It's not always about back up, but seeing how a situation can be interpreted/misinterpreted from different viewpoints. Who knows which viewpoint would be taken by the judge in a compo claim? In that situation the main 'culprit' IMO is the guy who got paid for designing that junction.
Turning into side road
- Thread starter benb
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Mad at urage
New Member
- Location
- Just N of Cardiff
You're welcome
I think benb knows this he's an intelligent guy, just that this crap junction does confuse the issue he is rightly trying to highlight. If there had been a collision, IMO the driver would have been a fellow victim of the crap 'road engineering' (less physically damaged though, so I'm not wishing anything on benb!!
).
Origamist
Legendary Member
The layout is abysmal - a two way cycle path (not a cycle lane) that has both double and single broken markings - presumably cyclists should follow the left give way on the approach, even though the right part of the path is the natural way to go if you're going over the junction. What's more they direct cyclists in front of the minor road give way markings towards oncoming traffic - truly, truly shoot.
akb
Veteran
- Location
- Potton, Bedfordshire
Indeed we are.
My only point was that moving the give way lines inside the junction meant that cyclists were required to ride against the flow of the traffic on the main road.
Had the give way lines been at the mouth of the junction, cyclists would not have entered the main road but would be crossing the side road, and thus the liability would be on any vehicles entering that road.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Annoying, isn't it? Unfortunately it's you who had the give way, not the car, but I do wish it were the other way around.
I'm not on your case - if only this were the Netherlands, it'd be very likely that there would be giveway markings for the car and the cycle path would be much bigger and have the priority.
[QUOTE 1569024"]
He's here now.
Users of shared facilities give way to those using the road. That is why there is give way markings on the path.
The design is sound, i.e you give way to traffic turning in off the main road, which in turn keeps the traffic flow moving on the main road as they don't have to wait for you to finish crossing, as you should not be crossing in the first place as you have to give way.
Simples.
[/quote]
Which is why its highly unlikely I would contemplate incorporating this type of facility into any of my routes.
He's here now.
Users of shared facilities give way to those using the road. That is why there is give way markings on the path.
The design is sound, i.e you give way to traffic turning in off the main road, which in turn keeps the traffic flow moving on the main road as they don't have to wait for you to finish crossing, as you should not be crossing in the first place as you have to give way.
Simples.
[/quote]
Which is why its highly unlikely I would contemplate incorporating this type of facility into any of my routes.
[QUOTE 1569027"]
I presume only for the fact that you have to stop and give way. The concept though is logical genius, motorised traffic should have priority over those that use shared facilities.
[/quote]
That it prioritises motorised traffic is my problem, yes.
We already had shared facilities. The road. Motorised shares with non motorised. I'll stick with those.
IMO this overcomplicates the infrastructure. If an experienced rider like benb can misinterpret it, it's not fit for purpose.
I presume only for the fact that you have to stop and give way. The concept though is logical genius, motorised traffic should have priority over those that use shared facilities.
[/quote]
That it prioritises motorised traffic is my problem, yes.
We already had shared facilities. The road. Motorised shares with non motorised. I'll stick with those.
IMO this overcomplicates the infrastructure. If an experienced rider like benb can misinterpret it, it's not fit for purpose.
Seems like you're the only one out of several who doesn't think it's unclear. Approaching this at speed, I think I'd get it, but I'm obviously saying this in hindsight, I've now had time to analyse it. I also might have considered the "enter a junction rule" that benb mentioned.
What concerns me is, I wouldn't be on it, but kids might. I think it needs to be a lot clearer.
What concerns me is, I wouldn't be on it, but kids might. I think it needs to be a lot clearer.
[QUOTE 1569031"]
Clear as day to me, You can quite clearly see the give way markings on the path and the car had their LHS indicator on. Give way is give way - what exactly is unclear?
[/quote] The unclear bit, for me, is whether the cycle lane / path is meant to run against the flow of the traffic. There are no signs to permit riding into the traffic and no markings in the road to show that there is a contraflow cycle lane there.
Clear as day to me, You can quite clearly see the give way markings on the path and the car had their LHS indicator on. Give way is give way - what exactly is unclear?
[/quote] The unclear bit, for me, is whether the cycle lane / path is meant to run against the flow of the traffic. There are no signs to permit riding into the traffic and no markings in the road to show that there is a contraflow cycle lane there.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Pretty clear to me as well. The junction markings tell cyclists to give way and you did, albeit when actually crossing to avoid being knocked down, so it works. Maybe you should have given way earlier without actually crossing the junction with the car clearly intending to turn? As has been stated the vehicle had it's left indicator on before turning so you anticipated the left turn. I think your post is more about you as a cyclist having to give way to a car which you feel indignant about. Get over it, this is such a non event. When vehicles and cyclists collide it is often very painful for cyclists often fatal, so ride defensively.
BTW your cam footage is very dark as you have it pointing too high into the sky. Are you trying to film aircraft? Point it down a little.
BTW your cam footage is very dark as you have it pointing too high into the sky. Are you trying to film aircraft? Point it down a little.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
There are plenty of markings showing two way on the cycle path, so it should be fairly obvious that ben is in the right to cycle in the direction he is going in the video. Also, this is a pavement cycle path, rather than a contraflow one.
I was referring to the point where it runs on the road, not where it is on the pavement. As had most of the other posts in the thread. If we were talking about the pavement, there would be little purpose to the thread as the car doesn't drive on the pavement.
Ironic that you say things should be fairly obvious when you had missed the purpose of the thread, but still, I shall try to make it clearer for you.
The unclear bit, for me, is whether the cycle lane / path is meant to run against the flow of the traffic when it enters and runs on the main road. There are no signs to permit riding into the traffic on the main road and no markings in the road to show that there is a contraflow cycle lane on the main road there.
