Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[mjr]

DFT guidelines which say if you are travelling at over 18mph you should be on the road.

Wasn't that just a consultation draft which was flamed to death because it would have meant no council ever repaired any design errors ever?

 

[mjr]

There was something in the Highway Code back when shared farcilities (converted footways) started to become popular but that was quietly withdrawn

It never actually got into a published edition of the Highway Code, did it?

 

[mjr]

I thought it was 18mph, but your point still stands. I'd be on the road once I'm going more than twice walking speed, so say what 10mph?

Your masochism is your own choice. Please do not seek to force it on others - I think it's fine to do even 30mph on empty good-visibility sections of some cycleways, but of course, I agree that the OP should not be skimming walkers at high speeds.

 

[mjr]

I'm not familiar with that exact location but I can't see clear markings that suggest the OP had priority, it looks to me that the crossing works purely on a courtesy basis rather than being a semi controlled zebra crossing or a fully controlled toucan crossing. So driver could have stopped out of courtesy but they are not legally obliged to the markings are just advisory and the OP did well to anticipate that. If they are legal markings there'll be TRO which lists it. I hate however, advisory or even legal stop/ priority crossings just before a junction as folk are usually concentrating on the junction and fail to yield/stop anyway.

The markings look like pretty normal give-ways, which do not require a TRO, zebra or toucan to take effect and woe betide any driver or rider blasting on through!

You may be right that folk are usually concentrating on the faraway junction, but it's really not an unusual layout in other countries and the UK really should weed out incompetent drivers who can't cope with it. There looks more than a car length between the crossing and the junction, so drivers should deal with the crossing and then the junction. It's difficult to see what more could be done by design except grade-separation.

However, because the OP had a give-way as well, you are correct that the OP didn't have priority to turn right there.

 

[mjr]

In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
How could this be prevented?

ONE approach in this case would be a "Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " on the cycle-path.
(better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)

Well, give-ways on the cycle path would turn the layout into a 4-way give-way, which is treated like an invisible mini-roundabout and @Racing roadkill would then have had priority turning right across the oncoming van!

 

[mjr]

From the highway code.
"If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary."

Although the sentiment remains the same, that is not the current highway code, so you might like to bring yourself up to date at www.gov.uk/highway-code

 

[figbat]

A driver blasting through a junction at a speed where s/he couldn't stop if someone was crossing their path (according to posts above) is careless driving, isn't it?

It is. But the driver in the OP is not "blasting through a junction" and there was nothing to stop for, save for a misguided cyclist under the impression they had priority.

 

[matticus]

matticus said:
In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
How could this be prevented?

ONE approach in this case would be a "Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " on the cycle-path.
(better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)

Well, give-ways on the cycle path would turn the layout into a 4-way give-way, which is treated like an invisible mini-roundabout and @Racing roadkill would then have had priority turning right across the oncoming van!

No, what I meant was: where there are now just double-dashes across the cycle-lane (I probably shouldn't have written cycle-path above), they could ADD a give-way sign for increased clarity.

 

[mjr]

It is. But the driver in the OP is not "blasting through a junction" and there was nothing to stop for, save for a misguided cyclist under the impression they had priority.

They still should be driving so they could stop safely if needed, even for a misguided cyclist, and - having rewatched it - I think I agree with posters above that they wouldn't have been able to. It looks entirely too fast into the crossing.

 

[upandover]

Although the sentiment remains the same, that is not the current highway code, so you might like to bring yourself up to date at www.gov.uk/highway-code

Thanks. I was quoting from the website 'Highway Code for Cyclists, which is a summary. You're right, it's essentially the same, but useful to see.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists

 

[mjr]

No, what I meant was: where there are now just double-dashes across the cycle-lane (I probably shouldn't have written cycle-path above), they could ADD a give-way sign for increased clarity.

Ah, OK. I assumed the " was a typo for &.

 

[mjr]

Thanks. I was quoting from the website 'Highway Code for Cyclists, which is a summary. You're right, it's essentially the same, but useful to see.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists

That's not a trustworthy summary. It's a scammy website produced by a driving school (UAB DrivingEd) to recruit people for their online driving licence theory tests, apparently based on the idea that cyclists are people who haven't yet learned to drive or are up for a retest. The real website is www.gov.uk/highway-code

 

[Deleted member 26715]

It looks entirely too fast into the crossing.

Unless you were sat behind the wheel at that time you, I, nor anybody else has enough information to make that call, we all do not know what field of vision the driver had. If he/she had clear vision down the cycleway in both directions then it was safe to proceed, as upthread he/she arrived at the give way before the OP, had priority over the OP who still obstinately still hasn't admitted he has read the signage incorrectly.

 

[mjr]

Unless you were sat behind the wheel at that time you, I, nor anybody else has enough information to make that call,

That's not true else no-one would ever be prosecuted for any driving offence.

we all do not know what field of vision the driver had. If he/she had clear vision down the cycleway in both directions then it was safe to proceed, [...]

If the give-way marking on the road is the regulation 3.75m long and the video timekeeping (at quarter speed) is accurate, then the van driver seems to take 0.4s to travel 3.75m, so is doing about 21mph on arrival at the give-way line. I'm sure someone with the original video could estimate it more precisely. While probably not lethal if there was a collision, I think that's still too fast to enter a crossing in a big van with thick A pillars that might obscure an cyclist approaching down the slope from the left slightly behind square.

Of course, the measurements and the visibility out of the cab would need checking if anyone was going to actually prove this to any standard, but I think it looks likely that they were going too fast. In one way, I'm surprised anyone approves of that intimidating speed of entry into a crossing against priority, but in another way I'm not because such bullying of more vulnerable road users is really really widespread in the UK.

I'm leaving aside the OP's non-priority as we basically agree there.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Don’t worry poppet, I can stop perfectly well. I have brakes, they’re very good.

That sounds like the sort of thing Trump might say.