York 'bad' cycling video

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

reohn2 wrote:BTW,what about 'always give way to traffic merging from the right'

It's a nicety designed to oil the wheels of the road. Where's the exception that allows you to move into another lane if a vehicle hasn't moved out of the way or is in a faster moving lane than yours?

I can imaging how that would go down in court: "I indicated and the deceased didn't move out of my way so using the advice in the highway code I moved over and crushed their smartcar with my lorry."
Reminds me of the woman who knocked me off because: "What was I supposed to do? You were in the middle of the road."
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by reohn2 »

kwackers wrote:
reohn2 wrote:BTW,what about 'always give way to traffic merging from the right'

It's a nicety designed to oil the wheels of the road. Where's the exception that allows you to move into another lane if a vehicle hasn't moved out of the way or is in a faster moving lane than yours?

I can imaging how that would go down in court: "I indicated and the deceased didn't move out of my way so using the advice in the highway code I moved over and crushed their smartcar with my lorry."
Reminds me of the woman who knocked me off because: "What was I supposed to do? You were in the middle of the road."


That's not what's happening in the video,the cyclist (possibly :roll: ) sees the indicator and still goes up the inside!
Would you go up the inside of a truck when they're in lane two on the M/way?
Thought not,neither do I :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by beardy »

Would you go up the inside of a truck when they're in lane two on the M/way?


In a directly parallel situation to the one in the video, yes I would.

If a lorry was in its left lane for its traffic flow and I was in a separate lane to its left for my traffic flow, then I would overtake it and expect it or any other vehicle to MSM and give priority before changing lane into my lane. Just as I would be waiting for somebody to let me in if attempting the manoeuvre myself.

Examples being where a motorway has a marked off lane to the left for traffic leaving the motorway within the next couple of miles.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

reohn2 wrote:That's not what's happening in the video,the cyclist (possibly :roll: ) sees the indicator and still goes up the inside!
Would you go up the inside of a truck when they're in lane two on the M/way?
Thought not,neither do I :wink:

No of course I wouldn't, but you were quoting rules.

So, as far as rules go the cyclist is fine in continuing along in his lane as he's theoretically allowed to do.
The car driver on the other hand hasn't bothered checking that something was coming up on his inside, had it been a bus lane and he'd been hit by a bus I doubt we'd be arguing that the bus was at fault. :wink:
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by reohn2 »

kwackers wrote:No of course I wouldn't, but you were quoting rules.

I'm quoting a bit of logic(got to be careful I don't say common sense :wink: )and bl**ding obvious.

So, as far as rules go the cyclist is fine in continuing along in his lane as he's theoretically allowed to do.
The car driver on the other hand hasn't bothered checking that something was coming up on his inside, had it been a bus lane and he'd been hit by a bus I doubt we'd be arguing that the bus was at fault. :wink:

So your driving your bus along in the bus lane and there's a turning off to the left(like the video)would you go up the inside of the Saab that's indicating to turn left?
Now reverse bus Saab positions and you're driving your Saab.

The onus IMO is on the driver of the undertaking vehicle to look after himself,yes the left turning driver should check his nearside but we all know what can and does happen on the road.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Tonyf33 »

reohn2 wrote:So your driving your bus along in the bus lane and there's a turning off to the left(like the video)would you go up the inside of the Saab that's indicating to turn left?
Now reverse bus Saab positions and you're driving your Saab.

The onus IMO is on the driver of the undertaking vehicle to look after himself,yes the left turning driver should check his nearside but we all know what can and does happen on the road.

Except the cyclist isn't undertaking, therein lies the problem of your skewed viewpoint, he is in his own cycle specific lane.

Fagan V (1) Jeffers (2) MIB (2005), the Court found that a motorist had to proceed with utmost care and not cross the carriageway until he had put himself in a position where he was satisfied that no traffic was likely to come up on the inside of the opposing carriageway.

That the HC states in various places relating directly to motorised vehicles with direction to use mirrors (shoulder check if need be) when changing lanes, ensuring the lane is clear, taking care of vulnerable road users when turning left gives a very clear indication that the responsibility is by far with that of the motorist.

We don't even know for sure how clear the indicator was to the cyclist (clear lens type in daytime is VERY difficult to see at times) or how much time he had to see and digest/process that, that you don't/wouldn't expect someone to just turn across you without actually looking is pretty obvious in ANY road situation & applies here absolutely.

To suggest that vehicles can just turn across lanes without taking responsibility is absurd.

AND your own words back in 2008
reohn2 wrote:I would say the onus is on the the car driver as he was entering your lane,facing you as I understand it, you have right of way in your own lane.After all what is a broken line if not denoting a cycle lane he (from your description of the RTA)cut across your lane so surely he is in the wrong unless you indicated to him that he could go before you. A broken line means give way.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by reohn2 »

Tonyf33 wrote:
reohn2 wrote:So your driving your bus along in the bus lane and there's a turning off to the left(like the video)would you go up the inside of the Saab that's indicating to turn left?
Now reverse bus Saab positions and you're driving your Saab.

The onus IMO is on the driver of the undertaking vehicle to look after himself,yes the left turning driver should check his nearside but we all know what can and does happen on the road.

Except the cyclist isn't undertaking, therein lies the problem of your skewed viewpoint, he is in his own cycle specific lane.

Fagan V (1) Jeffers (2) MIB (2005), the Court found that a motorist had to proceed with utmost care and not cross the carriageway until he had put himself in a position where he was satisfied that no traffic was likely to come up on the inside of the opposing carriageway.

That the HC states in various places relating directly to motorised vehicles with direction to use mirrors (shoulder check if need be) when changing lanes, ensuring the lane is clear, taking care of vulnerable road users when turning left gives a very clear indication that the responsibility is by far with that of the motorist.

We don't even know for sure how clear the indicator was to the cyclist (clear lens type in daytime is VERY difficult to see at times) or how much time he had to see and digest/process that, that you don't/wouldn't expect someone to just turn across you without actually looking is pretty obvious in ANY road situation & applies here absolutely.

To suggest that vehicles can just turn across lanes without taking responsibility is absurd.

Your quite right(BTW,I'm not absurd or skewed, so cut it out please)but who'll feel the most pain when and if the car driver doesn't check his nearside?
LOOK at what I've been writing throughout this thread,I'll give you a clue:- It doesn't matter how right you are when lying in either a hospital bed or the morgue.
It's one of the reasons I try to avoid certain roads and riding at certain times of day ie;mad hour or stupid fast roads unless it's necessary,because there are nutters and loonies about.
Given the poor excuse for a justice system or a police force that has any effectiveness in the criminal's paradise otherwise known as the UK,I try to look after myself as best I can.
The goon on the bike in the video slipping up the inside of the left indicating Saab would do well to do the same but,hey goons aren't just sat behind steering wheels,no?

AND your own words back in 2008
reohn2 wrote:I would say the onus is on the the car driver as he was entering your lane,facing you as I understand it, you have right of way in your own lane.After all what is a broken line if not denoting a cycle lane he (from your description of the RTA)cut across your lane so surely he is in the wrong unless you indicated to him that he could go before you. A broken line means give way.

I don't remember the post, but it looks as if you were hit by an oncoming car turning right across you am I right?
If it's any different could you provide a link to the thread you've taken it from so I can read it myself and offer you an apology should I be provd to be inconsistent,but please bear in mind I reserve the right to change my mind of I see your incident in different light.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

reohn2 wrote:I don't remember the post, but it looks as if you were hit by an oncoming car turning right across you am I right?
If it's any different could you provide a link to the thread you've taken it from so I can read it myself and offer you an apology should I be provd to be inconsistent,but please bear in mind I reserve the right to change my mind of I see your incident in different light.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10050

I'm of the opinion most of the confusion in the topic is a case of what's legal and what's a good idea. I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea to undertake something indicating left, but in terms of how it's supposed to pan out the onus is on the driver to make sure their way is clear.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by reohn2 »



So it was what I thought it to be and I agreed with others in that thread that the incident was the car' driver's fault,which is a world away from the Saab/cyclist incident in the York video, because perhaps in the strictest sense the cyclist has priority,but in the logical sense or any other sense,the cyclist is foolish for going up the inside of a left indicating vehicle.

I'm of the opinion most of the confusion in the topic is a case of what's legal and what's a good idea. I doubt anyone thinks it's a good idea to undertake something indicating left, but in terms of how it's supposed to pan out the onus is on the driver to make sure their way is clear.


I agree,but I'm sticking to what I've said all along that in this particular context,which although the same law applies,is a different scenario entirely to the incident in the linked thread.
It's not called undertaking without reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by kwackers »

reohn2 wrote:It's not called undertaking without reason.

I'd argue it's not really undertaking - but we'd be nitpicking technicalities.
Whatever we want to call it, it's still a perfectly legal thing to do since he's in his own lane and the traffic to his right has slowed down meaning he's perfectly entitled to maintain his pace.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Mick F »

Yes, but we all need to make allowances for the mistakes of others.
The cyclist was "in the right" but he was vulnerable.

Dunno how I would have handled it, I'd like to think that I'd be aware of a possible left-turner.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Mick F »

PS

Just watched that section again.
He was riding with one hand in his pocket and looked as if he didn't have a care in the world.
Obviously not concentrating.

No excuse for the car overtaking and turning left though.
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Cunobelin »

reohn2 wrote:
kwackers wrote:
reohn2 wrote:BTW,what about 'always give way to traffic merging from the right'

It's a nicety designed to oil the wheels of the road. Where's the exception that allows you to move into another lane if a vehicle hasn't moved out of the way or is in a faster moving lane than yours?

I can imaging how that would go down in court: "I indicated and the deceased didn't move out of my way so using the advice in the highway code I moved over and crushed their smartcar with my lorry."
Reminds me of the woman who knocked me off because: "What was I supposed to do? You were in the middle of the road."


That's not what's happening in the video,the cyclist (possibly :roll: ) sees the indicator and still goes up the inside!
Would you go up the inside of a truck when they're in lane two on the M/way?
Thought not,neither do I :wink:



Lets take a step back......

The driver is crossing a legitimate lane which is occupied

If this was a dual carriageway and the driver had crossed the inside lane in the same way, would we be having the same discussion?

The cyclist was not the most sensible, but the driver is totally in the wrong.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by reohn2 »

Cunobelin wrote:The cyclist was not the most sensible, but the driver is totally in the wrong.


As I said up thread,it hardly matters when you're lying in the hospital or the morgue
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: York 'bad' cycling video

Post by Bicycler »

Cunobelin wrote:Lets take a step back......

The driver is crossing a legitimate lane which is occupied

If this was a dual carriageway and the driver had crossed the inside lane in the same way, would we be having the same discussion?

The cyclist was not the most sensible, but the driver is totally in the wrong.

We can't get away from the design flaw here though. There's no way anyone would design a dual carriageway where the correct procedure was to make left turns from the outside lane across the inside one. If that were the case we might find that there was a common expectation that the inside lane traffic would not come up the inside of an indicating and slowing left turning vehicle.

We can analyse the rights and wrongs of each road user's behaviour as much as we like but this kind of confrontation is inevitable as long as it's deemed acceptable to design cycle facilities which route onward travelling cyclists up the inside of left turning vehicles
Post Reply