Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[semislickstick]

From the road markings you two would both give way to anyone already on the cycle track you are both about to cross. Unless van driver has different signs? If your side didn't have give way markings, you'd be right. But as you are turning right, across someone already past the give way markings, you wait for them to clear the junction, doesn't matter if you are already signalling, from the road markings you don't seem to have any special priority coming from that direction.

 

[PaulSB]

Two things caught my eye, whether or not the van driver has priority stopping would be a good plan. Personally I'd give way, probably without registering a single thought about the "incident."

I watched the rest of the video which highlighted for me why I generally feel safer on the road than on a cycle path or route. The number of potential hazards in a five minute clip was really surprising.

If I lived in the area I doubt I would use this path/route though I can see why one wouldn't want to be on sections of the road it runs parallel to.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Im afraid i disagree with the OP here.

The stopping distance according to the highway code for a family car at 20mph is 12 metres or 3 car lengths. The sainsburys van is much heavier but i would estimate the driver is travelling close to that speed as you turn in to the road with the cycle lane junction. Id ascertain that the driver could not have possibly stopped safely or reasonably to giveway. Not only that, if he did brake hard to let you go, id wager some people are going to complain about the driver about their damaged and crushed food. The driver can't really win can he?

You were fully in control of the situation and was in no danger at all of ending up twisted around the axles of the van. Personally, i'd have not turned in until the van had fully passed me and then cycled on my merry way...

I do agree that junction is silly, you'd have to have arms like a robot to safely signal one way and then the next. Best to take that junction easy and have your head on a swivel....

 

[winjim]

I don't think the infrastructure is designed for a cyclist to turn right onto the cycle path from the cycle lane. It assumes that cyclists are already on the cycle path and crossing the road, or are on the cycle lane and progressing along the road. I can't see anything that says give way to right turning traffic for the van, or as mentioned, for the cyclist.

In fact, giving priority to right turning traffic, including traffic turning across a cycle lane, and that close to another junction, is such a fantastically dangerous thing to do that I would be astonished if that was the intent, and I would expect it to be clarified by a sign saying 'give way to right turning traffic' or something.

I can't interpret that junction any other way than 'give way to traffic crossing on the cycle path'. The fact that 'everybody gets it wrong' and that there appear to be quite a few experienced cyclists here disagreeing with the OP's interpretation is quite telling. OP, you mentioned the highway code upthread, perhaps you could pooint us in the direction of the specific sections of the code that deal with a junction like this one, or which you think are relevant?

 

[steveindenmark]

There are give way on the cycle path as well. I think this is a a case of 50-50. But statements like "Simple fact is, I am right" doesnt help your case and neither does the swearing. If you do not show consideration to other road users. You really cannot whinge when they do the same to you.

A blind man in a snow storm could see what the driver was going to do all the op had to do was slow down a bit. It would have been no issue at all.

I dont see the point in posting a total non event on here and then arguing with all and sundry because they dont agree with you.

Its a case of give a man a camera and he will make a drama series for you.

 

[wheresthetorch]

This strikes me as being much the same as swerving right onto a zebra crossing and expecting oncoming traffic to give way. The 'give way' lines are to enable people to use the crossing.

 

[PaulSB]

There are give way on the cycle path as well. I think this is a a case of 50-50. But statements like "Simple fact is, I am right" doesnt help your case and neither does the swearing.

A blind man in a snow storm could see what the driver was going to do all the op had to do was slow down a bit. It would have been no issue at all.

I dont see the point in posting a total non event on here and then arguing with all and sundry because they dont agree with you.

Its a case of give a man a camera and he will make a drama series for you.

Very accurate and the last sentence oh so very true.

 

[Brandane]

Perhaps "I've got priority coz I'm a BMW driver" mentality sets in when one gets behind the handlebars of a £12k Bianchi?
Cycling twattery on a grand scale; as is the "I'm right and that's the end of it" attitude in the aftermath.

 

[Globalti]

The driver wasn't even looking at you and probably blocked you out as of no threat to himself of herself. Your error was in not spotting that. It's a non-event and not "worth a complaint" as you comment.

And yes it's a lousy bit of box-ticking cycle lane and probably not even in the Highway Code as a recognised scheme.

 

[winjim]

Bit of context here.

https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/

 

[Globalti]

Doesn't that just illustrate how far the UK has lagged so far behind the Netherlands in giving space to cyclists? That small scheme must have cost a fortune.

 

[sheddy]

Never mind, what is the camera please ?

 

[I like Skol]

Never mind, what is the camera please ?

Could do with cleaning that white squiggle off the lens....

 

[matticus]

I think it's a 50:20:30 - van-driver just about in the wrong, as he crossed a clear give-way triangle on the road in front of him; with 20% given to the cyclist as he must have known the problem.

But the design is sooooo ambiguous, it's earned its 30% of the blame!

 

[Milkfloat]

I think it's a 50:20:30 - van-driver just about in the wrong, as he crossed a clear give-way triangle on the road in front of him; with 20% given to the cyclist as he must have known the problem.

But the design is sooooo ambiguous, it's earned its 30% of the blame!

It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

Where the green cycle path is the main road.

In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black.

It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.