British Cycling petition about left turns

[Wowbagger]

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20161206-campaigning-news-Chris-Boardman-leads-cycling--motoring-and-pedestrian-groups-in-call-for-junction-rule-change-0

I've watched this video a couple of times and I don't understand precisely what it is that Boardman is arguing for here. If it's to stop motor vehicle drivers overtaking cyclists and then turning left across them, then that is already dealt with in the HC (para 1832).

Can someone enlighten me what is different about CB' proposal please?

[jsabine]

I assume - given the reference to 14 current rules governing junctions - that much of the motivation is simplification - one rule to, er, rule them all ...

One thing mentioned on the Home Service the other day, when our Chris was mano a mano with Duncan Buchanan from the Road Haulage Association (cf  the SuperTwat thread), was that currently pedestrians crossing a side road have (at least nominally) priority over turning vehicles, but only once they have set foot off the pavement. This rule would, inter alia, reinforce their position.

But watching that video, I couldn't concentrate on anything other than the bags under his eyes ...

[Kim]

The impression I got was that it's an attempt to clarify the rules and set things up so that cyclists and pedestrians about to cross a side road have priority.  Which is needed for segregated infrastructure to work properly.

[spindrift]

[Veloman]

Radio 4 Today Programme on Friday at 1hr 49min 53sec:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0854yk2

Boardman and Buchanan debate.

[mattc]

I find this attitude to the (current) Highway Code very frustrating. The existing wording is very clear that drivers should avoid mowing people down when turning left:

Rule 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should

- watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
- watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

(My bold).

It does NOT say this:
- watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way. But if they start crossing after you turn, you can run them over with a clear conscience.


Let us not forget the following key text in the introduction:
The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance



I would also say that the following quite clear wording is being totally ignored:
watch out for cyclists ... as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you

You can argue that this does not specify an exact course of action in every scenario, but SURELY the intent is crystal clear?!?

[rafletcher]

AIUI the change would be that a cyclist moving up the LHS of a vehicle would have priority to go straight ahead (i.e. be permitted to "undertake" said vehicle) even if the vehicle is intending - and presumably indicating - to turn left. So at a traffic light any left turning vehicle would possibly have to wait until any cyclists to their near side had completed their manoeuvre, whether that be straight on or left (or even right?) turns. That perhaps isn't the intent, but I could see it happening.

[mattc]

Nobody has priority! /pedant

[rr]

It would certainly make idiocies like this brand new one on my doorstep less dangerous.

[mattc]

Radio 4 Today Programme on Friday at 1hr 49min 53sec:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0854yk2

Boardman and Buchanan debate.

Thanks.

Buchanan puzzled me - I really don't know what his problem is with the changes. I can't see him or his members suffering, and he is at odds with the AA and RAC. But of course the BBC must show "balance" 

Anyway, Boardman kept it simple and came across - as always - very well. Buchanan handed him an open goal by mentioning this (which will not change):

Cyclists ... Junctions:
Rule 72
On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. ... . Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

[drossall]

Having listened to both pieces, it sounds like the old problem of two washerwomen shouting at each other across the street from their open windows; they'll never agree, because they're arguing from different premises.

The issue is over cyclist/motorist conflicts when the cyclist is going straight ahead. The different assumptions come in when you consider whether the cyclist is "undertaking", or something else is happening. That something else is either that the cyclist is on an adjacent cycle path, or that the motorist is turning right from the opposite direction, or that the motorist overtakes the cyclist and then turns across his/her path.

Duncan Buchanan was entirely focussed on the undertaking situation. Chris Boardman was entirely focussed on the other situations. Hence, they did not agree. The only point at which their arguments even touched on each other was when Buchanan mentioned rule 72: "Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left", and Boardman said something to the effect that that rule would stay, and it wasn't what he meant. Then they went back to arguing across each other.

It's unfortunate that so many people, when they hear of a side-swiped cyclist, think of undertaking. As far as I know, all the evidence is that that is the less likely scenario:

• Various statistical analyses of collections of police accident reports say that, in a collision at a junction, the motorist is two to three times more likely than the cyclist to be at fault
• Common sense says that, except in heavy traffic, the cyclist would be doing really well to manage to undertake in the first place

Boardman of course believes that a much simpler rule would keep vulnerable road users in the forefront of everyone's mind, and hence reduce incidences of the more likely scenario. Buchanan believes that it would increase the occurrence of the rarer one (though he may not realise or acknowledge that it is rarer). The job of the BBC interviewer was to recognise the problem of different premises, and bring the two onto common ground in order to get some useful debate.

Much as I usually like what Chris Boardman says, I'm not sure any of the three gentlemen got us far forward this time. Getting nowhere, in spite of lots of noise, is of course is what tends to happen when the traffic is heavy

[Cudzoziemiec]

I understand how the rule change would relate to pedestrians, because I know how it works (and it works very well) in various other European countries; vehicles turning into side roads have to give way to people crossing those roads. This includes traffic lights, where the green man comes on at the same time as and in parallel with the green light for the road; and thus traffic flow is potentially improved because there is no all-red phase. In part this works because pedestrian crossings and pavements tend to be set back a bit from the kerb. Obviously the same would apply to cyclists on cycle paths which are separated from the highway, like the London CSes, or on a shared use pavement.

The same would apply to cyclists in an on-carriageway cycle lane, by considering cycle lanes to be traffic lanes in the same way as others. But in fact if you consider the cycle lane to be a lane with the same status as other lanes, this change would not affect that. Its not clear to me what difference it would make to the more common situation where there is no marked cycle lane.

I reckon it would be a good change for the sake of people on foot, who after all are the majority of people.

[drossall]

If there's no marked cycle lane (and it's not a dual carriageway), then the cyclist normally defines the main traffic lane (because vehicles are normally in the traffic lane or overtaking, so any overtaking car is, by definition, not in the main traffic lane)*.

An overtaking vehicle is not allowed to swing across the traffic that is in the lane and that that vehicle is overtaking, so nothing unusual here.

* Obviously not if the cyclist is filtering/undertaking, but Chris Boardman said on the radio that this is not about that. What we mustn't do is slip into a form of thinking that has cyclists in some separate lane left of the main traffic. The law (at least in the UK) simply doesn't work like that, at least as I read it.

[RibbleRouser]

I feel much safer when junctions with left or right turn lanes don't have cycle lanes, I then negotiate the junction the same way as when I'm driving, waiting at the lights in the primary position (mid carriageway) feels a lot safer than alongside a motor vehicle.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

I feel much safer when junctions with left or right turn lanes don't have cycle lanes, I then negotiate the junction the same way as when I'm driving, waiting at the lights in the primary position (mid carriageway) feels a lot safer than alongside a motor vehicle.

Agree.  I think the cycle lanes in such places make a simple situation complicated and therefore hazardous.

[tonyh]

Also strongly agree.

[Kim]

Also agree.  Although only when it's flat or downhill, my asthma isn't playing up, and I'm not lugging a heavy trailer full of stuff, or accompanying slower cyclists.  The rest of the time it can be hard to change lane unless traffic is sparse, due to lack of large enough gaps and aggressive drivers, and cycle lanes start to seem like a good idea.

[Pete Owens]

It would certainly make idiocies like this brand new one on my doorstep less dangerous.

The idiocy is not limited to examples with a dedicated LH filter lane - it applies  to every cycle path or lane that passes a junction where parallel traffic in a lane to the right may make a left hand turn (ie just about every road-side cycle facility in existence). And the problem is not resolved by changing which lane has priority. We can understand how difficult it is for cyclists to have to monitor and give way to vehicles coming from behind - but changing the priority just transfers that very same difficulty to drivers.

[RibbleRouser]

Not seen in U.K. but in other countries I've often come across cycle signs to the side of the road, especially near minor junctions and pinch points, which to me seems better than squeezing an extra narrow lane into a narrow road. Also I noticed when cycle lanes first appeared on my commute that there was more debris a metre from the kerb, and in winter more ice !

[Oaky]

I understand how the rule change would relate to pedestrians, because I know how it works (and it works very well) in various other European countries; vehicles turning into side roads have to give way to people crossing those roads.

That's also true here already.  But only if they are "crossing", rather then "about to cross" or "waiting to cross".

from Rule 170:

"* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

[drossall]

It would certainly make idiocies like this brand new one on my doorstep less dangerous.

There are risks, but I often see things like that in London. The aim, of course, is to get cyclists into the ASL before the lights change, so that they are gone before the cars cross the junction. Once the traffic starts moving, I would, if still using that lane, be avoiding positioning myself next to a car that was likely to turn left. The alternative of an ASL without an approach lane can be difficult too.

There is, however, I agree, a case for never having a left-only lane for cars when the adjacent cycle lane is for ahead as well.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I understand how the rule change would relate to pedestrians, because I know how it works (and it works very well) in various other European countries; vehicles turning into side roads have to give way to people crossing those roads.

That's also true here already.  But only if they are "crossing", rather then "about to cross" or "waiting to cross".

from Rule 170:

"* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

In Britain it's only advice not actual law.