Near Miss of the Day 108: Leeds-Bradford Cycle Superhighway left hook (includes swearing)

pockstone wrote:

Familiar or not with the road layout, the driver has just driven along behind and passed the cyclist, and must have known he was there if he was paying attention.

I've lost count of the number of times I've passed in front of a driver waiting at a junction, only for me to miraculously disappear a few yards further along. Where do they think we teleport ourselves to?

The video does not show this, so it's not correct to assume. It's still a very poor turn, either not paying enough attention, or not giving a shit, which is worse.

KendalRed wrote:

[

 

The video does not show this, so it's not correct to assume. It's still a very poor turn, either not paying enough attention, or not giving a shit, which is worse.

You are absolutely right KendalRed. I commented some time after seeing the video. 0/10 for observation skills on my part....now where the hell did that cyclist come from?...

ktache wrote:

The driver is turning across traffic.  The cyclist is traffic.  Even has their own lane, which the driver is turning across.  If the driver had used their mirrors they would have seen the well lit trafffic.

Agreed!  There was no excuse for what the driver did. On this one (unlike near miss 107), the cyclist showed appropriate speed and awareness and managed to avoid making a drama out of a crisis.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The trick in all of this is that if you are travelling at or faster than the traffic on the road is to travel on the road until you pass them. That way you don’t ‘undertake’ and get hooked at the same time.

I don’t really like using cycle lanes like these for this very reason. The normal laws of the road are pretty good, and so taking primary or overtaking on the right (where the space is) are far preferable to being sandwiched or hooked.

the driver executes their manoeuvre badly. There’s no excuse. But you have to ride-drive defensively. The warning signs were there because he slowed even before his break lights came on.

Once again the victim-blamers are out. The whole point of the cycle lane is that it is a safe place for cyclists not a place that is so dangerous because of careless drivers that cyclists are blamed for using it. The problems comprise the poor infrastructure and poor driving, certainly not the cycling which was good enough to avoid a collision. This is perfectly competent and legal cycling.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The trick in all of this is that if you are travelling at or faster than the traffic on the road is to travel on the road until you pass them. That way you don’t ‘undertake’ and get hooked at the same time.

I don’t really like using cycle lanes like these for this very reason. The normal laws of the road are pretty good, and so taking primary or overtaking on the right (where the space is) are far preferable to being sandwiched or hooked.

the driver executes their manoeuvre badly. There’s no excuse. But you have to ride-drive defensively. The warning signs were there because he slowed even before his break lights came on.

in what way is being right hooked any better than being left hooked? drivers will certainly not check mirrors before turning right where there is only a single lane travelling in each direction, and in fatc the highway code advises against overtaking at junctions for thios reason.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The trick in all of this is that if you are travelling at or faster than the traffic on the road is to travel on the road until you pass them. That way you don’t ‘undertake’ and get hooked at the same time.

I don’t really like using cycle lanes like these for this very reason. The normal laws of the road are pretty good, and so taking primary or overtaking on the right (where the space is) are far preferable to being sandwiched or hooked.

the driver executes their manoeuvre badly. There’s no excuse. But you have to ride-drive defensively. The warning signs were there because he slowed even before his break lights came on.

in what way is being right hooked any better than being left hooked? drivers will certainly not check mirrors before turning right where there is only a single lane travelling in each direction, and in fatc the highway code advises against overtaking at junctions for thios reason.

First of all drivers think a bit more about turning across traffic. Left turns are ‘no consequence’ turns. When I was at school one of my class mates used to find ways of driving which didn’t involve her turning right because she feared pulling across traffic.

Secondly, because they’re turning across traffic they tend to stop and signal before the manoeuvre. So right off the bat you’ve got more chance of seeing it coming.

Thirdly, if the car is turning you have a whole lane which you can use to avoid the hook (the drivers are not going to turn into traffic so the on-coming lane will be clear). Conversely if you are left-hooked you’ve got nowhere to go with the pavement there.

if you watch motorbikes in traffic they use the right because on the left you’re trapped.

sometimes it can be a nightmare if the traffic speeds up, but you’ll stick out like a sore thumb and so you’ll make it over to the left.

cycling on the left sucks in city traffic.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The trick in all of this is that if you are travelling at or faster than the traffic on the road is to travel on the road until you pass them. That way you don’t ‘undertake’ and get hooked at the same time.

I don’t really like using cycle lanes like these for this very reason. The normal laws of the road are pretty good, and so taking primary or overtaking on the right (where the space is) are far preferable to being sandwiched or hooked.

the driver executes their manoeuvre badly. There’s no excuse. But you have to ride-drive defensively. The warning signs were there because he slowed even before his break lights came on.

I think you've just negated the whole point of a bike lane. What you are effectively saying is that bikes shouldn't travel faster than slow moving traffic. (Oh, and cars don't have "break" lights)

Griff500 wrote:

I think you've just negated the whole point of a bike lane. What you are effectively saying is that bikes shouldn't travel faster than slow moving traffic. (Oh, and cars don't have "break" lights)[/quote]

I’m glad you picked up on that. Unless you have a super highway or other such segregation bike lanes are merely green or white painted strips of road, usually not fit for purpose and put bike users in direct competition with buses and left turning motorists.

I don’t use them unless I have to. But even then, my points still stand. Use your brain to detect and predict the hazards as the designers of cycling lanes clearly haven’t.

bikeman01 wrote:

Driver indicates, cyclist sees what's about to happen but still slides up the inside expecting the car to give way. 

Corrections provided below:

Driver indicates just at the point of turning, cyclist sees what's about to happen but still slides up the inside expecting the car to give way has no warning and is almost involved in a collision that was not his fault. 

P3t3 wrote:

Apart from slightly late indicating I don't see that this one is really that bad.  I can't see how the driver could do that much different to avoid an undertaking cyclist, however this one did appear to have a bright flashy light so not hard to miss.  We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace when learing to drive.  

This is NOT an undertaking cyclist - it is a cyclist using a segregated cycle path. Essentially, the driver cut across another carriageway (the segregated path) running parallel to the one the driver was on, without looking. You can tell it is a separate carriageway because the double yellow line is to the right of the cycle route. The move is clearly illegal and dangerous. The training is to wait until it is safe to cross that carriageway.

the little onion wrote:

This is NOT an undertaking cyclist - it is a cyclist using a segregated cycle path. Essentially, the driver cut across another carriageway (the segregated path) running parallel to the one the driver was on, without looking. You can tell it is a separate carriageway because the double yellow line is to the right of the cycle route. The move is clearly illegal and dangerous. The training is to wait until it is safe to cross that carriageway.

I understand why you are arguing it like that, but the cyclist is catching up with the car all the way through the video.  Technically it might be an illegal left hook but the combination of the way the road looks and feels means this kind of near miss is going happen frequently here.  There isn't a kerb separator from what I can see, but appreciate the point about the double yellows making it separate but it probably didn't feel like that, certainly the junction doesn't give it away very well that you are crossing a separate route.   

We are just not used to these types of layouts and I think its probably a bit too ambiguous for the average driver on a dark wet evening who is likely (from late indication) not sure where they are going.  

I'd reccomend building in a hard corner to the junction so the driver has to go dead slow combined with a slight build out to steepen the angles and separate coloured tarmac, all of which the dutch would do.  

the little onion wrote:

P3t3 wrote:

Apart from slightly late indicating I don't see that this one is really that bad.  I can't see how the driver could do that much different to avoid an undertaking cyclist, however this one did appear to have a bright flashy light so not hard to miss.  We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace when learing to drive.  

 

This is NOT an undertaking cyclist - it is a cyclist using a segregated cycle path. Essentially, the driver cut across another carriageway (the segregated path) running parallel to the one the driver was on, without looking. You can tell it is a separate carriageway because the double yellow line is to the right of the cycle route. The move is clearly illegal and dangerous. The training is to wait until it is safe to cross that carriageway.

You of course entirely correct, and the legal position is clear - it's the driver's fault. The cyclist has certainly not done anything wrong.

However...

I think the blame should be shared between the driver and the designers of the infrastructure. In the UK, drivers are simply not used to giving way on the left like that, certainly not for bike lane/carriageways. The problem is compounded by the fact that virtually every cycle/shared use path in the country has been designed to give way for motor traffic at every single junction.

As others have said, there should be a clear demarkation - though this section looks much better than the section in the previous clip. The number of these incidents show that is not enough though - there needs to be a clear physical separation and design that forces cars to slow right down before they can make the turn. At a minimum, the signage and road markings needs to be right in the driver's face. 

If cycle lanes like this were more common, then absolutely it would be entirely on the driver. Until then, in my humble opinion, the way it is supposed to work needs to be made clearer. 

Edit: of course my view in this particular incident would alter depending on whether the driver was local or not. If they've driven this section of road before, then absolutely zero excuse. 

P3t3 wrote:

Apart from slightly late indicating I don't see that this one is really that bad.  I can't see how the driver could do that much different to avoid an undertaking cyclist, however this one did appear to have a bright flashy light so not hard to miss.  We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace when learing to drive.  

But the cyclist isn't "undertaking", they are using the cycle lane that's been put there (painted there) for their convenience and, er, stuff.

The argument that "We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace" is rubbish - the cycle lane is another lane: if you honestly don't know what to do in this circumstance then I hope to god you never travel on a motorway or any other dual carriageway...!  

brooksby wrote:

The argument that "We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace" is rubbish - the cycle lane is another lane: if you honestly don't know what to do in this circumstance then I hope to god you never travel on a motorway or any other dual carriageway...!  

The motorway analogy is interesting since its a place where undertaking is forbidden, and only a total nut-job would undertake past an exiting slip road.  

I really don't believe the driver intended to hit the cyclist, but the near miss still happened.   I think expecting a driver of average standard to give way to something coming from behind them on a road that doesn't really look far off a normal road is probably asking a bit much.  The ends of the side roads look exactly like they would anywhere else.  We know junctions are where accidents are disproportionately likely and I think the problem here is that these ones haven't been designed very well.  

P3t3 wrote:

Apart from slightly late indicating I don't see that this one is really that bad.  I can't see how the driver could do that much different to avoid an undertaking cyclist, however this one did appear to have a bright flashy light so not hard to miss.  We are not trained in what to do in this circumstnace when learing to drive.  

I was trained to use my mirrors and not to turn into other vehicles, I struggle to believe that wasn't the case for every learner..

This is an extremely easy situation to avoid by using mirrors and being patient. You wouldn't cross over another lane on a motorway without using mirrors and this is no different.

Leviathan wrote:

I don't see how this is any different to any other bike lane. The motorist just makes a flick and go turn. It should be mirror-signal-manoeuvre, in that order at that speed. If you are doing it faster than you can say it then that's too fast.

This particular section is similar to most other bike lanes. there are other sections that are more set back and physically segregated from the road by kerbing. One criticism of the city connect scheme is that it flicks between different types of lane with no real consistency or joined up thinking.

To be honest, this is far from the most dangerous junction on the route - there are others which are a fatality waiting to happen, because of poor design, as highlighted on this site.

Leviathan wrote:

I don't see how this is any different to any other bike lane. The motorist just makes a flick and go turn. It should be mirror-signal-manoeuvre, in that order at that speed. If you are doing it faster than you can say it then that's too fast.

This particular section is similar to most other bike lanes. there are other sections that are more set back and physically segregated from the road by kerbing. One criticism of the city connect scheme is that it flicks between different types of lane with no real consistency or joined up thinking.

To be honest, this is far from the most dangerous junction on the route - there are others which are a fatality waiting to happen, because of poor design, as highlighted on this site.