Ludgate Circus cyclist tipper lorry

[NWTony]

heebeegeetee said:

I can't think of any reason why not, and it's how I see them.

Found this: 140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-rider...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 21st October 18:46

I've had a look and except in very specific circumstances, including the cylce lane being offset by 5m and in fact forming a crossing on the side road and that cycle lane being raised above teh surface of the as a hump, then no, the cycle lane does not have priority.

So from the description given the fault, if we must assign fault, belongs with the cyclists. It seems equivalent to overtaking a car turning right, on the right. I think if a driver did this there would be no argument over who is to blame.

[Mave]

NWTony said:

It seems equivalent to overtaking a car turning right, on the right. I think if a driver did this there would be no argument over who is to blame.

It's equivalent to overtaking a car that's in the left hand lane of a dual carriageway who then wants to turn right. If the driver changing lanes didn't see the guy overtaking him and turned in front of him, who would be to blame?

[Hugo a Gogo]

heebeegeetee said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

massively over-egging the pudding there

if your vehicle is surrounded by 30 or 40 cyclists, the sensible thing would be:
a. wait a second or two at the lights for them to feck off?

What, and you think there'll be no more cyclists coming?

what would you do then?
run them over?

[rambo19]

The problem as I see it is that cyclists are constantly putting themselves in danger and the poor old motorist has to deal with the outcome.

I would be interested to see how many cyclists were killed by a vehcile and on how many occassions the motorist was prosecuted.

[heebeegeetee]

Hugo a Gogo said:

what would you do then?
run them over?

You'd do your best not to and hope that you never ever get it wrong. That's me talking as though I were an hgv driver.

If you'd ask me as any other type of road user I'd say I'd always give the hgv driver some space, out of both courtesy and safety.

[irocfan]

heebeegeetee said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

what would you do then?
run them over?

You'd do your best not to and hope that you never ever get it wrong. That's me talking as though I were an hgv driver.

If you'd ask me as any other type of road user I'd say I'd always give the hgv driver some space, out of both courtesy and safety.

out of courtesy and safety... therein lies the issue with a lot of cyclists road-users these days,

[budgie smuggler]

rambo19 said:

The problem as I see it is that cyclists are constantly putting themselves in danger and the poor old motorist has to deal with the outcome.

I would be interested to see how many cyclists were killed by a vehcile and on how many occassions the motorist was prosecuted.

No idea on prosecutions, but your premise seems wrong, given the statistic that 68% of accidents involving a bike & car in Westminster are deemed to be the fault of the car driver.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...

[Hugo a Gogo]

rambo19 said:

The problem as I see it is that cyclists are constantly putting themselves in danger and the poor old motorist has to deal with the outcome.

you think the outcome is worse for this truck driver than for the girl?

[Mave]

rambo19 said:

I would be interested to see how many cyclists were killed by a vehcile and on how many occassions the motorist was prosecuted.

The only independent report I've seen suggests that in serious car / bike collisions, the car driver was 3 times as likely to be at fault.

[NWTony]

Mave said:

It's equivalent to overtaking a car that's in the left hand lane of a dual carriageway who then wants to turn right. If the driver changing lanes didn't see the guy overtaking him and turned in front of him, who would be to blame?

But the driver isn't / wasn't changing lanes? He's turning at a junction, from the correct lane. AFAIK after a brief internet search on cycle lane guidance, the cycle lane doesn't have priority over the junction, except in the very specific circumstances which I mentioned before.

I can't see how, given the circumstances described, that the driver was at fault.

[Hugo a Gogo]

NWTony said:

But the driver isn't / wasn't changing lanes? He's turning at a junction, from the correct lane. AFAIK after a brief internet search on cycle lane guidance, the cycle lane doesn't have priority over the junction, except in the very specific circumstances which I mentioned before.

I can't see how, given the circumstances described, that the driver was at fault.

if the truck overtakes (or partially overtakes) a cyclist and immediately turns left over them - then the driver is at fault

if the truck slows and the cyclist 'undertakes' then the cyclist is at fault

[NWTony]

Hugo a Gogo said:

if the truck overtakes (or partially overtakes) a cyclist and immediately turns left over them - then the driver is at fault

if the truck slows and the cyclist 'undertakes' then the cyclist is at fault

I think I can agree with that.

[heebeegeetee]

NWTony said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

if the truck overtakes (or partially overtakes) a cyclist and immediately turns left over them - then the driver is at fault

if the truck slows and the cyclist 'undertakes' then the cyclist is at fault

I think I can agree with that.

I think you're talking about different issues.

It seems Tony overtook some cyclists who were in a cycle lane and then Tony immediately wanted to turn left across their bows, thus impeding the people he's just overtaken. Tony thinks it was their fault.

[Hugo a Gogo]

well it's not

[NWTony]

heebeegeetee said:

I think you're talking about different issues.

It seems Tony overtook some cyclists who were in a cycle lane and then Tony immediately wanted to turn left across their bows, thus impeding the people he's just overtaken. Tony thinks it was their fault.

I'm talking about this very specific example from earlier in the thread, Tony hasn't overtaken anyone. Please don't assume you can put words into my mouth, it betrays an arrogance that is barely hidden inyour normal posts.

"Had this the other week. Four cyclists in the cycle lane, I move past with 100 yards distance.

Start indicating early to turn left, car in front slows down meaning the gap between myself and cyclists behind lessens, i slow for the corner to turn left (still indicating), start turning the wheel and move into the turn, luckily luckily i looked over my left shoulder to identify where they are, as they were in a bit of a blind spot where i was turning - whoosh.. all four cyclists blow through - they hadn't slowed.

If i had not looked i would of had all four of them, they wouldn't have been able to slow - I suspect this would have been my fault as a inconsiderate car driver..

Now installing cameras front and rear on the car. It's just not worth it anymore. "

From this description and this description alone, the driver was well past the cyclists and indicating left to turn into a junction as traffic slowed. I don't get the impression the driver violently cut across the cylists to turn left.

Had I done the same to a car, overtook it then shortly after slowed (for clarity I don't mean slammed on,screeching to a halt) and indicated left into a junction and the car behind plowed into the back of me, would you say it was the drivers behind fault? I think I would, they can see me, my car has brake lights and indicators.

[croyde]

I was driving from East London to SW London late last night. There was a lot of traffic but everyone was moving quite swiftly but there were hold ups on the north bank of the Thames section from Tower Bridge to Westminster Bridge due to the odd cyclist gamely pedaling away on what is basically a duel carriageway. There are tunnels with lanes just too tight for the lorries and cars that use them and no pavements or run off areas.

I'm not saying that the cyclists should not be there but as a cyclist myself, I certainly wouldn't be so bloody minded to use that route, especially late at night when there are nicer and quieter roads within yards.

I'd rather get home safe than get crushed just because it is my right to use those same roads.

[Mave]

NWTony said:

But the driver isn't / wasn't changing lanes? He's turning at a junction, from the correct lane. AFAIK after a brief internet search on cycle lane guidance, the cycle lane doesn't have priority over the junction

If the cycle lane is separated from the main carriageway by lane dividers then surely HC rule 131 (stay in your lane) and rule 133 (if you need to change lanes make sure it is safe and you won't force other road users to change course or speed) both apply?

[Mr Will]

NWTony said:

Had I done the same to a car, overtook it then shortly after slowed (for clarity I don't mean slammed on,screeching to a halt) and indicated left into a junction and the car behind plowed into the back of me, would you say it was the drivers behind fault? I think I would, they can see me, my car has brake lights and indicators.

Okay, you're driving in the right hand lane, there is a bus in a bus-lane to your left. You overtake it, then slow down and turn left into a junction across it's bows and it flattens you - your fault or the buses fault?

Same scenario, still with a bus lane but this time it's a bike in it - who's fault?

Finally, replace the bus lane with a cycle lane - does it change anything?

[rivercatch]

I commute West to East London every day by motorbike. Have done for 10+ years. I occasionally cycle it in fair weather. I was looking closely today as a result of reading this thread - even diverted through Ludgate Circus.

There are a lot of construction trucks - tippers, skip carriers, aggregate lorries, cement, etc. We talk about blind spots but what was noticeable is that the construction trucks seems to have fewer ancillary mirrors to cover the blind spots. I compared against big delivery trucks and cab & trailer trucks labelled like Sainsbury, Tesco, M&S, Royal Mail. Also the non-construction trucks seem to have more side barriers to prevent other vehicles going under - these seemed to be absent on construction trucks. My point being that construction trucks seems to do less to mitigate their impact - they just seem less safety aware, less voluntary action.

Also IMO they are driven more aggressively. I was aware that in my hierarchy of danger (to me on a bike & developed over my years of riding) tipper trucks are up there with Royal Mail trucks/vans and volvos. I know this is subjective.

Finally I do have to ask if they are just too big for London streets - especially the centre. Given the location of some of the sites and the tight corners and the access, I wonder whether they should be limited in wheelbase length

[loose cannon]

aizvara said:

What do you do when a vehicle pulls alongside you when you are already in a queue, or stopped at the junction? And then when they turn left without making allowance for you?

Quickly bump up the kerb so you don't get flattened by a few tons of metal ?