"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

capedcrusader wrote:

I don't know the law or who has priority, but I know for sure that when if I saw the lorry signalling I would have started to slow down immediately and therefore would have plenty of further braking space should the lorry have proceeded across the junction, especially so as it was raining. 

As a matter of course, I always give way/slow down/allow to pass, vans, trucks and lorries on the assumption their drivers may have other things on their minds are often sociopathic twunts, a defensive mindset I know, but that's my way of dealing with these issues.  

Fixed it  

open_roads wrote:

The cyclist has right of way but the junction design is very poor - I haven't driven a vehicle that big but navigating the mess of infrastructure with a slow / long vehicle is probably quite challenging.

Why do you think the design is poor?

The design is new.  And it doesn't prioritise motor traffic over everything (what we're used to even if we never drive).

For me, it's really clear that you are supposed to give way - there are give way marks on the road, the crossing point is set back (so there's some waiting space for a motor vehicle of the main road lanes), the road is raised to the height of the cycle path at the crossing (effectively you're driving "up over the pavement" - another cue this is "not your space" as a driver), the cycle path is "continous"... Albeit they haven't got this quite right, the surface colour - blue, if using that - should continue all the way along the cycle path to show that nothing changes if you're cycling here e.g. you have priority.  They also should probably continue the footway across here also.

Works all over NL.  Our problem is simply that we all need to learn this, and as usual there are no teachers - since we only do a driving test once a lifetime and then most people ignore the few adverts about changes thereafter...

Long / slow vehicle makes no difference.  Have a look at this article: the video shows a (small) truck using one of these, albeit it's a near-side turn and there aren't traffic lights.

I agree with the meaning but pedantically - this isn't a cycle lane - it's a separate cycle path / track.

This actually reinforces your point and makes me lean towards not cutting the driver some slack.  Because the cycle track has a different colour surface, is set back from the road, there are give way markings... The driver clearly knew something was there but just didn't fancy stopping for an extra couple of seconds.

Personally I'd probably aim to see these and just accept a measure of "well they've started..."  However drivers have been rolling through any space not already occupied by another motor vehicle since my grandmother was a child.  So it does need reinforcement - and the government's done as much as they're likely to.  So for that read "confrontation" / "bloody entitled / self-righteous cyclists having a go" in the eyes of some, unfortunately.

Bungle_52 wrote:

It seems to me that most cycle lanes are for cylists who prioritise their own safety over speed of travel.

Also unfortunate that this even has to be a choice!  If cycle paths (again) don't provide both excellent safety AND efficient travel they've not been done right*.  Note that "speed" in this case as much about "not having to stop" as "velodrome ahoy!".  That's the difference between roads (vehicles hit the speed limit ASAP and motor until the next traffic light, then stop and wait a couple of minutes) and good cycle facilities (which allow momentum to be maintained).

* Although even if we suddenly cracked on with it we're probably 50 - 100 years or more behind NL, simply because of the amount of small changes they've made, everywhere.

Bungle_52 wrote:

If I want to prioritise speed over safety I will generally use the road. At this point I have two problems. Obviously I am more at risk from drivers who either don't know the highway code or who choose to ignore it.

No.  The last lot of data I recall showed that you were more at risk on tracks than the road, but that was from some years ago, so things might have changed with new, properly segregated cycle tracks.

If only the bridleway part of my commute was as clean as at Koksijde. It was beyond swamp this evening more like a pond with tufts.
And the access road was a raging torrent.
Soaked through but it was still fun.

I'm gonna disagree with you here.

The LGV is turning right in to the junction.
It will have been clear to the driver that there is a second give way immediately after the initial right turn.
The chicane would have placed the cyclist in the full view of the driver - had they have looked to the right - however the give way would have been in the front blind spot.

At no time before the driver committed to the turn, would the give way lines have been hidden.

The driver either failed to see them, or failed to see the cyclist, or just decided that 'might is right' and feck everyone else.

My thoughts exactly, the give way lines are quite plain (and there's also no doubt to whom they apply as there is a huge no entry painted on the road after them so they know it doesn't apply to any traffic joining the main carriageway) and it is the duty of the driver to stop and check for through traffic before crossing the give way line.

Benji326 wrote:

a large truck like that would have committed to the turn well before they would have seen the give way lines. 

My problem with this is that i don't see why "committing to the turn" means committing to roll straight over the give way lines beyond the turn.

Would we accept the HGV rolling across a pedestrian crossing at a red light because they had already "committed to the turn" on entering the roundabout?

Yep, the lorry driver does seem a bit confused about priorities. He says something like "I was on here first" - does he think the cycle lane forms part of the mini-roundabout?

Even disregarding the give-way marking for the lorry driver, rule 140 makes it clear that the lorry driver should have given way...

I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don't know.

the little onion wrote:

I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don't know.

it's there to enable drivers to see the cyclists, rather than having to give way to someone coming from behind them. So with proper driver behaviour it should reduce these incidents.

wycombewheeler wrote:

the little onion wrote:

I agree. I also wonder whether the chicane in the cycle path is more likely to create or prevent these kinds of incidents. Genuinely don't know.

it's there to enable drivers to see the cyclists, rather than having to give way to someone coming from behind them. So with proper driver behaviour it should reduce these incidents.

It is partly that.  It is also to give drivers time to deal with one flow of traffic at a time without blocking others as can be seen in this article:

a) for drivers turning into the side road - to give space to a car (or vehicle shorter than a truck or bus) to wait out of the way of the main flow of traffic while dealing with any crossing cyclists / pedestrians.

b) for drivers emerging from the side road - to give space to wait in while observing that it's safe to join the main road.  This avoids motorists just stopping in the middle of the cycle track / pavement while they check the main road.

In the UK we often manage to stuff up one or more of the multiple purposes of this kind of infra e.g. we keep wide sweeping radii on the turns instead of narrower ones to encourage drivers to slow down.  Or there is too much space for drivers to wait so several try to squeeze in / cyclists have a big diversion.  Or too little so drivers just wait on the cycle path.

In my experience in Edinburgh (as you can see in the video by Dave McCraw we have a few of these) the majority of drivers - but not all - just treat these as they would a normal entry / exit into a side road e.g. ignore all the infra.  Of course this isn't helped by the council having created several generations of variations on "something happens at the entry / exit of a street" - all with some different aspect that is incorrect for one purpose or another.

Early days, ask me in a generation or two...

Also - if the side street is minor (most should be - if we didn't have the UK standard "every street is also a through route"...) then we should not be reaching for these.  The better way is a continuous cycle path / footway e.g. no diversion (or indeed change) in either the footway or cycle path.  That means cars needing to slow more than is currently common and potentially stop and yield while in the main road, before crossing what is now "pavement" (and possibly cycle path) and into the side street.

Of course in the UK that idea is about as uncontroversial as suggesting that there is economic benefit in reducing parking and people driving a bit less, a bit less quickly ...

Oldfatgit wrote:

This means that the driver should not have started the right turn and stayed on the primary route prior until their exit was clear. .

disagree I think the drive should identify the give way lines, and anticpating stopping at the give way to look, after starting the turn. It makes little difference to anyone if the HGV is fully in the main road or partially in the main road when stopping. But looking at the cycle track at 90 degrees gives better visibility than trying to look over his shoulder.

as others have said though the incident is minor, and IMO falls under "rude" rather than "dangerous" so does not justify a you tube posting.

wycombewheeler wrote:

as others have said though the incident is minor, and IMO falls under "rude" rather than "dangerous" so does not justify a you tube posting.

On the contrary, I think it is a great learning video. Unfortunately, most viewers are determined to learn that cyclists are dicks and everyone should defer to HGVs ploughing through cities and ignore road markings, but that's Teh InTerWEb for you.

If the driver had waited on the primary road prior to committing to their turn, they would have only been holding up one lane.
It *looks* like the distance between the primary road and the give way is roughly equal to the length of the tractor unit; stopping at the give way would mean that the trailer would be blocking both lanes of the primary road.

As a professional driver, this is not something that you would do unless you absolutely had no alternative.
Once the tractor unit has made the turn, the driver is essentially blind to the entire nearside - which is a highly dangerous situation.

In my not so humble opinion, the driver should have checked the offside mirrors - I'm going to assume that as it's still legally dark that the rider has lights on - and the cyclist light would have shown up in the mirror.
This should have triggered a glance - glance - look (offside mirror, nearside mirror, final check through the window over the shoulder.
By this time, it would have been wholly apparent that the manoeuvre could not be completed in one go, and the driver waited until the approaching cyclist was clear before proceeding.

But ... the above is based on the experience and custom of a professional driver who applied care and consideration to other road users. The driver in this clip does not appear to apply the same traits as shown by ... a) failing to give way and b) stopping and blocking the junction to argue with the cyclist.

I think you were a rather more professional driver than those who find there way here (which is obviously going to be the more egregious type).

It's choices.

In the UK I'd say delays because "cyclists" are seen by most as somewhere between really annoying and worth tens lives a year.

If - virtuous circle - we can reduce some of the (mostly private individuals) driving - that may change a bit.

Looking at some of those junction videos from "over there" * buses and trucks (and thus cars also) can end up waiting - sometimes quite some time.  But ... those cycle paths are actually extremely efficient movers of people.  And with fewer short journeys driven perhaps that frees up enough space for proper 24/7 bus lanes which don't then get blocked by private cars?  And as others said already - lots of benefits of moving some HGVs out of urban areas.

* e.g. this one  - though this actually looks a bit too busy / not a great idea with bi-directional cycle lanes and maybe a different design would make more sense here?

Thanks for the complement Chris.
It wasnt always easy being professional, and I made my fair share of mistakes too ... but I've always owned them.

[Including the other day when I was in my car, I beeped at a cyclist near Fountain Bridge as I mistakenly thought they were on a red and I was on a green right turn filter. Next set of lights were red, so I apologised to the rider. They probably still thought it was a schmuck, but mistakes happen]

I agree and I wonder how long he would have to wait before he could cross without delaying anyone !

But why are such vehicles allowed in a dense area with little restriction ?

I don't understand how people cope in London without giving each other some slack in those situations.

The lorry driver is never going to give way to somebody once they're committed to a maneuver like that, who is the best part of 2-3 truck lengths away at the start.

stonojnr wrote:

I don't understand how people cope in London without giving each other some slack in those situations. The lorry driver is never going to give way to somebody once they're committed to a maneuver like that, who is the best part of 2-3 truck lengths away at the start.

I think this is what is causing some of the issue here (again, I personally wouldn't have made anything out of this) - the right-turn to leave the main carriageway is a separate manoeuvre to giving-way and crossing the segregated cycle path. The driver indicated and turned right off of the main carriageway and onto that weird little slip-way thing, arriving at a set of give-way lines for the segregated path, at which point he should have stopped again and given-way to the cyclist. Instead, he ignores the lines and pulls out on the cyclist only 8-10m away.

It's like double mini-roundabouts (like this one), where drivers seem to think that if they've given way at the first roundabout, they don't have to give way at the second one. That roundabout used to be the bane of my life because of that.