British Cycling, the AA and pedestrian groups are calling for a universal rule to give way when turning, to reduce left hook risks for those cycling and walking, and have launched a petition to drum up support.
At the moment, they say, the Highway Code features 14 rules relating to walking and cycling at junctions, which are unclear, often with a different emphasis, while failing to cover all scenarios.
The proposal, based on research commissioned by British Cycling, is to make one rule, requiring those driving or cycling to give way when turning to people going straight on. At the moment a lack of clarity and legal protection for cyclists and pedestrians against turning traffic mean councils are reluctant to provide innovative infrastructure, instead building “stop-start” bike lanes which, research suggests, undermines safety, rather than protecting cyclists.
Ministerial car filmed left-hooking cyclist as it enters Parliament ahead of Autumn Statement
Chris Boardman, British Cycling’s policy adviser, said the proposals would eliminate confusion and encourage more people to walk and cycle.
“Whether driving, cycling or walking, negotiating a junction is the most hazardous manoeuvre you can make on the road – this is evidenced by the fact that nearly two thirds of motor vehicle collisions take place at junctions,” he said.
“There are at least 14 different rules in the Highway Code which relate to people walking and cycling at junctions, and it can be difficult for anyone to interpret what is the correct behaviour. A change needs to be made – the rules need to be simple and unambiguous.
Edmund King, AA president, said: “It would be beneficial for all road users if the Highway Code simplified the rules at junctions where a disproportionate amount of injury crashes occur.”
Safer cycle infrastructure possible after signage rule changes
The new proposal follows research conducted on behalf of British Cycling, and is based on Danish, Dutch and Swedish models where vehicles travelling straight give way to pedestrians as well as cyclists crossing side roads, riding on cycle lanes on the inside of traffic.
Rule changes would mean:
– Drivers turning at a junction giving way to people cycling and walking who may be on your nearside, or crossing the road you wish to turn into;
– Cyclists turning at a junction giving way to people walking who are crossing the road you wish to turn into;
– Pedestrians getting increased protection when crossing a side road or other junction.
At the moment rule 170 of the Highway Code states drivers must give way to pedestrians who are already crossing a side road, but this rule is rarely observed and is not directly enforceable by law, says report authors, Phil Jones Associates.
The report, titled Turning the Corner, suggests current laws do not adequately protect cyclists from turning traffic, whether people are riding on cycle lanes or on the road. This encourages cyclists to ‘take the lane’ to avoid left hooks, reducing the value of investment in cycle infrastructure, it says.
It adds lack of clarified rules and the fact rules aren’t enforceable means local authorities are reluctant to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists over turning traffic.
British Cycling launched a petition today to build support for the new proposal. Among those to have already signed are Chris Boardman, Olympic champions Joanna Rowsell Shand, Katie Archibald, Elinor Barker and Steven Burke and Paralympic legend Dame Sarah Storey.
Video: Driver left hooks cyclist on upgraded Cycle Superhighway
Steve Gooding, Director of the RAC Foundation, said: “As pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists we all need to recognise that the road is a shared space which works best when we all respect each other. The clearer we can make the rules of the road the easier it is for us all to see what’s expected of us and to comply. The rules also need to be complemented with the right streetscape engineering, with markings, surfaces and road geometry all telling us the same story.”
A fear of sharing road space with motor traffic represents a major barrier to more people cycling. British Cycling argues changing the rules would allow more and better infrastructure to be built, improving both actual and perceived safety for those on foot and on bikes.
Suggestions made by the report include a single rule regarding left turns in the Highway Code, and strengthening the wording of that rule; changes to rules for road markings (the Transport Signs Regulations and General Directions, or TSRGD) including use of ‘elephant’s footprints’ indicating side road priorities. Alternatively it suggests a change to primary legislation under an act of Parliament to support the various rules of the Highway Code, introducing a ‘Universal duty to give way’, as applied in Nordic countries.
48 thoughts on “Junction rule change could prevent left-hook danger, say campaigners as petition launched”
The Daily Mail’s gonna lay an
The Daily Mail’s gonna lay an egg over this.
It would be good to have
It would be good to have another rule to hear misquoted in every youtube flare-up.
Rules are there if councils
Rules are there if councils would simply paint the lines (dashed are enough) across a junction continuing the cycle lane across. Then it’s a clear lane change and give way required.
If there is no cycle lane, take the lane, a junction is NOT a place a car should overtake anyway.
Cycling proficiency (or whatever it’s called today) should be teaching the next generation of cyclists to take the lane at a junction until across to make a left hook harder.
In fact much of the highway code could do with a rewrite and consolidation to clarify things in terms of today’s traffic situation.
StuInNorway wrote:
National Standards adminstered by DfT, marketed as Bikeability but almost everyone still calls it cycling proficiency. And it does indeed teach primary position at junctions.
I note that in true road.cc
I note that in true road.cc tradition you have ignored that the proposed rule also applies to cyclists. So turning left you would now have to give way to any pedestrians that step out, even if you are on a green light or a filter.
Also the sketched example shouldn’t actually exist as that cycle lane ‘should’ come with a segregated junction box due to the ‘left-only’ lane. Since that box doesn’t exist, any cyclist wishing to go straight on ‘should’ have moved out to the middle trafffic lane rather than undertaking the left turning vehicle.
kevinmorice wrote:
You may want to look again… (copied from article):
Rule changes would mean:
– Drivers turning at a junction giving way to people cycling and walking who may be on your nearside, or crossing the road you wish to turn into;
– Cyclists turning at a junction giving way to people walking who are crossing the road you wish to turn into;
– Pedestrians getting increased protection when crossing a side road or other junction.
The thinking seems to apply to junctions in urban areas (rather than the overtake-and-turn-left-hook we’re all familiar with in both rural and urban areas) where cyclists wishing to proceed straight on are channelled up the left hand side of vehicles waiting to turn left (signalling seems to be optional). Whilst I applaud any attempt to discuss/improve/change rules and laws to protect vulnerable road users it is the infrastructure that needs to be discussed/improved/standardised for all road users to understand what they should and shouldn’t do.
In the meantime, confident riders may take the lane for safety but less confident and new riders are herded into danger and fear discourages them from riding.
As it states in the article,
As it states in the article, the Highway Code isn’t the law, so good luck with this.
Unless car drivers are overtaking and then immediately turning across cyclists, I’m not sure what the deal is here. As a cyclist I don’t undertake vehicles at junctions. problem solved.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Not necessarily.
If you’re ahead and to the left and get away first, there’s not much you can do to stop a car speeding up and turning into you – a genuine left-hook. Probably pretty rare, but I have actually seen it happen.
If you take the lane, problem should be solved, but what really needs solving is MGIF.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Parts of the Highway Code are law.
On the online version where it says must and must not, then has various acts referenced underneath are law.
As a fully paid-up member of
As a fully paid-up member of the liberal elite, I hate to rag on the BBC like some frothing-at-the-mouth ‘kipper, but their article on this story is woeful. Its headline is currently a simplistic and clickbaity “Give way to cyclists when turning, says British Cycling”, it doesn’t mention the AA or RAC, it doesn’t mention pedestrians, and it is illustrated with a picture of a burk in a bobble hat riding a fixie with chopped bars. Plus it quotes some bloke from the Road Haulage Association speaking on the Today Programme, who is clearly confused and bewildered by the whole thing (which I thought was John Humphrys’ role.) He makes it out to be purely about cyclists undertaking drivers when it is really about everyone having respect for others (which is where I have a problem with it, as too many people simply don’t.) It seems the BBC will, in search of balance, get in someone who is wilfully ignorant of the topic if that is the only way to have two opposing sides.
handlebarcam wrote:
that’s a great photo. The woman appears to be wondering wtf she’s seeing.
The article’s a bit classic too. “The Road Haulage Association (RHA) warned it would lead to more accidents.” Well, of course they did! As any fule kno, it’s much better for all concerned never to give way to anything under any circumstances. That way there will be no more accidents.
handlebarcam wrote:
Agree whole heartedly with this.
Their bizarre idea of balance is why you’ll never see the BBC on a bicycle.
handlebarcam wrote:
Main reason why I have no TV – don’t want to fund the BBC, because I’m fed up with stuff like this.
Trouble is that means I end up listening to Radio Four, which is actually one of the worst parts of the Beeb for this sort of false-balance and a distinctive kind of smugness that somehow manages to be both patronising elite liberal and deeply conservative at the same time.
[/quote] Main reason why I
[/quote] Main reason why I have no TV – don’t want to fund the BBC, because I’m fed up with stuff like this. Trouble is that means I end up listening to Radio Four, which is actually one of the worst parts of the Beeb for this sort of false-balance and a distinctive kind of smugness that somehow manages to be both patronising elite liberal and deeply conservative at the same time.[/quote]
Totally agree. R4’s coverage of transport and cycling could best be described as several miles to the right of Top Gear. Appalling, biased and just ignores the real problems.
This rule seems very similar
This rule seems very similar to the general turning rules used in many other European countries (and beyond, no doubt). If that’s the case, it will work very well for pedestrians but not make much difference to cyclists (unless cycling across pedestrian crossings). It could also “improve flow” for motor vehicles by allowing us to adopt the common continental style of trafic light sequence; instead of having an all-red phase to allow people to walk across the junction, there would be a green man in parallel with the green traffic light, with turning traffic giving way to pedestrians as it does so.
I thought that if someone’s
I thought that if someone’s crossing a junction, then you have to give way to them anyway?
This proposed change wouldn’t stop left hooks happening, but might be extra ammo for the CPS and/or police when the driver has to explain why they ran someone over…
brooksby wrote:
The article says
But this is wrong – the rule says drivers _should_ give way, not must. It is rarely observed, but that’s partly because its only advisory (and, to be honest, nobody takes any notice of the advisory bits, e.g. high viz and helmets)
brooksby wrote:
Yes, you’re right – in the same way that on a roundabout you give way to those already on it, you’d give way to those already crossing the road.
Problem is in London Pedestrians are lemmings, so if a driver or cyclist stopped to give way in a turning they’d be there for weeks as it never occurs to Pedestrians to stop. Just yesterday I stopped because a lorry was backing into a service lane at London Bridge Hospital, and Pedestrians were actually continuing to walk round the back of it until almost all of it was in the turning.
Because – lose precious seconds. Bunch of salads.
And on the left-hook issue itself, it’d be nice if (the minority of moron) cyclists actually slowed down when drivers were already turning instead of trying to dive down the inside ahead of them. The times I see this everyday makes me cringe.
STiG911 wrote:
Again though, I think the use of ‘should’ rather than ‘must’ in the code means its not legally obligatory. Which has to have some bearing on the fact so few drivers pay attention to it.
[/quote] Again though, I
Hmm – lots of things drivers ‘should’ do but don’t….
STiG911 wrote:
Well, yes, which is why it _might_ improve things were it to instead become a ‘must’.
If it were compulsory rather than advisory, then it would, I presume, be possible to issue fines or points on licence for those who ignore it. Whether that is actually enforced is another matter of course, but even occasional, sporadic enforcement could help change the norm. It presumably would also change the legal situation if breaking the rule led to a collision.
STiG911 wrote:
Why should loads of pedestrians give way to one lorry in central London?
davel wrote:
…Not sure if serious…but in case you are: Said lorry is reversing into a narrow service road and contrary to popular belief, Pedestrians don’t have the right of way all the time. Longer lorry has to wait because people are too stupid / ignorant to wait so can get manoeuvre, longer the road is blocked. And as he’s having to watch for morons walking round the back of his lorry, people are also walking round the cab IN THE CYCLE LANE, so cyclists have nowhere to go.
In short, no bastards prepared to wait for anyone anymore. Courtesy is dead.
STiG911 wrote:
Sounds like poor infrastructure again.
Poorly designed service road, lack of planning for optimal windows for deliveries taking into account pedestrian movements, vehicles too large for urban delivery logistics.
pda
psling wrote:
Short of a monumental investment in the infrastructure and shutting London for twenty years while they sorted it all out, the city is what it is and everyone has to deal with it. Yes, a lot of deliveries could, I’m sure, wait until later in the day or get done at night, but allowing a 7.5t rigid to deliver into a purpose-built (wide entry / exit, clear sight lines) service road isn’t to much of a stretch, imo.
STiG911 wrote:
That didn’t answer my question, really, but spare me the ‘hell in a handcart’. I was thinking less in terms of ‘well, because it just is’ and more ‘well, why is it like that?’.
In short, current city ‘design’ and use is dysfunctional and has got us to the situation where you unthinkingly accept that one truck, quite possibly delivering one thing (during rush hour?), should take priority across a pavement over a streetload of pedestrians because ‘service road = road’ and ‘truck’. In central London.
Can you not see how absurd that is?
davel wrote:
London wasn’t designed, it was thrown together over centuries and in built-up areas the layout may never change. It’s only dysfunctional insofar as those using it refuse to accept that everyone is trying to get somewhere, and they need to understand the concept of waiting.
It’s because of thought that I accept that the lorry needs to get into the service road, and it’s using a turning, not driving over the pavement so I fail to see why it’s unreasonable to stop and let the guy in. It’s about courtesy, not priority.
So, no, I don’t see how absured that is.
STiG911 wrote:
1 Truck. Delivering 1 thing*. During rush hour. Across a pavement. Thirty* pedestrians just wait, because ‘road’. Not even a proper road. A service road that cuts across a pavement. That isn’t absurd? And it’s not about priority, it’s about courtesy? What does that even mean? Some people just need to learn to wait? What?!
What would be scarier to me, is if everyone just waited like automotons, accepting how ridiculous that situation is, and that whatever was in the back of that truck was more important than delivering thirty individuals across London by foot. If you waited for every vehicle doing A Daft Thing while walking across London, you wouldn’t get anywhere.
I’m well aware that London has just evolved and isn’t designed. It is entirely dysfunctional because the way it has evolved is along roads that weren’t designed for trucks cutting into hospitals across pavements.
Given your response to psling, I think you just don’t like change. ‘It’s the way it is’ is often a shit answer to a reasonable question.
* Assumption, but a reasonable one.
davel wrote:
Sorry – I was working under the hope that being reasonable to your fellow man in everyday life wasn’t a hard ask. Clearly I was wrong.
STiG911 wrote:
My choice would be to walk around the front, away from the direction of movement and where the driver can see you.
beezus fufoon wrote:
TBH that’s what I would too. How far in front do you have to walk to make sure that the driver of an HGV has seen you…?
brooksby wrote:
I understand that the blind spot can be as much as 3m in front of the cab. I realise that some of the blindspots can be minimised by moving the head from side to side for the blindspots caused by the pillars and mirrors and forward to see into the blindspot in front, but is it reasonable to ask a driver to have to move their head a little bit?
ktache wrote:
the point was mainly, whether walking or cycling, my preference would be to go around the “safe” side away from the direction of travel.
it does seem to happen quite often that people either cut in front or just wait, as if those are the only two options…
it is entirely possible that I have some special superpower – the gift of insight to do the most obvious, and what I consider safest thing – but I very much doubt it
STiG911 wrote:
Surely it’s just as much courtesy for the lorry to stop for the pedestrians (who were here first, after all)?
To be honest, this is a specific case you cite and you might have a point, but my response is coloured by, for example, seeing a new supermarket open, with a new car-park, which involves plonking a new access road right across the busy pavement.
Then supermarket customers treat it as just another road, over which they can (constantly) zoom in and out at high speed and take it for granted that pedestrians will give way to them. I don’t actually know what the legal position is, I just know it pisses me off that when walking I have to constantly give way to lazy buggers who feel their choice to drive to the supermarket makes them more important than pedestrians.
Given the lack of awareness
Given the lack of awareness of Highway Code rules already shown to cyclists, I have little faith in this.
stenmeister wrote:
The proposed changed benefits pedestrians just as much. It seems a no-brainer to me. Many countries already do it this way, and I remember being surprised to discover its not actually legally the case here. As far as I see it, the existing lack of such a rule is just another signifier that the motorist is King.
stenmeister wrote:
Agreed, but it’s not just about cyclists. I would go further and say that the majority of motorists see the Highway Code as a necessary device to get through their driving test, after which it can be ignored. How many drivers do you see failing to signal correctly at roundabouts, straightlining 2 lane roundabouts, failing to observe yellow box junction rules (which in fact apply to all junctions) failing to indicate (anywhere), and so on. One more rule for people to ignore will hardly help.
There is an Esso petrol
There is an Esso petrol station right near me, in fact I can see some of it from my front window. Right in the middle of a busy little high street. To get into and out of it the motorist has to drive across a wide pavement. The block paving continues and the double yellow lines keep running past. You take your life into your hands walking along that pavement. This is Britain. Car is king and might is right. And this is an obvious bit of pavement, not just a bit of paint and no need to check their mirrors.
How’s this?
How’s this?
Motorist crossings.
Like Toucan crossings, but with priorities reversed. The pedestrian and cyclist always have the green light, the motorist the red. The large and dangerous vehicle would trundle up to the crossing and the driver would have to ask permission to cross. Press a button or drive over detectors in the road, of course the detector might not register the vehicle because it’s made of not quite standard material. Then they have to wait, maybe three, maybe four minutes. Then they get a green light, (unless the black lines didn’t register their vehicle, who knows what happens then) but not for long, fifteen to twenty seconds maybe. Then back to red.
Why does this seem quite so ridiculous?
Why do the killers, the breakers of laws, always get priority?
The ones in the safety bubble, the ones set apart from the environment, the ones in their comfortable chairs in the dry, warm or cool are always considered more important.
ktache wrote:
It isn’t ridiculous if you’re a pedestrian or cyclist, and that is the problem; the laws are made by drivers for drivers. So they get priority.
The situation will not change until there is political change, and currently the only hope for this seems to be the Greens.
Hell’s teeth, on my (car)
Hell’s teeth, on my (car) commute home along a wide road with a solid-line bike lane I see drivers encroaching into it – daily! Good luck educating road users with any kind of Highway Code amendment.
karl_d wrote:
And where there is a dotted line where I live because there is not enough room for 2 lanes, an ambulance behind them wanted to use the outside lane to turn right and no cyclists they don’t.
When I was getting ready for
When I was getting ready for my driving test (circa 1986) one of my school mates failed his test for failing to give way to a pedestrian crossing the side street he was turning into. So I’ve always been aware that you as a driver or a cyclist should give way to pedestrians when turning but recently I’ve been thinking I was the only one.
Why is it that the multiple
Why is it that the multiple pedestrians have to be reasonable? To one man in a large van. How many of them might have been neurosurgeons, heart surgeons intensive care nurses, we’re talking London hospital here, a lot of public transport use for everyone. Why was he reversing into a service road, was it for his convienience so as not to have to turn around in the road later? Or is it an infrastructure defect? Would it be reasonable to have a banksman perhaps? The blindspot on a reversing 7.5 ton truck is quite large.
handlebarcam wrote:
Not so sure about the photo. Yes, it shows a hipster with ridiculous cut-down bars, but at least all three of the cyclists it shows look like normal people doing normal travel-type things. (No, I didn’t read the article, because as you say “BBC balance”. I’ve got other things to waste my time on!)
I don’t know where everybody
I don’t know where everybody is checking the wording of rule 170 – but this is what it says on the government website:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”
That is pretty clear, right? Technically that means you have to stop for any pedestrian hovering at the kerb. If they take even one step onto the road and you hit them it’s your fault, as they have priority.
And why can this not be enforced? I take great pleasure in shouting at motorists and cyclists alike who think they can just bulldoze over me as I start to cross at junctions. And I always give way to people about to cross. Problem is nobody knows about rule 170. I’ve quizzed several policemen and they always say the car has the right of way. As far as I remember the Germans have a neat rule for this: As soon as you turn off the road you are travelling on – or cross another road – you lose your right of way. Simples.
So – the rues are going to
So – the rues are going to change to reflect what I – and most other drivers – do anyway? I hadn’t realised that there were no rules to cover the 3 bullet points above. Will it make a difference?- perhaps only insofa as drivers and insurers arguing the toss have more clarification on what the legal situation is (its clear what’s right and whats wrong already, for most people)
From the article: “‘elephant
From the article: “‘elephant’s footprints’ indicating side road priorities”.
No-one challenged this? Wrong!
6.3.13 ” ‘sharks’ teeth’ triangular give way markings. These are often used in conjunction with elephants’ footprints but confer formal priority on the cyclist in a way that elephants’ footprints alone do not.”
“they are not in and of themselves a ‘give way’, or ‘priority’ marking”
Elephant’s feet that may have played part in death of Lynne Dring in Cleethorpes could be removed