Lifesaver....

[fixedfixer]

I can understand how this must have felt for you Gaz, I'll not add to the rights and wrongs.

One has to say the driver off this thing is also at considerable risk (should they hit another car rather than a cyclist) if any of the Encap crash test result are to be believed. http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/03/nissan-improves-navara-safety-134674 And people buy these things to drive on streets / school run, not off road, because the marketing teams make them out to be strong

 

[BentMikey]

Question for you - are left turn lanes like this one mandatory for turning left, or are they advisory?

Secondly, although you glanced back enough to survive, you didn't look well enough to avoid getting a gibbering fright. My point is that the initial glance over your right shoulder was probably a wasted look given that you wanted the nearside lane, and that the next glance over your left shoulder was only a glance rather than a decent look. I also don't think you looked all the way back, only back and off to the side in the blind spot direction. I think this is why you didn't spot the vehicle here. Your final lifesaver check was fine, as it corrected for the earlier mistake.

 

[magnatom]

From the HC

177
Green filter arrow. This indicates a filter lane only. Do not enter that lane unless you want to go in the direction of the arrow. You may proceed in the direction of the green arrow when it, or the full green light shows. Give other traffic, especially cyclists, time and room to move into the correct lane.

Interestingly it doesn't quote a traffic law and doesn't say must, however, 'Do not' would hold a lot of weight in court I would suggest.

Having actually been there, and knowing how seriously I consider the likelyhood of traffic coming up the left there, I can assure you that first look was a good one. I am being honest here about not remembering what I saw on that glance. If he was in that lane I would have saw him. My mistake may have been assuming that he was far enough back and turning left.

Another possibility, and given his driving, it is possible, is that he was directly behind me (a car or two back) at the point of my first glance, therefore, there was no danger to spot, and would explain why I can remember sensing any danger. Then as I look away he thinks, f*ck this and changes lane and pust his foot down. Mmmm. I think this is a strong possibility,. Of course without a rear camera, we will never know.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Another possibility, and given his driving, it is possible, is that he was directly behind me (a car or two back) at the point of my first glance, therefore, there was no danger to spot, and would explain why I can remember sensing any danger. Then as I look away he thinks, f*ck this and changes lane and pust his foot down. Mmmm. I think this is a strong possibility,. Of course without a rear camera, we will never know.

Is it Christmas soon??

 

[BentMikey]

It's true, it's only a Do Not which would mean some care. Cyclecraft mentions sometimes using the left turn lane to go on straight, depending on the risk trade-off.

Looks, there are three types described in the CTUK training:
Glance
Look
Stare OV DETH

 

[magnatom]

It's true, it's only a Do Not which would mean some care. Cyclecraft mentions sometimes using the left turn lane to go on straight, depending on the risk trade-off.

Looks, there are three types described in the CTUK training:
Glance
Look
Stare OV DETH

There is no way I would use that filter to go straight. Just knowing what the traffic is like (and the pothole on the other side, which I will now make sure I report!) it would be a lot worse.

The first look, was a Look. Certainly not a stare of death, but then I am trying to also signaling here and aiming for a flatter section of the road, and trying to pick up speed, so I don't have the time for one of those!

Getting that pothole filled will help as I would be able to pull over sooner (straight after my first look). I'll get onto fillthathole now!

 

[BSRU]

From the HC



Interestingly it doesn't quote a traffic law and doesn't say must, however, 'Do not' would hold a lot of weight in court I would suggest.

I am quite shocked and surprised that someone can ignore the signs, road markings and traffic light arrows for left filter lane and drive straight on. It is something I would not expect to happen, apart from drivers who have no concern for the law anyway. I would have thought "Do Not" and "Must Not" are basically the same.

 

[magnatom]

I am quite shocked and surprised that someone can ignore the signs, road markings and traffic light arrows for left filter lane and drive straight on. It is something I would not expect to happen, apart from drivers who have no concern for the law anyway. I would have thought "Do Not" and "Must Not" are basically the same.

Legally they are quite different in the context of the HC. However, if he did hit me and it went to court I'm sure his incorrect use of the filter lane would have significant weight in any proceedings.

 

[BentMikey]

Less than half a second (and I'm being generous) does not transform a glance into a look.

 

[MacB]

I am quite shocked and surprised that someone can ignore the signs, road markings and traffic light arrows for left filter lane and drive straight on. It is something I would not expect to happen, apart from drivers who have no concern for the law anyway. I would have thought "Do Not" and "Must Not" are basically the same.

Given the scenario what Mags experienced is exactly the sort of driver behaviour I'd be expecting, or guarding against. For that sort of junction I'd filter, if feasible, on the left side of the right hand lane and then take, if safe, a diagonal line across the junction heading to the left hand side. While doing so I'd also be looking for cars still coming up the left. If I took a position in the right hand lane, as per Mags, then I would fully expect there to be a car flying up my inside across the junction and beyond.

This has nothing to do with right or wrong it's just risk minimisation. I also have potholes I like to avoid but sometimes I just ride through them instead, it depends on the traffic at the time. Drivers don't consider potholes in the same way and I certainly don't trust them to extrapolate out that my positioning/actions are for that reason. There are times when no amount of forward planning allows me to take my preferred positioning through certain sections, at which time you just suck it up.

By the way the driver was bang out of order, just not surprisingly so.

 

[magnatom]

Less than half a second (and I'm being generous) does not transform a glance into a look.

Whatever BM, but I can assure you I have an excellent line of sight down that left lane.

 

[BSRU]

Legally they are quite different in the context of the HC. However, if he did hit me and it went to court I'm sure his incorrect use of the filter lane would have significant weight in any proceedings.

Disturbingly the highway code states "do not" cut across cyclists when turning left.

 

[magnatom]

Read what I have written folks! I'll put it in bigger letters for the short of sighted
[Captain cave man]
Big pothole, on um, left of um carriageway, beyond um junction. Me avoid that.
Me also avoid collision despite um poor driver in um big drivey thingys best try at um knocking me over. Me do right? No?

Me no forget big club next time. [/Captain cave man]

 

[Riding in Circles]

A least the caveman would not turn the air blue.

 

[BSRU]

Legally they are quite different in the context of the HC. However, if he did hit me and it went to court I'm sure his incorrect use of the filter lane would have significant weight in any proceedings.

I just read the introduction of the Highway code,
"legal requirements...MUST/MUST NOT"
"advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’"