For your consideration...

[Bollo]

With regard to your first clip having had several of these incidents I would actually not indicate in that situation.

It did cross my mind, but on balance I thought I'd do the 'right thing'.

If it came to a collision, the lady could have argued that she'd had enough time to turn in before I approached (crap I know), and that I suddenly and without warning l pulled left and gone into the side of her. Cue police and insurance arguments. As I've learned from my accident a few months ago (settled now to my advantage ) the insurance companies will try to latch on to ANY element of the incident that they think they can exploit, no matter how silly or unfair. Indicating just removes one of their excuses.

 

[4F]

It did cross my mind, but on balance I thought I'd do the 'right thing'.

If it came to a collision, the lady could have argued that she'd had enough time to turn in before I approached (crap I know), and that I suddenly and without warning l pulled left and gone into the side of her. Cue police and insurance arguments. As I've learned from my accident a few months ago (settled now to my advantage ) the insurance companies will try to latch on to ANY element of the incident that they think they can exploit, no matter how silly or unfair. Indicating just removes one of their excuses.

I am sure the HC states that you only have to indicate if safe to do so but I cannot find that part at the moment.

 

[BentMikey]

Cyclecraft suggests you should indicate left only at the very last moment to prevent such manouvres.

 

[4F]

Cyclecraft suggests you should indicate left only at the very last moment to prevent such manouvres.

Probably explains why I cannot find it in the HC

 

[Bollo]

I am sure the HC states that you only have to indicate if safe to do so but I cannot find that part at the moment.

I'd be suprised if you find it, as you're making a manoeuvre without warning, which is usually frowned upon. Rule 103 of the HC

"You should always ....use them [signals] to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off"

This is not a MUST (i.e. a legal requirement), but a 'should always' would give an insurer a very big stick to beat you with in the event of an accident. There's no qualifying statement like "when necessary" or "unless your safety is compromised." Always means always. Ask yourself whether you'd have passed your driving test if you'd not indicated at left-turns.

There are times when I don't indicate when I'm on my bike or driving, based on what I think is necessary, but I have to accept that if I've read things wrong and have an accident I'll most likely shoulder at least some of the blame.

Just from a consideration point-of-view, how would you feel if you were the nice white van man waiting to come out of the minor road? You sit there waiting for the cyclist to pass and then he just turns left without warning. You could have pulled out ages ago! F^&king cyclists. Next time I'm not waiting, I'll cut the bugger up etc.etc. One of the reasons I indicate here is to let traffic in the minor road know its ok to pull out.

 

[BentMikey]

One of the reasons I indicate here is to let traffic in the minor road know its ok to pull out.

All good, which is why I normally do indicate, and only leave it late when there's a suspicion that a nearby vehicle will compromise my safety. Usually this will be either a potential left hook from the rear, or the oncoming right-turning idiot in your video. The rest of the time I indicate as per normal, and not at all if there are no road users that need the signal.

 

[4F]

I'd be suprised if you find it, as you're making a manoeuvre without warning, which is usually frowned upon. Rule 103 of the HC

"You should always ....use them [signals] to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off"

This is not a MUST (i.e. a legal requirement), but a 'should always' would give an insurer a very big stick to beat you with in the event of an accident. There's no qualifying statement like "when necessary" or "unless your safety is compromised." Always means always. Ask yourself whether you'd have passed your driving test if you'd not indicated at left-turns.

There are times when I don't indicate when I'm on my bike or driving, based on what I think is necessary, but I have to accept that if I've read things wrong and have an accident I'll most likely shoulder at least some of the blame.

Just from a consideration point-of-view, how would you feel if you were the nice white van man waiting to come out of the minor road? You sit there waiting for the cyclist to pass and then he just turns left without warning. You could have pulled out ages ago! F^&king cyclists. Next time I'm not waiting, I'll cut the bugger up etc.etc. One of the reasons I indicate here is to let traffic in the minor road know its ok to pull out.

Much like it states you SHOULD wear a helmet, high viz and cycle in cycle paths. Should does not mean must.

The white van in your clip was not waiting at the junction but was approaching it so again no reason for them to be inconvenienced. Lastly self preservation takes on a higher role in my riding than putting anyone else out and to avoid idiots like the one you have highlighted in your 1st clip is the reason I would not indicate in that instance.

 

[magnatom]

I often delay my left signals as well, if I feel a car will try and race me to a turn or left hook me. I must admit I've never had any negative consequences from doing so, but I do believe it has prevented some daft manouvers from others.

 

[Bollo]

Much like it states you SHOULD wear a helmet, high viz and cycle in cycle paths. Should does not mean must. The white van in your clip was not waiting at the junction but was approaching it so again no reason for them to be inconvenienced. Lastly self preservation takes on a higher role in my riding than putting anyone else out and to avoid idiots like the one you have highlighted in your 1st clip is the reason I would not indicate in that instance.

I didn't want this to become one of these rarified arguments that we seem to specialise in on CC, HC vs Cyclcraft vs anecdotal evidence etc. I'll try and respond to all the points raised so far.

I've quoted the HC in previous posts. Despite the CTCs efforts, the HC is written primarily for motor vehicles. Much of the cycle-specific stuff is outdated, irrelevent or, in the case of roundabouts, stupid and dangerous. None of this matters. If you have an accident, unless it's very serious, the police will take no action. So that leaves the insurers. Insurers are not the police, guilt and innocence are secondary. They are just concerned with minimising their exposure, and will use whatever means necessary to do it.

I've already hinted that I managed to settle my PI claim for my accident in November. During this time, the driver's insurance tried to claim contributary negligence because I wasn't wearing a helmet (even though I'd suffered no head injury) and because I wasn't wearing any visibility aids (I was wearing a light coloured T-shirt in broad daylight). Neither of these had any bearing on the accident, but his insurers pointed to the HC and said I wasn't doing what I should have been doing and tried to reduce the payout. They missed a trick by not questioning my 'illegal' clipless pedals, but if they'd have been more on the ball, I bet they would have added to the list of my 'negligence'. This is why, despite the wise words in Cyclecraft, we can't just dismiss the HC, because ultimately that's what we'll be judged against in any incident. It wouldn't suprise me if, based on the HC, an insurer claimed contributary negligence against a cyclist injured on a roundabout, because the HC says you should consider walking around. Its ridiculous, but it will happen.

Secondly, I usually take the view that its better for everyone to know what everyone else is going to do rather than have to make assumptions, hence my dislike of RLJing. I know there are arguments against, but this is just my view. The woman in the approaching car knew I was turning left, instead of having to assume that I was carrying straight on. She should have waited. This is the ideal. The fact that she chose to turn in anyway shows that she is a poor driver, because she was given all the information but still made an incorrect decision. She is completely in the wrong. I agree with you that its no good being right and dead, which is why we have to start playing these control games with other road users. I do it myself sometimes. What I did on this occasion was to get ready to tighten my turn so that, if she came in parallel I'd have some room, in other words take a physical precaution rather than a mental one.

Approaching this junction again in the same situation, I'd probably delay indicating. That's one of the benefits of cameras, you can judge your own riding as well as giving others grief. I understand all of your comments FFFF, but its how you read a situation at the time.

Now to the taxi clip. Guess who I spoke to today? He was first on the rank a B'stoke station. I had a chat with him and, while he came over as more slightly embarrassed rather than truly contrite (he said he just couldn't remember) I do believe him in that it wasn't deliberately malicious. We had a little chat about the crap cycle lane markings and it was all very civilised. I didn't think it was fair to capture the discussion on camera. I've said that I'll leave the clip on for tonight so he can look at it if he wants, but then I'll remove it.

I've been muttering about these lanes and the other farcilities on this stretch of NCN23 for a while. After this I might tap up the local CTC rep or go direct to the council. I'm not expecting miracles, but at least it places my worries on record.

And I promise not to type this much ever again