Very close pass by bus.

[Ian Cooper]

In my view, the road itself is fine, as long as you don't use the bike lane or take a weak secondary position. I would certainly use it by taking primary position. In fact, the wall makes it safer, since nothing is getting past you on that side.

 

[Glow worm]

It's been a few years since I've been there, but I think there's a wide pavement on the left, on top of that wall. I don't normally condone pavement cycling, but I think sometimes one has to use common sense.

Oh yes there is that's right - I had forgotten all about that. It must be at least 10 feet wide, so plenty of room.

 

[Crankarm]

Legitimately doesn't mean safely though. It's still not paying attention.

Do you actually understand what the solid white line road marking the edge of the cycle lane and the edge of the main carriageway is indicating to the prospective road users? I didn't think so.

 

[Crankarm]

My reading of it
- the solid white line says one thing and one thing only - motor vehicles must not enter it. Nothing else, not even in the wildest dream fantasies of stagecoach drivers.
- the guidance on overtaking stands, entirely unaffected. (I know of at least one driver who had to do a few days re-training due to passing a cyclist in a cycle lane (dotted white line) too close.)


Sorry - that's a red herring. White lines never tell a driver when he can legitimately pass - only when he must not cross them.

Ehhh? The OP didn't say the bus or indeed he himself crossed the solid white line. Your reasoning is very muddled. The criticism is that the lanes are too narrow which is not the bus driver's fault, it is the layout of the road. Anyway if the cyclist is cycling close to the edge of the cycle lane bordering the road then he is a muppet. If it were me, and it wouldn't be me as I wouldn't ride along the road, then I would keep as far over to the left in the cycle lane as possible. I certainly wouldn't start riding outside the cycle lane on the main carriageway just to make sure vehicles couldn't pass me as this would be extremely inconsiderate and frankly life threatening, you could in effect be obstructing the highway holding up traffic behind you, especially as there is a designated cycle lane adjacent to you on the left which has obviously been put there to try to make cyclists safer. The risk of being rear ended by an angry moton who you would hold up if you rode in primary position on the road is too great.

Nothing would tempt me to use that cycle lane - I'd happily take a lengthy detour to avoid that route completely. Agreed

 

[Ian Cooper]

Obeying road markings is not all that's required of road users. If an overtaking bus's left wheel is 1" to the right of that white line, and a cyclist's wheel is 1" to the left, both are within their boundaries, but in that case the bus is going to hit the cyclist. In such a situation, the fact that the driver was fully within his lane does not mean he wouldn't be guilty of an unsafe pass. The law requires not only that road users obey lane markings and traffic signs, but that even if they are doing so, they must not endanger other road users. And sometimes, the law even requires that road users disobey such markings, when obeying them would cause an accident. No one can just blindly follow the road markings - if they did, thousands more people would die on the roads. I mean, surely this is kindergarten stuff! It's not something that sane and intelligent adults should even be debating!

A cyclist is not a 'muppet' if he doesn't cycle fully within such a narrow lane. Often such lanes are filled with dangerous debris that can cause a fall, so cyclists must avoid such debris, which often means cycling at the edge of such a lane or outside of it altogether. Overtaking drivers have the legal duty to pass with a safe margin. The idea that a driver can just overtake a cyclist with the tiniest clearance whatsoever, as long as he's obeying road markings, is ludicrous! Such a notion has no basis in traffic law because it is inherently deadly.

As for cyclists obstructing traffic by using the general traffic lane, this is nonsense. A cyclist going at a normal cycling speed cannot possibly obstruct traffic. There is no right to a certain speed on any roadway and road users in a queue of traffic must respect the lead vehicle's right of way - the road is his.

As for bike lanes having been put there to make cyclists safer, I can show you ten studies that show that they decrease safety for cyclists. Your attitude seems to be mired in anti-cycling and inferiority-cycling propaganda.

Road markings are guidelines that are meant to enhance safety. But they do not guarantee it. The only thing that guarantees safety is an alert and careful road user using his brain. If he just relies on road markings to do what his brain should be doing, he'll kill someone and he'll end up in jail, because the law requires much more than that.

 

[sabian92]

Do you actually understand what the solid white line road marking the edge of the cycle lane and the edge of the main carriageway is indicating to the prospective road users? I didn't think so.

Yes, and there's no need to be an arse about it. I know the highway code and I can drive.

Being legal doesn't mean it's safe. If the bus is an inch to the right and the bike is an inch to the left - that isn't safe whatsoever, yet it's legal.

Don't be so daft about it - would you like it if you were in that situation?

 

[Crankarm]

Obeying road markings is not all that's required of road users. If an overtaking bus's left wheel is 1" to the right of that white line, and a cyclist's wheel is 1" to the left, both are within their boundaries, but in that case the bus is going to hit the cyclist.

Yep the bus will hit the cyclist as the cyclist's body extends wider than the 1 inch inside the line his wheels are riding along. The bus on the other hand will probably fill the lane. Result will be that the cyclist should have been riding more to the left in the cycle lane but as the bus was within his lane it will be chalked up as an unfortunate accident as neither party will be at fault.

In such a situation, the fact that the driver was fully within his lane does not mean he wouldn't be guilty of an unsafe pass.

There is no such offence of being guilty of an unsafe pass.

The law requires not only that road users obey lane markings and traffic signs, but that even if they are doing so, they must not endanger other road users.

Sure but the motoring offences are driving without due care and attention, reckless and dangerous driving which is based upon the legal concept of negligence. In this instance I don't see how for one second that any of these offences would succeed against a bus driver how ever much you wish they would on the facts given, sorry.

No one can just blindly follow the road markings - if they did, thousands more people would die on the roads.

Indeed, if he were blind many many would die.

A cyclist is not a 'muppet' if he doesn't cycle fully within such a narrow lane.

The solid white line applies equally to cyclists as it does vehicular traffic.

If he or she cycled outside this particular cycle lane going up hill then he would be a muppet. Perhaps in using this lane a cyclist should take more responsibility for their own safety ie look behind more and if they see a large vehicle approaching from behind on this stretch pull in to let them pass. They are never going to win against a bus, coach or truck.

Often such lanes are filled with dangerous debris that can cause a fall, so cyclists must avoid such debris, which often means cycling at the edge of such a lane or outside of it altogether.

Indeed some lanes are filled with debris and rubbish but none have ever caused me to fall. And anyway we are discussing THIS particular piece of road which appears quite clean from Google Streetview image.

The idea that a driver can just overtake a cyclist with the tiniest clearance whatsoever, as long as he's obeying road markings, is ludicrous!

I haven't suggested this. Your words not mine. I have only given my humble opinion on this stretch of road.

Such a notion has no basis in traffic law because it is inherently deadly.

You are being ridiculous now.

The solid white line not only applies to vehicular traffic but to the cyclist as well ....................... you should go to Specsavers. We don't know the exact widths of the lanes only anecdotal evidence from the OP's post which brings me back again to the road layout, there is insufficient width of each lane. Perhaps you should go to this stretch of road and measure the lane widths and carry out a survey of the sizes of vehicles using it, their positioning and also numbers of cyclists and their positioning.

 

[Glow worm]

Yes, and there's no need to be an arse about it.

I'm afraid you're dealing with Cambridgeshire folks here- that's about as friendly as it gets ! Trust me I've spent long enough in the feckin' miserable place

 

[Crankarm]

Yes, and there's no need to be an arse about it. I know the highway code and I can drive.

Tsk, tsk, .

Being legal doesn't mean it's safe. If the bus is an inch to the right and the bike is an inch to the left - that isn't safe whatsoever, yet it's legal.

Indeed, but if it is unlawful then it is actionable. Laws and rules are made for everyone's safety. As much as a bus driver or driver of a large vehicle has to drive their vehicle with reasonable care and skill and take account of other road user's safety, so does a cyclist.

Don't be so daft about it - would you like it if you were in that situation?

I wouldn't put myself in this situation by cycling along this stretch of road as I value my life.

[/quote]

 

[Crankarm]

I'm afraid you're dealing with Cambridgeshire folks here- that's about as friendly as it gets ! Trust me I've spent long enough in the feckin' miserable place

Not as miserable as Suffolk sheep feckers though .

Anyway I am done with this now. I shall retire to the side lines to .

 

[Pisquee]

I used to live in Headington when I was about 20. think I only managed to cycle all the way up that hill twice! Used to make it about half way and then there's an entrance onto the large pavement before the pavement goes high which I used to take. Met a nice French girl though once when doing that as she gave up at the same point!

 

[d87francis]

Hi all,
you're quite right it is Headington Hill and there is a large pavement running up the left hand side of it. Whilst I'm not a big fan of dual use cycle lanes, putting one on the very wide pavement seems like a sensible idea; the only reason I can think of that they haven't already is given the number of people that ride contra-flow in them you could get people cycling very fast down the pavement (I haven't seen many dual use lanes on long steep hills).

@Glow Worm - thanks for the alternative routes, I sometimes use Warneford Lane and then Gypsy Lane, however, the road surfaces are so poor it put me off, they are getting round to resurfacing now.

Cycling down the hill I always take a strong primary, however, going up I tend to stay within the cycle lane other than when avoiding debris, of which there is normally a lot (and when overtaking slow coaches ha ha). I am always at odds with this as I know it's dangerous, but given that it's such a long/steep hill and that 99% of traffic gives me enough space I feel bad; it's mainly just when buses overtake me that it gets hairy.

What do you guys think could be done to make it safer other than just removing the lanes?

 

[dellzeqq]

If the driver had waited behind the cyclist for the other bus to pass before overtaking there would have been no RTA at all. Amazing, huh?

that's the point.

Now, the person who knows most about this cycle lane is a regular on CC, so what follows runs the risk of expert contradiction, but, having used the road a lot I'd say that the greatest risk is on the down hill - having heard the horrible scratchy noise made by a multi-bike pileup just a few yards behind me.

This is a road that is used by a lot of cyclists. The bus driver must know this, and should have known the right thing to do. He (or she?) is going to have to offer a better explanation.

 

[Recycler]

What do you guys think could be done to make it safer other than just removing the lanes?

It's difficult to tell from the pictures. Does the cycle lane conform to the regulations (minimum width 1.5 metres?)

 

[Hawk]

Cheers, I was mainly trying to pre-empt whatever reply I get from Stagecoach, which I'm wondering if they will claim as it's a separate lane it doesn't matter. I tend to take primary on a lot of roads around here, but don't on that hill as it's quite long and most traffic gives me enough room. I think the problem today was that there was a bus coming from the other direction, meaning that the bus behind me should have waited but didn't and decided to squeeze me instead.

Here's a picture of where it happened courtesy of google streetview, it's not a pleasant place as you're boxed in against a wall with lamp posts in the cycle lane (which I'm campaigning to have moved onto the top of the wall!).
View attachment 9693

Could also consider doubling the width of the uphill cycle lane and making up the extra space by removing the downhill lane.