Highway Code One Year On

[Jody]

Why is the answer from some of you always for the cyclist to slow even more? If drivers cannot be trusted to turn left correctly, they shouldn't be allowed to, except at traffic lights.

If the driver is in front and have their indicators on for a potential left turn, then you slow down and allow them to do it.

 

[ianrauk]

Manchester seems to have got itself a new self righteous Tweeter/video biker. He's got himself really upset by the responses from other cyclists about one of his latest videos as we're all "horrible" - he can't take constructive criticism.

He's on his bike, in the cycle lane, but in front of him are 3 cars. Car one signalling left, car two going straight on, and car 3, the one in front of him, signalling left. There are a number of seconds where he could have slowed, but he barges up the inside on his cargo bike. The driver hadn't seen him, so cyclist then has to slam on. If he'd have slowed, he could have carried on his merry way without coming to a stop, and a potential accident.

Now the new law does say cars turning left should allow the cyclist behind to undertake apparently. Said poster got a bit upset when everyone suggested he could see the car was going to turn, so in the interests of not crashing, he should have slowed - common sense eh. Oh no, driver should have followed the new rules. It's not going to happen. TBH, if that had been me, I'd have slowed, and then moved to the middle and overtook as the car turned.

There are problem drivers, and problem cyclists.

It reminds me of the Bristol cyclist who used to do the same, shouting at everyone and deliberately riding into people. Can't remember his name but was discussed on here a few times.

 

[classic33]

Why is the answer from some of you always for the cyclist to slow even more? If drivers cannot be trusted to turn left correctly, they shouldn't be allowed to, except at traffic lights.

Not a new law, either. The highway code changes merely clarified some points of law that bad drivers had hijacked over the last few decades.

Seriously, maybe the cyclist should have slowed more, but when can we stop having to delay our journeys by assuming that the licensed, tested drivers are generally incompetent, dangerous and going to commit offences that endanger other road users?

Would you attempt to pass, on the left, of a car, indicating a left turn, if you were in a car?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I wish I knew how to edit videos, after assaulted a few months ago & then about a month ago actually being clipped on the shoulder by a door mirror of a Council van overtaking me I purchased a couple of cameras. I wasn't going to do but when I reported it to the Council they weren't interested unless it was supported by video evidence, the drivers version was of course completely different to mine & the 'mate' backed up the story.

But today riding on the same stretch of the housing estate a car parked the wrong way on the opposite side of the road & the young lady coming towards me, show looked surprised when I shouted & couldn't understand what she was doing wrong.

 

[presta]

I wonder how many drivers even know about the changes

About 93%, but as the behavioural scientist from the TRL pointed out, almost everyone knows what a speed limit sign means, but less than half abide by them.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Amazingly, I find that drivers tend to be much more aware of the concept of priority while turning left across traffic in lane 1 when it is a bus lane than when it is a cycle lane.

 

[presta]

If he'd have slowed, he could have carried on his merry way without coming to a stop

The majority attitude on twitter is "We're going to do as we please, and if you don't like it, get out of our way. You're the ones who are vulnerable, so you must be stupid for going on the road in the first place.", and the problem with your argument is that it will just create more of this bullying. I could walk round Tescos swinging a baseball bat indiscriminately and tell everyone they're stupid if they don't get out of my way. Nobody wants to get run over, but if you can screech to a halt with your wheel an inch from their door it gets the message over better than endorsing their behaviour by giving way unnoticed.

It's a mistake to imagine that all drivers are arrogant, entitled, aggressive road-users. It's also a mistake to think that all cyclists are angels.

I spend a lot of time on Twitter arguing with drivers in support of cyclists, but I get no support from Cycle Twitter, because they all think I'm a troll for arguing with cyclists as well if and when I see fit. Take RLJ for example, cyclists all justify it on 'safety' grounds, but exept in very few cases, the reason isn't safety, it's that repeated stopping wastes an immense amount of energy:

It's conspicuous that RLJ is far more common in big cities than smaller towns, and it's not difficult to see that smaller towns offer more opportunity to leave the built up area when people feel the need to escape the frustration of stopping every few yards. I've pointed this out to cyclists numerous times, but it's usually ignored or lampooned. This is a major reason why I'm against another of cyclists' sacred cows: cycle paths. (see below)

If a vehicle in front of you is indicating, then you just don't overtake them on the side they are indicating towards

That depends how they got in front. I've seen drivers overtake, then signal and turn at the same time when their rear bumper is 6" in front of a cyclists wheel. The Highway Code tells drivers not to manoevre unless they can complete without forcing another road user to take avoiding action.

Would you attempt to pass, on the left, of a car, indicating a left turn, if you were in a car?

The roads and Highway Code aren't laid out in a way that expects motorists to do it:

You can't have it both ways. If cyclists campaign that they want paths that offer free passage up the nearside of roads without giving way at every side road, you can't then blame them for not giving way to the traffic at every side road. The reason cyclists aren't willingly going to give way is the amount of energy it wastes (see above), and separating cyclists from the main traffic flow increases the expectation among other road users that they should do so, as John Franklin points out in Cyclecraft.

I can see the way I take risks on cycle paths myself, and gamble at side roads rather than waste energy slowing down yet again, so it surprises me not at all when I see the research that shows they're less safe. That's why I'm against cycle paths/lanes. The problem is that people want what makes them feel better rather than what makes them safer.

Either give cyclists the RoW up the nearside and enforce it, or don't lead them to think they have that right in the first place. Personally, I think the latter is the better option if you don't want to have to gamble your life on others respecting your rights.

 

[raleighnut]

About 93%, but as the behavioural scientist from the TRL pointed out, almost everyone knows what a speed limit sign means, but less than half abide by them.

Yebbut there's speeding and speeding, over 30 in a residential area is extremely dangerous but on a back lane or trunk road (with no turn-offs) then whatever.
I once got 'stopped' on the Carlton for speeding, on the road down Croft hill into Huncote the police had set up a speed trap with officers waiting until it had been triggered before they sprung out from behind a building to stop the miscreants (I should explain that between the steep descent of the hill there is a flat section before going up the other side of the valley over the river uphill into Huncote) So anywhoo, I'd come down the hill with a tailwind, gone through the speedtrap, then a copper leapt out from behind the building with his hand up to stop the speeder. His face fell as he saw it was a cyclist but I duly stopped and he said "you passed the 30mph limit sign at nearly 50" so I told him that by the time I'd gone up the hill into the village my speed would have dropped to about 20mph or so.

 

[presta]

Amazingly, I find that drivers tend to be much more aware of the concept of priority while turning left across traffic in lane 1 when it is a bus lane than when it is a cycle lane.

Exactly my point above, they're bullying cyclists because they know they're the vulnerable party who will always give way. I take every opportunity not to let them see that.

 

[presta]

over 30 in a residential area is extremely dangerous

 

[Brandane]

couldn't understand what she was doing wrong.

Neither can I, to be honest. Looks like she had moved out towards the centre of the road to avoid the partial pavement parker on her left.

You were riding a pedal bike; could you not have simply moved towards your left momentarily to create a safe gap for her to drive through and avoid the conflict, rather than unnecessarily stick to your primary position?

I apologise in advance if I am wrong, but that is the way it looks from the photos you have posted.

 

[mjr]

If the driver is in front and have their indicators on for a potential left turn, then you slow down and allow them to do it.

It's a lovely theory but you know if that becomes accepted practice then some muppets will put their indicators on any time someone on a bike might be able to pass them on the left, don't you?

There's good reasons why there is conspicuously no rule in the highway code against passing a vehicle indicating left (unlike indicating right). Only to "proceed with caution".

 

[mjr]

Would you attempt to pass, on the left, of a car, indicating a left turn, if you were in a car?

It depends. It's much less likely to happen because I don't drive my car in bike lanes.

 

[Alex321]

There was no indication here that anybody but the cyclist was doing anything wrong. If a vehicle in front of you is indicating, then you just don't overtake them on the side they are indicating towards.

That depends how they got in front. I've seen drivers overtake, then signal and turn at the same time when their rear bumper is 6" in front of a cyclists wheel. The Highway Code tells drivers not to manoevre unless they can complete without forcing another road user to take avoiding action.

Which is why my next paragraph in the post you (selectively) quoted said
"That is not the same as some numpty coming past you then thinking the fact they were indicating gives them the right to turn across you (the classic "left-hook")."

 

[mjr]

I can see the way I take risks on cycle paths myself, and gamble at side roads rather than waste energy slowing down yet again, so it surprises me not at all when I see the research that shows they're less safe. That's why I'm against cycle paths/lanes. The problem is that people want what makes them feel better rather than what makes them safer.

I'm pretty sure that you're out of date with the research. Maybe you're thinking of the out-of-print 1990 analysis of 1980s junk that a certain vehicularist reposts endlessly. From memory, the latest studies of London show an improvement in safety, but not more than can be explained by the "safety in numbers" effect: in other words, cycle lanes are a little safer but probably because they concentrate riders.

Personally, I think the risks you take on cycle paths are your problem. Me, I treat the blind corners, uneven surfaces and so on like I would on a carriageway, but then, I'm mainly riding the cycleway so I don't have to watch the motorists for idiocy the whole 5 miles into town. Only at the junctions, of which there are far too many, but it's still less than 5 miles.