Give way when turning left?

[mjr]

Oh and it could also improve the situation for people using the farking awful physically-impossible-to-look-everywhere-a-car-may-be-approaching-from ones like

which have been built contrary to design manuals and guidance in many places!

 

[mjr]

Highway Code and legal clarity are not equivalent. If there are markings on the road they have legal clarity and the HC does not need to be made more complex.

The point I was trying to make is that the London/Cambridge ones often have NO markings on the road on the major carriageway side other than a different surface colour and maybe speed-hump markings (here's our old friend CS3 Cable Street and here's our new friend Hills Road in Cambridge as at Sep 2015 - turn around to see an example of the old no-priority-past-the-junction cycle lane layout), so I'm not sure whether there's legal clarity, are you?

There was definitely a lot of criticism about the CSHs being meaningless blue paint in places.

 

[mjr]

If there are no markings they are part of the carriageway, and the Highway Code as written covers it.

Where does it cover cyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and horse riders crossing the road one is turning into?

 

[mjr]

Are you changing things now?

No, I've already written that I feel 170, 182 and 183 all need revision, but I see now that you cut that part out when replying to me earlier - sorry if I should have asked whether you were changing things then

I thought we were discussing the issue of motor vehicles turning across cyclists when both are on the same road, and initially traveling in the same direction.

OK, so sticking to that, what do you think the current Highway Code means for cyclists riding along Cable Street CS3 across Sutton Street in the current layout? And do you feel that that's a) fair and b) well-understood by motorists?

There is rule 170 which covers people crossing the road you are turning in to.

...which doesn't give priority to anyone except pedestrians and it should IMO.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4589421, member: 45"]That's one take. It's not undertaking though, it's making progress in one lane that's moving more quickly than another adjacent lane.[/QUOTE]
I'm reminded of the nobbers who cause bus crashes by attempting to turning left across bus lanes without looking in the left mirrors, such as the pre-2006 layout from St Augustine's Parade in Bristol onto Colston Street. The "solution" there was to remove the bus lane and further reward motorists for misbehaviour - I wonder if the Mayor of Bristol or its City Council would support clarifying the highway code.

 

[mjr]

The other groups should flow from pedestrians, apart from pavement cyclists who, unless small children, should have no rights at all.

They don't. That's why 170 needs revision.

Disappointed there's no answer of the Cable Street Question.

 

[jonny jeez]

To enable the highway code to say MUST/MUST NOT because what's currently in there doesn't work.

It does work. Very few collisions occur in comparison to journeys undertaken, there isn't a problem that needs solving here.

It's not either/or. Education will continue because that's fairly cheap and funded at county council level... but giving police the legal tools to enforce this more easily seems like a good side-effect of strengthening and clarifying the law.

The police have little resource to enforce the current laws and wont take any additional steps to enforce this one. What will happen is that it will become an additional argument to play out in court and could possible make some less vigilant and less responsible for their own safety.

Education at local council level is not what we need. We need a national drive to educate us all at all levels over a continued period. The dutch culture of cycling is actually very new and has been reinforced by good education. It can be done...but it needs a will and it needs people to stop shouting about how dangerous cycling...and cyclists are.

 

[keithmac]

[QUOTE 4589421, member: 45"]That's one take. It's not undertaking though, it's making progress in one lane that's moving more quickly than another adjacent lane.

What would you expect to happen at a motorway exit with a car in the nearside lane and a car slightly ahead in the middle lane indicating left with the intention of leaving at that exit?[/QUOTE]

Same again the car on the inside technically shouldn't undertake the car in the middle lane, so should give way.

Piss poor driving though if you find yourself in the middle lane after 3 warnings the junction you require to take is approaching..

 

[DaveReading]

Same again the car on the inside technically shouldn't undertake the car in the middle lane, so should give way.

I'd have said it was up to the car in the middle lane to adjust its speed in order to allow it to slot into a gap in the LH lane.

The most sensible strategy for the car in the left lane is to maintain a constant, predictable speed.

 

[keithmac]

If you're over the exit in the middle lane with inside lane full best course of action is to take the next exit.

But you should have already pre-empted the junction and appropriate lane before it got to that point..

If the car in middle lane slows down then "technically" the car on the inside has performed an illegal undertake, purely due to the poor anticipation of the driver in the middle lane.

Anyway each to their own but if I see a car in front indicating left I'll keep out of harms way, can't see the need to undertake (and the potential for an accident) just to prove a point.

 

[keithmac]

That's the Highway Code for you, if taken literally..

 

[DaveReading]

[QUOTE 4589897, member: 45"]The car in the nearside lane shouldn't have to change his speed.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has suggested it should.

 

[keithmac]

[QUOTE 4589915, member: 45"]It isn't though really, is it? If you cherry pick a certain rule it might look like that, but not if you read (for example) the whole motorway section.[/QUOTE]

I read it all earlier on but feel free to point a certain part out if you please.

 

[Dan B]

I'm not aware that the word "undertake" appears anywhere in the HC at all but feel free to provide a reference

"Overtake" is commonly understood to mean "change lane or move significantly laterally rightwards, pass another road user and return to your original lane" - i.e. it's a manoeuvre, not just a matter of going faster than someone else on the road. Seems to me that the same would apply to this new coinage "undertake", so there really isn't any basis for saying someone is undertaking when all that's happening is that someone else in an adjacent lane is slowing down.

 

[Dan B]

See where your going with this but IMHO its a transferable skill, just as they looked for danger from the road as kids they will equally look for danger from the pavement as drivers.

Yes, because the danger to you from having a car drive into your body at 15mph is so similar to that of having somebody walk into your car at 4mph.

In E17 we have decided that "Copenhagen" crossings are the new in thing at side roads - the mouth of the junction is raised to pavement level and paved to match the pavement. Most drivers "get it" but even with those really obvious clues that pedestrians should have priority, there are still some drivers who believe they don't have to give way and pedestrians should have to look out for them.