# Give way when turning left?



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2016)

Interesting feature on this morning's BBC Breakfast about a proposal by British Cycling (which I can't find any trace of on their website) to change/simplify the rule(s) on turning left so that the presumption would be that all road users are prepared to give way.

A somewhat confusing explanation by Chris Boardman didn't really shed much light on the proposal.

Can anyone supply a link to a definitive statement by BC ?


----------



## Haitch (8 Dec 2016)

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/c...ian-groups-in-call-for-junction-rule-change-0


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2016)

Thanks for that.

BC's 119 page document makes everything clear. 
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/z...rner_-_Priority_changes_at_junctions_2016.pdf

I would sign the petition, if their link to it worked: http://po.st/webTTC


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

Traffic in London would become gridlock during the rush hour if left turn vehicles (cyclist inc) had to give way to peds crossing.

Its a constant stream from 7.00 to about 10.00 and is hard already to make it around a left turn as peds are oblivious to traffic, sometimes stepping out into the side of you as you are already turning (generally heads down, engaged in phone, following the stream of peds in front)

Is this want this change suggests?


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Traffic in London would become gridlock during the rush hour if left turn vehicles (cyclist inc) had to give way to peds crossing.



They already do have to give way to pedestrians who have started to cross - that's been in the Highway Code for years.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2016)

Even if they haven't started to cross they still have to give way if possible on the basis that it's not lawful to deliberately mow down peds.


----------



## andrew_s (8 Dec 2016)

Traffic turning left already has to give way to pedestrians


> You should...
> watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way


Given the propensity of motorists not to indicate until they have started to turn the steering wheel (if then), it's not surprising that peds just walk out.
I generally cross a junction if the car isn't indicating and isn't so close/so fast that it wouldn't be able to stop. I view it as education, especially just outside work where the one-way splits right and left with no road markings.


----------



## jay clock (8 Dec 2016)

Chris Boardman is a great guy who I really respect but he was clear as mud as to what was being proposed


----------



## snorri (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Traffic in London would become gridlock during the rush hour if left turn vehicles (cyclist inc) had to give way to peds crossing.


Would that be altogether bad?
It could bring forward the introduction of motor traffic reduction measures making towns and cities more pleasant places in which to live and work.


----------



## Markymark (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Traffic in London would become gridlock during the rush hour if left turn vehicles (cyclist inc) had to give way to peds crossing.
> 
> Its a constant stream from 7.00 to about 10.00 and is hard already to make it around a left turn as peds are oblivious to traffic, sometimes stepping out into the side of you as you are already turning (generally heads down, engaged in phone, following the stream of peds in front)
> 
> Is this want this change suggests?


Yes we can't possibly have the massively greater number and more vulnerable of pedestrians slowing down the cars and bikes can we?


----------



## psmiffy (8 Dec 2016)

> British Cycling's proposal would mean drivers turning left would have to give way to a cyclist going straight ahead on the passenger side of their vehicle.




??? ive been cycling for quite a long while and didnt know that turning traffic had the right of way - at what point does the turning traffic have the right of way


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

I took it as if there is a cycle lane/bus lane, then cars turning left from the main carriageway should give way to traffic in that lane.

If there is so much confusion on here about what is being proposed, it just shows how confusing the existing rules are.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

psmiffy said:


> ??? ive been cycling for quite a long while and didnt know that turning traffic had the right of way - at what point does the turning traffic have the right of way


It's Priority not right of way. And I think all BC are looking to do is simplify and codify the rules at junctions.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

snorri said:


> Would that be altogether bad?
> It could bring forward the introduction of motor traffic reduction measures making towns and cities more pleasant places in which to live and work.


True and a good point but I am thinking more of my progress, especially when cycling. I can see angry peds claiming their right to step out in front of me after I have turned, followed by a few dozen more who see it as my responsibility to stop and let them cross.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> True and a good point but I am thinking more of my progress, especially when cycling. I can see angry peds claiming their right to step out in front of me after I have turned, followed by a few dozen more who see it as *my responsibility* to stop and let them cross.


Isn't it?


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

Markymark said:


> Yes we can't possibly have the massively greater number and more vulnerable of pedestrians slowing down the cars and bikes can we?


Thats fair enough. But I would expect a number of peds to just use this to divest themselves of even more responsibility to look up now and again...or even be courteous to cyclists


----------



## Globalti (8 Dec 2016)

On traffic... I'd just like to mention that my colleague, who is something out of the Jeremy Clarkson school of driving, prefers to drive from Manchester to London in his massive bus of a Mercedes and sit in traffic for seven hours and was shocked when he discovered that I prefer to sit on the train for 2 hours 10 minutes drinking coffee and reading the paper. He is an aggressive driver with poor eyesight and he hates cyclists. While there are drivers with his depth of mindset on the roads new rules favouring cyclists have little chance of success.


----------



## welsh dragon (8 Dec 2016)

That was on sky news this morning . I only caught the end of it, but the presenter Sarah Jane mee who is also a cyclist was hinting that as cyclists wear earphones , and don't wear helmets , that it is their own fault in a lot of cases.

And the sports presenter Jackie said she hit a cyclist once when she was turning left and it was his fault. she said and I quote "I saw him , but he didn't see me. I turned left and it was his fault ". wow. of course it was the cyclists fault. the mind boggles really.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> Isn't it?


No. Not yet

Its my responsibility to look out for peds if they have started to cross.

Id extend that to an intuitive responsibility to look out for peds if they look like they haven't seen that I am already crossing .

This is different. This is a transfer of a peds responsibility to even look before they step off the curb.

It will become my fault, if they step into me, even if I have signalled, taken care and am halfway around a turn.

I'm biased as I am fortunate to have never been left hooked, or even close to it. I'm not sure if that's blind luck or something else but I just dont see the problem with the current laws.

Let me ask. Regardless of this law, will we still teach our kids to look before they cross...or just look sometimes.

All if this is a distraction from the main point which I think, despite Mr Boardman's lack of clarity is about protecting vehicles on an inside lane or space, which I don't see an issue with currently.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

Globalti said:


> On traffic... I'd just like to mention that my colleague, who is something out if the Jeremy Clarkson school of driving, prefers to drive from Manchester to London in his massive bus of a Mercedes and sit in traffic for seven hours and was shocked when he discovered that I prefer to sit on the train for 2 hours 10 minutes drinking coffee and reading the paper. He is an aggressive driver with poor eyesight and he hates cyclists. While there are drivers with his depth of mindset on the roads new rules favouring cyclists have little chance of success.


Inagree.

There should be an obvious responsibility, educated from birth, to look out for others, especially when driving a potential dangerous vehicle and especially when turning left.

Making this existing responsibility law will be met with huge resistance by cycle haters and distain by those who just dont understand.

Better to educate in my opinion, rather than transfer legal risk


----------



## psmiffy (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> It's Priority not right of way.



Yup - I know what it says - semantics - my question still stands


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

DaveReading said:


> They already do have to give way to pedestrians who have started to cross - that's been in the Highway Code for years.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203


Yes, I understand that.

This isn't my point.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

Drago said:


> Even if they haven't started to cross they still have to give way if possible on the basis that it's not lawful to deliberately mow down peds.


So, why the new law?


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

User13710 said:


> Because it's for people who are *going straight on.*


Its not really clear though.the page also discussed peds

If it is about this, then I see no real problem with the current laws for vehicles going straight on.

I agree its not a clear law but in the vast majority it seems to work well, with drivers and riders all working it out between then.

I know there are exceptions but those, like all cycle collisions in towns are massively small compared to the number of journeys that take place without any incident.


----------



## smutchin (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I am thinking more of my progress



Ain't that the truth.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

Road positioning in that video was atrocious. If you're turning left at a junction you should be on the left side of the carriageway, nowhere near that far over.

Should be tight enough against the kerb that it would be difficult for a bicycle to get past there in first place.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Its not really clear though.the page also discussed peds
> 
> If it is about this, then I see no real problem with the current laws for vehicles going straight on.
> 
> ...


And yet 66% of all collisions take place at junctions so it's not working out all that well.

As I said before, this isn't about a new law. It's about simplifying and codifying what is already in place.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> And yet 66% of all collisions take place at junctions so it's not working out all that well.
> 
> As I said before, this isn't about a new law. It's about simplifying and codifying what is already in place.



You can make stats say what you want.

Traffic leaving, or joining at junctions will always increase the risk of conflict. Yet, you say 66% take place at junctions. What % of vehicles navigating junctions have an accident. That stat will say the accidents are a tiny minority of users at the junction


----------



## andrew_s (8 Dec 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> If you're turning left at a junction you should be on the left side of the carriageway, nowhere near that far over.
> Should be tight enough against the kerb that it would be difficult for a bicycle to get past there in first place.


That may be OK for cars, but anything longer will drag its back wheels across the pavement (and any pedestrians there) if it starts from the left.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

andrew_s said:


> That may be OK for cars, but anything longer will drag its back wheels across the pavement (and any pedestrians there) if it starts from the left.



That's true, and of course the approach will differ depending the size of vehicle. But I was referring to the video, which did show a car. More importantly, it shown a car that was driven terribly to highlight an issue that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I wouldn't drive a car up the inside of a lorry at a junction, nor a motorcycle, and certainly wouldn't on a bicycle either. Even if I had priority, I think I'd still give way on a bicycle.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> And yet 66% of all collisions take place at junctions so it's not working out all that well.
> 
> As I said before, this isn't about a new law. It's about simplifying and codifying what is already in place.


 but it is.

66% of collisions.

But likely 0.0000006% of journeys resulting in conflict.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589075, member: 45"]Nothing. Some drivers don't see cyclists as traffic though so don't accept that this rule applies to them. It shouldn't be necessary, but being explicit might just bring some improvement.[/QUOTE]

For younger drivers, the shocking thing is. They should KNOW they are traffic. My junior lad at work is taking his theory test next week. I've been helping out with some questions for him, and every mock test I've seen him do. There has been questions about giving cyclists room, the dangers posed to cyclists by cars, the dangers of junctions with cyclists, and motorcyclists.

This probably wasn't around with older drivers. But anybody under 30 would have gone through this, but have made a conscious effort to ignore them, despite having taken a test that tells them otherwise.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589071, member: 45"]Drivers should never enter a lane unless it is clear. As I see this issue, they're applying this principle to cyclists in cycle and bus lanes, to give clarity about what drivers should already be doing. And this is a good thing.

Interesting that the Road Haulage Association are against this as they claim it will encourage cyclists to ride dangerously. Ironic given that the idea is being put forward in order to stop drivers driving dangerously. What the RHA appear to be suggesting is that their drivers should be able to steer into the path of cyclists and possibly kill them.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this

But I believe we would be better served by education and acceptance than by restriction and penalty


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> You can make stats say what you want.
> 
> Traffic leaving, or joining at junctions will always increase the risk of conflict. Yet, you say 66% take place at junctions. What % of vehicles navigating junctions have an accident. That stat will say the accidents are a tiny minority of users at the junction





jonny jeez said:


> but it is.
> 
> 66% of collisions.
> 
> But likely 0.0000006% of journeys resulting in conflict.


So most collisions, regardless of how many, happen at junctions. Surely if you want to reduce the number of collisions, you target an area where MOST of them happen.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> So most collisions, regardless of how many, happen at junctions. Surely if you want to reduce the number of collisions, you target an area where MOST of them happen.



Remove junctions. Job Done.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589086, member: 45"]Would you if you were driving a bus in a bus lane?[/QUOTE]

I'd probably extremely wary, and be prepared to stop. 

Despite what other people SHOULD do, I can only control what I can do.

If I avoid putting myself in a position of potential conflict where possible, I reduce the chances of being involved in an incident. Regardless of blame it still hurts. It has worked so far.

After all, better to be alive, than right and dead.


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2016)

I imagine in London at certain times of the day a truck would be suspended in 'left-turn mode' for possibly the whole of the rush hour as a continuous stream of bikes whistled past on the nearside.

I'm as barmy an advocate for the safety of vulnerable road user as just about anyone on here, but I'm not convinced (yet) that this concept is the right way ahead.

I can see how a change at junctions is needed, but I don't think this is it.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> So most collisions, regardless of how many, happen at junctions. Surely if you want to reduce the number of collisions, you target an area where MOST of them happen.



You talk as if there is a huge risk here, there's not,

the sky isn't falling in, its all ok, cycling isn't dangerous, we don't need more protection?

We just need better education.


----------



## I like Skol (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Let me ask. Regardless of this law, will we still teach our kids to look before they cross...or just look sometimes.


This x 10,000
I'm not actually going to read the whole thread but have to say that education is the key! I teach my kids to be aware of their surroundings and consider the movements of everyone around them. I'm not an automatic button presser at crossings but encourage my kids to look first to see if it is, or soon will be, safe to cross without pressing the button. In fact I want them to know if any vehicles are approaching the crossing before they get there and stand at the kerb to look AND, if they do cross, do they have somewhere to cross to or are they going to be facing a wall of lemmings that are waiting to run into the road as soon as they get a green man. They also know that the green man means nothing and they should only cross when they are sure it is safe to do so.

If everyone was paying attention and considered what those around them where doing then this problem wouldn't be a problem at all.


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2016)

hatler said:


> I imagine in London at certain times of the day a truck would be suspended in 'left-turn mode' for possibly the whole of the rush hour as a continuous stream of bikes whistled past on the nearside.


It's not outside the realms of the imagination, certainly (I'm thinking of Bishopsgate here for some reason). Although I think there would probably be periodic lulls in the flow caused by traffic lights futher up or down the road

Perhaps it would need the minor amendment that once a road user has begun their maneouvre then they should be allowed to complete it (I can see that being abused though), or perhaps it would need traffic lights at the problematic junctions


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589124, member: 45"]Yup. There are circumstances though which are more risky, like a car turning left across a cycle lane from a queue of crawling traffic.[/QUOTE]

As far as I'm aware, bicycles in a cycle lane have priority over turning vehicles? Even still, I'd be wary going past a junction in one on a bicycle.

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid, but by most junctions if there's other traffic, my hand is over the brake.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> You talk as if there is a huge risk here, there's not,
> 
> the sky isn't falling in, its all ok, cycling isn't dangerous, we don't need more protection?
> 
> We just need better education.


I'm just giving my perception of the thinking behind the changes.

I don't actually care one way or the other. I can't remember the last time anyone tried to left hook me and anyone who gets too close to me tends to get a fairly vocal idea of what I think of them. However whenever I suggest something like taking away ASLs cos they are useless, people pipe up and say how useful they are for the more vulnerable or nervous cyclist. Surely this is an attempt to aid them.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4588940, member: 9609"]So does this proposal mean, if a lorry is about to turn left and is indicating to do so, any cyclist going straight on will have right of way to undertake the lorry ? and does this still apply when the wagon starts to move ? You couldn't make this sort of nonsense up![/QUOTE]
Much better put than me.


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2016)

I like Skol said:


> This x 10,000
> I'm not actually going to read the whole thread but have to say that education is the key! I [...] encourage my kids to look first to see if it is, or soon will be, safe to cross without pressing the button. In fact I want them to know if any vehicles are approaching the crossing before they get there and stand at the kerb to look


This sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to teach them in terms of surviving the present situation

I wonder however, and this is not aimed at you, it's just that your post was about education, if by educating kids from such a young age that the onus is on them to avoid conflict with motor traffic on the roads, they internalise that attitude and expect in turn that other people will defer to _them_ when they grow up and start driving motor vehicles - thus perpetuating the problem. It's a tricky one.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> I don't think so. If a vehicle is already there ahead of you, and clearly intending to turn, it would be both foolish and rude to go past on that side.


Had a quick google. As I have nothing better to do in work while waiting for the contractors to finish 

HC 183:
When turning

keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
*give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.*
I agree with you though entirely. it would be certainly foolish to pass a vehicle ahead and indicating. But they *should* be looking for you, and then waiting for you to pass.

Similar to the video in the OP, but what people should do, and what they DO do isn't entirely the same. Regardless of the rules, and who should do what. I'm looking after my own safety.


----------



## I like Skol (8 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> This sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to teach them in terms of surviving the present situation
> 
> I wonder however, and this is not aimed at you, it's just that your post was about education, if by educating kids from such a young age that the onus is on them to avoid conflict with motor traffic on the roads, they internalise that attitude and expect in turn that other people will defer to _them_ when they grow up and start driving motor vehicles - thus perpetuating the problem. It's a tricky one.


I understand your reasoning when thinking ahead from my post but the overall picture couldn't be further from this. I also teach them that they have the equal right to be on the road as a pedestrian or a cyclist. If we are cycling (as we often do on the way to school) and we have to block the road while we are waiting to turn right then it is tough for the cars that might have to wait behind us. If we were in a car they would have to wait anyway and if it is not safe to leave room for them to pass then so be it. It is all about safety (for everyone) and common sense.


----------



## iwantanewbike (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> No. Not yet
> 
> I'm biased as I am fortunate to have never been left hooked, or even close to it. I'm not sure if that's blind luck or something else but I just dont see the problem with the current laws.



You only have to look at a handful of Youtube videos to see this is a serious problem.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

martint235 said:


> I'm just giving my perception of the thinking behind the changes.
> 
> I don't actually care one way or the other. I can't remember the last time anyone tried to left hook me and anyone who gets too close to me tends to get a fairly vocal idea of what I think of them. However whenever I suggest something like taking away ASLs cos they are useless, people pipe up and say how useful they are for the more vulnerable or nervous cyclist. Surely this is an attempt to aid them.



I understand and I do get your point.

However as you do, I ride a lot in town and as you do I don't find that a problem actually exists. The issue of helping nervous riders is interesting. I think we should be attracting more people to cycle. I guess there is an argument that placing more regulation...or publicity... on things like this could actually make it all look "less" safe.

bit like the whole helmet argument.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> This sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to teach them in terms of surviving the present situation
> 
> I wonder however, and this is not aimed at you, it's just that your post was about education, if by educating kids from such a young age that the onus is on them to avoid conflict with motor traffic on the roads, they internalise that attitude and expect in turn that other people will defer to _them_ when they grow up and start driving motor vehicles - thus perpetuating the problem. It's a tricky one.


Just to reinforce @I like Skol education isn't focused on one section of society. We should educate everyone, before they join a tribe, before they become a driver, a rider a candlestick maker.

before they become entrenched.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

iwantanewbike said:


> You only have to look at a handful of Youtube videos to see this is a serious problem.


Well...you did ask for it.

Taken 4 years ago when the problem didn't exist then either.


----------



## keithmac (8 Dec 2016)

Undertaking a car signalling to turn left, cycle lane or nor is just careless and putting yourself in danger imho.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster and the green light for stupid undertaking to me..


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I understand and I do get your point.
> 
> However as you do, I ride a lot in town and as you do I don't find that a problem actually exists. The issue of helping nervous riders is interesting. I think we should be attracting more people to cycle. I guess there is an argument that placing more regulation...or publicity... on things like this could actually make it all look "less" safe.
> 
> bit like the whole helmet argument.


Ah it seems we actually agree.

On the less safe possibly, I honestly don't know. Regulation? Probably pointless just look at mobile phones and driving or stopping at red lights (all road users seem to treat that as advisory now). Publicity? Again I don't know. On my commute I don't get that many bad drivers (man in the van who just wants to scare a cyclist or who just ignores them) but I get a lot of drivers who really don't seem to "see" cyclists and this publicity may change that. 

As I've always said, if you get a close pass or hit on the Old Kent Road it's cos the driver meant to or didn't care, cycling into Croydon it's because Tarquin in the back has a question or she's too busy with her makeup.


----------



## martint235 (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> We don't need more legislation, we need better observance of legislation and, when that is not forthcoming, better enforcement.


Agreed. I still think there's a strong arguments for Police just targeting random areas on random days with a zero tolerance approach. If the level of one the spot fines doesn't cover the cost, just raise the fine.


----------



## Flying Dodo (8 Dec 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid, but by most junctions if there's other traffic, my hand is over the brake.



Riding in traffic, regardless of going past junctions, both my hands, unless indicating, are always covering the brakes.

Expect the unexpected!


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> Expect the unexpected!


You mean,

Always expect the expected, which was the unexpected, till you started expecting the unexpected so now it's expected, kind of?


----------



## fossyant (8 Dec 2016)

There are lots of cyclists who undertake vehicles even when about to turn. Given I'm now driving on the commute I am very wary turning left in the city centre as quite a few cyclists try and pass you even when indicating. 

It's not experienced cyclists. It's usually students who don't know the rules of the road. 

I say students because where I am driving is near the University


----------



## MiK1138 (8 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> This sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to teach them in terms of surviving the present situation
> 
> I wonder however, and this is not aimed at you, it's just that your post was about education, if by educating kids from such a young age that the onus is on them to avoid conflict with motor traffic on the roads, they internalise that attitude and expect in turn that other people will defer to _them_ when they grow up and start driving motor vehicles - thus perpetuating the problem. It's a tricky one.


See where your going with this but IMHO its a transferable skill, just as they looked for danger from the road as kids they will equally look for danger from the pavement as drivers.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (8 Dec 2016)

fossyant said:


> where I am driving is near the University



You have my condolences. I don't dare bring a car further than Regent road before I ditch it and walk


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

Drago said:


> Even if they haven't started to cross they still have to give way if possible on the basis that it's not lawful to deliberately mow down peds.


That one doesn't seem to be widely understood.



jonny jeez said:


> So, why the new law?


To enable the highway code to say MUST/MUST NOT because what's currently in there doesn't work.

[QUOTE 4588940, member: 9609"]So does this proposal mean, if a lorry is about to turn left and is indicating to do so, any cyclist going straight on will have right of way to undertake the lorry ?[/QUOTE]
Yes. They already do, but the fear of being killed means they don't assert it. They probably still won't after this law, but it might make motorists more cautious.



martint235 said:


> And yet 66% of all collisions take place at junctions so it's not working out all that well.


75% of all collisions involving cyclists in Norfolk (2015).



User said:


> What is wrong with the existing entry at rule 182 of the HC?


It needs extending to cover cycle tracks as well as carriageway and cycle lanes, especially ones like the London Cycle Superhighways and Cambridge's new hybrid tracks. And the priority in rule 170 and the whole of rules 182 and 183 needs extending to cover other vulnerable road users.



jonny jeez said:


> But I believe we would be better served by education and acceptance than by restriction and penalty


It's not either/or. Education will continue because that's fairly cheap and funded at county council level... but giving police the legal tools to enforce this more easily seems like a good side-effect of strengthening and clarifying the law.



Flying Dodo said:


> Riding in traffic, regardless of going past junctions, both my hands, unless indicating, are always covering the brakes.


I'm usually on a bike with a backpedal brake, so I'm even covering the brake while indicating - the rest of you are all wild unnecessary risk-takers(!)


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> Does it? Are they not already covered with road markings?


Yes, but there would be education value in including them as examples in the Highway Code; plus I'm not sure the ones like





marked on one side only by coloured paint/tarmac are legally unambiguous for traffic turning in - the ones marked by give-way both sides like




almost certainly are. So legal clarity for the roadside ones would be good, if there are other reasons to revise the Highway Code too. (images from Sustrans design manual because I already had them excerpted)


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

Oh and it could also improve the situation for people using the farking awful physically-impossible-to-look-everywhere-a-car-may-be-approaching-from ones like





which have been built contrary to design manuals and guidance in many places!


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> Highway Code and legal clarity are not equivalent. If there are markings on the road they have legal clarity and the HC does not need to be made more complex.


The point I was trying to make is that the London/Cambridge ones often have NO markings on the road on the major carriageway side other than a different surface colour and maybe speed-hump markings (here's our old friend CS3 Cable Street and here's our new friend Hills Road in Cambridge as at Sep 2015 - turn around to see an example of the old no-priority-past-the-junction cycle lane layout), so I'm not sure whether there's legal clarity, are you?

There was definitely a lot of criticism about the CSHs being meaningless blue paint in places.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> If there are no markings they are part of the carriageway, and the Highway Code as written covers it.


Where does it cover cyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and horse riders crossing the road one is turning into?


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> Are you changing things now?


No, I've already written that I feel 170, 182 and 183 all need revision, but I see now that you cut that part out when replying to me earlier - sorry if I should have asked whether you were changing things then 



User said:


> I thought we were discussing the issue of motor vehicles turning across cyclists when both are on the same road, and initially traveling in the same direction.


OK, so sticking to that, what do you think the current Highway Code means for cyclists riding along Cable Street CS3 across Sutton Street in the current layout? And do you feel that that's a) fair and b) well-understood by motorists?



User said:


> There is rule 170 which covers people crossing the road you are turning in to.


...which doesn't give priority to anyone except pedestrians and it should IMO.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589421, member: 45"]That's one take. It's not undertaking though, it's making progress in one lane that's moving more quickly than another adjacent lane.[/QUOTE]
I'm reminded of the nobbers who cause bus crashes by attempting to turning left across bus lanes without looking in the left mirrors, such as the pre-2006 layout from St Augustine's Parade in Bristol onto Colston Street. The "solution" there was to remove the bus lane and further reward motorists for misbehaviour  - I wonder if the Mayor of Bristol or its City Council would support clarifying the highway code.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2016)

User said:


> The other groups should flow from pedestrians, apart from pavement cyclists who, unless small children, should have no rights at all.


They don't. That's why 170 needs revision.

Disappointed there's no answer of the Cable Street Question.


----------



## jonny jeez (8 Dec 2016)

mjr said:


> To enable the highway code to say MUST/MUST NOT because what's currently in there doesn't work.



It does work. Very few collisions occur in comparison to journeys undertaken, there isn't a problem that needs solving here.


mjr said:


> It's not either/or. Education will continue because that's fairly cheap and funded at county council level... but giving police the legal tools to enforce this more easily seems like a good side-effect of strengthening and clarifying the law.


The police have little resource to enforce the current laws and wont take any additional steps to enforce this one. What will happen is that it will become an additional argument to play out in court and could possible make some less vigilant and less responsible for their own safety.

Education at local council level is not what we need. We need a national drive to educate us all at all levels over a continued period. The dutch culture of cycling is actually very new and has been reinforced by good education. It can be done...but it needs a will and it needs people to stop shouting about how dangerous cycling...and cyclists are.


----------



## keithmac (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589421, member: 45"]That's one take. It's not undertaking though, it's making progress in one lane that's moving more quickly than another adjacent lane.

What would you expect to happen at a motorway exit with a car in the nearside lane and a car slightly ahead in the middle lane indicating left with the intention of leaving at that exit?[/QUOTE]

Same again the car on the inside technically shouldn't undertake the car in the middle lane, so should give way.

Piss poor driving though if you find yourself in the middle lane after 3 warnings the junction you require to take is approaching..


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> Same again the car on the inside technically shouldn't undertake the car in the middle lane, so should give way.



I'd have said it was up to the car in the middle lane to adjust its speed in order to allow it to slot into a gap in the LH lane. 

The most sensible strategy for the car in the left lane is to maintain a constant, predictable speed.


----------



## keithmac (8 Dec 2016)

If you're over the exit in the middle lane with inside lane full best course of action is to take the next exit. 

But you should have already pre-empted the junction and appropriate lane before it got to that point..

If the car in middle lane slows down then "technically" the car on the inside has performed an illegal undertake, purely due to the poor anticipation of the driver in the middle lane.

Anyway each to their own but if I see a car in front indicating left I'll keep out of harms way, can't see the need to undertake (and the potential for an accident) just to prove a point.


----------



## keithmac (8 Dec 2016)

That's the Highway Code for you, if taken literally..


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589897, member: 45"]The car in the nearside lane shouldn't have to change his speed.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has suggested it should.


----------



## keithmac (8 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4589915, member: 45"]It isn't though really, is it? If you cherry pick a certain rule it might look like that, but not if you read (for example) the whole motorway section.[/QUOTE]

I read it all earlier on but feel free to point a certain part out if you please.


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2016)

I'm not aware that the word "undertake" appears anywhere in the HC at all but feel free to provide a reference

"Overtake" is commonly understood to mean "change lane or move significantly laterally rightwards, pass another road user and return to your original lane" - i.e. it's a manoeuvre, not just a matter of going faster than someone else on the road. Seems to me that the same would apply to this new coinage "undertake", so there really isn't any basis for saying someone is undertaking when all that's happening is that someone else in an adjacent lane is slowing down.


----------



## Dan B (8 Dec 2016)

MiK1138 said:


> See where your going with this but IMHO its a transferable skill, just as they looked for danger from the road as kids they will equally look for danger from the pavement as drivers.


Yes, because the danger to you from having a car drive into your body at 15mph is so similar to that of having somebody walk into your car at 4mph.

In E17 we have decided that "Copenhagen" crossings are the new in thing at side roads - the mouth of the junction is raised to pavement level and paved to match the pavement. Most drivers "get it" but even with those really obvious clues that pedestrians should have priority, there are still some drivers who believe they don't have to give way and pedestrians should have to look out for them.


----------



## mjr (9 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> Same again the car on the inside technically shouldn't undertake the car in the middle lane, so should give way.


Go home, you're drunk! The middle lane hog should have pulled in when they finished overtaking, so there shouldn't be room on the left for anyone to overtake that side. If it didn't finish overtaking, it should drop back and pull in behind. This isn't farking America where people sit in their lanes for miles upon miles and pass either side.



> Piss poor driving though if you find yourself in the middle lane after 3 warnings the junction you require to take is approaching..


And yet, that's often the standard of motoring in this country


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Dec 2016)

User said:


> We don't need more legislation, we need better observance of legislation and, when that is not forthcoming, better enforcement.


I agree, observation of the law, acceptance

The problem with enforcement is, it a lottery. I know that I can drink and drive, or text and drive or speed or just not wear a seatbelt and the odds of being caught are really, really low.

Possibly less than 1 in a hundred.

To increase those odds the police need to massively increase enforcement over sustained periods at huge cost, for marginal gains.

However I choose not to do all those things because I know that they are dangerous, socially unacceptable, wrong and I just don’t want to do them. I have been educated and made my own mind up to do the right thing


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> If the car in middle lane slows down then "technically" the car on the inside has performed an illegal undertake, purely due to the poor anticipation of the driver in the middle lane.



No it hasn't, 'technically' or otherwise.

So on a multi-lane carriageway with vehicles in all lanes, my speed and position in lane 1 is dictated by the slowest vehicle in any of the lanes to my right?

I think you're misunderstanding the HC.



keithmac said:


> That's the Highway Code for you, if taken literally..



*Rule 268*

_Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane *even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right*._​


----------



## mjr (9 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> The problem with enforcement is, it a lottery. I know that I can drink and drive, or text and drive or speed or just not wear a seatbelt and the odds of being caught are really, really low.
> 
> Possibly less than 1 in a hundred.
> 
> To increase those odds the police need to massively increase enforcement over sustained periods at huge cost, for marginal gains.


Probably less than 1 in a thousand, I suspect.

It seems like two unwarranted assumptions that it would take huge cost or result in only marginal gains, but we probably differ on what costs are huge or what gains are marginal, or possibly that drink, distraction, speeding or seatbelts (labelled #fatal4) are common contributory factors in fatal collisions.



jonny jeez said:


> However I choose not to do all those things because I know that they are dangerous, socially unacceptable, wrong and I just don’t want to do them. I have been educated and made my own mind up to do the right thing


Great for you, but not everyone thinks like that and it seems that no amount of optional education will make them, so we need some way of spotting them and giving them more obvious encouragement (making it cost them money) or starting them on the path to revoking their driving licences before they kill.

We're facing an increase in cyclist-involved collisions and a higher proportion of serious or worse, most of which involve motorists and most of which are near junctions, so I support trying to make their responsibility to avoid collisions at junctions clearer.


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4590356, member: 45"]There are two considerations - likelihood of being caught and potential punishment. Knowing that the chances of being caught might be low but consequences significant would put more people off.[/QUOTE]
In other words, keep the odds and raise the stake.

All true and I agree, the choice to do "the right thing" is an amalgamation of both factors.


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Dec 2016)

mjr said:


> Probably less than 1 in a thousand, I suspect.
> 
> It seems like two unwarranted assumptions that it would take huge cost or result in only marginal gains, but we probably differ on what costs are huge or what gains are marginal, or possibly that drink, distraction, speeding or seatbelts (labelled #fatal4) are common contributory factors in fatal collisions.
> 
> ...


I think effective education starts way, way before people decide if they like it or not.

At preschool. And even younger with positive input on TV and media.


----------



## keithmac (9 Dec 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No it hasn't, 'technically' or otherwise.
> 
> So on a multi-lane carriageway with vehicles in all lanes, my speed and position in lane 1 is dictated by the slowest vehicle in any of the lanes to my right?
> 
> ...



Who mentioned congested roads?.


----------



## mjr (9 Dec 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I think effective education starts way, way before people decide if they like it or not.
> 
> At preschool. And even younger with positive input on TV and media.


Maybe, but it's difficult to send the nobber motorists currently killing people back to preschool (although it would be an amusing extra requirement before getting their driving licence back), so we still need to do something about them too.

People are also trying to improve the odds of detection by getting things like Operation Snap in more areas.


----------



## mjr (9 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> Who mentioned congested roads?.


If it's not at least minimally congested, what the fark is anyone doing in lane 2?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> Who mentioned congested roads?.



Congested or not, if the driver of a car in a lane to your right suddenly slows so that you end up ahead of him, you haven't done anything illegal.

If you still think your statement below is true, I'd be obliged if you would point me to what leads you to believe it..



keithmac said:


> If the car in middle lane slows down then "technically" the car on the inside has performed an illegal undertake


----------



## jefmcg (9 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> Seems to me that the same would apply to this new coinage "undertake",


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/undertake#undertake_Verb_200

It's not a new word just because you aren't familiar with it.


----------



## mjr (9 Dec 2016)

jefmcg said:


> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/undertake#undertake_Verb_200
> 
> It's not a new word just because you aren't familiar with it.


I can't see a "date added" on that link?

Also, not being new doesn't stop the word being predominantly a tool used by incompetent motorists to shift blame for failing to check a lane to their left is clear before moving into or across it.


----------



## gavgav (10 Dec 2016)

Does this really mean (which is certainly how it appears in the video) that a cyclist has the right to undertake a vehicle who is turning left in front of them?! Utter nonsense


----------



## keithmac (10 Dec 2016)

I agree.


----------



## gavgav (10 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4592011, member: 45"]Have you read the thread?[/QUOTE]
Yes thanks. And I still believe that undertaking traffic, when they are turning left, is downright dangerous. I certainly won't be doing it on my bike or when driving my car.


----------



## gavgav (10 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4592038, member: 45"]This isn't about traffic undertaking. It's about drivers giving way to cyclists before they cross into the lane which the cyclist is occupying.[/QUOTE]
Yes and my point still stands that I think it's dangerous. If a car is behind a cyclist then they should stay there and turn left behind the cyclist, not like the idiot postman who overtook me and then turned left across my path last weekend, but if the car is ahead of the cyclist and turning left then i believe the cyclist should wait until the car has turned left. Also, in the video there is no cycle lane? My opinion, not saying it's right or wrong.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Dec 2016)

gavgav said:


> but if the car is ahead of the cyclist and turning left then i believe the cyclist should wait until the car has turned left.



Depends entirely on how far ahead the car is. 

If it can slow down and accomplish the turn without requiring the cyclist to take avoiding action, then fine. Otherwise, not.

You could summarise the whole concept as "Don't left hook", were it not for the fact that most drivers won't have a clue what that term means.


----------



## keithmac (10 Dec 2016)

gavgav said:


> Yes and my point still stands that I think it's dangerous. If a car is behind a cyclist then they should stay there and turn left behind the cyclist, not like the idiot postman who overtook me and then turned left across my path last weekend, but if the car is ahead of the cyclist and turning left then i believe the cyclist should wait until the car has turned left. Also, in the video there is no cycle lane? My opinion, not saying it's right or wrong.



I'm of exactly the same view, if I'm behind a car indicating to turn left why would I want to undertake it?.

Just doesn't make any sense..


----------



## Dan B (10 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> I'm of exactly the same view, if I'm behind a car indicating to turn left why would I want to undertake it?.



If I'm behind a car indicating to turn left and moving on a path that is going to make me collide with it unless I take some kind of avoiding action, why the hell is it indicating to turn left? Mirror Signal Manoeuvre, is what I was taught. You don't perform the manoeuvre - you dont indicate that you're going to perform the manoeuvre - if it's going to mean that someone else with priority has to change speed or direction.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Dec 2016)

keithmac said:


> if I'm behind a car indicating to turn left why would I want to undertake it?.



A very good question



Dan B said:


> If I'm behind a car indicating to turn left and moving on a path that is going to make me collide with it unless I take some kind of avoiding action, why the hell is it indicating to turn left? Mirror Signal Manoeuvre, is what I was taught.



I assume you were also taught what to do if the car in front indicating left was going slower than you



Dan B said:


> You don't perform the manoeuvre - you dont indicate that you're going to perform the manoeuvre - if it's going to mean that someone else with priority has to change speed or direction.



if you are behind what priority do you have?


----------



## Dan B (10 Dec 2016)

If I want to perform a manouevre that crosses someone else's lane, their normal forward progress has priority over my sideways move. Or are you suggesting that it should be OK to turn right from the middle lane without paying attention to anyone coming past in the outside lane?


----------



## psmiffy (10 Dec 2016)

I suppose the question is - is a cycle lane actually a separate lane or just a space in lane 1 reserved for cyclists - I aways ride as if im part of the Lane 1 traffic - the fact that i can pass traffic on the left is something i regard as an extra not a right


----------



## nickyboy (10 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> If I'm behind a car indicating to turn left and moving on a path that is going to make me collide with it unless I take some kind of avoiding action, why the hell is it indicating to turn left? Mirror Signal Manoeuvre, is what I was taught. You don't perform the manoeuvre - you dont indicate that you're going to perform the manoeuvre - if it's going to mean that someone else with priority has to change speed or direction.



But that doesn't apply if you're intending to turn right so why would it apply when you're intending to turn left? Or are you suggesting that if I'm intending to turn right and there is oncoming traffic I just sit there, stationary, without any indicator?

I'd be much happier if a car intending to turn left indicated as such. At least then I'm in with a chance of anticipating a manoeuvre.


----------



## Dan B (10 Dec 2016)

nickyboy said:


> But that doesn't apply if you're intending to turn right so why would it apply when you're intending to turn left? Or are you suggesting that if I'm intending to turn right and there is oncoming traffic I just sit there, stationary, without any indicator?
> 
> I'd be much happier if a car intending to turn left indicated as such. At least then I'm in with a chance of anticipating a manoeuvre.


Fair point well made, but in that case why the disparity between right indicate = "I would like to turn here when there is a gap" and left indicate = "I am turning here, anyone following me can do one"

If you are approaching a car on the other side of the road which is indicating to turn right, do you stop and wait for it to turn? Maybe if you're feeling especially courteous or magnanimous (or if you're in slow-moving traffic) but if you drove everywhere giving way to everyone who wanted to cross your path you wouldn't get anywhere very fast


----------



## nickyboy (10 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> Fair point well made, but in that case why the disparity between right indicate = "I would like to turn here when there is a gap" and left indicate = "I am turning here, anyone following me can do one"
> 
> If you are approaching a car on the other side of the road which is indicating to turn right, do you stop and wait for it to turn? Maybe if you're feeling especially courteous or magnanimous (or if you're in slow-moving traffic) but if you drove everywhere giving way to everyone who wanted to cross your path you wouldn't get anywhere very fast



It's a tough one. Turning right it's obviously dead easy. I'm coming the other way and I have right of way and as such I don't expect the driver to turn. And he knows this too

Turning left is much trickier. Drivers don't expect cyclists to go up the inside on a normal road. I'd actually like the law to be clear that cycling up the inside of traffic where there is a left turn is not allowed.

The problem is when there is a cycleway on the inside of a normal roadway. In this circumstance I'd like the law to be clear that any car intending to cross the cycleway to turn left treats it as a normal "give way". That is, you indicate the intention to turn left but you have to wait until there is a clear gap in the traffic in the cycleway. Maybe the law does that now but I have no idea as I don't cycle in towns


----------



## Origamist (11 Dec 2016)

gavgav said:


> Does this really mean (which is certainly how it appears in the video) that a cyclist has the right to undertake a vehicle who is turning left in front of them?! Utter nonsense



You might be surprised but this is what happens in Germany and the indicating car waits until the flow of cyclists have passed on their inside. It takes some getting used to, but it works well IME.


----------

