- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 292: Left hooks at same junction on London's Cycle Superhighway 2
Today's videos in our Near Miss of the Day series show one of the potential flaws with protected cycle infrastructure - motorists turning across them to access side roads and in doing so putting cyclists using the bike lane in danger.
The video above was filmed on London's Cycle Superhighway 2, one of the original blue-painted, unprotected routes that subsequently had physical protection in the form of kerbing added along much of its length following several fatalities.
But as you can see, where the kerbing stops before and after a side junction, there is the risk of getting left-hooked.
It was filmed by road.cc reader Lukas, who told us:
“While being highly impressed with the Met Police on most submissions, they seem to have some blind spots, in this case cars crossing cycleways.
“The initial police response was that no offence was committed as "...the vehicle is in front of you and indicating left you should have given way to allow it to turn. We are therefore unable to pursue this allegation."
“This seemed to contradict Highway Code 183 which says: ‘When turning, give way to any vehicles using a ... cycle lane’.
“Annoyed that this kind of seemingly dangerous driving was going unpunished, I then submitted a formal complaint, with the reviewing officer deciding that ‘an offence of driving without reasonable consideration was committed by the driver’.
“So far so good, although it was too late to prosecute the driver,” he added.
Lukas also sent us video of another incident which happened at the very same junction last week.
“Thankfully the driver stopped for me but then cut off a cyclist behind,” he said. “I reported this again, assuming this would count as an offence, but after an email back and forth, the Met stated ‘The car in question was indicating in advance which you can also see from your position and therefore the cyclist behind should have had sufficient time to be aware of the vehicle’s intention and slow down to avoid unnecessary danger.
“’The Highway Code [rule] 183 refers to cyclists on the drivers inside which he does comply with by allowing you to pass, however they are not expected to stop to give way to every cyclist behind them as well because they have to keep with the flow of traffic otherwise risk causing an obstruction’,” the response added.
“I am disappointed the Met believe drivers can cut across cycle lanes without giving way to everyone that is using the cycle lane, apart only those that would be in physical danger. And that seemingly, the flow of road traffic is more important than the flow of the cycle lane.
“While they seem to ruthlessly pursue mobile phone users and red light jumpers, which is great, they seem to be giving drivers a lot of leeway in this particular case.
“Any driver turning across traffic, which causes other vehicles to slow down to avoid hitting them would surely be guilty of an offence,” Lukas added.
> 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
> What to do next if you’ve been involved in a road traffic collision
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.
Latest Comments
- Dnnnnnn 9 sec ago
Almost - but apparently not quite. There are in Northern Ireland.
- FionaJJ 5 min 51 sec ago
That's the first I've heard of the proposal for the weight and size of a vehicle to be considered an aggravating factor. I'm sure there will be a...
- Rendel Harris 14 min 17 sec ago
Indeed, which is somewhat confusing given that the IHRA definition of antisemitism specifically includes conflating all Jews with the state of...
- chrisonabike 37 min 57 sec ago
It may have been a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but that doesn't change logic. Or are you saying the Dark Side is seriously...
- john_smith 58 min 8 sec ago
If you'd read it a bit more carefully you'll see that it also requires each new home to have at least three parking spaces. So it shouldn't be a...
- FionaJJ 1 hour 21 min ago
It took me ages to make sense of the story, because the bit about having bike parking is irrelevant to the issue about access. ...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 1 min ago
But how on earth do you expect people to know that's not allowed?...
- David9694 2 hours 29 min ago
Man flees after crashing into grade II listed Dorset home https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24263845.man-flees-crashing-grade...
- wycombewheeler 2 hours 42 min ago
If plod can't get through their in their cars, then criminals will use it to evade them because heaven forbid the police should patrol on foot or...
Add new comment
36 comments
The article introduces this problem as "one of the potential flaws with protected cycle infrastructure". It's not a potential flaw. It's an actual flaw, and one that's been known about for many decades. And, described objectively, it is not "protected cycle infrastructure". At any uncontrolled junction such as this there is quite obviously no physical protection.
All you're left with is the obligation on the road users to behave with care and cooperation. Which is pretty much what you would have on an ordinary road. Except that when there's a cycle track on the approach to the junction, it's more dangerous.
That's because, contrary to the normal rules of the road, the cycle track encourages a straight-on vehicle (the cyclist emerging from the cycle track) to pass on the left side of a left-turning vehicle.
Moreover the cycle track constrains the straight-on vehicle (the cyclist) to approach the conflict point at the worst possible angle for the operator of the left-turning vehicle to be able to see it.
Hey presto, a recipe for conflict and collision. Who's surprised?
Gotta say that the lights were red as the cyclist approached, turning green as he reached them; the driver was indicating left and stationary, so it’s reasonable to expect the cyclist to anticipate and allow the driver to turn left.
Just because you’re in the cycle lane doesn’t absolve you of responding to what other road users are likely to do.
Entirely predictable IMHO!
Brooksby, you're also assuming the car had passed the cyclist. There's a fair chance driving in London, that the car had never passed the cyclist and they were gaining ground...
Yeah, fair enough
I agree with posters pointing out there is risk in cycling into a situation. I used to drive motorcycles a lot in London and more generally in the countryside. and my feeling was always (and applies now on bicycles) there's no benefit me lying in hospital saying "hey i had right of way ". You can see them indicating and start to turn. What do you think is going to happen ?
I think the complaint is that there was no attempt to Share The Road (TM) - the car was indeed indicating and starting to turn, but the driver knew they were crossing a Cycle Superduperhighway thing and that they'd just passed a cyclist, and nevertheless presumed that the cyclist would just give way to them. I'd love to know how they deal with driving on a motorway...
IMO its a big problem witth these cycle paths. I'd rather be on the road where that sort of thing is less likey to happen. For me cycle safety would be better served by a blanket 20mph limit in built up areas. Cycle paths would be great in the countryside where they could be away from roads.
This. On my commute I have more problems with conflicts caused by the small amount of cycle lane putting me in the wrong place than I do in the rest of the ride put together.
All this talk of motorways and other roads assume that the inside lane is moving slowest- barrelling down CS2 claiming right of way breaks that and all rules need to be adjusted.
Unless someone makes an issue of it, how will anything change? It just becomes might is right or I was there first rather than any adherence to the highway code or passing your test.
Such as yesterday: in my car, I decided to allow a tractor pulling a long trailer to pass a parked car instead on me continuing. Then at least 2 cars decided to follow the tractor even though they had zero idea of what was coming the other way and zero visibility so I made sure they had to slow down and realise there was another vehicle on the correct side of the road.
I'm with the Met on this one. All following cyclists had ample time to account for the turning car, and it would only have taken a couple of seconds to have let the car turn. Cyclists will complain quick enough about a motorist behaving badly just to save second or two, same applies to cyclists. We all know roads are busy so a bit of give and take it required by all, and a bit less arogance by cyclists would go a long way.
Do posters really think rule 72 applies to a dedicated cycle highway?
It's basically "I'm bigger than you " ie bullying, the sort of shit you get from lorry drivers when you are in a car.
no I dont think it does, but maybe 146 and 147 do as general guidance for drivers and riders in these cases, allow for people to make mistakes, the consequence of not doing so on a bike is stacked disproportionately against you, so sometimes discretion can be the better part of valor in those cases, and leave the reporting to the police for the ones that really do need their focus.
certainly in video 1, Id have kept back till I was sure what the car was going to do, and arguably you could apply that to video 2 as well
Poor infrastructure, poor driving that could have killed someone, cyclist not protecting themselves, in that order.
I'd prefer the cycle lane to end on the left and become normal tarmac but filter into an ASL, if you arrive before the lights change you are positioned in front of the car, if you're arriving at speed (not saying he was in this instance) when a car is already turning just how many times can they keep looking, sitting there, judging and then you've chances of a right turning car from the opposite side charging across.
One of the key problems is how late this infrastructure has come about as well as how poorly it's designed. A new medical centre was built near my house and the cars turning in are supposed to give way one car length in because of a cycle lane. These are increasingly popping up and I must admit i'd ridden the road a few hundred times before realising i had right of way. How do we expect drivers visiting so infrequently to know, adjust and act especially if they've been driving years and never seen such infrastructure.
There’s a bit of victim blaming going on here, including by the Met.
The argument about a bit of ‘give and take’ is reasonable, however both cyclists were riding on a cycle lane, which no matter how poorly laid out (eg no segregation), is for the protection of a vulnerable road user.
They should be protected from being left hooked. The car driver is at (road traffic legal) fault on both occasions.
Plenty of times in rush hour situations, vehicles in side roads, trying to join the main road have to patiently wait until a main road user kindly leaves a gap for them to pull out and join the flow. No different here. The OP could have slowed and allowed the motorist in, but didn’t. However, that doesn’t give the motorist the right to make an assumption and almost left hook him/them.
Does that also include vehicles turning out of side roads and turning right, across your carriageway? Because you know, indicating...
I modified my comment to clarify.
I modified my comment to clarify.
That, to me, was a clear case of a cyclist looking for confrontation. If a car ahead of me (moving in my direction) is indicating to cross my path then I let it go, slowing down if I need to. Simple really. No need to look for aggro.
Although I pointed out earlier that rule 72 advises cyclists not to ride down the inside of vehicles indicating or slowing down to turn left, that rule doesn't specifically envisage that you are riding in a cycle lane at the time, so I tend to agree with hawkinspeter that rule 183 must prevail in this situation (although the Met didn't think so).
However, I also agree that the cyclist appeared (recognising that it's very easy to say this when watching a video where you know an incident is about to occur) to have plenty of time to see what was happening and to avoid a situation. I have to confess I recognise that behaviour - I have occasionally made more of a situation which I could see developing and had time to avoid, just to make a point to a careless / dangerous / antisocial driver. I also recognise myself in the second video, being outraged on behalf of another cyclist who just carries on as if nothing has happened (and is probably less stressed for it). I once saw a driver left hook and knock off another cyclist. I was gearing up to give witness details when the cyclist just got up and rode off without a word!
Dreadful cycling. This site is full of cyclists complaining about MGIF drivers who are desperate to gain in front to gain an extra 2 seconds. The cyclist here is doing exactly that. Car is well ahead of cyclist and is clearly indicating- if you've missed that you need more awareness. Hang back for a second or two.
Looks like you are looking for an argument here
This is a different situation due to the cycle lane. Complaints about MGIF drivers/cyclists usually involve overtaking vehicles in the same lane whereas this instance is a cyclist progressing in a separate lane to the car.
If you transpose the situation from a cycle lane to a bus lane, would you still consider that a hypothetical bus should give way to a turning car just because it had started indicating?
To my mind, one of the purposes of cycle lanes is to allow bikes to travel without having to keep slowing/stopping to allow other traffic to turn. However, some motorists think that the purpose is to keep bikes out of the way of other traffic and that turning vehicles should have priority.
However, as pointed out earlier, they are both contravening rules in the HWC in the first video - the driver was clearly doing not something they should have (Rule 183 ), and the cyclist was doing something they should not have (Rule 72).
Ideally, from a regulation point of view, i'd have liked to see the police talk to both as a minimum. From a common sense point-of-view, the cyclist had a clear view of the situation ahead and accelerated into a position of possible conflict - one in which he could have come second best in physically. He either saw and understood this, or didn't notice at all - I don't find sharing roads with someone with either mentality - or that driver - particularly inspiring, whatever their mode of transport.
Reasoned response- thank you.
I don't tend to often drive where there are bus lanes, but would I expect a bus to barrel down the inside of an indicating car? Honestly I think not...
What if a cyclist is indicating right but cars are flying past with no-one giving way for 2 seconds to allow the cyclist to move out?
Your point about cycle lanes allowing people to keep progressing without giving way is my main reason for not using shared use/pavement cycle lanes, as priority is lost. On the road there has to be some give and take. As the commenter above notes- don't undertake an indicating driver but equally drivers don't pull alongside me with your indicator on
Well, personally, I would look to move out and take the appropriate lane well in advance of reaching the junction, to prevent the situation occurring in the first place.
In a situation where you reach the turn still in secondary, the reality is that cars will typically continue to fly past, and the sensible response may be to pull to the kerb and wait for a gap, just as the car could have waited for a gap in the cycle lane traffic.
The situations aren't really analogous though, as in the turning cyclist case the cars are performing an overtaking manoeuvre, which they shouldn't be doing while the vehicle in front is trying to turn, whereas with the turning car it's crossing an entirely separate flow of traffic.
The first one even if the bike is in the right he did it wrong and caused the incedent. I really don't like that type of incedent we need to share the road. As far as Im consered the rider is looking for trouble and I hate it as it makes the us and them worse!
Second the driver is in the wrong end of.
The first one even if the bike is in the right he did it wrong and caused the incedent. I really don't like that type of incedent we need to share the road. As far as Im consered the rider is looking for trouble and I hate it as it makes the us and them worse!
Second the driver is in the wrong end of.
"The initial police response was that no offence was committed as "...the vehicle is in front of you and indicating left you should have given way to allow it to turn. We are therefore unable to pursue this allegation."
“This seemed to contradict Highway Code 183 which says: ‘When turning, give way to any vehicles using a ... cycle lane’."
It's worth being aware that there are some potential inconsistencies / tensions hardwired into the Highway Code.
Rule 183, as cited, does indeed say "give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane" etc. Rule 182 also says not to overtake just before turning left, and to look out for traffic coming from your left.
But Rule 72 (in the section "Rules for cyclists") says:
When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Obviously we would hope for these conflicting rules to be resolved in favour of the more vulnerable road user, but it's not clear cut; it's a question of degree. For other internal inconsistencies, see e.g. rule 19 (zebra crossings): "Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing." Err... (and yet it mostly seems to work in practice)
Hmm, Disherwood, I don't think cyclists here are asking for perfection. Would you, from lane 2 of a 3 lane motorway, indicate and cut into lane 1 regardless of traffic in that lane, perhaps (in heavy traffic) travelling faster than you? After all, you indicated, so what on earth should people do other than slam on the brakes for you?
I hope you wouldn't. When on a road, in whatever mode, we should all try to be courteous. Christian Driving, I think James May calls it. IMHO, one of the few good things from Top Gear - and religion.
I have to say that if this was myself on the bike, I would have seen the BMW indicating and held back to allow the car to turn left. It's no good arguing about Highway Code rules from your hospital bed. As someone who rides my bike six days a week, commuting to and from work every day throughout the year, we must all use the roads and give and take a bit
I'd probably have done the same. My rule is that if I arrive behind and to the left of a driver already indicating, then he's got first dibs on the corner. If he overtakes me indicating, then he'd better not pull in front of me or he's getting a D-lock to the face.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Pages