The Poplar High St collision

[kwackers]

If you wish to remain alive as an urban cyclist, you have to be aware of the risk of this happening. You have to be prepared to stop, especially if you are unsighted. Yes, you have priority, but the reality is that a sufficiently large minority of vehicles won't give it to you, so you have to take precautions, whatever the law is. I'd like to see a successful prosecution for a strike in such a case, then maybe drivers will begin to learn it is true. But ultimately until we have roads populated by saints, then caveat cyclista in such circumstances.

I think we're all in agreement the cyclist would benefit from a bit more caution and understanding of risk.

What I find surprising is that other cyclists don't seem to understand what a cycle lane actually is and defend a driver who was prepared to turn across one without first checking or even attempting any form of caution despite his view being obviously restricted.
I'm no fan of cycle lanes and this video simply reinforces that view but they are lanes and as such require treating as such. Had there been give way markings on the cycle lane the cyclist would have been at fault, but there weren't.

[gaz]

... it's not a dual carriageway in any traditional sense ...

It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.

Leaving that aside IMO fault on both parts, driving off remains inexcusable.

[kwackers]

It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.

OK, pedantry aside there are two lanes. Both of which need to be clear before you turn across them.

[mjr]

What I find surprising is that other cyclists don't seem to understand what a cycle lane actually is and defend a driver who was prepared to turn across one without first checking or even attempting any form of caution despite his view being obviously restricted.

The biggest achievement of the motoring lobby has been to turn cyclist against cyclist, decrying them as "not a real cyclist" or "just a person on a bike". There's even people happy to accuse left-hooked cyclists of trying to "undertake" on cycling forums, but take a look at the tidal wave of "I'm a cyclist myself BUT..." comments on news websites any time a cyclist is injured and realise how far we need to go

[Flinders]

What I find surprising is that other cyclists don't seem to understand what a cycle lane actually is and defend a driver who was prepared to turn across one without first checking or even attempting any form of caution despite his view being obviously restricted.

The biggest achievement of the motoring lobby has been to turn cyclist against cyclist, decrying them as "not a real cyclist" or "just a person on a bike". There's even people happy to accuse left-hooked cyclists of trying to "undertake" on cycling forums, but take a look at the tidal wave of "I'm a cyclist myself BUT..." comments on news websites any time a cyclist is injured and realise how far we need to go

That's not confined to cycling. Look at the way politicians divide and rule. Issues like immigration and benefits are a prime example.

[robing]

Christ. The bit that really made my heart stop was him squeezing through that gap between the bus and the parked car. The car may not actually have been aware that they had hit anyone. By the time of the collision they would have been looking ahead down the side road into which they were turning.

I think the combination of cycle lanes and stationary traffic is a recipe for disaster. They would have been safer cycling on the pavement.

[freiston]

If I've got this right, the cyclist wasn't in a cycle lane per se, but one of those blue marked junction priority strips that appear at the junctions on cycle superhighways. I had never come across a cycle superhighway before and so was unfamiliar with the ins and outs of one. It seems to me that the blue priority marking would be nigh on impossible for the driver to see until already committed to turning and that as things stand, prior knowledge of the road and the priorities given to cyclists would be required for the 'scheme' to be safe.

I agree that the cyclist had priority and certainly that the driver should have been a lot more aware of the cyclist and that he/she should have made the manoeuvre with more care and trepidation but I've watched the video a few times and the cyclist slows down from 12mph as he approaches the junction before the car is visible, to 8mph as the car becomes visible - the cyclist does appear to be slowing down because of the junction (and presumably the hazards thereof) but still manages to hit the car at its rear end. I keep asking myself if in those circumstances, would I have been able to avoid hitting the car and dropping the bike. To me, the resultant collision just doesn't look undoubtedly inevitable.

[brooksby]

I can see your point, but that isn't a dual carriageway, it's a single lane. The traffic had indeed stopped. Even the big white van at 0.08sec in had stopped before the left sideroad and that in itself should be enough of a giveaway that he/she is letting someone through.
It's one thing to take the view that filtering up the inside is entirely legal but bloody stupid to assume its ok to go blazing up the inside or between vehicles like a eejit and across every junction without a care in the world.
Right of way is of no use in a wooden box.

I think the problem here is that far too many motorists, when someone has stopped 'to let them across', think that means its safe to actually do so and that they don't need to think about anything else.

Mind you, it's not just motorists - how many people here have had near misses with pedestrians who think that its safe to cross a road because all the motor traffic is nose to tail and stopped, and don't think that maybe they ought to check for cyclists (or scooters or motorcycles, for that matter) coming down the gap between the lanes?

[Flinders]

I can see your point, but that isn't a dual carriageway, it's a single lane. The traffic had indeed stopped. Even the big white van at 0.08sec in had stopped before the left sideroad and that in itself should be enough of a giveaway that he/she is letting someone through.
It's one thing to take the view that filtering up the inside is entirely legal but bloody stupid to assume its ok to go blazing up the inside or between vehicles like a eejit and across every junction without a care in the world.
Right of way is of no use in a wooden box.

I think the problem here is that far too many motorists, when someone has stopped 'to let them across', think that means its safe to actually do so and that they don't need to think about anything else.

Mind you, it's not just motorists - how many people here have had near misses with pedestrians who think that its safe to cross a road because all the motor traffic is nose to tail and stopped, and don't think that maybe they ought to check for cyclists (or scooters or motorcycles, for that matter) coming down the gap between the lanes?

Good point. Last week a car in a queue of traffic stopped short of my junction to 'let me out' as I was waiting in the car to turn right. I waited, as I could see through the queue in front of him that there was some traffic coming the other way. The unspeakable driver behind me (who had overhauled me in the 30mph zone behind us, breaking the speed limit) blasted on his horn to tell me to pull out. No doubt he would have done - into the path of the oncoming cars which would have had to have stopped or hit him. All he saw was the chap 'letting me out', he took no account of any other traffic.

[mjr]

If I've got this right, the cyclist wasn't in a cycle lane per se, but one of those blue marked junction priority strips that appear at the junctions on cycle superhighways. I had never come across a cycle superhighway before and so was unfamiliar with the ins and outs of one. It seems to me that the blue priority marking would be nigh on impossible for the driver to see until already committed to turning and that as things stand, prior knowledge of the road and the priorities given to cyclists would be required for the 'scheme' to be safe.

It is "a cycle lane per se" because the superhighway just gives up and vanishes at many junctions, becoming a bad old blue paint lane. I think the junctions on cycle superhighways have been bodged into that form for two main reasons:

• Cycle lanes across the mouths of junctions always have priority thanks to http://highwaycode.info/rule/183 whereas cycle tracks don't always;
• There was a very flawed TRL study which concluded that that layout is safer (but look at what they compared it to...)

So I don't agree that motorists need to understand the particular scheme. They just need to understand that cycle lanes always have priority, like bus lanes, but I've seen enough motorists crash with buses to know many don't.

That's why continuing the cycle track across the junction with appropriate hard measures like corner posts is preferable to dumping cyclists back onto the road for short stretches IMO.

[freiston]

Hi mjr,

I don't mean that motorists need to understand the scheme, but I meant that a motorist [making such a right-turn in heavy traffic as in the video] would not see the cycle lane/blue strip on the far side of the carriageway until after they had started their manoeuvre and therefore the scheme cannot be safe without the motorist already having that knowledge of the road layout. That's the way it looks to me in the video/google earth but I dare say the reality could be different.

That's why continuing the cycle track across the junction with appropriate hard measures like corner posts is preferable to dumping cyclists back onto the road for short stretches IMO.

+1 - I agree wholeheartedly.

[pwa]

Cycle lanes on roads open to other traffic do create hazards of their own. This video illustrates one. The driver clearly made a mistake and merits criticism, but if I had been the cyclist I would have half expected to see a vehicle emerging from that gap. The driver could only see the cyclist at the last moment, and the view might be obscured by the window pillar. That is a very crowded environment and small errors of judgement can lead to someone being hurt.

Personally, I would not cycle regularly on streets like that. I would find another way of getting to work.

[reohn2]

Cycle lanes on roads open to other traffic do create hazards of their own. This video illustrates one. The driver clearly made a mistake and merits criticism, but if I had been the cyclist I would have half expected to see a vehicle emerging from that gap. The driver could only see the cyclist at the last moment, and the view might be obscured by the window pillar. That is a very crowded environment and small errors of judgement can lead to someone being hurt.

I have to agree,I'm extremely wary in such situations and as it was wet I'd be even more wary as the driver's vision can be obscured through rainy side windows and unwiped triangle of windscreen on the nearside.
Watching the video again the cyclist doesn't appear to make any attempt to check his/her speed at the side road,something I find surprising if they use the route regularly.Also s/he hit the side of the car which indicates both are travelling too fast for the situation IMHO.
All that said it doesn't excuse the driver not stopping.

Personally, I would not cycle regularly on streets like that. I would find another way of getting to work.

Unfortunately some folk don't have that luxury.

EDIT:- I've watched the video again a few times and the cyclist does check their speed,though not enough to stop if needs be,as is apparent.The driver has assumed too much but s/he's well protected in the 'cage' so is removed from danger 'invulnerable'(?).To repeat myself,the cyclist is 'chancing' it IMHO.

[reohn2]

If you wish to remain alive as an urban cyclist, you have to be aware of the risk of this happening. You have to be prepared to stop, especially if you are unsighted. Yes, you have priority, but the reality is that a sufficiently large minority of vehicles won't give it to you, so you have to take precautions, whatever the law is. I'd like to see a successful prosecution for a strike in such a case, then maybe drivers will begin to learn it is true. But ultimately until we have roads populated by saints, then caveat cyclista in such circumstances.

That's my outlook too,I don't care if I have priority or not,what matters is staying upright and in one piece,preferably without a mark on me or my bike

[mjr]

I don't mean that motorists need to understand the scheme, but I meant that a motorist [making such a right-turn in heavy traffic as in the video] would not see the cycle lane/blue strip on the far side of the carriageway until after they had started their manoeuvre and therefore the scheme cannot be safe without the motorist already having that knowledge of the road layout. That's the way it looks to me in the video/google earth but I dare say the reality could be different.

My last comment was made while I was confused and thinking this discussion was about CS2 (where the track vanishes at vulnerable points on Stratford High Street and becomes a painted lane) not CS3. It should be even clearer on CS3 because the motorist should have seen the blue+white paint on their own side of the road and realised they were driving along a headline cycle route, unlike CS2 where the use of kerbs could lead them to plead that they thought cycle traffic had been filtered off.

Oh and I haven't mentioned it, but I'm surprised the cyclist didn't seem to attempt an emergency turn left. I've escaped the odd SMIDSY that way over the years.