Why do cyclists try to undertake left turning trucks ?
Discussion
Brads67 said:
Oh imagine ! someone trying to blame a cyclist for being hit by a driver.
And there was no undertaking there, simply dangerous driving.
I agree that the cycle lane should end before the junction, and restart after it - the road markings imply that the cyclist has priority.And there was no undertaking there, simply dangerous driving.
It's also a good point that the cycle lanes are not designed for cycles travelling the same speed as cars.
In this instance - if you replace the cyclist with a car ( ignoring the recent overtake, and purely for the convenience of illustrating my point
)Tailgating?
As I've said before, 100% driver's fault, but the cyclist could have chosen to be further back when there was a junction ahead.
For whoever it was says you wouldn't get anywhere slowing down for every turning if there's a car in front, this is more likely to happen to you. You are choosing to accept increased risk of an accident to not hinder your progress.
Dont like rolls said:
RobM77 said:
I explained this fully in my first post. Did neither of you read it? What you've quoted is a summary - I fully explained it in the post.I'm also confused by your first statement: What's a "ticket" and why should I have one if I own an MG?
2nd "MG BGT V8 (race car) " so I am assuming you have a race licence of some sort, if so I worry, based on your assessment of the incident we are discussing that there is a question about your road craft.
If I were riding a bike in an area like that, I’d take any overtake at a road junction as a potential cutting up manoeuvre, and ease off/brake to give myself more room.
Not the cyclists fault by the “rules”
But if they keep being so naive thinking van drivers are saints, they’re gonna get killed.
And road/race craft are completely different disciplines.
Mr Whippy said:
It’s no good having “it was my right of way” on your gravestone.
If I were riding a bike in an area like that, I’d take any overtake at a road junction as a potential cutting up manoeuvre, and ease off/brake to give myself more room.
Not the cyclists fault by the “rules”
But if they keep being so naive thinking van drivers are saints, they’re gonna get killed.
And road/race craft are completely different disciplines.
I do not cycle in London these days, in fact I do not go often now but I used to....you have a car passing/junction every 50 yards9ish) on most central roads, how slow should you go ? In town the instinct is that there is a hazard there every time, the van driver just turned without thought.If I were riding a bike in an area like that, I’d take any overtake at a road junction as a potential cutting up manoeuvre, and ease off/brake to give myself more room.
Not the cyclists fault by the “rules”
But if they keep being so naive thinking van drivers are saints, they’re gonna get killed.
And road/race craft are completely different disciplines.
If you cut into a pit lane across a lane/car/m-bike like that on a track there would be a few asking questions about your skills.
Van driver should have seen the cyclists and done a bit of forward planning. Driver clearly failed. Needs to resit test and CPC if driver thought that was an OK move (such as any use a CPC does if required for this).
How much under the timer and penalties are delivery drivers on this stuff? Late for a timed slot?
How much under the timer and penalties are delivery drivers on this stuff? Late for a timed slot?
Zirconia said:
Van driver should have seen the cyclists and done a bit of forward planning. Driver clearly failed. Needs to resit test and CPC if driver thought that was an OK move (such as any use a CPC does if required for this).
How much under the timer and penalties are delivery drivers on this stuff? Late for a timed slot?
He does not require a CPC as its not a vocational licence.How much under the timer and penalties are delivery drivers on this stuff? Late for a timed slot?
This is part of the problem.
Pretty obvious to me: the Tesco driver hammers along, then realises too late he is about to miss his turning. Brakes late and indicates at the same time, and less than 2 seconds later is turning in across the give way lines for the exit from the side turning (ie a full lane overshoot) collecting the cyclist as he went.
Almost certainly in that rush to make the turn and not miss it he didn’t look and didn’t much care about what was on his left. 100% his fault, underlined by the refusal to identify himself as the driver subsequently.
That stretch of road used to be two car lanes. In the morning rush hour the left car lane was a de facto bike lane, but if a car wanted to turn left there, or at the lefts before or after it, they’d sit in the left lane and cyclists could see easily what was going on.
The blue bike lanes in London are great for getting people on bikes who otherwise might feel intimidated by traffic. But for quicker cyclists who are used to traffic they are counter productive, and they make it quite a bit harder for drivers to make left turns (or right turns across and oncoming bike lane).
Almost certainly in that rush to make the turn and not miss it he didn’t look and didn’t much care about what was on his left. 100% his fault, underlined by the refusal to identify himself as the driver subsequently.
That stretch of road used to be two car lanes. In the morning rush hour the left car lane was a de facto bike lane, but if a car wanted to turn left there, or at the lefts before or after it, they’d sit in the left lane and cyclists could see easily what was going on.
The blue bike lanes in London are great for getting people on bikes who otherwise might feel intimidated by traffic. But for quicker cyclists who are used to traffic they are counter productive, and they make it quite a bit harder for drivers to make left turns (or right turns across and oncoming bike lane).
milkround said:
I can see why the London windows in doors and other safety stuff is needed. But i truly think both cyclists, car drivers and motorcyclists should be given a lot more education.
+1. But the problem is many cyclists will see the new safety measures as an extra safety net and take more risks. There are people out there that sadly think this way. And its yet another draconian change implemented on transport operators rather than trying to jointly work around the problem from both sides. After all this issue is very often caused by a cyclist going up the nearside of a goods vehicle. In the vast majority of cases the vehicle is slowing down (walking pace as per DVSA requirements for C and C+E tests) to turn left and a cyclist takes their chance at nipping up the inside.
And I fully expect 90% of people on here will have absolutely no idea what I am talking about so here is a link..
https://www.motoringresearch.com/advice/direct-vis...
For those who CBA (and I don't blame you) to read the link its basically a charge of £550 per day for operating a vehicle >12t in London which does not meet the "direct vision" requirements.
The initial standards are reasonable but in 2024 they become much, much tougher. It is estimated 50% of vehicles in use today wont meet the standard. Would love to know the cost to scrap all those trucks...
RobM77 said:
The cyclist wasn't undertaking a left turning truck. That cyclist was in a dedicated bike lane and it's quite normal to pass vehicles in such a lane - when the cyclist initiated the pass, the van wasn't indicating, wasn't slowing and was showing no other signs of turning. Shoving on your indicator half a second before you brake and turn is not indicating, it's dangerous driving.The correct defensive approach for the cyclist would be to not pass any vehicle by any junction, but obviously that can get quite onerous in London when there are junctions every 5 seconds. I do this, but I admit it takes me much longer to get anywhere in a busy town and it can get quite tedious.
So in summary: legally, the van driver is 100% at fault and will probably lose his license for dangerous driving. However, as with most accidents, the cyclist could have been more aware and prevented the incident.
Edited by BlackTails on Friday 14th February 08:40
Stupid thread.
What the van did was culpable, but any critical comment suggesting the cyclist could have avoided the accident is met with the usual PH cycling warrior derision and therefore these threads turn into a daft 'how dare you' slanging match.
If my son had been that cyclist. he owns a 125 and often puts himself in the similar sort of positions as that cyclist. We occasional go through his bike cam footage. You see I don't really care who's fault the accident is, my major worry would be keeping him safe
I would have asked him if there would be anything he could identify to help avoid hitting the van, or done differently.
If he then shrugged his shoulders and said 'no that accidently was completely unavoidable' I would have realised we had a lot more work to do to keep him safe.
I think part of the problem with cyclists is that its hard work to cycle. On a 125 its easy to think, change position, slow then speed up etc.
On a bike its tiring to keep doing all that and you want to maintain your momentum, the tiredness leads to less thinking, you sometimes see this also with joggers. That sometimes leads you to get into a position which in retrospect wasn't ideal.
I FULLY ACCEPT THE VAN DRIVER WAS CUPLABLE AND HAVE NOTHING AGAINST CYCLISTS SO PLEASE DONT BOTHER TO HATE ---
What the van did was culpable, but any critical comment suggesting the cyclist could have avoided the accident is met with the usual PH cycling warrior derision and therefore these threads turn into a daft 'how dare you' slanging match.
If my son had been that cyclist. he owns a 125 and often puts himself in the similar sort of positions as that cyclist. We occasional go through his bike cam footage. You see I don't really care who's fault the accident is, my major worry would be keeping him safe
I would have asked him if there would be anything he could identify to help avoid hitting the van, or done differently.
If he then shrugged his shoulders and said 'no that accidently was completely unavoidable' I would have realised we had a lot more work to do to keep him safe.
I think part of the problem with cyclists is that its hard work to cycle. On a 125 its easy to think, change position, slow then speed up etc.
On a bike its tiring to keep doing all that and you want to maintain your momentum, the tiredness leads to less thinking, you sometimes see this also with joggers. That sometimes leads you to get into a position which in retrospect wasn't ideal.
I FULLY ACCEPT THE VAN DRIVER WAS CUPLABLE AND HAVE NOTHING AGAINST CYCLISTS SO PLEASE DONT BOTHER TO HATE ---
BlackTails said:
RobM77 said:
The cyclist wasn't undertaking a left turning truck. That cyclist was in a dedicated bike lane and it's quite normal to pass vehicles in such a lane - when the cyclist initiated the pass, the van wasn't indicating, wasn't slowing and was showing no other signs of turning. Shoving on your indicator half a second before you brake and turn is not indicating, it's dangerous driving.The correct defensive approach for the cyclist would be to not pass any vehicle by any junction, but obviously that can get quite onerous in London when there are junctions every 5 seconds. I do this, but I admit it takes me much longer to get anywhere in a busy town and it can get quite tedious.
So in summary: legally, the van driver is 100% at fault and will probably lose his license for dangerous driving. However, as with most accidents, the cyclist could have been more aware and prevented the incident.
Edited by BlackTails on Friday 14th February 08:40
I realise that, yes. As I've said several times, the van driver is completely at fault here; they were driving like an idiot.I don't think it's wrong to talk about defensive driving/cycling though.
For example, this morning I was alongside an Audi Q5 at a roundabout- they were in the left lane indicating left to take the 9 o'clock exit (if we're facing 12) and I was in the right lane indicating right to turn right at about 2-3 o'clock. The roundabout had those two exits, plus one right round at 5 o'clock. The roundabout cleared completely and then Q5 pulled away slowly (as they tend to!), but I didn't just drive off, as I could have done, because what if the Audi turned right from the left lane whilst indicating left? It's unlikely, but possible. That's exactly what they did, and furthermore they came across into my lane as they did so. The defensive driving here was pulling away with them, but waiting back a bit to check what the Audi was actually doing before continuing on my way.
ukbabz said:
So for those saying it's the cyclist fault would you agree that it's your fault if a car is passing you in L2, then drives into the side of you to get to an exit they've missed? Somehow I think not...
Have you actually read this thread?Barely anyone has said it was the cyclists fault, but don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
Fully agree with comments re original Tesco van video. Van driver idiot, difficult to see where cyclist was in anyway to blame.
Now anyone like to comment on one from That Jeremy Vine?
Lorry turning left without indicating, true, very bad form. But I wouldn't have been heading up the left of him as Vine was but then he is a bellend so maybe that's the reason. Just my 2p.
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/122683469...
Now anyone like to comment on one from That Jeremy Vine?
Lorry turning left without indicating, true, very bad form. But I wouldn't have been heading up the left of him as Vine was but then he is a bellend so maybe that's the reason. Just my 2p.
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/122683469...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff