----------



## mjr (29 May 2020)

DRM said:


> No might is not right, but as people have testified on various threads, if you get hit by a moving vehicle it hurts, breaks bones and sometimes kills, and in your scenario the wire in the road that detects the presence of a vehicle fails, cycle lane on green, bike lane on green is not going to end well.


No, in my scenario, if any detector fails, the cyclists get more green and the carriageway more red.

Getting hit always hurts, yes, but lights aren't going to prevent that, no matter what configuration. If there's a camera, it might provide easier restitution, but it won't prevent. Unless you're proposing rising bollards or barriers linked to the lights, like on a bridleway near me.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (29 May 2020)

16 pages! 

I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (29 May 2020)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> 16 pages!
> 
> I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.


I think I’m with you there!😄


----------



## Phaeton (29 May 2020)

PaulSB said:


> 16 pages of debate on a subject with a clear and simple answer. A cyclist wants to cross a road used by drivers. Any sensible cyclist stops and waits until the way is clear and it is safe to do so. The design, construction, layout of the local piece of infrastructure is irrelevant. Stop. Stay safe. Only an obstinate fool would insist on trying to enforce a perceived right of way.


Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (29 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.



Summarised perfectly, and correctly👌


----------



## Jody (29 May 2020)

Tenacious Sloth said:


> I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.



@Fnaar


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2020)

mjr said:


> No such thing in law. It's cycleway with right of way on foot, or a highway with right of way on cycle or foot. "Shared footway" is a bulldog phrase ...


'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot'  ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud. 

I think you're just being pedantic to the extreme.


----------



## Brandane (29 May 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.


If it was a new member, it might have been called trolling; but RR has been round quite a while now. So it's not trolling, it's good old fashioned arrogance.


----------



## Starchivore (29 May 2020)

gosh this is a long one


----------



## mjr (29 May 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> 'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot'  ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud.


No, for short, we just write "cycleway" because almost all of them do allow walking and no-one bothers to police the few that don't. Much less of a mouthful than "shared footway" and more encouraging to cycling, which we need more than ever right now.



MontyVeda said:


> I think you're just being pedantic to the extreme.


And you're just being contrived.


----------



## mjr (29 May 2020)

Starchivore said:


> gosh this is a long one


Yes, but what about the thread?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 May 2020)

mjr said:


> No, for short, we just write "cycleway" because almost all of them do allow walking and no-one bothers to police the few that don't. Much less of a mouthful than "shared footway" and more encouraging to cycling, which we need more than ever right now.
> 
> 
> And you're just being contrived.


round these parts we generally call them 'the old railway' because that's exactly what they are.


----------



## roley poley (29 May 2020)

Should we get professor Stanley Unwin in to explain it to those who haven't got it yet


----------



## Ajax Bay (30 May 2020)

DRM said:


> it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.


Sorry, 'fraid I disagree. Having to stop (all the time - ie at each such crossing) press a bloody button wait for the lights to change and check motor vehicles are stopping, and proceeding, is NOT 'better'. A good proportion of cyclists would just be on the road, as they're entirely entitled so to be, instead, to the detriment of the motor traffic's average speed.
I like @mjr 's default green for peds/cyclists and 'red for motor/road vehicles' with a sensor to optimise traffic flow (both ways). And to suggest on the open road that motor vehicles will roar up towards red lights, expecting them to change is in variance with reality. But the chances of that (green for cyclists) is an aspiration that few other than @mjr will hold their breath for.


----------



## mjr (31 May 2020)

I'm not holding my breath for it either - but it would be a great improvement to the beg buttons and placebos we currently have!


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2020)

Brandane said:


> If it was a new member, it might have been called trolling; but RR has been round quite a while now. So it's not trolling, it's good old fashioned arrogance.


Ooh, that's a bit harsh. I too think he's wrong, but no one is perfect. He's clearly a decent enough chap and a pleasant member of our little community, so it must surely be possible to disagree without getting silly over it?


----------



## Brandane (2 Jun 2020)

Drago said:


> disagree without getting silly over it?


I would disagree that I'm getting silly over it. Merely an honest observation, and as always it is "IMHO" . In any case, I'm pretty sure I remain on his ignore list from back when he first joined this forum. Anyone who dared to disagree with his point of view on anything suffered the same fate at that time. I haven't met the guy so can only judge on what comes across in print, and that leads me to form the opinion that I wouldn't be in a great hurry to go for a pint with him. No doubt others have formed the same opinion of me - c'est la vie. It's an internet forum, not a cozy little community .


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2020)

Drago said:


> Ooh, that's a bit harsh. I too think he's wrong, but no one is perfect. He's clearly a decent enough chap and a pleasant member of our little community, so it must surely be possible to disagree without getting silly over it?


Annoyingly I reported the ableist slur he used against me so it got deleted. I should have let it stand so there would be a record of it. That was when he was trying to explain, badly, something that was well within my area of expertise, by a simple Google search and copy-pasting, out of context, the first thing that came up.

He's also arrogant enough to make sure that everybody knows the price of his very expensive bike, refuses to acknowledge any mistakes he may have made, is giving potentially dangerous technical advice and potentially dangerous advice on roadcraft. I think he claims to be a ride leader or something so surely should be held to fairly high standards.

You mention community and if you want to call it that then this is how it works. When we see somebody acting in a way that is unpleasant and prejudiced, we need to call it out. When we see somebody giving potentially dangerous advice we need to correct it. When we see arrogance and hubris we need to express our disapproval and demonstrate that this is not what we want our community to be.

Now of course I'm not perfect myself, I make mistakes, I'm sure I've been arrogant and unpleasant in the past. I try to stay in my lane and only comment on things I know about, or caveat my comments by stating that it's only my opinion, but when I see advice given that I believe is wrong, and dangerous, and presented in such an arrogant fashion, I am going to call it out.


----------



## matticus (2 Jun 2020)

winjim said:


> ... I am going to call it out.


Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?


----------



## snorri (2 Jun 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> 'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot'  ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud.


IME the term in most common use is 'Shared use path' or route, this implies no priority for one user group over another.


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2020)

matticus said:


> Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?


I mislike your false dichotomy.


----------



## Milzy (2 Jun 2020)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> OTOH 🤔
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/AMF28Or8fzo



Not that bad really.


----------



## Brandane (2 Jun 2020)

matticus said:


> Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?


Isn't the whole point of this 18 page thread that we should all have the SAME views about junction priorities?


----------



## roubaixtuesday (2 Jun 2020)

Brandane said:


> Isn't the whole point of this 18 page thread that we should all have the SAME views about junction priorities?



Maybe it's more that we should assume other's don't share the same views, and ride accordingly?


----------



## Brandane (2 Jun 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Maybe it's more that we should assume other's don't share the same views, and ride accordingly?


Not really. We should all have the same views given that we all (should) be reading from the same Highway Code. Whether or not we can trust others to put the theory into practice is another matter - so yes, ride/drive defensively and assume every other nobber out there is out to kill you.


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2020)

Even the outdated and dangerous stuff in the Highway Code? (and cyclecraft too)


----------



## matticus (2 Jun 2020)

winjim said:


> I mislike your false dichotomy.


I wanted to dislike your "mislike"; but then google informed me that Othello is on your side, so you're bulletproof on that front. Pffft.


----------



## Brandane (2 Jun 2020)

Drago said:


> Even the outdated and dangerous stuff in the Highway Code? (and cyclecraft too)


Enlighten us....


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2020)

The obvious one is cyclecraft, which still has a passage that should have long ago been deleted advising riders on narrow roads to stay well to the side to allow traffic to pass... I'd tell you which page, but my copy is in my desk at SAR in Stoneleigh where I'v not been since March due to the obvious.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

snorri said:


> IME the term in most common use is 'Shared use path' or route, this implies no priority for one user group over another.


I disagree. Use of "path" implies to most people that it is primarily for walkers and cyclists (and sometimes horses) are only there under protest and it should be shared by everyone travelling at walking speed.

Now, we know legally there's no speed limit or absolute priority (but of course give way to avoid collisions) but that's the reason weaselly politicians like to use it instead of track, bridleway or definitely cycleway... although the last few years, "trod" has reappeared, which is an odd one that I think might not be mentioned in highway law at all.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

Drago said:


> The obvious one is cyclecraft, which still has a passage that should have long ago been deleted advising riders on narrow roads to stay well to the side to allow traffic to pass... I'd tell you which page, but my copy is in my desk at SAR in Stoneleigh where I'v not been since March due to the obvious.


Pretty much the whole chapter on cycleways is junk too. If you obey its advice to ride in the middle, you almost certainly will get abuse from other riders in places like London and Cambridge.

There's the obviously controversial stuff in the highway code about helmets and light coloured clothing that there's still no evidence for and definitely wasn't when it was added, but maybe the clearest example is that rule 77 for cyclists at roundabouts still suggests "ride round keeping to the left-hand lane". Almost any way of riding around would be safer: even footway riding beats that IMO, despite the crap angles and risk to walkers.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Jun 2020)

mjr said:


> ... maybe the clearest example is that rule 77 for cyclists at roundabouts still suggests "ride round keeping to the left-hand lane".
> ...


That is just insane!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (2 Jun 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> That is just insane!



And not true? "If you decide" isn't helpful, but it's not saying you must. From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

*Rule 77*
You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should

be aware that drivers may not easily see you
take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout
watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Jun 2020)

LCpl Boiled Egg said:


> And not true? "If you decide" isn't helpful, but it's not saying you must. From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
> 
> *Rule 77*
> You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should
> ...


I know it's not saying I must (plus I'm old enough to ignore bad advice when i see it), but it needs completely rewording. Why doesn't it advise us to use the roundabout exactly as a motor vehicle would, rather than just giving a link to that section. As those rules stand, they're vague and as you say, unhelpful.


----------



## icowden (2 Jun 2020)

It also doesn't take into account that Roundabouts have different designs and intakes. 

For example, if a roundabout is fed by single roads, I don't have a problem with riding round in the left lane of the roundabout. On the other hand if the road splits into a double (or more) lane feed to the roundabout, then it would make no sense to go in the left lane of the roundabout if I were going right.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

I know it's not telling you that you must (or even should) ride round in the left, but it's horrendously dodgy advice to even mention it IMO because otherwise few new riders would think to try it. I can't think of even a situation like @icowden mentions where "a roundabout is fed by single roads" that turning right by keeping left would be a good idea.

Anyway, there's plenty more where that came from, but I feel more examples would be a distraction from whether you can turn right at a crossroads like in the OP, so I've started a thread to try to summarise what's shoot in the current code at https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bad-cycling-advice-in-the-highway-code.262435/


----------



## I like Skol (2 Jun 2020)

winjim said:


> I think he claims to be a ride leader or something so surely should be held to fairly high standards.


I remember now. He was apparently an approved British Cycling ride leader but stopped after falling out with the organisation


----------



## snorri (2 Jun 2020)

mjr said:


> I disagree. Use of "path" implies to most people that it is primarily for walkers and cyclists (and sometimes horses) are only there under protest and it should be shared by everyone travelling at walking speed.


The fact that the term is in such common usage rather disputes your assertion.
The more important part of the phrase is 'Shared Use' the third word can be path, track, facility, infrastructure etc.


----------



## Ajax Bay (2 Jun 2020)

I like Skol said:


> He was apparently an approved British Cycling ride leader but stopped after falling out with the organisation


Not just a BC Ride Leader, but a very experienced, trained British Cycling ride leader, who 'trains' riders ready for forrin trips (and surely has me on 'ignore', because when I regret to disagree, he doesn't argue).
Jan 2020


Racing roadkill said:


> I’m a very experienced, trained British Cycling ride leader, who specialises in getting people from newbie to 100 mile challenge rides, in relatively short spaces of time,


Mar 2020


Racing roadkill said:


> I [rode] 108 miles, that started as an 82 mile training ride, as a leader with B.C. training the riders we’ve got on the Switzerland to Southampton ride in June.


Still think that the OP is not doing his albeit robust mental health any favours by toting the camera around.
But maybe this is the engineer in him, wishing he had the 'skilz' to be a jet pilot, with all his riding manoeuvres recorded for post flight analysis and to be marvelled at in the debriefing room.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

snorri said:


> The fact that the term is in such common usage rather disputes your assertion.


I disagree about the implication, not that it's the most common. Apologies for any confusion.

It's most common because cyclists are hated here and so people will use complicated mouthfuls to emphasise that we must share so motorists don't have to, and to avoid simple words like bridleway or cycleway that might imply any equity. Compare with how freely "veloroute" and "fietspad" are used officially by neighbouring countries.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jun 2020)

mjr said:


> I know it's not telling you that you must (or even should) ride round in the left, but it's horrendously dodgy advice to even mention it IMO because otherwise few new riders would think to try it. I can't think of even a situation like @icowden mentions where "a roundabout is fed by single roads" that turning right by keeping left would be a good idea.
> 
> Anyway, there's plenty more where that came from, but I feel more examples would be a distraction from whether you can turn right at a crossroads like in the OP, so I've started a thread to try to summarise what's shoot in the current code at https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bad-cycling-advice-in-the-highway-code.262435/


OP wasn't at a crossroad, he just swept across into oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. For avoidance of doubt, he was travelling in a marked cycle lane on the road, not using the shared footway, which crossed the road he was travelling on(clearly marked with a Give Way line, which was ignored).


----------



## Drago (2 Jun 2020)

Stop mentioning BC ride leaders - I'll be humming the Mickey Mouse theme for the rest of the bleeding day now


----------



## icowden (2 Jun 2020)

mjr said:


> I know it's not telling you that you must (or even should) ride round in the left, but it's horrendously dodgy advice to even mention it IMO because otherwise few new riders would think to try it. I can't think of even a situation like @icowden mentions where "a roundabout is fed by single roads" that turning right by keeping left would be a good idea.



So this one I always switch to the right hand lane as otherwise people will charge past in the right hand lane to go straight on:-

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W...0x48bd10007520cad9!8m2!3d51.38847!4d-0.416969

This one on the other hand I tend to find safer to stick to the left lane all the way around, particularly due to the queueing on the right hand side of the roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W...0x48bd10007520cad9!8m2!3d51.38847!4d-0.416969

AT the end of the day, you have to go with what feels safest I suppose.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

classic33 said:


> OP wasn't at a crossroad, he just swept across into oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. For avoidance of doubt, he was travelling in a marked cycle lane on the road, not using the shared footway, which crossed the road he was travelling on(clearly marked with a Give Way line, which was ignored).


The OP was turning across traffic he should have given way to (as marked - he claims that wasn't the design intention but we've seen nothing to back that up) but a crossroads between a cycleway and a carriageway is still a crossroads.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

icowden said:


> This one on the other hand I tend to find safer to stick to the left lane all the way around, particularly due to the queueing on the right hand side of the roundabout.
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/W...0x48bd10007520cad9!8m2!3d51.38847!4d-0.416969
> 
> AT the end of the day, you have to go with what feels safest I suppose.


Yes, I'd still go in the right lane until the back of the queue but you'd probably get away with it there and I think that may be because it looks like each of the exits in between is single-lane as well as the entries - but as you say, you go with what feels safest rather than act on mad suggestions in the highway code.


----------



## Dayvo (2 Jun 2020)

You didn't greet a SINGLE fellow rider you passed! 😳


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2020)

Dayvo said:


> You didn't greet a SINGLE fellow rider you passed! 😳


It's a city. Greeting people in cities will get you funny looks. It's hilarious when I forget as I ride from the fens into one...


----------



## winjim (2 Jun 2020)

Ajax Bay said:


> Not just a BC Ride Leader, but a very experienced, trained British Cycling ride leader, who 'trains' riders ready for forrin trips (and surely has me on 'ignore', because when I regret to disagree, he doesn't argue).
> Jan 2020
> Mar 2020
> Still think that the OP is not doing his albeit robust mental health any favours by toting the camera around.
> But maybe this is the engineer in him, wishing he had the 'skilz' to be a jet pilot, with all his riding manoeuvres recorded for post flight analysis and to be marvelled at in the debriefing room.


Interesting use of language and emphasis in those posts you quote, and certainly consistent with something that stuck out to me in the top post of this very thread.

All this talk of ride leaders is reminding me of the chap who ran the cycle club I was in as a kid. Did lots of day trips with him, and some longer tours, Wales, IoW, Netherlands. Mick, his name was, his day job was a table tennis umpire but he devoted a lot of his time to getting us kids into cycling. He was very enthusiastic and very generous and patient as you'd have to be when leading twenty or so children on a ride. A really warm fellow with a lovely temperament.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jun 2020)

mjr said:


> It's a city. Greeting people in cities will get you funny looks. It's hilarious when I forget as I ride from the fens into one...


Long ride then


----------



## roadrash (3 Jun 2020)

To summarise ,.....there are nob eds in all walks of life , some drive, some walk , some ride a bike , some even do all three, but a nob ed is always a nob ed.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Jun 2020)

As @winjim shared on the 'Help!' thread:


winjim said:


> Disregard the knob.


----------



## snorri (8 Jun 2020)

So, I was on the point of dismounting in order to walk across the zebra crossing when.....

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1269944694445875201


----------



## Slick (8 Jun 2020)

snorri said:


> So, I was on the point of dismounting in order to walk across the zebra crossing when.....
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1269944694445875201



Hows the bike?


----------



## Drago (8 Jun 2020)

He deserves points on his licence for the music.


----------



## Brandane (8 Jun 2020)

Hope that wasn't RR on the bike; he'd be blaming the driver for not giving him "right of way" on the crossing .


----------



## figbat (8 Jun 2020)

Brandane said:


> Hope that wasn't RR on the bike; he'd be blaming the driver for not giving him "right of way" on the crossing .


Well surely those on approach get priority over those taxiing across the runway?


----------



## snorri (8 Jun 2020)

Brandane said:


> Hope that wasn't RR on the bike; he'd be blaming the driver for not giving him "right of way" on the crossing .


Some might draw parallels.


----------



## roadrash (8 Jun 2020)

Brandane said:


> Hope that wasn't RR on the bike; he'd be blaming the driver for not giving him "right of way" on the crossing .




nah wasn't me....although it may have been the other RR …………………………….. yeah I know who you meant really


----------



## matticus (9 Jun 2020)

figbat said:


> We’ll surely those on approach get priority over those taxiing across the runway?


Only if there is clear, unambiguous signage!


----------



## matticus (9 Jun 2020)

snorri said:


> So, I was on the point of dismounting in order to walk across the zebra crossing when.....
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1269944694445875201



This is a truly outstanding film, deserves a wider audience!

I can't remember the last time i actually flinched watching something like this, it was totally unexpected.


----------



## roley poley (9 Jun 2020)

AnD He WaS GoInG RoUnD On ThE wRoNg SiDe oF ThE rOuNDabOUt I tell you some people just don't get it


----------



## I like Skol (9 Jun 2020)

snorri said:


> So, I was on the point of dismounting in order to walk across the zebra crossing when.....
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1269944694445875201



Now then sonny! Stand up and explain to me how you are going to pay for the damage to my car?


----------

