Give way when turning left?

[jonny jeez]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's Priority not right of way.

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

 

[jonny jeez]

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]

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]

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]

I am thinking more of my progress

Ain't that the truth.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.