"So who should be giving way to who here?" Cyclist asks for Highway Code answers after near miss with driver turning HGV across cycle lane; A cyclocross race for people who hate their bike; Van Aert laughs at our NCN complaints + more on the live blog

CF@Wds wrote:

If this situation had resulted in a collision, the fact that the cyclist appears to have been listening to music as they rode along would have been a contributing factor in causing the collision.

You are beginning to look very much like a vexatious/contrarian troll, the cyclist has music playing from an external speaker (something of which I personally don't approve but there we are) and this could not possibly have contributed to any collision in any way at all.  Please stop talking nonsense.

CF@Wds wrote:

Really straightforward. If you look at the movement of the hgv it pauses before the give way line, and then decides to go for it. Driver just needs a bit more training to avoid the mistake. Cyclist would have been safer slowing and stopping (defensive riding) as the driver has quite a complex situation to deal with. Bit more training for the cyclist would have avoided the confrontation. Cyclist has priority, and if they don't know that, it's very worrying! When they shout about "new rule" etc that's actually incorrect to the situation. And, the HC changes are in the main 'clarifications'.

Agree with most, but the point of the "bend cycle path away from main road" design is to reduce complexity e.g. drivers turning into the side road deal with that manouever, then there is a space where they can pause while they then deal with any crossing cyclists / pedestrians. 

Obviously massive lorries are going to fill space wherever - but the driver still has two different points where they interact with different modes.

Having said this though I think I've identified the spot on streetview - Evelyn Street  / Prince Street.  And I think it's a case of "actually the Dutch wouldn't do a junction like this".  I've not seen any examples of Dutch mini-roundabouts (which doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere of course...).

Not sure what they would do there - possibly squeeze in an actual Dutch roundabout with separate radial cycle path, but space looks tight here?  Perhaps there would be no entry to the side street for motor vehicles here (making a LTN)?

If not I suspect the side street at least (because street) would have a continous footway / cycle path across it (so no bend in the cycle path).  But again - it's very close to that mini-roundabout.  Indeed - so close the "waiting area" off the roundabout before the cycle path seems too small here.  Further details: the cycle track part is not right - the blue colour should continue all along the cycle track not just appear at the junctions.  The entrance for motor vehicles seems too wide.

The fact that the whole debate kicked off shows the need for it (e.g. a large number of people have no idea about junctions...).  And even this flawed implementation has done its job here as the cyclist could see the driver failing to stop and there was space and time to fix that!

Problem is ...
Most drivers only read the Highway Code once - and that's only to pass the driving test.
How many drivers will be aware of and have knowledge of the Traffic Signs [etc] Act or any of the other Acts such as Construction and Use, Road Traffic etc ... and I bet even less care.

As cyclists, we can claim the legal right as much as we want ... and all that will happen is the media will attempt to undermine it, and place a *perception* that we're just being difficult and entitled.

I'm [thankfully] not on Shitter - but I can imagine the sheer >quality< of comments regarding this incident.

This is exactly why I believe warning letters with the threat of action for repeat behaviour would be so effective. I can't imagine it would be expensive for someone to enter a little data into a system, after watching a video submitted by a member of the public, with the rest of the process automated. You wouldn't need to identify the driver, for example, the letter would go to the registered keeper and it would be in their interest to alert the person driving if it wasn't them. The same goes for close passes and a whole load of other driving behaviours around vulnerable road users. The word would soon get around as people complained to their friends about getting a warning for "doing nothing wrong".

It would of course depend on the staff viewing the video knowing the rules of the road, both law and the highway code, and I'm beginning to wonder if this would be an impossible training task looking at the low base you would have to start with if the comments on twitter, and some on here, are representative.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Problem is ...
Most drivers only read the Highway Code once - and that's only to pass the driving test...

Even so, when did the appearance or meaning of a Give Way line last undergo a change? This isn't some obscure hinterland of the Highway Code. The driver knew perfectly well.

You only have to watch an episode or two of any shitdriverUKDashCam YouTube channel to see that plenty of drivers think that 'Give Way' is a guidance that excludes them.

Oldfatgit wrote:

You only have to watch an episode or two of any shitdriverUKDashCam YouTube channel to see that plenty of drivers think that 'Give Way' is a guidance that excludes them.

The same applies to:

• Stop lines, ASLs and box junctions
• Double white lines and 'No overtaking' signs
• Red lights at junctions and roadworks (there's a 5-second grace period for speeding drivers)
• Speed limits - all of them are optional, even if you have 12 or more points on your licence
• The 2-second rule, because everyone knows tailgating gets you to your destination so much earlier
• ensuring front and rear lights are in working order, the tyres are not bald and the windscreen is clear

and a plethora of others. It seems that the Highway Code can be ignored once you've passed your driving test, it's the "My (right of) Way Code, shithead". And the larger the vehicle the stronger this assertion is made.

And why do manufacturers still bother to fit indicators?

It's bad, but I'm fighting the fight, if only because all the people vehemently defending the right of the driver to break the law with increasingly bizarre lines of argument* all now know that the rule exists.

As cyclists, I believe it is important to lean on the legal support we have, not for the immediate instance, but for the next time.

For example, I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule. That's the result of videos, shouting and fist waving and Twitter arguments and good motorists setting examples more than motorists reading the HWC.

*My favourite: as I am not an HGV driver, I cannot possibly understand just how difficult it is to bring an unloaded artic to a halt from walking pace so abiding by the law was impossible.

I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule

They may do where you are, but they definitely don't in many other areas. In Lancashire, if you're cycling at times where there's a lot of oncoming traffic, most passes are like these where they remain completely in the left lane- either because of the oncoming vehicles or just because turning the steering wheel is such an effort (for comparison with your own areas, you can see the state of the roads in the centre of a small market town in Lancashire)

https://upride.cc/incident/wu11zmv_volvo_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/ao66hvm_discovery_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/pg02ljl_mini_closepass/

And quite a lot are like these

https://upride.cc/incident/yt08oov_peugeot207_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/kp72wmm_kia_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/po22yxa_hrv_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/gk68uzv_peugeotboxer_closepass/

Keep fighting ... I'm fighting at my end too.
Something is working - I seem to have less incidents where I'm reaching for the Lock button to save the video for later.
Either that, or I've become more blasé about the whole thing and driving that was unacceptable to me 12 months ago is now more of a 'meh'.

With regards to that particular truck at walking speed ... *providing* it's been well looked after, it would probably stop in the same - if not less - distance that your bike would take.
The main risk is the angle of the trailer pushing the tractor unit to the side. Less of an issue with flat-beds, but can be problematic with curtainsiders and other high trailers.

IanMSpencer wrote:

For example, I think that most motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule.

I'd suggest that it is "some motorists now acknowledge and abide by the 1.5m rule."  Certainly not "most", even yet.

That's for where the give way lines are set back from the main carriageway/cycle track, hence the word 'advanced'. Doesn't apply here.

CF@Wds wrote:

That's for where the give way lines are set back from the main carriageway, hence the word 'advanced'. Doesn't apply here.

Except for the fact that the give way lines are totally set back from the main carriageway, of course. It is blindingly obvious that the cycle lane curves away from the line of the main carriageway to cross the junction and that the give way lines are set back a good three or four metres from that line.

The give ways are not set back from the junction. The give way lines are not set back from the cycle track. I don't know the location but it looks like an old-fashioned scissor junction that has been re-designed to incorporate a segregated cycle route to reduce accidents. So rather than crossing at an angle the vehicles are turned to a 90deg position in relation to the cycle track, but that position is only obtained in the last 15m. So it's easy to see how there's still potential conflict, and it would have been better to replace the give way line with a stop line. However, councils tend to do that retrospectively. So if the cyclist really wanted kudos petition the council for lights / or a stop line because sooner or later a cyclist will get killed on that junction.

CF@Wds wrote:

The give ways are not set back from the junction.

I don't really know how to respond to that except to say you are totally wrong. I happen to know this route quite well, here is a picture of the junction from the other side, you will observe the give way lines that are quite clearly set back from the junction.

TBF, learn something new, to find that there is explicit law that has existed for over 20 years. Great catch.

Welcome back nic.

The rantyhighwayman has spoken though

"Counterpoint: the road layout made this just an annoying interaction and contributed to a bit of "who's to blame" clickbait rather than ending with anyone squashed.

High-five to the designer."

You're the feller who thinks it's OK to drive round the wrong side of a roundabout if you decide the roundabout's pointless, aren't you?

IanMSpencer wrote:

Final thought, why on earth are full sized HGVs wandering around apparently residential streets at will in the first place?

I agree with the entirety of your post but especially this, my first thought when I saw it on Twitter and clocked the timestamp as 8.20AM was what was an unladen HGV doing turning into a narrow residential street at that time? Lots of carbrains on Twitter ranting "if that driver had to wait for everybody he would never make the turn", well you know what one funny old trick to not being stuck on a narrow road at rush hour might be...

WRT the residential roads;

It is one good reason the hgv blocking the mini roundabout to yield to the cycle lane shouldn't be a problem - hgv's here should be rare so it won't happen very often.

The only alternative junction design I can see that works is lights (cars can get round the junction too fast from behind for cyclists to yield). But lights replace waiting for a truck yielding once in a blue moon with waiting for lights every few minutes...

My neighbours run a conservatory building business from their house in a residential area of Southampton. HGVs are common.