A recent YouTube video shows a Manchester cyclist colliding with the side of a van after it turns left in front of her. The junction is part of the Wilmslow Road Cycleway and campaigners have suggested that potentially confusing junctions such as this could perhaps need redesigning.
The collision took place at the junction of Wilmslow Road and Mauldeth Road on Tuesday February 9 with the footage recorded by the dashcam of a motorist further back in the queue of traffic.
The cyclist is seen riding in the cycle lane, passing traffic outside her as the lights change to green, but she is then hit when the van turns in front of her. There is no obvious sign that the vehicle was indicating, but the view of it is obscured as it starts to turn.
The Manchester Evening News reports that the cyclist was uninjured. Michael MacDonald, the person filming from his vehicle, said:
“I couldn’t believe it when I saw what happened. I thought the woman would be badly injured considering the force of the crash.
“But luckily just after she was back up and seemed OK. I rushed out to make sure, and she asked the van driver whether he could ‘get off her bike’.
“Whether he was indicating before he turned I really don’t know – but the woman was calm and they were polite with each other. She certainly didn’t seem to be blaming him.”
However, writing at the Just Step Sideways blog, Dom says he believes that the design of the junction “played a big part” in causing the incident.
“The kerb separation finishes some way before the junction, with the cycleway continuing as a mandatory cycle lane, then ASL, then advisory cycle lane. This gives no protection and means there’s confusion on who has right of way.”
Dom contrasts this with ‘a typical junction of a similar size in the Netherlands’ highlighting give way markings on the road and other visual indicators.
Earlier this week, the Leader of Manchester City Council expressed concerns about the Wilmslow Road Cycleway project. A cyclist himself, Sir Richard Leese remarked: “On my journey, the biggest issue is the road surface – not whether I've got my own lane or not."
A spokesperson for Manchester City Council told road.cc:
“The safety of cyclists and other road users is our top priority. The design of the junction of Wilmslow Road and Mauldeth Road is similar to many traffic light-controlled junctions where a cycle lane is included on the approach.
“The cycle lane is clearly marked across the entry to the side road to make sure other road users are aware that cyclists may be using it. However, as the scheme nears completion, we are entering into a period of reviewing the new infrastructure on Wilmslow Road and will include the comments on this junction within this review."
Add new comment
22 comments
The junction's about 5 minutes from my front door, quicker if I ride, and you couldn't pay me to use that route. Following the 111 bus route, or Princess Road (very busy dual carriageway) are both quicker and safer.
I go past this spot regularly and agree the new routes have been designed very poorly.
Separate cycle lanes give the cyclist priority UNTIL a junction, when anyone turning or pulling out will not be focused on the apex of the cycle/pull out to the wrong line.
Separate cycle lanescannot be cleaned or maintained.
Separate cycle lanes are blocked by parked cars.
Separate cycle lanes put cyclists in conflict with pedestrians by going around the back of bus stops.
Separate cycle lanes around bus stops merge back into the road in an unsafe manner,
Separate cycle lanes are opened for one section when another is still being surfaced, don't force me to weave in and out of cones because you can't plan your works properly.
The only virtue of the work has been that the main carriageway has been resurfaced. If I am cruising along at 30kph then the last thing I am going to do is be diving behind bus stops.
The lady in the video is perhaps the sort of person that this scheme is aimed at protecting but as people have said it may have given her a false sense of protection. On the open road I always think if you are 'undertaking' cars at a junction this could happen. You should match your speed to the traffic flow and position yourself beside the gap between vehicles to give yourself a fighting chance of stopping. (Advise, not victim blaming)
By all means have a clean green well maintained route that cars should not drive in and be fined for parking in, but don't make them separate from the rest of the road. It is cheaper and safer for all.
Often motorists will pull in tight to the kerb anyway to stop me overtaking on the inside so I try to over take queues on the outside when I can.
The comment about these routes not being designed by cyclists is spot on. In my area both Sefton and Liverpool Council have no interest in consulting with cyclists about routes. They are making some progress but every route they put in could be improved for no extra cost with pre consultation with those actually wanting to use the route. It's very frustrating but that's council culture for you - they don't tend to attract genuine long term thinkers.
This is another of those "we will probably never know" situations, posted here for no other reason than hits and possibly advertising revenue from clicks.
There seems to be a massive audience on this site that hate cars, period, and feel that cyclists can do no wrong.
I'm afraid things aren't as black and white as that.
In this instance there is a general assumption that the van didn't indicate, but there is zero evidence to prove or disprove that, we just can't see.
As for the cyclist, she does approach the junction at a fair speed and one would assume that she would only see the indicator quite late on too, if it was working, possibly too late to stop.
One could assume that due to her lack of remonstrations she is fully aware that she was in the wrong, again, that would be an assumption, we have no way of knowing.
On another site folk were protesting that the driver should have used his mirrors, perhaps he did, but mirrors do have big blind spots and, being a van, he wouldn't be able to check over his shoulder.
It is all too easy to be an internet lawyer, but villifying drivers because they drive helps no one.
I'd hazard that a lot of the most vociferous anti car members on this site don't actually have a driving license.
Cars are a neccessity in modern society, whether we like it or not, cyclist and drivers should work together to achieve compromise instead of pointing fingers and insult hurling.
Do I drive?
Yes, but not at the moment as I don't have a car, which is a pain given my nearest supermarket is a 8km round trip and no regular public transport to speak of, so I walk.
I am without a car simply for reasons of economy, not living in a city they are pretty essential, I just can't afford one at the moment, but won't hesitate to get another when money isn't so tight.
Do I cycle?
Yes, around 50km a day on average, including quite frequent trips along the road featured in this article.
Oh, until recently I also averaged 20,000km a year by motorcycle, though this was when living in Paris so not that relevent to a UK debate.
The point of this long rant is that articles such as these inflame debates, even if, so far, this has remained civilised, and serve no real purpose other than sensationalism.
Instead of spouting on internet forums that, lets be realistic, are only read by Cyclists with a capital C, direct the energy elsewhere, lobby those that can make a change, and above all, stay rational and civilised.
Road CC need to focus more on Cycling related issues other than youtube videos of collisions, as I mentioned earlier, on here these serve no purpose other than incitement and division.
Bring on the reviews
/endofslightrant
In your eagerness to rush into blaming the cyclist for the accident you ignore the fact that she has priority in this bike lane. There is no reason why, if the bike lane is fit for purpose (more on that later) she should NOT be travelling at a "fair speed" instead of dawdling along at a speed which inconveniences her.
Not for a vast number of people that currently use them. They're mostly a luxury indulged in for proximately selfish reasons which end up being not just self-defeating, but unpleasant and dangerous for everyone else too.
It's ironic that yours is the most "finger pointy" post up to this date. Specifically finger pointing at a woman who was following the rules of the road and could have been seriously hurt. It's also instructive that instead of focusing on the things that can be changed to avoid situations such as the above you choose to drag this down into details of your personal life coupled with speculation as to the culpability of the cyclist.
Well, no.
Maybe to someone like you that is interested in some sort of moralistic approach to cycling these serve solely as some sort of opportunity to wag your finger at cyclists. Other people will see (I hope), that bicycle lanes which give the illusion of safety, yet encourage overtaking on the inside are dangerous for cyclists, whether or not they are conducting themselves completely within the law. It's one of the reasons that taking a primary position in the lane in highly encouraged. Not doing so has been suggested to have led to the disproportionate number of deaths of women crushed by left-turning large vehicles. As you point out, even in a relatively smaller vehicle such as this, most drivers are incapable of seeing what's behind them.
OK, you just want consumerism from this site and you don't have a problem with our unbalanced car-culture or the way driving is effectively massively susbidised due to its multiple costs on society (including 'accidents') being externalised and imposed on everyone. Bad road design or poor policing that endanger vulnerable road-users are of no interest to you. Fair enough.
But why demand that the entire internet has to agree with you? Why does it upset you if others talk about these things?
Also, I don't get your logic that says one can't have a problem with the problems caused by the (mis-managed) domination of cities by cars unless one is a driver. That seems entirely topsy-turvey reasoning to me.
You are making idiotic assumptions about the visitors to this site, period.
What's black and white is that the cyclist in this situation had the right of way, that cyclists are extremely vulnerable road users and most of accidents involving cyclists are drivers' fault. What else don't you understand?
You can also see at around 2:15 that the van wasnt indicating to turn either.
This probably won't go down very well but I don't like cycle lanes. I've been cycling on the road for almost 30 years and have always gone by the principle that you shouldn't pass a vehicle on the inside, much like I wouldn't whilst driving. I was taught that if you wanted to overtake you should do so with caution on the outside.
The problem with cycle lanes is they encourage users to pass on the inside and almost create a false sense of right and safety. As a motorist its drilled into you to overtake on the outside and not pass on the inside so most don't expect this to happen. It doesn't make it right and as a cyclist I'm aware of this when I'm driving but right or not it's not wise to pass on the inside through a junction. Better to live than prove a point.
I also believe that increased attempts to make big junctions safer are actually making things worse. Roads used to be simple but some layouts are becoming so complicated that they are bewildering and users have to focus so hard on how to get through that they'll miss impending danger.
On a final note, I've cycled in France quite a few times and cycling is in the blood over there. You are accepted on the road and even encouraged on climbs but the one region I cycled in that had cycle paths was horrible. The paths were covered in debris and pine needles and you had to give way at every junction so as a serious roadie I chose the road instead. No flat tyres, quicker progress and actually safer. Only problem is that I got honked at and abused for not using the cycle lanes!
It probably won't but I agree with all of the above: the danger of inside overtaking, novel road layouts, too many choices, hostility for "not using the lane" are all problems which I would like to solve.
At the moment I feel it would be simpler to just insist that cyclists MUST occupy primary position in their lane. Although I like what I see from David Hembrow's videos and articles about Holland I have never seen anything approaching such road designs in the UK or Ireland or N.America. I suspect that due to the cultural hostility towards cyclists in anglophone countries it's nearly impossible to get to even a viable starting point.
I moved to Brussels over the Christmas holiday, and it is interesting to see how drivers there deal with cyclists and pedestrians. At traffic lights when the drivers get a green light, they have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians if turning left or right. Consequently as you approach a junction (with or without traffic lights) you are having a good look out for cyclists and pedestrians, and if you are not clear then stop before swinging in to make sure. I also make very good use of my mirrors. I suspect the layout above requires more thought than the majority of drivers are giving it in order to be considerate of cyclists on the cycle lane.
My daughter is studying in Manchester, and cycles down Oxford road. I will send her this link to give her an indication of the risks she may be facing.
Unfortunately Manchester's cycle lanes seem to have been designed by non cyclists. There are sections which resemble the Olympic giant slalom course. Long sections in which no drainage has been installed so that rain causes them look like the canals of Venice. On two sections which are fully open down Wilmslow road I've never seen a cyclist on then. We all use the road it's so much safer and quicker.
There are a few good sections but the majority is very disappointing. It has unfortunately made my everyday commute more dangerous.
I don't understand why there is confusion. Cars on roads with 2 lanes do not assume they can turn left from the right lane with priority over cars in the left lane.
This is no different, except for motons attitudes to vulnerable road users.
Also clary no mirror or signal on that manoeuvre. How can anyone expect priority without even signalling their intent?
But if I'm in the right hand lane on a dual carriageway and I want to leave the dual carriageway well then I don't need to check for traffic to my left because *obviously * they'll give way to me... Oh, wait, no they won't, err..,
As you say, it's all down to 'might makes right' - bikes don't have an internal combustion engine and so they just don't count (edit) in the minds of many motorists (and some pedestrians too, although that's a separate problem)
The new changes to Wilmslow Road and Oxford Road really worry me. I ride this section almost every day. The work being done in Rusholme right now is of particular concern. There is a section from Great Western Street to Moss Road East that has just opened. I used it twice this week and was almost knocked off on both occasions. Once by a driver coming out of the petrol station who crossed the cycle lane and stopped waiting to join the main carriageway and secondly by a van driver doing exactly what is shown in this video.
As it stands I will take my chances on the main highway and won't be using the cycle lanes I think. I find the traffic much more predictable that way.
Nice of the driver to get out and check she was OK.
What is on the radio? Sounds like a chipmunk or someone on helium.
I think it is Tracy Ulman talking about her new show.
I agree the van could not have been indicating. The van's steering wheel would not have been spun back to release the indicator. If you step through the video, even before hitting her, there is clearly no flashing indicator.
Fault is with the driver 1st, city planners 2nd.
The van was not indicating. If it would you would see it while he was doing the manuever. The van is in the wrong, but I do understand that the layout migh be a little confusing. It's alrigth to keep cycle lane through the main road when the only left turn is to building block parking or something similar. In this situation she would slowed down even if the van was not indicating as she would start to merge with the traffic. She would be able to continue on cycling path after the junction. This is a rare concept. Probably haven't noticed them, but this is the first time I a single lane having cycling priority through the junction. At least nobody got hurt.
Rule 183 - give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2qNup7YNSY
+ Rule 151: be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.