4 attempts on my life this week

[abo]

Think I can guess at what happened in the first two; the car waiting to pull out got flashed by a car in the queue to come out. The car in the junction saw this as a cue to pull straight out and didn't bother looking.

I've had this a couple of times *in my car* where someone has been wanting to turn right across two lanes of traffic, has been flashed out by queuing traffic in the inside lane while I've been coming down the outside. Each time they just pulled straight across into my lane without looking right, just looking left at the traffic coming the other way.

This is why I *never* flash someone out, if I want to let someone out I just allow a gap to grow for them to drive into. If someone is dumb enough not to realise I'm making space for them to pull into then that's their problem. Someone clued up enough always seems to check before pulling out.

 

[Gandalf]

Sailors deal with this stuff thus...

"Here lies the body of Michael O'Day,
who died maintaining the right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."​

Sorry to be a pedant, but the correct term is 'priority' but I guess that would spoil the rhyme.

 

[Moodyman]

I'm with Vernon on this.

I frequently ride on that road and yes, you need to be alert, but the first two incidents could have been mitigated if the OP saw the gaps in traffic opening. The third was a silly driver.

You can't excuse driver mistakes, but better awareness and antipication can avoid a lot of potential accidents.

 

[SportMonkey]

Think I can guess at what happened in the first two; the car waiting to pull out got flashed by a car in the queue to come out. The car in the junction saw this as a cue to pull straight out and didn't bother looking.

I've had this a couple of times *in my car* where someone has been wanting to turn right across two lanes of traffic, has been flashed out by queuing traffic in the inside lane while I've been coming down the outside. Each time they just pulled straight across into my lane without looking right, just looking left at the traffic coming the other way.

This is why I *never* flash someone out, if I want to let someone out I just allow a gap to grow for them to drive into. If someone is dumb enough not to realise I'm making space for them to pull into then that's their problem. Someone clued up enough always seems to check before pulling out.

I got taken out a month ago by a woman who was blocking one lane of two of the A56, I went past in lane two as someone flashed her out. She didn't bother to look right. A lot of my near misses involve flashing.

 

[PK99]

I'm with Vernon on this.

I frequently ride on that road and yes, you need to be alert, but the first two incidents could have been mitigated if the OP saw the gaps in traffic opening. The third was a silly driver.

You can't excuse driver mistakes, but better awareness and antipication can avoid a lot of potential accidents.

I agree - undertaking at speed, at junctions is asking for problems, especially when not responding to the clear actions of the vehicles to the right giving way and gaps opening to invite the joining driver in

WRT the third:

highway code 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

 

[marinyork]

I agree - undertaking at speed, at junctions is asking for problems, especially when not responding to the clear actions of the vehicles to the right giving way and gaps opening to invite the joining driver in

It's not 'speed'. There isn't a generally agreed safe speed for undertaking. In multi-lane roads it is common for cars to undertake at 15-20mph and funnily enough the highway code even covers this. You're guilty, like srw of simply ignoring the cycle lane there and what it's purpose is and having one rule for cars and one rule for cyclists. It may not be a good idea, but it is irrelevent, in the event of an accident, the cycle unambiguously has priority.

 

[jefmcg]

Sailors deal with this stuff thus...

"Here lies the body of Michael O'Day,
who died maintaining the right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."​

Sorry to be a pedant, but the correct term is 'priority' but I guess that would spoil the rhyme.

"Here lies the body of Mick O'Flaherty,
who died as he was claiming priority.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."​

 

[Tynan]

if there's a cycle lane it's not undertaking, the cycle lane is a lane of it's own and other vehicles should not be moving into it or crossing it without checking that it's safe to do so, anyway, you're allowed to undertake slow moving traffic

even without a marked lane there's a virtual cycle lane that bikes in anything less than primary will be in

you simply can't routinely apply the HC to riding as even today it's so car centric

 

[PK99]

It's not 'speed'. There isn't a generally agreed safe speed for undertaking. In multi-lane roads it is common for cars to undertake at 15-20mph and funnily enough the highway code even covers this. You're guilty, like srw of simply ignoring the cycle lane there and what it's purpose is and having one rule for cars and one rule for cyclists. It may not be a good idea, but it is irrelevent, in the event of an accident, the cycle unambiguously has priority.

It is not an issue of rules, or "right" or "priority" it's an issue of anticipating hazards - in both of the first two the hazard was flagged by the vehicle to the right giving way to the joining car.

For the third, i'd have hung back behind the car with the potential for left hooking me and made sure that i signalled my intentions to the following car.

 

[marinyork]

It is not an issue of rules, or "right" or "priority" it's an issue of anticipating hazards - in both of the first two the hazard was flagged by the vehicle to the right giving way to the joining car.

For the third, i'd have hung back behind the car with the potential for left hooking me and made sure that i signalled my intentions to the following car.

Yes, it is, it is how travelling on roads work. Moreover the rules narrow down the potential hazards hugely to more predictable ones so even your idea of anticipating hazards you're creating a strawman and don't have any kind of nuanced view about how things really work.

Ah, I see, I thought you were referring to the car in the third clip, I see you're once again ignoring the lane in the third and victim blaming. Lovely stuff.

 

[srw]

if there's a cycle lane it's not undertaking, the cycle lane is a lane of it's own and other vehicles should not be moving into it or crossing it without checking that it's safe to do so, anyway, you're allowed to undertake slow moving traffic

even without a marked lane there's a virtual cycle lane that bikes in anything less than primary will be in

you simply can't routinely apply the HC to riding as even today it's so car centric

All true, but irrelevant. It's simply not wise to go quickly up the inside of traffic (and 20mph is fast). As slowmotion pointed out, it's no great comfort that you were legally in the right when they scrape you off the tarmac.

 

[marinyork]

All true, but irrelevant. It's simply not wise to go quickly up the inside of traffic (and 20mph is fast). As slowmotion pointed out, it's no great comfort that you were legally in the right when they scrape you off the tarmac.

It's not irrelevant at all. That's what the cycle lane is there for among other things. That's what lanes are there for. You don't want that behaviour, don't have lanes.

Rules aren't just being about right, as I've said they are about trying to manage predictable hazards.

 

[martint235]

It is not an issue of rules, or "right" or "priority" it's an issue of anticipating hazards - in both of the first two the hazard was flagged by the vehicle to the right giving way to the joining car.

For the third, i'd have hung back behind the car with the potential for left hooking me and made sure that i signalled my intentions to the following car.

Yes, it is, it is how travelling on roads work. Moreover the rules narrow down the potential hazards hugely to more predictable ones so even your idea of anticipating hazards you're creating a strawman and don't have any kind of nuanced view about how things really work.

Ah, I see, I thought you were referring to the car in the third clip, I see you're once again ignoring the lane in the third and victim blaming. Lovely stuff.

This is going to hurt but I agree with Marinyork. We all have a duty to manage the risks we put ourselves in by anticipating hazards. However there are rules put in place that are designed to make it easier to manage those risks. If everyone is playing by the rules, A will happen. I still have to be ready for B to happen but if it does I'll be extremely upset.

With regards to the video, I personally don't think I would have been going as quickly in the first situation or I may have been on the other side of the traffic doing that speed (which would have still resulted in a problem for me) but the OP shouldn't take this comment as blame it is purely what I would have been doing in that situation.

As to the third, if you hang back, the following car will come up alongside you recreating the original position. How do you then indicate that you are going to maintain your position in the lane?

I would have had to have a word with the driver in all 3 instances to show just how upset I was.

 

[srw]

It's not irrelevant at all. That's what the cycle lane is there for among other things. That's what lanes are there for. You don't want that behaviour, don't have lanes.

May I point you at the Campaigning sub-forum? You may just have explained to me why so many people don't want lanes.

 

[marinyork]

May I point you at the Campaigning sub-forum? You may just have explained to me why so many people don't want lanes.

Yes, as a campaigner I've posted there for some considerable time .

There are plenty of people who don't want cycle lanes, especially given some of the debates we've had here on HGVs in London. I know Kirkstall Road passably well. I have no particular view either way to lanes and take it on a case by case basis. The only high profile case I was actively involved in I argued there was no point changing 1 wide standard lane and a cycle lane into two narrow lanes, a cycle lane and a strange bypass on the left only for the two narrow lanes to disappear up the road, which was basically a political move to appease motorists.