Give way when turning left?

[jonny jeez]

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]

[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]

[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]

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

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

[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]

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]

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.