Adrian wrote in
70:

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are
indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as
I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently
overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking
illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know
you'll be turning left shortly afterwards.

It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as slowly as
5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards from the
junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for ages is absurd
and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I overtake him. Then the
lights change just as I'm approaching the lights: maybe I'm first or second
car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist catches up with me. The lights turn
green. If he's already level with me or in front of me, fine - he goes
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I
delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've
turned? I reckon the latter.

I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which
permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream
of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to
overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right
would be equally absurd.


As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are
indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb
as I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently
overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking
illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know
you'll be turning left shortly afterwards.

It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as
slowly as 5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards
from the junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for
ages is absurd and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I
overtake him. Then the lights change just as I'm approaching the
lights: maybe I'm first or second car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist
catches up with me. The lights turn green.

Ah, sorry - was thinking of a junction off a free-flowing road, not TL
controlled.

I think my closest near-death on a bike was sat stationary at lights and
had a truck pull up just behind me - then when the lights went green, he
overtook and promptly turned left without indicating...

If he's already level with
me or in front of me, fine - he goes first. But suppose he's a second
or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let
him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the
latter.

Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be utterly
stupid to pass you on the inside.

As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both
points of view.

Likewise.

Adrian wrote in
70:

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

If he's already level with
me or in front of me, fine - he goes first. But suppose he's a second
or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let
him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the
latter.

Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be
utterly stupid to pass you on the inside.

.... something that's never stopped cyclists trying to force their way
through in those circumstances!

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I
delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've
turned? I reckon the latter.

I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of
way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus in
a bus lane.


I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which
permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream
of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to
overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right
would be equally absurd.

There is a tendency to have advance stop lines to favour cyclists. They
seem not to apply to motor bikes or taxis.

As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

Is there a blind spot for car drivers who glance behind?
I recently became aware that my practice of changing lane to the left is
unsafe for motor bikes passing on the left.
I am trying to teach myself to glance behind as well as use my mirror.
A collision is never a good idea regardless of right of way.
--
Walter Briscoe

Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me.
Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait
until I've turned? I reckon the latter.

I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of
way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus
in a bus lane.

Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to
overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating.

It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning
traffic is not in the left-most lane.


The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should
pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the
traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be
given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely
a junction with another road?

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on
the same side as he's indicating.

It's an offence against basic common sense and self-preservation.

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:53:10 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes
Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me.
Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait
until I've turned? I reckon the latter.

I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of
way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus
in a bus lane.

Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to
overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating.

I think a cycle in a cycle lane has right of way and usual rules about
streams of traffic do not apply.


It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning
traffic is not in the left-most lane.

I think you have to wait before you change lane.



The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should
pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the
traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be
given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely
a junction with another road?

ISTR, driving test says pedestrians always have right of way.
In practice, might usually rules unless there is a shunt.
--
Walter Briscoe

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Walter Briscoe wrote:

In message of Thu, 12
Jan 2006 10:53:10 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes
Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me.
Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait
until I've turned? I reckon the latter.

I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of
way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus
in a bus lane.

Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to
overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's
indicating.

I think a cycle in a cycle lane has right of way and usual rules about
streams of traffic do not apply.

I don't think we're talking about cycle lanes - i think we're talking
about the practice of cycling up the left side of a normal lane, between
the traffic and the kerb ('undertaking', i think it's called). Since this
is illegal, the law doesn't have anything to say on the right of way of
someone doing it!

Myself, as a cyclist, i agree with Martin - if the car is ahead, the car
gets priority. If the cyclist doesn't notice that the car is indicating,
and rides into the side of the car as it turns, that's the cyclist's own
stupid fault. I've done this myself a number of times (never actually hit
the car, but been forced to brake or maneuver sharply), and it's quite
clear to me that i have only myself to blame.

If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane, though,
then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning motorist,
regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something that drivers
along Torrington Place could do with reminding of.

tom

--
I sometimes think that the IETF is one of the crown jewels in all of
western civilization. -- Tim O'Reilly

Tom Anderson wrote in
:

If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane,
though, then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning
motorist, regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something
that drivers along Torrington Place could do with reminding of.

I don't know about "of course". I don't think it's at all obvious. I'd have
expected the cars that were indicating to have priority over everything that
was planning to pass them, whether or not it's in a different lane, and
whether or not it's bikes in a bike lane or buses in a bus lane. Evidently
not. It's a case of which rule ("traffic in a separate lane" versus
"overtaking cars that are indicating") over-rides the other: I reasoned
things the wrong way round.

I'll have to see if the Highway Code mentions this situation explicitly.

Whatever the HC says, I'll check for cyclists over my left shoulder even
more than I already do when I'm turning left.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Martin Underwood wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in
:

If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane,
though, then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning
motorist, regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something
that drivers along Torrington Place could do with reminding of.

I don't know about "of course". I don't think it's at all obvious.

Okay, that's interesting. I think the first rule of the road i ever
learned was that at a junction, vehicles not turning off have priority
over those which are.

I'd have expected the cars that were indicating to have priority over
everything that was planning to pass them, whether or not it's in a
different lane, and whether or not it's bikes in a bike lane or buses in
a bus lane. Evidently not. It's a case of which rule ("traffic in a
separate lane" versus "overtaking cars that are indicating") over-rides
the other: I reasoned things the wrong way round.

Is there an 'overtaking cars that are indicating' rule? The only thing i
can find in the HC is rule 143, clause 8 [1]:

143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users. For example

[...]
* when a vehicle is indicating right, even if you believe the signal
should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be
cancelled.

That explicitly mentions indicating right - it doesn't prohibit overtaking
a vehicle indicating left, as in this case. Although 139.7 [2] says:

139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should
[...]
* only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to
turn right, and there is room to do so

Which does cover this case, and is even stronger than an 'overtaking cars
that are indicating' rule - you can't overtake even if they aren't
indicating.

However ...

I'll have to see if the Highway Code mentions this situation explicitly.

Rule 159 [3], in the section 'Turning left':

159: When turning

* keep as close to the left as is safe and practical
* give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway
from either direction.

That second clause is the bunny, i think.

Rule 158 sort of retroactively (proactively?) clarifies this:

158: Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn
left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic
coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a
large vehicle. Cyclists and motorcyclists in particular may be hidden from
your view.

[image showing vehicle cutting in on cyclists]
[image showing vehicle giving a cyclist space on the road]

Do not cut in on cyclists

I think those two rules pretty definitely cover the situation that
involves a cycle lane.

Whatever the HC says, I'll check for cyclists over my left shoulder even
more than I already do when I'm turning left.

Very prudent!

tom

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#143
[2] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139
[3] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#159

--
Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory