Ex boxer latest cycling fatality.

[mattc]

I think the confusing aspect is the way the markings that come down the middle of the road from top right, which look like the markings that divide the northbound from the southbound lanes, don't show any point where a southbound road user who wants to turn right could properly cross those markings - I would expect to see the southbound lane split in two, rather than having (as appears to be the case here) a give way marking in what appears to be the opposite (northbound) lane.  Having said that, I'm not sure that's the worst feature of this junction.

Certainly very confusing. I wonder if there's an expectation that few vehicles will turn right EXCEPT those coming from the side road (to the East) PaulSmith highlights.
i.e. most NE->NW travellers will be coming from the NE corner of the green, so could use the road along the North of the green. But locals could confirm ...

hatchings - can't find the relevant HC paragraph, but I think hatching with a dashed boundary is an advisory Stay Out ( as opposed to bound by a solid white line = definitely Stay Out). Bloody stupid anyway, because drivers are bound to drive straight over it

[fuzzy]

The island should be placed in the right turn area inf the wrong garriageway (if you see what I mean), with a portion of the red area set aside for right turning traffic.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

That junction still looks wrong to me. The Give Way markings for the right turn are on the wrong side of the road. They are withing the marked carriageway for traffic entering the side road traveling North.

I am not aiming criticism to any poster on here or spoiling for an argument, just trying to understand the road as I don't know it.

This help? Nothing should enter the red box



Paul Smith
Touring Tips

I don't think that is correct. The triangle is hatched, not solid white lines. This does not preclude cars entering it and as such makes the cutting of the corner legitimate assuming there is nothing at the give way (although as a qualified driving instructor it's not something I would teach a learner to do (however, turning right correctly may result in a collision by a vehicle following you cutting the corner, if you see what I mean; so you're sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Cars turning right from the junction would have to complete 2 manouevres - a yield to traffic entering the road before crossing the centre line then a give way at the give way line.

The junction would most definitely benefit from the red area being an island.

Then that’s what it needs as I have nearly been whipped out there more times than I should have.
Paul Smith
Touring Tips

[matthew]

That junction still looks wrong to me. The Give Way markings for the right turn are on the wrong side of the road. They are withing the marked carriageway for traffic entering the side road traveling North.

I am not aiming criticism to any poster on here or spoiling for an argument, just trying to understand the road as I don't know it.

This help? Nothing should enter the red box



Paul Smith
Touring Tips

I don't think that is correct. The triangle is hatched, not solid white lines. This does not preclude cars entering it and as such makes the cutting of the corner legitimate assuming there is nothing at the give way (although as a qualified driving instructor it's not something I would teach a learner to do (however, turning right correctly may result in a collision by a vehicle following you cutting the corner, if you see what I mean; so you're sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Cars turning right from the junction would have to complete 2 manouevres - a yield to traffic entering the road before crossing the centre line then a give way at the give way line.

The junction would most definitely benefit from the red area being an island.

And the last (south most) of the centre dividing markings to the right of the blue car removed and turned to join more to the centre divider at the give ways because otherwise as Fuzzy is pointing out there is no legitimate route for a south bound vehicle to access the right turn.

[mattc]

as Fuzzy is pointing out there is no legitimate route for a south bound vehicle to access the right turn.

I'm not sure that's true - the highway code doesn't prevent you crossing a dashed centre line. In fact, it is normal if turning from major-to-minor road!

But it is a rather unusual and non-intuitive arrangement. Typical greater london!

[Jord]

I've never seen a junction like that in my life and I've been driving 25 years!

[Martin]

I got downed in the exact same spot a few years ago while on a scooter; a very dodgy junction, the car was turning R onto the A237 which is quite an acute angle, and at that time of day almost all the traffic was coming from the L so they waited for a gap and pulled out... bump!

[hellymedic]

It appears uncannily similar to the spot just south of Potters Bar where another cyclist lost his life yesterday, this time in broad daylight.
 

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/potters_bar_cyclist_dies_in_accident_1_770647

[Peter]

I think the confusing aspect is the way the markings that come down the middle of the road from top right, which look like the markings that divide the northbound from the southbound lanes, don't show any point where a southbound road user who wants to turn right could properly cross those markings - I would expect to see the southbound lane split in two, rather than having (as appears to be the case here) a give way marking in what appears to be the opposite (northbound) lane.  Having said that, I'm not sure that's the worst feature of this junction.

Certainly very confusing. I wonder if there's an expectation that few vehicles will turn right EXCEPT those coming from the side road (to the East) PaulSmith highlights.
i.e. most NE->NW travellers will be coming from the NE corner of the green, so could use the road along the North of the green. But locals could confirm ...

hatchings - can't find the relevant HC paragraph, but I think hatching with a dashed boundary is an advisory Stay Out ( as opposed to bound by a solid white line = definitely Stay Out). Bloody stupid anyway, because drivers are bound to drive straight over it

I think the wording about hatching with a dashed boundary used to be that you shouldn't go into the area "except in an emergency".  Regrettably, getting past a cyclist is frequently considered to be an emergency in my experience.  The hatched sections which are used to discourage overtaking on roads which are otherwise wide enough but dangerous are almost always ignored as far as I can see.  This is just to reply to Matt's point; it's not clear what actually happened here.  Paul's analysis of the junction seems right to me.  It's straightforward enough - from above.  But it does look a bit like the cheapest solution to a difficult problem.

[PhilO]

That junction still looks wrong to me. The Give Way markings for the right turn are on the wrong side of the road. They are withing the marked carriageway for traffic entering the side road traveling North.

I am not aiming criticism to any poster on here or spoiling for an argument, just trying to understand the road as I don't know it.

This help? Nothing should enter the red box



Paul Smith
Touring Tips

I don't think that is correct. The triangle is hatched, not solid white lines. This does not preclude cars entering it and as such makes the cutting of the corner legitimate assuming there is nothing at the give way (although as a qualified driving instructor it's not something I would teach a learner to do (however, turning right correctly may result in a collision by a vehicle following you cutting the corner, if you see what I mean; so you're sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Cars turning right from the junction would have to complete 2 manouevres - a yield to traffic entering the road before crossing the centre line then a give way at the give way line.

The junction would most definitely benefit from the red area being an island.

Agreed. But a northbound motorist in a hurry can still cut the corner when turning right; I would also suggest a Keep Left bollard at the northern extremity of the give way line.

[Access Legal Guy]

It appears uncannily similar to the spot just south of Potters Bar where another cyclist lost his life yesterday, this time in broad daylight.
 

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/potters_bar_cyclist_dies_in_accident_1_770647




That's three fatalities nationwide so far this year and it's only the 11th January....Not good.

[benborp]

Unfortunately, I've just looked at the junction on Street View.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bqmPl3WMT-1bGfFG-c0LiQ?feat=directlink

What are the chances of any driver claiming that their standard of driving did not fall far below the standards of an average competent driver when they turn in to a side road 15m short of the proper place when it appears to be what many other 'average, competent' drivers do?

[origamist]

"Plans for safety improvements at Gary Mason death junction were  'shelved'":

Plans for safety improvements at Gary Mason death junction were 'shelved' (From Sutton Guardian)

[iakobski]

I think the wording about hatching with a dashed boundary used to be that you shouldn't go into the area "except in an emergency".  Regrettably, getting past a cyclist is frequently considered to be an emergency in my experience.  The hatched sections which are used to discourage overtaking on roads which are otherwise wide enough but dangerous are almost always ignored as far as I can see. 

No, it's 'when necessary':

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

    * if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so
    * if the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency

People generally seem to think they MUST keep out of the hatched area, so they tend to turn an otherwise wide safe road into one that's a nightmare to cycle down. Overtaking a cyclist it is certainly "necessary" to enter the hatched area (if safe to do so), but for most drivers they seem to be quite happy to cross double white lines on a narrow road, but will avoid entering the hatchings even if skimming a cyclist at 60 mph.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

People generally seem to think they MUST keep out of the hatched area, so they tend to turn an otherwise wide safe road into one that's a nightmare to cycle down. Overtaking a cyclist it is certainly "necessary" to enter the hatched area (if safe to do so), but for most drivers they seem to be quite happy to cross double white lines on a narrow road, but will avoid entering the hatchings even if skimming a cyclist at 60 mph.

Agreed. I live in an area in London which has a recently built (fifteen or so years ago) main, wide road to serve the area. The road was plenty wide enough till the highway engineers got their mitts on it, with a 'traffic calming' scheme. This consists of central islands every so often - dubbed as pedestrian refuges, which had lights on them, which form pinch points. The centre of the road is occupied by these hatch markings. At the exhibition the highway engineers gave, they told me the hatch marks have no legal basis (as you have said) - they are there to make drivers think the road is narrower.

I really fail to see why we make roads narrower - it only puts cyclists at risk.
I would rather be passed by a fast driver giving me enough room than a slow driver squeezing me at a pinch point.

[Peter]

I think the wording about hatching with a dashed boundary used to be that you shouldn't go into the area "except in an emergency".  Regrettably, getting past a cyclist is frequently considered to be an emergency in my experience.  The hatched sections which are used to discourage overtaking on roads which are otherwise wide enough but dangerous are almost always ignored as far as I can see. 

No, it's 'when necessary':

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

    * if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so
    * if the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency

People generally seem to think they MUST keep out of the hatched area, so they tend to turn an otherwise wide safe road into one that's a nightmare to cycle down. Overtaking a cyclist it is certainly "necessary" to enter the hatched area (if safe to do so), but for most drivers they seem to be quite happy to cross double white lines on a narrow road, but will avoid entering the hatchings even if skimming a cyclist at 60 mph.

Jake, thanks for putting me straight!  this will improve my driving, if not my cycling safety.  The particular road I have in mind has broken hatchings on which have never given any motorist pause for thought in my experience.  They all come zooming straight past, which may, as you say, be just about legal but it depends on your definition of necessary!

Cheers

Peter

[rower40]

God forbid me for this but maybe it takes a celebrity's death whilst cycling for the CPS and cops to take it seriously.

That's a horrible, callous post on some levels, I don't mean it to be.

This won't sound right and I don't mean it to sound the way it does, but hopefully this high profile death will have a benefit of highlighting the issues we have.

RIP - he always came across as a nice bloke when interview on TV.

Agree with both of you. I only wish this was someone with a higher profile - a name that would cause every Joe Public to gasp, and would guarantee front-page coverage.

Sorry to drag the thread away from the minutiae of the specific (terrible!) junction.

But +1 (although I'd hate it to happen to anyone).  The only cycling "name" large enough in the general public's view would be Boris.  The news of a pro cyclist (say, Miss Pendleton) coming to grief would just get swept under the motoring carpet with phrases in the tabloids such as "...who trains thousands of miles a year on Britain's dangerous roads..." and it would be made to look as though they had it coming.

Whereas London's mayor is well-known as a utility cyclist.

[mAsTa RiDaH]

Very sad.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

Unfortunately, I've just looked at the junction on Street View.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bqmPl3WMT-1bGfFG-c0LiQ?feat=directlink

What are the chances of any driver claiming that their standard of driving did not fall far below the standards of an average competent driver when they turn in to a side road 15m short of the proper place when it appears to be what many other 'average, competent' drivers do?

The route that car is taking is in my experience common place at that junction



Drivers often have their attention focused on the oncoming traffic, especially as the latter are normally accelerating after crossing a busy junction. As such the car turning right will to make the turn also be accelerating in attempt to make the gap in the traffic; only then may they realise they have a cyclist broadside onto them




Paul Smith
Touring Tips

[Clandy]

Interesting radio debate which stemmed from this incident.

 Moton vs CTC rep. From 2.22 to 2.28:

BBC iPlayer - 5 live Breakfast: 10/01/2011

[Jaded]

I am surprised that the CTC doesn't have better rebuttals of the (usual) points put across.

e.g. "You lot all jump red lights"

answer (to include):

"Well, that's an interesting point given that 80% of motorists admit to speeding. I fully agree that complying with the highway code is important and I'd like to see all road users doing so!"

[Clandy]

I thought the CTC rep did that quite well. He replied to that by pointing out that Ken Livingstone set up a survey to monitor cyclists jumping red lights, but they spent so much time counting motorists jumping red lights they didn't have time to count cyclists.

[Jaded]

I thought the moton did better, considering the audience.

This kind of stuff should be meat and drink to spokespeople from the CTC. They should be media trained and they should have a library of stock answers to the boring same-old questions.

The Livingstone thing was great, bit it was a bit lost in the Shelagh Foghorn + Moton blizzard.

[Gandalf]

Mr Rayner has been all over the place....trotting out his paticular rehearsed utterances

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696

[Clandy]

Mr Rayner has been all over the place....trotting out his paticular rehearsed utterances

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696

Just his image is a perfect argument for more cycling and less driving. Even before I clicked Play I knew who was the motoring representative.

And yes, I now have to agree with Jaded, cyclists need more vociferous voices in these 'debates'. Why wasn't she replying to the fat bastard's accusations of 'striping money from motorists', with actually we ALL pay for the roads through our income tax and council tax.' Why wasn't she saying, 'If ever anyone was in need of a bicycle it is you Mr Rayner, look at the state of you, your car has done that to you.'

Fight fire with fire. Being 'reasonable' doesn't work with idiots.