“So who should be giving way to who here?” Cyclist asks for Highway Code answers after near miss with driver turning HGV across cycle lane; A cyclocross race for people who hate their bike; Van Aert laughs at our NCN complaints + more on the live blog

86 thoughts on ““So who should be giving way to who here?” Cyclist asks for Highway Code answers after near miss with driver turning HGV across cycle lane; A cyclocross race for people who hate their bike; Van Aert laughs at our NCN complaints + more on the live blog”

1. On this occasion I think

   On this occasion I think CBikeLondon nailed it. Lorry was manouvering, bike gives way, a non-issue, everyone gets on with their day. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yep, the truck was signalling

     Yep, the truck was signalling in advance of the cyclist and the rider could’ve easily slowed down a little just to let the truck go through. Avoiding unnecessary confrontation makes things easier all round. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • OldRidgeback wrote:

       Yep, the truck was signalling in advance of the cyclist and the rider could’ve easily slowed down a little just to let the truck go through. Avoiding unnecessary confrontation makes things easier all round. 

       — OldRidgeback

       Agreed, and that’s how I would have handled it – but only because I’m used to the fact that people will push their luck a lot more with bikes than they would with cars.

       The fact that the truck was indicating doesn’t give it priority, he’s still obliged to give way across the lane as dictated by lane markings. The driver saw the cyclist approaching at speed (“you was up there!”) and still decided to manoeuvre across his path knowing full well that he wouldn’t be clear before he arrived, thus forcing the cyclist to stop. That manoeuvre would fail a driving test, and (I suspect) had this been done to a driver who’d then subsequently uploaded it to a daschcam channel, nobody would have any issue with his grievance.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • BalladOfStruth wrote:

         Agreed, and that’s how I would have handled it – but only because I’m used to the fact that people will push their luck a lot more with bikes than they would with cars.

         The fact that the truck was indicating doesn’t give it priority, he’s still obliged to give way across the lane as dictated by lane markings. The driver saw the cyclist approaching at speed (“you was up there!”) and still decided to manoeuvre across his path knowing full well that he wouldn’t be be clear before he arrived, thus forcing the cyclist to stop. That manoeuvre would fail a driving test, and (I suspect) had this been done to a driver who’d then sunsequently uploaded it to a daschcam channel, nobody would have any issue with his grievance.

         — BalladOfStruth

         Haven’t seen the video due to where it’s hosted, but my favourite test is to either replace the bike with a bus or swap the two vehicles. If a lorry pulled out across a bus lane and caused the approaching bus to stop, then that would be poor driving, though I’d expect the bus to slow/stop to avoid a collision. If the two vehicles are swapped, then I’d imagine a very angry lorry driver using their horn as a cyclist slowly crosses in front of them.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Haven’t seen the video due to where it’s hosted, but my favourite test is to either replace the bike with a bus or swap the two vehicles. If a lorry pulled out across a bus lane and caused the approaching bus to stop, then that would be poor driving, though I’d expect the bus to slow/stop to avoid a collision. If the two vehicles are swapped, then I’d imagine a very angry lorry driver using their horn as a cyclist slowly crosses in front of them.

           — hawkinspeter

           The truck driver should have observed the HC and waited until the cycle path was clear before proceeding (and certainly ought to have apologised once called out on it).

           OTOH, on this occasion and setting no general precedent for any other occasion, the cyclist could have seen what was occuring, easily slowed down – barely – and the lorry would then have been across the cycle path and out of their way before they even reached it.

           And thus it becomes a non-issue, as CBikeLondon and peted76 said.

       • There’s a clear hazard
         There’s a clear hazard developing and the cyclist takes little to no action, purely relying on some give way markings till the last second.

         The HC does remind you to account for others mistakes.

         So that’s a hazard perception & situational awareness failure on the part of the cyclist as well.

         Try that in a driving test and see how far you get with, but the HC said I would have priority instead.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • The lorry driver “was
     The lorry driver “was manoeuvring”, indicating even – that changes the road priorities?! I’ll try that next time I’m impatient to enter a busy roundabout.

     Same scenario with a car in lieu of the bike and nobody would be arguing about this.

     Sure, the cyclist [i]could[/i] have read the road and graciously chosen to concede to the lorry driver by slowing up, but that’s not what happened.

     Moreover, the lorry driver [i]should[/i] have read the road and been prepared to give way to the cyclist, but that didn’t happen either.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • FFS, go and watch the video..

       FFS, go and watch the video……He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind…….Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event – but no, he’s gone rushing into trouble. 

        

       More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all…..

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Having road sense and the

         Having road sense and the ability to pre-empt and handle other people’s mistakes doesn’t change the fact that the HGV driver was objectively in the wrong here. Indicating does not give you priority, so how early he was indicating is irrelevant. The cyclist was riding at a consistent speed on a segregated path (so I’m confused as to why the article mentions rule H3) and there are road markings separate from the main road that oblige the HGV driver to give way to the segregated cycle lane – which he ignores and crosses directly into the cyclist’s path when he’s about 8-10m away.

         Would I have made an issue out of it? No.

         Would this have failed a driving test? Yes.

         If the HGV driver had done this to a car, would anyone be sticking up for him? No.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • BalladOfStruth wrote:

           The cyclist was riding at a consistent speed on a segregated path (so I’m confused as to why the article mentions rule H3)

           — BalladOfStruth

           Rule H3 does cover this, as it’s a ‘cycle track’, which is mentioned in rule H3 (see Cycle Tracks Act 1984 for definition, but generally means segregated from the road).

           Even if there was no give way marking on the road for the lorry driver, the cyclist would still have priority in this situation. Only if there were give way markings on the cycle track, would the cyclist be expected to yield to the road traffic.

       • Velophaart_95 wrote:

         FFS, go and watch the video……He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind…….Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event – but no, he’s gone rushing into trouble. 

          

         More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all…..

         — Velophaart_95

         If driving, do you give way to every vehicle that indicates?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • No, but I recognise that some

           No, but I recognise that some vehicles such as buses and lorries need time and space to manouevre. I’ll sit back at one junction so a bus driver can make the turn.

       • That wasn’t the question
         That wasn’t the question asked. The question was, who should be giving way. According to the Highway Code there is only one correct answer. Like hawkinspeter says above, if you are in any doubt then swap the lorry and the bike, then ask the same question.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Velophaart_95 wrote:

         FFS, go and watch the video……He indicated well before the junction, and the cyclist was well behind…….Any cyclist with road sense would observe and make it a non event – but no, he’s gone rushing into trouble. 

          

         More Road cc readers showing themselves as having no road sense at all…..

         — Velophaart_95

         Reverse your perspective and you can easily say the same thing:

         FFS go and watch the video…he was clearly visible approaching well before the junction and the driver had plenty of time to give way…. any lorry driver with road sense would observe and make it a non event – but no, he’s gone rushing into trouble.

         More Velophaart_95’s showing themselves as having no road sense at all…

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Sriracha wrote:

       Sure, the cyclist [i]could[/i] have read the road and graciously chosen to concede to the lorry driver by slowing up, but that’s not what happened.

       — Sriracha

        

       I believe you mean that is exactly what happened; If the cyclist didn’t conceed and slow then we would be discussing yet another cyclist killed in a collision with an HGV. Instead cyclist stopped clear of the lorry, avoiding the collision after they failed to give way.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • If the give way had been a
     If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child … would you still have drawn the same conclusion?

     Before you jump to false equivalence… think about give way and priorities and you’ll see that it’s the same thing.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Oldfatgit wrote:

       If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child … would you still have drawn the same conclusion? Before you jump to false equivalence… think about give way and priorities and you’ll see that it’s the same thing.

       — Oldfatgit

       I cycle through zebra crossings, causing pedestrians to abruptly stop, all the time. If any of them shout at me I just yell back ‘didn’t you see me coming? Make it a non-event!’, then get on with my day. Works every time.

       (dislaimer, I don’t actually do this! but, as you say,it’s a good example of motor-normitivity, whereby an arguably less risky failure to give way would be seen as way worse than this lorry driver’s failure to give way).

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Oldfatgit wrote:

       If the give way had been a zebra crossing, and the cyclist a parent with a child … would you still have drawn the same conclusion? Before you jump to false equivalence… think about give way and priorities and you’ll see that it’s the same thing.

       — Oldfatgit

       technically it would have been OK, because the cyclist was not on the “crossing” at the time the lorry started. So it’s not a good comparison due to relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. The driver of the HGV appears

   The driver of the HGV appears to have broken the law regarding the Give Way line:

   no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the cycle track, in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any cyclist proceeding along the cycle track or to cause such a cyclist to change speed or course in order to avoid an accident.

   Having said that, if I was in the cyclist’s position I would have slowed down and let the HGV continue. Using the road requires a certain amount of give and take.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • …sure, or I might check
     …sure, or I might check behind me, and if there is nothing following I might assume the lorry driver could just as easily pass behind me.

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. The lorry literally crosses a

   The lorry literally crosses a give way line on the edge of the cycleway.  If he was driving a small car, he could simply turn off the road then give way – but as a lorry, giving way there still has it ass hanging out into the road.

   I have some sympathy with the lorry driver, I think he is technically in the wrong, and having started to cross the other carriageway it was incumbent upon him to wait for 5-10s for the cyclist to pass.  Ultimately he had a choice – give way to the cyclist and inconvenience the cars coming the other way, or not give way and inconvenience the cyclist.  Based on that metric, the decision should, imho to be to give way to the person you have a greater risk of killing if it all goes wrong.

   Fortunately the cyclist could see this from a way out and so, in this case there was little harm done to anyone and personally that one would get filed in the, not exactly excellent driving but if that’s the worst motorist behaviour I am subjected to on a ride I will call that a win.

   TLDR – tricky situation, lorry should have given way to the cyclist and inconvenienced the motorist but this isn’t something I would get too upset about.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Carior wrote:

     If he was driving a small car, he could simply turn off the road then give way – but as a lorry, giving way there still has it ass hanging out into the road.

     — Carior

     I suspect that is the crux of it; who does he give most recognition to, the (important) motorists or the (mere) cyclist. The Highway Code has the answer here, but that is not what informs the lorry driver’s decision.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Carior wrote:

     Ultimately he had a choice – give way to the cyclist and inconvenience the cars coming the other way, or not give way and inconvenience the cyclist.  Based on that metric, the decision should, imho to be to give way to the person you have a greater risk of killing if it all goes wrong.

     — Carior

     Unfortunately Gloucestershire Constabulary would disagree,

     https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

     sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. Technically the lorry driver
   Technically the lorry driver is in the wrong, but I think it’s reasonable to cut drivers of such vehicles a bit of slack when making maneuvers like that.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I agree and I wonder how long

     I agree and I wonder how long he would have to wait before he could cross without delaying anyone !

     But why are such vehicles allowed in a dense area with little restriction ?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I don’t understand how people
     I don’t understand how people cope in London without giving each other some slack in those situations.

     The lorry driver is never going to give way to somebody once they’re committed to a maneuver like that, who is the best part of 2-3 truck lengths away at the start.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • stonojnr wrote:

       I don’t understand how people cope in London without giving each other some slack in those situations. The lorry driver is never going to give way to somebody once they’re committed to a maneuver like that, who is the best part of 2-3 truck lengths away at the start.

       — stonojnr

       I think this is what is causing some of the issue here (again, I personally wouldn’t have made anything out of this) – the right-turn to leave the main carriageway is a separate manoeuvre to giving-way and crossing the segregated cycle path. The driver indicated and turned right off of the main carriageway and onto that weird little slip-way thing, arriving at a set of give-way lines for the segregated path, at which point he should have stopped again and given-way to the cyclist. Instead, he ignores the lines and pulls out on the cyclist only 8-10m away.

       It’s like double mini-roundabouts (like this one), where drivers seem to think that if they’ve given way at the first roundabout, they don’t have to give way at the second one. That roundabout used to be the bane of my life because of that.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Agreed. I totally accept that

       Agreed. I totally accept that in theory the lorry should have given way to the cyclist, but it didn’t pose any danger to the cyclist, only slight inconvenience, which would have been a lot less if the cyclist had used their powers of anticipation and eased up slightly to let the lorry proceed. 

       As someone who also drives, I routinely find myself in the situation of slowing down a little bit to let people in or out of side streets or driveways, even though theoretically I have priority. There are times when I hold back a bit in my car to let large lorries complete their menouvres with plenty of space instead of insisting I am entitled to proceed.

       I’m sure we’ve all had times coming out of side streets (in cars or on bikes) where someone with priority will hold back a bit to give us space to get out, and also times where there would have been space to get out if the car wasn’t selfishly determined to close the gap – confident that the highway code is on their side. On busy roads at busy times the traffic can only flow because there are enough considerate drivers that don’t insist on asserting their right to priority at all times.

       The letter of the highway code is one thing, but being a cooperative road user  that is prepared to drive/cycle defensively is also important. IMO the reasonable thing would be for the cyclists to hold back in a way obvious to the lorry driver that they were letting them go first.

       I appreciate this is a cycling site and too many drivers are oblivious to the needs and rights of cyclists, and it can be useful to have discussions around who has priority and how dangerous many drivers are. But I wish we didn’t conflate the kind of minor inconvenience routinely experienced whilst driving as a dangerous crime against cyclists. It reminds me of my neice getting angry over Christmas because her cousin is allowed more screen time. My neice is six.

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. Given the gesticulations that
   Given the gesticulations that I, as a pedestrian, receive from drivers turning into (more so than turning out of) the sidestreet I am crossing, I’d say the updates to the Highway Code are little known.

   There is a heavy assumption by motorists, especially when they have indicated, that the onus falls on the pedestrian “crossing the road” to look out. They all remember the “Jolly Green Giant” ads message that motorists have priority – pedestrians should “wait until the road is clear.”
   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9kRhroIYs

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Sriracha wrote:

     Given the gesticulations that I, as a pedestrian, receive from drivers turning into (more so than turning out of) the sidestreet I am crossing, I’d say the updates to the Highway Code are little known. There is a heavy assumption by motorists, especially when they have indicated, that the onus falls on the pedestrian “crossing the road” to look out. They all remember the “Jolly Green Giant” ads message that motorists have priority – pedestrians should “wait until the road is clear.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1v9kRhroIYs

     — Sriracha

     What does the HC have to do with sweetcorn? 😉

     The Jolly Green Giant dressed (weirdly) as Poison Ivy and advertised canned sweetcorn.  I think you are thinking of the Green Cross Code Man?

     Log In or Register to post comments

6. The lorry driver is turning

   The lorry driver is turning right at a mini-roundabout, they have priority over the oncoming traffic. Then there is a give-way line at the cycle lane for the lorry driver. They absolutely should have given way to the cyclist.

   It’s not a case of the lorry driver failing to see the cyclist either, they said “you was up there”, admitting they’d seen them, but decided to pull out in front of them anyway.

   I’m sure if I pulled out in front of that lorry driver and caused them to come to a complete halt, then they would have something to say about it!

   I agree that a seasoned cyclist would see this coming a mile off and expect the driver to just cut in front of them, but an inexperienced cyclist might assume they would be given priority and could be put at great risk. It’s bad driving. I don’t even consider it to be one of those situations where you should give the lorry more roadspace. It was a fail to give way, using the size of their vehicle to bully their way through, rather than waiting for a gap or for a cyclist(s) to cede priority.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Ex C+E driver (full ADR and
   Ex C+E driver (full ADR and STGO2)…

   TLDR: The truck driver is in the wrong.

   There is Give Way markings painted on the road at the elevated section as it crosses the cycle path.

   The driver should have taken these markings in to account prior to making their turn and established that the way was clear on all junctions that they were to encounter.

   This means that the driver should not have started the right turn and stayed on the primary route prior until their exit was clear.
   The driver was not concerned about blocking the primary route as evidenced by slowing to an almost stop to shout at the rider.

   In the drivers defense: it is likely that the driver mis-judged the forward speed of the cyclists – we’ve all done it, on foot (and ended up running across a road), on two wheels and on 4 (or more) … we are, after all human.
   However … what is inexcusable in my not so humble opinion, is the attitude of the driver. He fucked up, and made his fuckup someone else’s fault. A human reaction too…

   Both parties could and should have done better; it was apparent that the vehicle was making the turn – the rider could have eased off and brought some time. The driver could have owned their mistake and apologised.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yep, the lorry driver does

     Yep, the lorry driver does seem a bit confused about priorities. He says something like “I was on here first” – does he think the cycle lane forms part of the mini-roundabout?

     Even disregarding the give-way marking for the lorry driver, rule 140 makes it clear that the lorry driver should have given way…

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I agree. I also wonder

     I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don’t know.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • the little onion wrote:

       I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don’t know.

       — the little onion

       it’s there to enable drivers to see the cyclists, rather than having to give way to someone coming from behind them. So with proper driver behaviour it should reduce these incidents.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • wycombewheeler wrote:

         I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don’t know.

         — wycombewheeler

         it’s there to enable drivers to see the cyclists, rather than having to give way to someone coming from behind them. So with proper driver behaviour it should reduce these incidents.

         — the little onion

         It is partly that.  It is also to give drivers time to deal with one flow of traffic at a time without blocking others as can be seen in this article:

         a) for drivers turning into the side road – to give space to a car (or vehicle shorter than a truck or bus) to wait out of the way of the main flow of traffic while dealing with any crossing cyclists / pedestrians.

         b) for drivers emerging from the side road – to give space to wait in while observing that it’s safe to join the main road.  This avoids motorists just stopping in the middle of the cycle track / pavement while they check the main road.

         In the UK we often manage to stuff up one or more of the multiple purposes of this kind of infra e.g. we keep wide sweeping radii on the turns instead of narrower ones to encourage drivers to slow down.  Or there is too much space for drivers to wait so several try to squeeze in / cyclists have a big diversion.  Or too little so drivers just wait on the cycle path.

         In my experience in Edinburgh (as you can see in the video by Dave McCraw we have a few of these) the majority of drivers – but not all – just treat these as they would a normal entry / exit into a side road e.g. ignore all the infra.  Of course this isn’t helped by the council having created several generations of variations on “something happens at the entry / exit of a street” – all with some different aspect that is incorrect for one purpose or another.

         Early days, ask me in a generation or two…

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Also – if the side street is

         Also – if the side street is minor (most should be – if we didn’t have the UK standard “every street is also a through route”…) then we should not be reaching for these.  The better way is a continuous cycle path / footway e.g. no diversion (or indeed change) in either the footway or cycle path.  That means cars needing to slow more than is currently common and potentially stop and yield while in the main road, before crossing what is now “pavement” (and possibly cycle path) and into the side street.

         Of course in the UK that idea is about as uncontroversial as suggesting that there is economic benefit in reducing parking and people driving a bit less, a bit less quickly …

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Oldfatgit wrote:

     This means that the driver should not have started the right turn and stayed on the primary route prior until their exit was clear. .

     — Oldfatgit

     disagree I think the drive should identify the give way lines, and anticpating stopping at the give way to look, after starting the turn. It makes little difference to anyone if the HGV is fully in the main road or partially in the main road when stopping. But looking at the cycle track at 90 degrees gives better visibility than trying to look over his shoulder.

     as others have said though the incident is minor, and IMO falls under “rude” rather than “dangerous” so does not justify a you tube posting.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • wycombewheeler wrote:

       as others have said though the incident is minor, and IMO falls under “rude” rather than “dangerous” so does not justify a you tube posting.

       — wycombewheeler

       On the contrary, I think it is a great learning video. Unfortunately, most viewers are determined to learn that cyclists are dicks and everyone should defer to HGVs ploughing through cities and ignore road markings, but that’s Teh InTerWEb for you.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • If the driver had waited on
       If the driver had waited on the primary road prior to committing to their turn, they would have only been holding up one lane.
       It *looks* like the distance between the primary road and the give way is roughly equal to the length of the tractor unit; stopping at the give way would mean that the trailer would be blocking both lanes of the primary road.

       As a professional driver, this is not something that you would do unless you absolutely had no alternative.
       Once the tractor unit has made the turn, the driver is essentially blind to the entire nearside – which is a highly dangerous situation.

       In my not so humble opinion, the driver should have checked the offside mirrors – I’m going to assume that as it’s still legally dark that the rider has lights on – and the cyclist light would have shown up in the mirror.
       This should have triggered a glance – glance – look (offside mirror, nearside mirror, final check through the window over the shoulder.
       By this time, it would have been wholly apparent that the manoeuvre could not be completed in one go, and the driver waited until the approaching cyclist was clear before proceeding.

       But … the above is based on the experience and custom of a professional driver who applied care and consideration to other road users. The driver in this clip does not appear to apply the same traits as shown by … a) failing to give way and b) stopping and blocking the junction to argue with the cyclist.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I think you were a rather

         I think you were a rather more professional driver than those who find there way here (which is obviously going to be the more egregious type).

         It’s choices.

         In the UK I’d say delays because “cyclists” are seen by most as somewhere between really annoying and worth tens lives a year.

         If – virtuous circle – we can reduce some of the (mostly private individuals) driving – that may change a bit.

         Looking at some of those junction videos from “over there” * buses and trucks (and thus cars also) can end up waiting – sometimes quite some time.  But … those cycle paths are actually extremely efficient movers of people.  And with fewer short journeys driven perhaps that frees up enough space for proper 24/7 bus lanes which don’t then get blocked by private cars?  And as others said already – lots of benefits of moving some HGVs out of urban areas.

         * e.g. this one  – though this actually looks a bit too busy / not a great idea with bi-directional cycle lanes and maybe a different design would make more sense here?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Thanks for the complement
           Thanks for the complement Chris.
           It wasnt always easy being professional, and I made my fair share of mistakes too … but I’ve always owned them.

           [Including the other day when I was in my car, I beeped at a cyclist near Fountain Bridge as I mistakenly thought they were on a red and I was on a green right turn filter. Next set of lights were red, so I apologised to the rider. They probably still thought it was a schmuck, but mistakes happen]

8. IMHO the better way to view

   IMHO the better way to view the interaction is rather than it being a turn across a cycle lane, it is a turn then a crossroad with give way (the cycle lane). And this is why the cycle lane is set back – to allow it to be dealt with separately when vehicles are perpendicular rather than parallel as this gives better visibility. People have referred to rule 221 but IMHO that is far more relevent to traffic on the main road needing to allow for the possibility that the lorry may stop overhanging onto said road so that its driver can check the cycle lane is clear or give way to cyclists (i.e. not just because a cyclist is on said lane…) unlike a car that can get fully clear before the cycle lane.

    

    

   The big issue with this whole discussion is that the incident was minor. But huge numbers of people are refusing to accept that the lorry is at fault. The rider behaved absolutely correctly, yielding when the driver failed to do so, thereby avoiding the collision…

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. I laugh at Wout’s little

   I laugh at Wout’s little splash around. On Tuesday night I was riding home along a lane axle deep in water that was flowing against me. As I couldn’t actually see the road I was focussed on staying halfway between the hedges and hoping I didn’t drop off the side of the road. There’s no photographic evidence; under the circumstances I wasn’t about chance taking my phone out of my pocket. It was fun though.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • If only the bridleway part of
     If only the bridleway part of my commute was as clean as at Koksijde. It was beyond swamp this evening more like a pond with tufts.
     And the access road was a raging torrent.
     Soaked through but it was still fun.

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. Re who has priority. I’ll

    Re who has priority. I’ll take it for granted that we all agree the lorry should give way. The problem is that many, including the lorry driver, don’t. In my opinion this is an ideal situation for this to be reported to the police who should issue a warning to the driver, any repeat should be treated more seriously. The problem here is not the fact that the driver failed to give way the problem is that he thinks he is in the right.

    It seems to me that most cycle lanes are for cylists who prioritise their own safety over speed of travel. If I want to prioritise speed over safety I will generally use the road. At this point I have two problems. Obviously I am more at risk from drivers who either don’t know the highway code or who choose to ignore it. The second is that drivers think I should be in the cycle lane, and some don’t take kindly to this, putting me at risk of punishment passes etc.

    Drivers need to realise that if they want us in a cyle lane they need to obey the rules of the road and give way where they are supposed to. They can’t have it both ways.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • I agree with the meaning but

      I agree with the meaning but pedantically – this isn’t a cycle lane – it’s a separate cycle path / track.

      This actually reinforces your point and makes me lean towards not cutting the driver some slack.  Because the cycle track has a different colour surface, is set back from the road, there are give way markings… The driver clearly knew something was there but just didn’t fancy stopping for an extra couple of seconds.

      Personally I’d probably aim to see these and just accept a measure of “well they’ve started…”  However drivers have been rolling through any space not already occupied by another motor vehicle since my grandmother was a child.  So it does need reinforcement – and the government’s done as much as they’re likely to.  So for that read “confrontation” / “bloody entitled / self-righteous cyclists having a go” in the eyes of some, unfortunately.

      It seems to me that most cycle lanes are for cylists who prioritise their own safety over speed of travel.

      — Bungle_52

      Also unfortunate that this even has to be a choice!  If cycle paths (again) don’t provide both excellent safety AND efficient travel they’ve not been done right*.  Note that “speed” in this case as much about “not having to stop” as “velodrome ahoy!”.  That’s the difference between roads (vehicles hit the speed limit ASAP and motor until the next traffic light, then stop and wait a couple of minutes) and good cycle facilities (which allow momentum to be maintained).

      * Although even if we suddenly cracked on with it we’re probably 50 – 100 years or more behind NL, simply because of the amount of small changes they’ve made, everywhere.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Bungle_52 wrote:

      If I want to prioritise speed over safety I will generally use the road. At this point I have two problems. Obviously I am more at risk from drivers who either don’t know the highway code or who choose to ignore it.

      — Bungle_52No.  The last lot of data I recall showed that you were more at risk on tracks than the road, but that was from some years ago, so things might have changed with new, properly segregated cycle tracks.

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. The cyclist has right of way

    The cyclist has right of way but the junction design is very poor – I haven’t driven a vehicle that big but navigating the mess of infrastructure with a slow / long vehicle is probably quite challenging.

     

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • open_roads wrote:

      The cyclist has right of way but the junction design is very poor – I haven’t driven a vehicle that big but navigating the mess of infrastructure with a slow / long vehicle is probably quite challenging.

      — open_roads

      Why do you think the design is poor?

      The design is new.  And it doesn’t prioritise motor traffic over everything (what we’re used to even if we never drive).

      For me, it’s really clear that you are supposed to give way – there are give way marks on the road, the crossing point is set back (so there’s some waiting space for a motor vehicle of the main road lanes), the road is raised to the height of the cycle path at the crossing (effectively you’re driving “up over the pavement” – another cue this is “not your space” as a driver), the cycle path is “continous”… Albeit they haven’t got this quite right, the surface colour – blue, if using that – should continue all the way along the cycle path to show that nothing changes if you’re cycling here e.g. you have priority.  They also should probably continue the footway across here also.

      Works all over NL.  Our problem is simply that we all need to learn this, and as usual there are no teachers – since we only do a driving test once a lifetime and then most people ignore the few adverts about changes thereafter…

      Long / slow vehicle makes no difference.  Have a look at this article: the video shows a (small) truck using one of these, albeit it’s a near-side turn and there aren’t traffic lights.

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. The Highway Code is pretty

    The Highway Code is pretty black and white, driver is in the wrong. HOWEVER, give the driver some slack. Looking at the way that junction and route is built, it’s almost round a blind corner, a large truck like that would have committed to the turn well before they would have seen the give way lines. Just give props that the driver did indeed look out for and acknowleged the cyclist, whether they in fact they ended up in not a great situation.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • I’m gonna disagree with you
      I’m gonna disagree with you here.

      The LGV is turning right in to the junction.
      It will have been clear to the driver that there is a second give way immediately after the initial right turn.
      The chicane would have placed the cyclist in the full view of the driver – had they have looked to the right – however the give way would have been in the front blind spot.

      At no time before the driver committed to the turn, would the give way lines have been hidden.

      The driver either failed to see them, or failed to see the cyclist, or just decided that ‘might is right’ and feck everyone else.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • My thoughts exactly, the give

        My thoughts exactly, the give way lines are quite plain (and there’s also no doubt to whom they apply as there is a huge no entry painted on the road after them so they know it doesn’t apply to any traffic joining the main carriageway) and it is the duty of the driver to stop and check for through traffic before crossing the give way line.

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • Benji326 wrote:

      a large truck like that would have committed to the turn well before they would have seen the give way lines. 

      — Benji326

      My problem with this is that i don’t see why “committing to the turn” means committing to roll straight over the give way lines beyond the turn.

      Would we accept the HGV rolling across a pedestrian crossing at a red light because they had already “committed to the turn” on entering the roundabout?

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. “Additional new bike bollard

    “Additional new bike bollard combination stands at Old Street station. However, it’s impossible to fit a standard bike frame parallel to the stand. Who designs this rubbish?”

    https://twitter.com/BobFromAccounts/status/1742881962187018322

    

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. I don’t know the law or who

    I don’t know the law or who has priority, but I know for sure that when if I saw the lorry signalling I would have started to slow down immediately and therefore would have plenty of further braking space should the lorry have proceeded across the junction, especially so as it was raining. 

    As a matter of course, I always give way/slow down/allow to pass, vans, trucks and lorries on the assumption their drivers may have other things on their minds, a defensive mindset I know, but that’s my way of dealing with these issues.  

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • capedcrusader wrote:

      I don’t know the law or who has priority, but I know for sure that when if I saw the lorry signalling I would have started to slow down immediately and therefore would have plenty of further braking space should the lorry have proceeded across the junction, especially so as it was raining. 

      As a matter of course, I always give way/slow down/allow to pass, vans, trucks and lorries on the assumption their drivers may have other things on their minds are often sociopathic twunts, a defensive mindset I know, but that’s my way of dealing with these issues.  

      — capedcrusader

      Fixed it  

      Log In or Register to post comments

15. I think there is an aspect to

    I think there is an aspect to the Lorry Turning debate that hasn’t properly been covered here so far.

    Quite a bit of the Twitterati are incensed that the cyclist didn’t observe the likely conflict and concede accordingly, suggesting he was being a dick about it. Perhaps he was.

    The problem is, that cycleway is designed to encourage anyone to cycle along it and that conflict will arise in the future with other users. By arguing that cyclists should ignore the marked priority and defer to road users where there is conflict, it is accepting that road users have an implicit priority over the marked priority. That might work in a mature adult world (though the reality is that variable rules mean that there will be misinterpretation and misinterpretation leads to accidents and conflict) but that is not the set of users being targeted.

    Let’s imagine though that the cyclist was a 14 year old lad pounding his way to school. Are we expecting a 14 year old to be using that lane? Absolutely. Are we expecting them to be experts at assessing road conditions on some unrelated bit of tarmac while riding along a cycle lane which is fully continuous? I think not.

    Similarly, we might have a couple of mates chatting away on hire bikes merrily riding along. They look ahead and see a continuous path, are they going to be thinking about stopping – the road is telling them to carry on? What is the mental trigger that they should be changing modes from riding along a protected lane to thinking about giving way to motorists? Is it a requirement to use this cycleway that instead of enjoying its protection, the riders have to attend to what is going on on roads that don’t even intersect with the cycleway?

    Similarly, we might have a commuter, such as the one being considered in the current trial of the HGV driver, who interprets the road and acts reasonably according to the markings, not considering an HGV driver might do something unpredictable.

    The reality is that the conflict was predictable for the lorry driver. It’s hard to see from the video but I think there is an advanced notice warning of the cycle lane give way. Apparently there is a roundabout, but it is not clear on the video (anyone got a Streetview link or similar?). For every one of the Twitter posts that say that the cyclist should be planning ahead, clearly, the lorry driver should have been assessing that they were going to conflict with the cycle lane and been prepared to stop, especially if they were not SURE the lane was clear because the lorry driver must not assume any level of competence from the cyclists who after all are not required to be licensed road users and are not required to have a level of competence and, of course, are entitled to their priority at that junction, which includes all the time it takes for the driver’s trailer to clear that crossing. The driver is entitled to proceed only when the lane is clear or if the cyclist, recognising the potential hazerd of an HGV in an inappropriate location makes a clear indication that they are going to forfeit their priority. However, in this case, if the HGV had properly stopped (hardly a challenge in an empty HGV) that cyclist would have popped across his nose with a cheery wave in a couple of seconds and the total delay would have been minimised across all road users. The HGV driver must account for themselves being in an inappropriate location and give extra deference to other road users, rather than demand extra tolerance due their inappropriate vehicle – that is the clear requirement of the Highway Code.

    Final thought, why on earth are full sized HGVs wandering around apparently residential streets at will in the first place? The junction has been designed considering typical users. HGVs should be using extra care, and unless absolutely essential, companies should not be using full sized vehicles in urban environments. We should not be tolerating the increased danger for the sake of efficiency. I suspect this was a building materials lorry, perhaps returning to depot (why through back streets rather than main roads?). I doubt it would ever be hauling full length loads, the crane suggests it is moving palleted goods which suggests the supplier does not need to use full length load beds, they just choose to for economy at the cost to other road users.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • IanMSpencer wrote:

      Final thought, why on earth are full sized HGVs wandering around apparently residential streets at will in the first place?

      — IanMSpencer

      I agree with the entirety of your post but especially this, my first thought when I saw it on Twitter and clocked the timestamp as 8.20AM was what was an unladen HGV doing turning into a narrow residential street at that time? Lots of carbrains on Twitter ranting “if that driver had to wait for everybody he would never make the turn”, well you know what one funny old trick to not being stuck on a narrow road at rush hour might be…

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • WRT the residential roads;

        WRT the residential roads;

        It is one good reason the hgv blocking the mini roundabout to yield to the cycle lane shouldn’t be a problem – hgv’s here should be rare so it won’t happen very often.

         

        The only alternative junction design I can see that works is lights (cars can get round the junction too fast from behind for cyclists to yield). But lights replace waiting for a truck yielding once in a blue moon with waiting for lights every few minutes…

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • My neighbours run a
      My neighbours run a conservatory building business from their house in a residential area of Southampton. HGVs are common.

      Log In or Register to post comments

16. Every day before I cycle
    Every day before I cycle anywhere I check my highway code book. And every day I’m taken by suprise by people when aren’t following it or agreeing with my interpretation of it. I shout at lots of drivers and pedestrians and sometimes get video which we can all rage about.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Welcome back nic.
      Welcome back nic.

      The rantyhighwayman has spoken though

      “Counterpoint: the road layout made this just an annoying interaction and contributed to a bit of “who’s to blame” clickbait rather than ending with anyone squashed.

      High-five to the designer.”

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • You’re the feller who thinks

      You’re the feller who thinks it’s OK to drive round the wrong side of a roundabout if you decide the roundabout’s pointless, aren’t you?

      Log In or Register to post comments

17. Somebody on Twitter helpfully

    Somebody on Twitter helpfully posted the exact law on this, from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/en/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/25/made?view=plain)

    25 (6): Where the transverse lines [of a give way marking] are placed in advance of a length of the carriageway of the road where a cycle track crosses the road along a route parallel to the transverse lines, then the requirement shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the cycle track, in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any cyclist proceeding along the cycle track or to cause such a cyclist to change speed or course in order to avoid an accident.

    — UKGOV

    (Emphasis mine)

    There we have it, nothing about whether the vehicle has started to turn, what speed the cyclist is going, whether the vehicle will hold up other vehicles by stopping: a driver must not drive over the give way lines if doing so will make a cyclist change speed or course.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Problem is …
      Problem is …
      Most drivers only read the Highway Code once – and that’s only to pass the driving test.
      How many drivers will be aware of and have knowledge of the Traffic Signs [etc] Act or any of the other Acts such as Construction and Use, Road Traffic etc … and I bet even less care.

      As cyclists, we can claim the legal right as much as we want … and all that will happen is the media will attempt to undermine it, and place a *perception* that we’re just being difficult and entitled.

      I’m [thankfully] not on Shitter – but I can imagine the sheer >quality< of comments regarding this incident.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • This is exactly why I believe

        This is exactly why I believe warning letters with the threat of action for repeat behaviour would be so effective. I can’t imagine it would be expensive for someone to enter a little data into a system, after watching a video submitted by a member of the public, with the rest of the process automated. You wouldn’t need to identify the driver, for example, the letter would go to the registered keeper and it would be in their interest to alert the person driving if it wasn’t them. The same goes for close passes and a whole load of other driving behaviours around vulnerable road users. The word would soon get around as people complained to their friends about getting a warning for “doing nothing wrong”.

        It would of course depend on the staff viewing the video knowing the rules of the road, both law and the highway code, and I’m beginning to wonder if this would be an impossible training task looking at the low base you would have to start with if the comments on twitter, and some on here, are representative.

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • Oldfatgit wrote:

        Problem is …
        Most drivers only read the Highway Code once – and that’s only to pass the driving test…

        — Oldfatgit

        Even so, when did the appearance or meaning of a Give Way line last undergo a change? This isn’t some obscure hinterland of the Highway Code. The driver knew perfectly well.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • You only have to watch an
          You only have to watch an episode or two of any shitdriverUKDashCam YouTube channel to see that plenty of drivers think that ‘Give Way’ is a guidance that excludes them.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Oldfatgit wrote:

            You only have to watch an episode or two of any shitdriverUKDashCam YouTube channel to see that plenty of drivers think that ‘Give Way’ is a guidance that excludes them.

            — Oldfatgit

            The same applies to:

            • Stop lines, ASLs and box junctions
            • Double white lines and ‘No overtaking’ signs
            • Red lights at junctions and roadworks (there’s a 5-second grace period for speeding drivers)
            • Speed limits – all of them are optional, even if you have 12 or more points on your licence
            • The 2-second rule, because everyone knows tailgating gets you to your destination so much earlier
            • ensuring front and rear lights are in working order, the tyres are not bald and the windscreen is clear

            and a plethora of others. It seems that the Highway Code can be ignored once you’ve passed your driving test, it’s the “My (right of) Way Code, shithead”. And the larger the vehicle the stronger this assertion is made.

            And why do manufacturers still bother to fit indicators?

      • It’s bad, but I’m fighting
        It’s bad, but I’m fighting the fight, if only because all the people vehemently defending the right of the driver to break the law with increasingly bizarre lines of argument* all now know that the rule exists.

        As cyclists, I believe it is important to lean on the legal support we have, not for the immediate instance, but for the next time.

        For example, I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule. That’s the result of videos, shouting and fist waving and Twitter arguments and good motorists setting examples more than motorists reading the HWC.

        *My favourite: as I am not an HGV driver, I cannot possibly understand just how difficult it is to bring an unloaded artic to a halt from walking pace so abiding by the law was impossible.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • I think that most motorists

          I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule

          They may do where you are, but they definitely don’t in many other areas. In Lancashire, if you’re cycling at times where there’s a lot of oncoming traffic, most passes are like these where they remain completely in the left lane- either because of the oncoming vehicles or just because turning the steering wheel is such an effort (for comparison with your own areas, you can see the state of the roads in the centre of a small market town in Lancashire)

          https://upride.cc/incident/wu11zmv_volvo_closepass/

          https://upride.cc/incident/ao66hvm_discovery_closepass/

          https://upride.cc/incident/pg02ljl_mini_closepass/

          And quite a lot are like these

          https://upride.cc/incident/yt08oov_peugeot207_closepass/

          https://upride.cc/incident/kp72wmm_kia_closepass/

          https://upride.cc/incident/po22yxa_hrv_closepass/

          https://upride.cc/incident/gk68uzv_peugeotboxer_closepass/

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • Keep fighting … I’m
          Keep fighting … I’m fighting at my end too.
          Something is working – I seem to have less incidents where I’m reaching for the Lock button to save the video for later.
          Either that, or I’ve become more blasé about the whole thing and driving that was unacceptable to me 12 months ago is now more of a ‘meh’.

          With regards to that particular truck at walking speed … *providing* it’s been well looked after, it would probably stop in the same – if not less – distance that your bike would take.
          The main risk is the angle of the trailer pushing the tractor unit to the side. Less of an issue with flat-beds, but can be problematic with curtainsiders and other high trailers.

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • IanMSpencer wrote:

          For example, I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule.

          — IanMSpencer

          I’d suggest that it is “some motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule.”  Certainly not “most”, even yet.

          Log In or Register to post comments

    • That’s for where the give way
      That’s for where the give way lines are set back from the main carriageway/cycle track, hence the word ‘advanced’. Doesn’t apply here.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • CF@Wds wrote:

        That’s for where the give way lines are set back from the main carriageway, hence the word ‘advanced’. Doesn’t apply here.

        — CF@Wds

        Except for the fact that the give way lines are totally set back from the main carriageway, of course. It is blindingly obvious that the cycle lane curves away from the line of the main carriageway to cross the junction and that the give way lines are set back a good three or four metres from that line.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • The give ways are not set
          The give ways are not set back from the junction. The give way lines are not set back from the cycle track. I don’t know the location but it looks like an old-fashioned scissor junction that has been re-designed to incorporate a segregated cycle route to reduce accidents. So rather than crossing at an angle the vehicles are turned to a 90deg position in relation to the cycle track, but that position is only obtained in the last 15m. So it’s easy to see how there’s still potential conflict, and it would have been better to replace the give way line with a stop line. However, councils tend to do that retrospectively. So if the cyclist really wanted kudos petition the council for lights / or a stop line because sooner or later a cyclist will get killed on that junction.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • CF@Wds wrote:

            The give ways are not set back from the junction.

            — CF@Wds

            I don’t really know how to respond to that except to say you are totally wrong. I happen to know this route quite well, here is a picture of the junction from the other side, you will observe the give way lines that are quite clearly set back from the junction.

    • TBF, learn something new, to
      TBF, learn something new, to find that there is explicit law that has existed for over 20 years. Great catch.

      Log In or Register to post comments

18. Quote:

    “You observed him indicating from half a mile back and you accelerated into it, which tells us plenty.”

    On the video it’s eight seconds from the lorry indicating to the cyclist reaching the junction, so apparently the cyclist is travelling at 225 mph.

    Log In or Register to post comments

19. The lorry driver should have

    The lorry driver should have given way.    

    Log In or Register to post comments

20. Really straightforward. If
    Really straightforward. If you look at the movement of the hgv it pauses before the give way line, and then decides to go for it. Driver just needs a bit more training to avoid the mistake. Cyclist would have been safer slowing and stopping (defensive riding) as the driver has quite a complex situation to deal with. Bit more training for the cyclist would have avoided the confrontation.
    Cyclist has priority, and if they don’t know that, it’s very worrying! When they shout about “new rule” etc that’s actually incorrect to the situation. And, the HC changes are in the main ‘clarifications’.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • CF@Wds wrote:

      Really straightforward. If you look at the movement of the hgv it pauses before the give way line, and then decides to go for it. Driver just needs a bit more training to avoid the mistake. Cyclist would have been safer slowing and stopping (defensive riding) as the driver has quite a complex situation to deal with. Bit more training for the cyclist would have avoided the confrontation. Cyclist has priority, and if they don’t know that, it’s very worrying! When they shout about “new rule” etc that’s actually incorrect to the situation. And, the HC changes are in the main ‘clarifications’.

      — CF@Wds

      Agree with most, but the point of the “bend cycle path away from main road” design is to reduce complexity e.g. drivers turning into the side road deal with that manouever, then there is a space where they can pause while they then deal with any crossing cyclists / pedestrians. 

      Obviously massive lorries are going to fill space wherever – but the driver still has two different points where they interact with different modes.

      Having said this though I think I’ve identified the spot on streetview – Evelyn Street  / Prince Street.  And I think it’s a case of “actually the Dutch wouldn’t do a junction like this”.  I’ve not seen any examples of Dutch mini-roundabouts (which doesn’t mean they don’t exist somewhere of course…).

      Not sure what they would do there – possibly squeeze in an actual Dutch roundabout with separate radial cycle path, but space looks tight here?  Perhaps there would be no entry to the side street for motor vehicles here (making a LTN)?

      If not I suspect the side street at least (because street) would have a continous footway / cycle path across it (so no bend in the cycle path).  But again – it’s very close to that mini-roundabout.  Indeed – so close the “waiting area” off the roundabout before the cycle path seems too small here.  Further details: the cycle track part is not right – the blue colour should continue all along the cycle track not just appear at the junctions.  The entrance for motor vehicles seems too wide.

      The fact that the whole debate kicked off shows the need for it (e.g. a large number of people have no idea about junctions…).  And even this flawed implementation has done its job here as the cyclist could see the driver failing to stop and there was space and time to fix that!

      Log In or Register to post comments

21. If this situation had
    If this situation had resulted in a collision, the fact that the cyclist appears to have been listening to music as they rode along would have been a contributing factor in causing the collision.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • CF@Wds wrote:

      If this situation had resulted in a collision, the fact that the cyclist appears to have been listening to music as they rode along would have been a contributing factor in causing the collision.

      — CF@Wds

      You are beginning to look very much like a vexatious/contrarian troll, the cyclist has music playing from an external speaker (something of which I personally don’t approve but there we are) and this could not possibly have contributed to any collision in any way at all.  Please stop talking nonsense.

      Log In or Register to post comments

22. No matter what answers you

    No matter what answers you get from the highway code you won’t get the cops to enforce them as their too busy breaking it themselves . Have you heard of the new emergence call system , for fire and ambulance call 999 for police call your nearest doughnut shop you will find them there parked high on the pavement over the wheelchair crossing point after going through a bus only entry point to get there and leaving through a no left turn . I have actually been trapped in a Greggs by a police car parked so close to the doors I couldn’t get out , doughnuts rule 

    Log In or Register to post comments