York 'bad' cycling video

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by [XAP]Bob »

irc wrote:
Could easily have been overtaken by 3 cars and then sailed straight back past them..
Equally could have overtaken several cars and been nowhere near the turning car until undertaking it. We don't know.

Absolutely, and we likely never will. Although I am generally quite cautious about filtering past multiple vehicles.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by Psamathe »

Si wrote:
JayGatsby wrote:What happens exactly at 2:26? I can't quite determine whose fault that was.


Both to an extent I would say. Driver should have checked mirrors before turning (they should have known that there was a bike lane there and so cyclists may be using it, they may have just passed the cyclist and if so, should have known he was there). It also looks like the car didn't have its indicators on but it's hard to tell.
Cyclist could have helped themselves by not undertaking past a side road and having both hands on the bars ready to brake, and by waking up and paying attention to what was happening around them a bit more. But, I think the driver is more in the wrong, esp. if they didn't have indicators on.


I was thinking about this whilst out today. If it were a road with a bus lane and other traffic lane outside and you have a bus (in bus lane) and car (in other lane) driving along at similar speeds (bus slightly behind) and the car brakes and slows, so the bus will catch-up. And the car indicates and turns left across the bus lane hitting the bus. Who would be in the wrong then ? (Answer: the car driver).

And I would consider a bike lane nothing other than another lane that is for the exclusive use of bikes. Bit like a bus lane reserved for buses (taxis, bikes, etc.). And a bike is nothing more than another vehicle.

Ian
rfryer
Posts: 809
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by rfryer »

Psamathe wrote:I was thinking about this whilst out today. If it were a road with a bus lane and other traffic lane outside and you have a bus (in bus lane) and car (in other lane) driving along at similar speeds (bus slightly behind) and the car brakes and slows, so the bus will catch-up. And the car indicates and turns left across the bus lane hitting the bus. Who would be in the wrong then ? (Answer: the car driver).

And I would consider a bike lane nothing other than another lane that is for the exclusive use of bikes. Bit like a bus lane reserved for buses (taxis, bikes, etc.). And a bike is nothing more than another vehicle.

Ian

There maybe exceptions, but in general, bus lanes seem to stop at side roads and restart afterwards, so that cars don't have to turn across the lane. In such a situation, I think that the bus driver would have to take a significant part of the blame if crashing into a left-turning car.

I think that bike lanes need some kind of markings at side roads, to make priorities clearer. Although it's not great from a cycling point of view, I think that a road-side cycle lane should stop at side roads in the same way as a bus lane does. If you want left turning cars to give way to cycles, the safe way would be to have them explicitly giving way to a segregated cycle lane shortly after making the turn, something like the following...
Untitled_artwork.png
AndyBSG
Posts: 382
Joined: 10 Jul 2013, 11:16am

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by AndyBSG »

Psamathe wrote:And I would consider a bike lane nothing other than another lane that is for the exclusive use of bikes. Bit like a bus lane reserved for buses (taxis, bikes, etc.). And a bike is nothing more than another vehicle.


I'm pretty sure that is how the law sees it as well. i.e. if you are turning across a lane of traffic then the traffic already occupying that lane has automatic right of way so it is your reponsibility to ensure the lane is clear before making the manoeuvre and this is explained in detail under highway code rules 127 to 132.

There is no distinction between what traffic various lanes carry, the only consideration is what the road marking/white lines show so cycle lanes are with solid or broken white lines are covered by the rules.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by Psamathe »

rfryer wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I was thinking about this whilst out today. If it were a road with a bus lane and other traffic lane outside and you have a bus (in bus lane) and car (in other lane) driving along at similar speeds (bus slightly behind) and the car brakes and slows, so the bus will catch-up. And the car indicates and turns left across the bus lane hitting the bus. Who would be in the wrong then ? (Answer: the car driver).

And I would consider a bike lane nothing other than another lane that is for the exclusive use of bikes. Bit like a bus lane reserved for buses (taxis, bikes, etc.). And a bike is nothing more than another vehicle.

Ian

There maybe exceptions, but in general, bus lanes seem to stop at side roads and restart afterwards, so that cars don't have to turn across the lane. In such a situation, I think that the bus driver would have to take a significant part of the blame if crashing into a left-turning car.

I think that bike lanes need some kind of markings at side roads, to make priorities clearer. Although it's not great from a cycling point of view, I think that a road-side cycle lane should stop at side roads in the same way as a bus lane does. If you want left turning cars to give way to cycles, the safe way would be to have them explicitly giving way to a segregated cycle lane shortly after making the turn, something like the following...
Untitled_artwork.png


Without wanting to argue as I do not have adequate knowledge of the Highway Code (which I really should - but I'm no expert), A car suddenly breaking in an outside lane will invariable be "undertaken" by a vehicle travelling at similar speeds on an inside lane. The inside lane vehicle cannot really be "blamed" for such undertaking.

When a vehicle wishes to make a manoeuvre (e.g. turn left) it should make sure it can do so without killing anybody in the process (and preferably avoiding causing serious injuries or damage). Given it has just reduced speed (significantly) it can expect to be "undertaken" by inside vehicles, so it should be especially careful when turning left across another vehicle lane.

Same thing if you want to change lanes. You cannot just indicate and go. You should check you are clear before any manoeuvre, particularly if making significant speed changes just before.

So, based on my (embarrassingly) limited understanding, I would blame the car driver (or allot significant blame on the car).

Ian
(Thanking God there is such a thing as a spell checker that knows how to spell manouvre).
rfryer
Posts: 809
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by rfryer »

I agree with the above where lanes are separated by dashed lines.

My problem comes with lanes that are intended for traffic segregation, such as bus lanes, where the edge is solid white. My intuitive understanding of those is that traffic is not expected to cross the line (when the lane is active), and that is borne out by the way in which bus lanes do tend to be broken for side roads, so that traffic doesn't need to enter the lane. Road planners clearly think it isn't sensible for buses to have carte blanche to bomb up the inside and prevent the rest of the traffic turning left, probably because it would both hinder traffic flow, and would be a cause of accidents.

So why don't the same principles apply to cycle lanes?
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

Whilst I'd put the blame on the driver I'd also posit that anyone who undertakes a vehicle that is indicating is unlikely to get much sympathy in a court.
Bogalvator
Posts: 11
Joined: 9 Sep 2013, 11:54am
Location: Northampton

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Bogalvator »

If the car was indicating (I can't tell personally) then the cyclist has to take some responsibility for that incident. It would not have been difficult to anticipate what would happen; slowing down and giving way would have been the sensible and courteous thing in my view.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Psamathe »

Bogalvator wrote:If the car was indicating (I can't tell personally) then the cyclist has to take some responsibility for that incident. It would not have been difficult to anticipate what would happen; slowing down and giving way would have been the sensible and courteous thing in my view.


I would not disagree but then looking at the car, slowing, pulling across a lane in use when you are in a tin box and the vehicle you are cutting-up is comparatively unprotected is hardly courteous behaviour.

Some drivers do seem to think that indicating then gives them the right to make your manoeuvre and as soon as you turn your indicators on other vehicles are obligated to get out of your way to allow you to go where you want.

Ian
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Why You Don't Remove Jacket Whilst Cycling.

Post by reohn2 »

irc wrote:From 2:36 in tthe video. A sore one. :shock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0_oSt8v8Nk


EEK! :shock:
You sometimes wonder how some people make it through the day :roll:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Barstaff
Posts: 71
Joined: 13 Mar 2014, 8:27am

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Barstaff »

Filtering in rush hour traffic is pretty darn stupid imo.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

Barstaff wrote:Filtering in rush hour traffic is pretty darn stupid imo.

??

Why rush hour in particular? Surely filtering is either OK or it isn't...
(I filter all the time, if I didn't I'd be better off in my car.)
Barstaff
Posts: 71
Joined: 13 Mar 2014, 8:27am

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Barstaff »

All it needs is for someoneto accidentally (or deliberately) open a door and you're a goner.

Bike trashed broken collarbone. Just not worth it.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

Barstaff wrote:All it needs is for someoneto accidentally (or deliberately) open a door and you're a goner.

Bike trashed broken collarbone. Just not worth it.

I see it as being no more dangerous than simply cycling along a road. You're at risk from a whole range of 'bad' behaviour, the only thing that keeps you safe is experience and wits with a bit of luck thrown in for good measure.

Whilst I've had the occasional moment when filtering, I've had far more moments when legitimately travelling in a straight line!
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Bicycler »

I agree both with the people who suggest that cyclist in a lane have priority over traffic turning across their path (this is only the reverse of the situation where you are turning right from a cycle lane across the general traffic lane) and those who say they should have seen it coming. I think I have mentioned before how it is not a good idea to design a system whereby left-turning traffic has to do so across a lane on their inside. Ideally the law should allow for (and the HC should encourage) left turning motors to enter the cycle lane. The problem there is that cycle lanes are too narrow and positioned In the gutter so in many cases there will still be a lane on the inside of turning vehicles
Last edited by Bicycler on 11 Apr 2014, 10:29am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply