Near Miss of the Day 488: Driver turns across cyclist on shared-use path

Cycle lanes are put there for people who are too nervous to ride on the roads. Once you are more confident in your cycling skills and your ability to anticipate dangerous situations use the roads as you have every right to do. Get a camera and report every incident of motorists not respecting that right.

Having said that I'm not sure that having a cycle lane where you are cycling against the traffic with only a double yellow line to protect you would be very reassuring to a nervous cyclist.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Cycle lanes are put there for people who are too nervous to ride on the roads. 

What absolute bollocks. I've been cycling in London forty years, done some time as a bike courier too, have descended off Alpine passes at close to 80kmh, and I love  London's cycle lanes. There are enough motorist idiots saying we don't need cycle lanes without arrogant dick cyclists chiming in saying only nervous cyclists need them. Your comment is possibly the stupidest from a cyclist I've ever seen on here.

@Rendel Harris I am glad that even very experienced cyclists admit the usefulness of cycle lanes.

I may have never started again cycling as an adult, had some new tempting cycle lanes never been made in my area

cyclisto wrote:

@Rendel Harris I am glad that even very experienced cyclists admit the usefulness of cycle lanes.

I simply can't see why they wouldn't (as long as they're good ones); I can now ride from my home in Peckham right across town to King's Cross, Marble Arch or Greenwich and points beyond on wide, fast, well-maintained cycle paths, they're a joy. I guess Bungle_52 would be swerving in and out of the traffic shouting "Look at me, I'm experienced, I don't need cycle lanes!"

Great to hear they've encouraged you back on to two wheels, welcome back! Same happened for my wife who was very reluctant to ride in London traffic, now she commutes eight miles each way and we recently got rid of our car as no longer required.

Not sure about swerving and shouting but I would not use this particular cycle lane. That should leave more room for the cyclists who would like to use it.

Darkhairedlord wrote:

The cyclists mistake here is assuming cycle lanes are put there for the benefit of cyclists, they're not. They are to force cyclists off the road or herd to the side, freeing up the road for motorists.

Absolute nonsense, certainly here in London, where in numerous places motor traffic has had a lane removed to allow for a fully segregated cycle lane. Please don't let's start nonsense about cycle lanes being unwelcome as they're just a way to keep us off roads - I can't imagine anything that would play more into the hands of the motoring lobby.

| lot of cycle lanes are poorly designed and actually more dangerous to use than not. But properly designed ones are useful. I've been cycling in London for three decades now. I use the cycle superhighways a lot. My wife now rides regularly into work, which she wouldn't have done before. My kids also use them regularly.

I suspect all that will happen if you do that is they'll send a road maintenance crew down there to burn off the bicycle markings and turn it back into a footpath.

Without the proposed guidance in the highway code making it explicit that turning vehicles should give way to those going forward, proving fault might be less straightforward than you think.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but my opinion is that creating collisions to prove a point is not helpful.

I would have thought that liability is quite straight forward in this instance.

Traffic turning right should be yielding to traffic proceeding straight ahead.

They should also be using good observations and looking through the turn they are making, rather than acquiring a target destination and making themselves blind to anything happening on the periphery. Especially when crossing a footpath, even if they were ignorant of it being a cycle path, they had to know it was a footpath.

Bishop0151 wrote:

Traffic turning right should be yielding to traffic proceeding straight ahead.

Whilst this is a common rule in other countries, it is not in the UK.

If you think it ought to be and are UK resident, please respond to the consultation on changes to the highway code (only today and tomorrow left).

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

Highway Code is already clear on this:

Quote:

Rule 206

Drive carefully and slowly when

    ...

    needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement

Trouble is it occurred at a junction and at that point the pavement/cycle track becomes the road. This is where there's a bit of ambiguity, which could be made completely clear with the additional rules being proposed.

It's also not a 'MUST', so just guidance and would be taken into account with other stuff like:

Quote:

slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

and

Quote:

The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

so it can get quite subjective. Anyways, I filled in the consultation response this afternoon, so this incident was a good reminder!

HoarseMann wrote:

Trouble is it occurred at a junction and at that point the pavement/cycle track becomes the road. This is where there's a bit of ambiguity, which could be made completely clear with the additional rules being proposed.

It's also not a 'MUST', so just guidance and would be taken into account with other stuff like:

Quote:

slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

and

Quote:

The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

so it can get quite subjective. Anyways, I filled in the consultation response this afternoon, so this incident was a good reminder!

I think the area between the kerbs is pavement (footway), it's easier to see them on the previous video without all the leaves. I don't think having road either side is any different to having a road on one side and a driveway on the other.

But, yes, I'd agree the highway code and the law could be a lot clearer.

In some ways you've got to credit the council with not doing the usual thing of putting a 'cyclists dismount' sign at every side road. Maybe that would constitue a pavement, but I'm not sure it's catered for in the offical legislation (it might be - I haven't checked).

But it's quite an unusual road layout to encounter in the UK and not properly dealt with in the highway code, so needs to be approached with an abundance of caution.

If the insurance company finds this (and they do have people who trawl social media and forums) you could find yourself in a tricky position.

You're right. I think I would have been wary of a car waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic to turn across my path.

It takes two to tangle.

I thought it was a forum thread with a car coming from the right side road.
Stupid layout and needs clearer signage from the major road as who has priority.

yep could well have been, it just stood out as familiar as that layout positively encourages those exact kinds of situation to develop, and I cant imagine in the wet, with all the fallen leaves, that stopping suddenly going downhill is what you need on a bike

Déjà vue for me too.

Safer to cycle on the road along here for numerous reasons.