The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
AndyB wrote:Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."
Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.
Perhaps to make it safer, seeing as there is a junction shortly after the so called cycle lane ends, that the cycle lane should have a mini give way at the end?
That way its the cyclists responsibility to only pull out if there is a safe gap, as drivers will be watching for the junction up ahead and while they should watch for cyclists, it would be safer all round to let drivers focus on the junction ahead which might have more hazards to watch for.
I thought that the driver was supposed to concentrate watching for cyclists in the wing mirrors rather than where he is going. At least that is the impression that some of the cycling campaigns give.
That's the fallacy though, that you can't do both at once, and nor can you watch your speed.
But it's totally untrue.
Changing direction? Mirror-signal-manoeuvre. Especially if we've just overtaken a cyclist, when we should know there is something to look out for.
Give way lines also highlight the problem with cycle lanes. What use is a cycle lane that ends in a give way?
If your cockpit is set up correctly, then checking mirrors (and speedo) can be done with minimal eye movement, rather than losing attention on the road in front.
AndyB wrote:Advisory cycle lanes are also usually better known as "Parking areas."
Irrespective of whether the advisory cycle lane has ended or not, though, if cyclists are going up the inside, then you have to check they aren't there before you turn across their path. Otherwise, with the exception of the various incidents where a cyclist has entered a lorry's blind spot and couldn't reasonably have been seen, any resulting collision is your fault as you're the one who changed direction.
Perhaps to make it safer, seeing as there is a junction shortly after the so called cycle lane ends, that the cycle lane should have a mini give way at the end?
That way its the cyclists responsibility to only pull out if there is a safe gap, as drivers will be watching for the junction up ahead and while they should watch for cyclists, it would be safer all round to let drivers focus on the junction ahead which might have more hazards to watch for.
I thought that the driver was supposed to concentrate watching for cyclists in the wing mirrors rather than where he is going. At least that is the impression that some of the cycling campaigns give.
Don’t forget the motorbike that’s coming up to pass you on your right and the pedestrian who despite there being a crossing a few yards away will chose this point to cross too.
AndyB wrote:
Changing direction? Mirror-signal-manoeuvre. Especially if we've just overtaken a cyclist, when we should know there is something to look out for.
If your cockpit is set up correctly, then checking mirrors (and speedo) can be done with minimal eye movement, rather than losing attention on the road in front.
As I said the issue in my case is the differential in speeds, the car tends to be travelling at 0-5mph and the bike at 15-20, that car can check mirrors see nothing in the 30m behind it, set steering to gradually creep across a bit left to miss the island and still have a bike hit it up the inside. That attempt at a cycle lane gives cyclists a false expectation of safety and priority, which when coupled with the knowledge of a gradually increasing in steepness hill ahead leads them to just go hell for leather with little thought for their own safety just expecting the traffic to part like Moses and the red sea.
I cycle motorcycle and drive my car on that stretch and by far the most dangerous (and vulnerable) of the user groups are the cyclists and rather than the school age kids in the morning it is actually middle aged commuters on their way home from work who are the worst of the lot
AndyB wrote:
Changing direction? Mirror-signal-manoeuvre. Especially if we've just overtaken a cyclist, when we should know there is something to look out for.
If your cockpit is set up correctly, then checking mirrors (and speedo) can be done with minimal eye movement, rather than losing attention on the road in front.
As I said the issue in my case is the differential in speeds, the car tends to be travelling at 0-5mph and the bike at 15-20, that car can check mirrors see nothing in the 30m behind it, set steering to gradually creep across a bit left to miss the island and still have a bike hit it up the inside. That attempt at a cycle lane gives cyclists a false expectation of safety and priority, which when coupled with the knowledge of a gradually increasing in steepness hill ahead leads them to just go hell for leather with little thought for their own safety just expecting the traffic to part like Moses and the red sea.
I cycle motorcycle and drive my car on that stretch and by far the most dangerous (and vulnerable) of the user groups are the cyclists and rather than the school age kids in the morning it is actually middle aged commuters on their way home from work who are the worst of the lot
Yes, but the discussion had moved to turning into side roads...
AndyB wrote:
Changing direction? Mirror-signal-manoeuvre. Especially if we've just overtaken a cyclist, when we should know there is something to look out for.
If your cockpit is set up correctly, then checking mirrors (and speedo) can be done with minimal eye movement, rather than losing attention on the road in front.
As I said the issue in my case is the differential in speeds, the car tends to be travelling at 0-5mph and the bike at 15-20, that car can check mirrors see nothing in the 30m behind it, set steering to gradually creep across a bit left to miss the island and still have a bike hit it up the inside. That attempt at a cycle lane gives cyclists a false expectation of safety and priority, which when coupled with the knowledge of a gradually increasing in steepness hill ahead leads them to just go hell for leather with little thought for their own safety just expecting the traffic to part like Moses and the red sea.
I cycle motorcycle and drive my car on that stretch and by far the most dangerous (and vulnerable) of the user groups are the cyclists and rather than the school age kids in the morning it is actually middle aged commuters on their way home from work who are the worst of the lot
Yes, but the discussion had moved to turning into side roads...
And both the cyclists who hit me as i was turning left were moving whilst i was stationary or nearly so, both were travelling faster than the powered traffic and had not been anywhere near close when i started my manoeuvre (i also carried out a lifesaver look before the turn on both occasions), were cutting up the left of traffic and were doing so due to a perceived right of way due to the council's poor road planning/markings. It was suggested the council put up an "END OF CYCLE LANE" sign but they admitted as it is not a real cycle lane they can't put up that sign.
As a motorcyclist I am well aware of the number of drivers who don't look in their mirrors - it is accepted insurance industry practice (supported by case law) that if you filter up the right of traffic on a motorcycle and are hit by a right turning vehicle the best you can hope for is a 50/50 these are the case laws if you care to look Powell v Moody (1966), Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972) and finally Higgins v Johnson 2008 (that one a car driver indicated left then right then left then finally right as they started to turn right as the motorcyclist overtook slowly - motorcyclist still 25% to blame). The general principle from an insurance and that side of law perspective when filtering appears to be that although filtering is legal and you are doing nothing wrong it is also on you to accept it is an inherantly risky maneuver and you have to keep a good lookout for what other road users might do.
I am just asking that cyclists accept that like motorcyclists they are perfectly at liberty to filter BUT they have to accept it is risky and act accordingly rather than expecting everyone else to be perfect - highways dept's should also bear this likely behaviour in mind when signing off on road schemes
An advisory cycle lane was painted outside my house... except that the council never painted the dash that my car was parked over the day the road paint crew came round.
Reading wrote:
As a motorcyclist I am well aware of the number of drivers who don't look in their mirrors - it is accepted insurance industry practice (supported by case law) that if you filter up the right of traffic on a motorcycle and are hit by a right turning vehicle the best you can hope for is a 50/50 these are the case laws if you care to look Powell v Moody (1966), Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972) and finally Higgins v Johnson 2008 (that one a car driver indicated left then right then left then finally right as they started to turn right as the motorcyclist overtook slowly - motorcyclist still 25% to blame). The general principle from an insurance and that side of law perspective when filtering appears to be that although filtering is legal and you are doing nothing wrong it is also on you to accept it is an inherantly risky maneuver and you have to keep a good lookout for what other road users might do.
What would they rule if you were waiting at lights, indicating right, then when the lights go green someone floors it to overtake you on the right and there's a collision? Or slowing to turn right and the car behind decided that's a great time to overtake you, even though you're indicating?
All users should look and respond to what others are doing. In the right-filtering example the car should've looked in its mirrors and the motorcyclist shouldn't have tried to pass a car turning right; depending upon the exact circumstances I'd be more critical of the motorcyclist - or the cyclist this morning who undertook me as I was about to turn left at the lights (I didn't hit him because I did look). They're the ones going against the usual traffic flows and moves, and the rules and guidelines that control such flows are there so we don't need to concentrate in every direction all the time.
Well as far as I am aware if you overtake something indicating right (and that has been doing so for long enough for you to see it) you are 100% in the wrong - even if it only indicates last second you are likely partly in the wrong - have a look at this set of examples http://www.markthompsonlaw.com/motorcyc ... -examples/
this is the ONLY one where the rider was found at zero fault
Davis v Schrogrin, a Court of Appeal decision in 2006. The accident occurred on a long straight section of road with one lane in each direction. There was a long queue of stationary/slow moving vehicles. A motorcyclist travelling in the direction of the queue was overtaking at about 40 mph. He was riding over the central white line, and half to two thirds of the way into the opposite carriageway, was displaying a dipped headlight and a right hand indicator. He had been in that position for approximately half a mile and was not weaving in and out of traffic. A car driver lost patience and decided to carry out a U turn when the motorcycle was no more than five car lengths back, and the inevitable collision occurred. The Court found the car driver wholly at fault on the basis the motorcyclist was there to be seen. Even if the motorcyclist had been travelling more slowly, it would have made no difference because he had been right on top of the point of the accident when the driver first did anything to alert the motorcyclist of his intended manoeuvre.
I used this facility for the first time the other week. I had to kind of stop and examine it to see what the council had tried to do. Cyclists dont have the right of way at zebra crossings, so they did this https://goo.gl/maps/mp8uG2yAfdm
I'm not convinced its the right way and kind of looks 'wrong' and may give a misleading impression of priority - would be interested in what the traffic engineers think of it
Its worrying that the council saw fit to put up a small advance sign asking traffic to give way to cyclists https://goo.gl/maps/wvXaXhY2Cg32
This whole section was a bit of a dogs dinner of their flagship cycle route. After major roadworks to widen the junction when the tram was installed, it got messed up with more changes to add the cycle lane in, then they've decided to come back a 3rd time to make further changes as the loss of parking and lack of capacity at the junction was causing too many issues. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-42554715
GSV is sadly out of date and now there is a 2 way route on the inbound city side of the road (which is generally OK apart from the crossing). The junction with the pub hasn't really been updated so now the cycle route out of the city just stops so I just ended going the 'wrong way' across the junction on the cycle path https://goo.gl/maps/jGC4eG9XL7z
I'm not convinced its the right way and kind of looks 'wrong' and may give a misleading impression of priority - would be interested in what the traffic engineers think of it
It's a parallel crossing - since cyclists can't legally ride across a zebra this was created to allow them to be able to do so without creating ridiculously expensive and needless Toucans or signal junctions. It's in the 2016 TSRGD as an aside.
The same rules of zebras apply; once a cyclist enters the crossing they have the legal priority over road traffic.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Reading wrote:
As a motorcyclist I am well aware of the number of drivers who don't look in their mirrors - it is accepted insurance industry practice (supported by case law) that if you filter up the right of traffic on a motorcycle and are hit by a right turning vehicle the best you can hope for is a 50/50 these are the case laws if you care to look Powell v Moody (1966), Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972) and finally Higgins v Johnson 2008 (that one a car driver indicated left then right then left then finally right as they started to turn right as the motorcyclist overtook slowly - motorcyclist still 25% to blame). The general principle from an insurance and that side of law perspective when filtering appears to be that although filtering is legal and you are doing nothing wrong it is also on you to accept it is an inherantly risky maneuver and you have to keep a good lookout for what other road users might do.
What would they rule if you were waiting at lights, indicating right, then when the lights go green someone floors it to overtake you on the right and there's a collision? Or slowing to turn right and the car behind decided that's a great time to overtake you, even though you're indicating?
All users should look and respond to what others are doing. In the right-filtering example the car should've looked in its mirrors and the motorcyclist shouldn't have tried to pass a car turning right; depending upon the exact circumstances I'd be more critical of the motorcyclist - or the cyclist this morning who undertook me as I was about to turn left at the lights (I didn't hit him because I did look). They're the ones going against the usual traffic flows and moves, and the rules and guidelines that control such flows are there so we don't need to concentrate in every direction all the time.
The question of "filtering" highlights yet another reason why these pretend cycle paths that start and stop are a hugely bad idea.
I think we can all agree that (a) if cyclists have their own marked lane they should be able to proceed in it without getting side-swiped by traffic in the adjacent lane, and conversely (b) that filtering should only occur when clearly safe and the onus for that lies far more on the filterer than the traffic alongside. In other words, if it's not safe to filter, you stop (or proceed at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, if it's moving).
So what is supposed to happen when the cycle lane just stops? A cyclist who previously had right of way in his own lane suddenly doesn't any more, and moreover the lane drop is the wrong way round, in the sense that the slower, more vulnerable traffic in the left lane has to give way to the faster traffic in the right. (No lane drop on an S2+1 or D2 > S2 setup does this - the outside lane must merge with the inner, not vice versa.) Logically, this layout is telling cyclists that they must stop if they can't safely filter, but then there is no simple way for them to set off again with a constant stream of passing traffic, and certainly not in a way that allows them to take primary position, which is evidently necessary.
Part of the problem in these cases IMV is the island. Like buildouts from kerbs, islands seem often to be placed to solve one problem (e.g. pedestrians crossing) without taking account of other problems that are created. If pedestrians have problems crossing there, put a pedestrian crossing in; don't just supply a square metre of concrete in the middle of the road for them to be invisible on and get stranded on. And there isn't much else to justify these islands, tbh. They are supposedly used as anti-speed measures, but aside from mostly being part of the authorities' unhealthy fixation with speed over everything else, once again there are more suitable ways of controlling speed if that really is a problem. Which if traffic is doing under 20 mph as in Reading's various posts in this thread, it probably isn't.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Durham council 'solved' this issue by the cycle lane ending and then going straight onto a footway - with dropped curb, your then expected to ride a narrow footpath shared with pedestrians. Cross at one light controlled crossing, then a second, then cross the road, then cross the road again, before finally being dumped at an on road cycle lane. No cyclist concerned with their own safety is going to follow that.
Indeed having that ridiculous 'solution' is worse than nothing because when you're using the junction in the proper fashion then you risk the anger of drivers behind 'bloody cyclists not using the cycle path'.
I had exactly this when a bus driver was beeping at me to get past. I confronted him as to why he was beeping and got a torrent of expletives as to why I wasn't using the cycle path - then got told by a Go Northern employee to back off lest they accuse me of 'road rage'.
