Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 656: Driver cuts across rider at cyclist priority junction

Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today it's south west London...

A driver cutting across a cyclist at a junction that was altered last year to give cyclists priority, forcing the rider to brake to avoid crashing into the vehicle, features in today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series.

The incident happened at the junction of London Road and Gordon Road in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames – one of London’s three Mini Holland boroughs – where a cycle path adjacent to the main carriageway crosses it.

The cyclist who filmed the incident, Twitter user Bigdai, is a bike mechanic and cycling instructor and can be heard on the video telling the motorist that he needs to apologise to the rider who was forced to stop, and that he cannot drive across the junction when cyclists are approaching.

He told road.cc: “The lane has been in place for about two years, previously there was no infrastructure, not even paint,” (as shown in this Google Street View image from 2019).

Gordon Road, Kingston May 2018 via Google Street View.PNG

“The current layout is pretty much LTN 1/20 compliant (until it meets the bus stop further along),” he added.

In a post published in April on the Kingston Cycling Campaign website, local cyclist Henry Medcalf highlighted that the junction had attracted criticism because of the absence of signage.

He wrote: “The stretch of cycle route isn’t without its criticisms, however. There has been lots of scrutiny of the junctions with Gordon Road and Birkenhead Avenue.

“There is a lack of clear signage for drivers that the cycleway has priority. As a result, drivers encroach out into the cycleway, creating risk for injury.

“This would be rectified by adding more obvious signage or moving the current signage to a more primary position in full view of the driver.”

> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?

Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.

If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.

If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).

Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.

> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

39 comments

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
5 likes

The thing is, even without the cycle lane, cutting in front of the cyclist like that would still be a traffic offence. 

Avatar
nicmason | 2 years ago
6 likes

This is one of the problems I find with cycle lanes and makes me feel unsafe on them.

I dont trust cars to give way at the right point going over them leaving or joining the main road.

I prefer the idea of a slow 20 mph speed limit properly enforced in urban areas and cycles on the road..

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to nicmason | 2 years ago
3 likes
nicmason wrote:

This is one of the problems I find with cycle lanes and makes me feel unsafe on them.

I dont trust cars to give way at the right point going over them leaving or joining the main road.

I prefer the idea of a slow 20 mph speed limit properly enforced in urban areas and cycles on the road..

I'm also suspicious of UK rubbish infra for reasons we all know and indeed if I'm in a hurry I may avoid sections that I don't know. However where done properly this is exactly what's needed. Speed limits are a great tool and we should make more use of them but they don't by themselves infallibly reduce speeds without far more enforcement than we can afford. They also won't lead to lots more people cycling. For that we need a reduction in interactions with lorries and cars - so that means a lot less cars or separate infra for bikes. The roads are designed for motor vehicles, not bikes. The fact that roadies can make use of them has little bearing on getting the general population out of their cars and on to bikes (a virtuous cycle!).

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/05/lower-speed-limits-are-not-enough.html

Avatar
nicmason replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes

In my ideal world (the one that would never happen) there would be long distance cycle lanes clearly seperated from the road in rural areas and a lower speed limit and vehicular cycling in urban areas.  I drive in to North London sometimes and once I reach the 20mph zone I'm aware I'm driving at almost the same speed as most cyclists. Safer for everyone.   

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to nicmason | 2 years ago
0 likes
nicmason wrote:

In my ideal world (the one that would never happen) there would be long distance cycle lanes clearly seperated from the road in rural areas and a lower speed limit and vehicular cycling in urban areas.  I drive in to North London sometimes and once I reach the 20mph zone I'm aware I'm driving at almost the same speed as most cyclists. Safer for everyone.   

I'll agree on the country part. I know what that looks like - and actually we have the space there so there's lots to do but politically easier. In my imaginary world I'd like to see urban cycling being common for kids, old people and those with disabilities - because that's friends and relatives. Vehicular cycling ain't going to do that nor are all these folks going to go at 20mph. (Agree with eBurtthebike that sometimes that is too much). That's why I want good infra (e.g. suitable for speedy and efficient as well as safe) in towns. Often the focus is (rightly) on crossings and junctions but the best kind is when you just use a totally different route than (most of) the cars. I see this daily - I'm lucky to be on a couple of off-road paved paths which traverse the city in two directions. No interaction with cars at all, outside of having to share with dog walkers (grr!) I go faster than on main roads - no traffic lights!

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to nicmason | 2 years ago
2 likes
nicmason wrote:

This is one of the problems I find with cycle lanes and makes me feel unsafe on them.

I dont trust cars to give way at the right point going over them leaving or joining the main road.

I prefer the idea of a slow 20 mph speed limit properly enforced in urban areas and cycles on the road..

20mph is good, but 20kph is better.  That is the speed limit in woonerfs in Holland, and it really makes a difference.

Avatar
marmotte27 | 2 years ago
5 likes

“This would be rectified by adding more obvious signage"

If there's "signage" needed, than the layout is crap. In doubt signage is ignored.

Avatar
HLaB replied to marmotte27 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Yip, it's the idea of a continuous footway. The unnecessary sign clutter would just be ignored and distract from the pedestrian/cyclist/footway. The whole design with ramps, changes in road surface with a clear continuous line presents a nice clear image that the driver is entering at permission and not automatically entitled. It works well in Europe but not with the numpties in the UK. Which says to me yet again we need to back these things up with presumed/strict liability and not more infrastructure to be ignored  2

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to HLaB | 2 years ago
1 like

Like all these improvements they work well if done well. They don't stand a chance if you don't do them properly. The more I look at this one the more it's clearly a "cargo cult" version of a good design. The "real" one is not magic - these interventions just work with physics and human psychology. They convey clearly whose space this is (whether vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian), what you should be doing and they aim to reduce risk and cognitive load. Our current designs also work with psychology - they convey "drive fast, only worry about looking for cars, we have made this place for your convenience".

As well as having suitable design goals and principles for these to "work" relies on designs being standard. Not like the colours and markings here!  The less consistent the designs the more confusing. Finally when introducing new designs it will always take some time before people get their head round them.

Presumed liability - everywhere this occurs it just affects civil compensation claims. Won't have any preventative effect. Beefing up enforcement and penalties would be what you're looking for. We should but that also comes to your aid after you've been squashed which is too late as far as I'm concerned.

Avatar
HLaB replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
4 likes

Unfortunately I think you can build the optimum design but if a numptie is a numptie is doesn't matter how good the infrastructure is. We have to change the mindset of those numpties. Strict liability is just one tool to start making those numpties think twice. It's not rocket science to look at the countries near by who have been getting it right for years.

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to HLaB | 2 years ago
0 likes

Go, guy, go!

Brilliant persuasive comments - BOUND to convince those who don't currently share your opinion to change their minds.

How do you do it?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
5 likes

What are you on about?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
3 likes

I am coming to the conclusion that you don't understand what a forum is.

Do you ever post anything that is relevant to the main topic under discussion?

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
1 like
hirsute wrote:

I am coming to the conclusion that you don't understand what a forum is.

Do you ever post anything that is relevant to the main topic under discussion?

It's not a troll, it's a bot!

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
4 likes

.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
3 likes

Still from vid showing the "entrance" the car's turning into.

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes

Good spot that the ramp should not be set back from the kerb line (unless there’s space for a whole car length). Many Kingston side junctions with crossing cycle tracks have actually done it the “correct” way, so it’s unclear why Gordon Rd hasn’t. Given the way people drive in SE England though, the ramps maybe should be twice as high.

On the surface changes, the fact that there is a colour change of some sort for pedestrians is fair enough, because the footway leading up to it is the original light grey tarmac, presumably to keep costs down, while it’s possible that some of the footway by the self-storage warehouse is owned by the warehouse proprietors (and I'm speculating that they refused a bus stop bypass).

Heaven knows how you improve driver compliance - it’s another aspect of traffic and infrastructure in the UK that is 40 years behind high cycling countries. In this case you might build a big arch with flashing lights saying “give way to people cycling and walking in both directions”, perhaps triggered by sensors when active travellers pass.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Jitensha Oni | 2 years ago
0 likes

Domo arigato gozaimasu!

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
0 likes

They should change the main road with some bollards or similar to prevent vehicles turning right into that side road if the drivers can't handle a safe maneouvre there.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
3 likes

Actually I think what they might have been thinking of was the following. Notice the subtle difference - there isn't a space for the car to nose in. In the one they've done there is e.g. they have made an entrance. Not continous footway then. Another detail but the different colour for the pedestrian part is a "no" too.

 

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
1 like

Not the finest cycle lane in the world.  The bit straight after the junction appears to be horribly thought out.  Mixed use pedestrain/bike with no warning for either.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
2 likes
Secret_squirrel wrote:

Not the finest cycle lane in the world.  The bit straight after the junction appears to be horribly thought out.  Mixed use pedestrain/bike with no warning for either.

Yeah, that was also pretty poor (you get a tiny "shared use" symbol on a bollard) - probably the money had run out by that point.  Although again for most of the UK "luxury, that!"

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
2 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

"luxury, that!"

Sad but true.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes

Hmm... Well this is clearly better than the "before". To those who say about signage, have a look at Robert Weetman's very thoughtful "continuous footway in the UK" articles [1, 2, 3] particularly the second. I think his point is well made - the crucial think is making it very clear that this is not car space. So *no* markings for cars (e.g. cycle lane and footway continue unchanged - a slight bend is permissable for the bike lane).

This one looks OK at first blush but then you see that:

The footway on the left is cut into by a 2-lane entry for vehicles. The footway should keep its width and the side road should narrow to the width of a single vehicle.

There is too much space for the car where the cycle lane bends away from the road. This encourages just what the driver's done e.g. pulling across the carriageway to get his nose into that gap (although as mentioned in this case he probably didn't even think or look...). There should be none.

People might say "but but but this is ridiculous how will the cars get there?". Well if this is a suitable place for a continous footway treatment this is what it entails - very slow access by a very limited number of vehicles. It's possible that this side road is too busy / is a through-road in which case they shouldn't use this treatment but something else. (One possibility - if there was space for a car to completely wait off the main road that's fine - it's just not technically a "continuous footway" then but a side road junction with priority for cycling.)

Unfortunately in the UK without hauling in all drivers for re-education we'll have a generation of issues simply because there isn't much like this out there and drivers (indeed everyone) has internalised the message "if vehicles can physically drive there it is 'road'. When vehicles do drive there everyone else must look out".

From the linked articles - to compare with this one:

 

Avatar
andystow | 2 years ago
3 likes

Another motorist time-out. I like the trend.

Avatar
brooksby | 2 years ago
8 likes

I suspect the problem there is also that many motorists will just assume that they have priority over cyclists, no matter what the layout or markings indicate, and will drive accordingly...

Avatar
Ride On replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
2 likes

Agreed. Road culture has to change and that will take a consistent and concerted effort nationwide.

Avatar
Troon | 2 years ago
4 likes

What a terrible junction layout and mark-up.

Whilst the driver is clearly in the wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with them in this case and may well have made the same mistake myself if navigating that in a car without knowing the layout in advance. Watching for gaps in the oncoming cars to turn right, then having to look backwards for same-direction bikes coming a lane over and hidden by the other traffic whilst being conscious of then blocking the oncoming cars is a lot to expect. 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Troon | 2 years ago
3 likes

So what you are saying is you would ignore the big red signs alerting drivers to the fact they need to give way (there is one at the very start of the video so expect the same in the other direction), and only concentrate on the oncoming cars and nothing else. 

TBH another case of the one car flashing the other one which makes the turning driver assume it is safe for whatever manouvre they now has planned, whether there are cyclists, or kids crossing. 

Avatar
kraut replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
3 likes

I think this highlights the problem with bidirectional cycle paths on one side of the road. Without wanting to excuse the driver (who is clearly in the wrong), they are conditioned to look for oncoming traffic when turning. 

Pages

Latest Comments