Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Access Legal Guy on 07 January, 2011, 11:07:24 am
-
BBC News - Boxer Gary Mason dies in cycling collision in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12135980)
-
Gosh. That's very close to me, and a road we ride on often. I don't know who this guy is, not being any sort of follower of boxing, but I think I have seen him around here.
-
RIP and it's only the 7th january
-
Very sad. I met him a few times and he was a very nice chap.
-
Sad news.
Hopefully elements of this will cheer many members up:
"
Mason, 48, was on his bicycle in Sandy Lane South, Wallington, on Thursday morning when he was involved* in a collision with a van.
"
Should keep the "collision" fans happy
"
A man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving
"
Makes a nice change to hear this. :thumbsup:
(I probably drove down that road on my driving test, and ridden it a few times.)
*although it doesn't define his involvement - maybe he caused it by shouting at the driver, who knows?
-
"
A man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving
"
Makes a nice change to hear this. :thumbsup:
Exactly the same words used after a competitor on one of our club TT's was struck from behind by a car on a straight piece of dual carriageway. The driver pleaded guilty and received a £100 fine, 200 hours community service and a 12 month driving ban.
Edit - sorry, just checked CW reported no fine but £110 costs
-
suggestions that he may not have had any lights on Cyclist killed in Wallington was former boxing champion Gary Mason (From This Is Local London) (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8777362.UPDATE__Cyclist_killed_believed_to_be_boxing_champ/?ref=rss)
-
Sad news.
Hopefully elements of this will cheer many members up:
"
Mason, 48, was on his bicycle in Sandy Lane South, Wallington, on Thursday morning when he was involved* in a collision with a van.
"
Should keep the "collision" fans happy
"
A man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving
"
Makes a nice change to hear this. :thumbsup:
(I probably drove down that road on my driving test, and ridden it a few times.)
*although it doesn't define his involvement - maybe he caused it by shouting at the driver, who knows?
You failed to quote that the driver had stopped at the scene.
-
You failed to quote that the driver had stopped at the scene.
Sorry, you've lost me here - I quoted very little of the article, what's the problem?
-
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.
-
My condolences to his family & friends :( He was a good boxer back in the day as his boxing record shows, the only loss was a TKO against Lennox Lewis.
Boxing record
Total fights 38
Wins 37
Wins by KO 34
Losses 1
Draws 0
No contests 0
-
RIP, an unnecessary death through an irresponsible driver, who won't receive proper punishment. Either people need to take more care of each other, or getting your license should include a responsibility seminar with exam at the end. It's sort of ironic how he survived a brutal sport (http://www.bikester.co.uk/bicycles/road-bikes.html) like boxing and fell victim to cycling.
-
suggestions that he may not have had any lights on Cyclist killed in Wallington was former boxing champion Gary Mason (From This Is Local London) (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8777362.UPDATE__Cyclist_killed_believed_to_be_boxing_champ/?ref=rss)
I guess that could bollox the criminal charges :-\
-
It's sort of ironic how he survived a brutal sport like boxing and fell victim to cycling.
More accurately he fell victim to driving, not cycling.
-
RIP, an unnecessary death through an irresponsible driver, who won't receive proper punishment. Either people need to take more care of each other, or getting your license should include a responsibility seminar with exam at the end. It's sort of ironic how he survived a brutal sport like boxing and fell victim to cycling.
Do you have some insight into this sad event that you would like to share with us?
We don't know the details of this other than the poor man is dead. We don't know that the driver was "irresponsible". If he or she is found to have been responsible then we can hope that the law will deal with him or her appropriately (I'd favour a manslaughter charge but I know legal experts will point out why that's not a good idea). Until then, let's remember that in this country - unless you are a landlord whose tenant is murdered - you are innocent until proven guilty.
-
I think we have to be careful not to judge the driver as guilty until the full facts are known. Cyclist deaths by way of vehicle are sadly too common but the cycling standards of some do fall way below what could be considered safe in traffic. An arrest is no indication of guilt. Reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed along with someone who could reasonably be thought to have committed it is ample grounds for arrest and would be par for the course in any road accident where a death occurs.
I would also say that, like it or not, as drivers we should remember "there for the grace of god go I". No matter how considerate of other road users and committed to safety we are, we all run the risk of making an unforced error. Kids arguing in the back; the girl in the short skirt; can't stand the tune on the radio - they are distractions that any of us could fall foul of and whilst they shouldn't happen we all know that they do. People are human and mistakes are made. Not every driver is a psychotic murderer; some are just like us. In fact one day they could be us and we shouldn't forget that.
-
If someone killed someone else after being dstracted by kids in the back or a short skirt then they are pretty guilty in my book.
-
I would also say that, like it or not, as drivers we should remember "there for the grace of god go I". No matter how considerate of other road users and committed to safety we are, we all run the risk of making an unforced error. Kids arguing in the back; the girl in the short skirt; can't stand the tune on the radio - they are distractions that any of us could fall foul of and whilst they shouldn't happen we all know that they do. People are human and mistakes are made. Not every driver is a psychotic murderer; some are just like us. In fact one day they could be us and we shouldn't forget that.
So are you saying all drivers knowingly gamble with the lives of others everytime they start the car?
-
I would also say that, like it or not, as drivers we should remember "there for the grace of god go I". No matter how considerate of other road users and committed to safety we are, we all run the risk of making an unforced error. Kids arguing in the back; the girl in the short skirt; can't stand the tune on the radio - they are distractions that any of us could fall foul of and whilst they shouldn't happen we all know that they do. People are human and mistakes are made. Not every driver is a psychotic murderer; some are just like us. In fact one day they could be us and we shouldn't forget that.
So are you saying all drivers knowingly gamble with the lives of others everytime they start the car?
Of course they do unless they think they are perfect or immortal. People make mistakes you can't legislate or train that out of them no matter how hard you try. Mostly those mistakes have no consequence occasionally they have dreadful ones. Pretending that if everyone was just careful and conscientious there would be no fatal accidents on the road is unrealistic. There would be a lot fewer but there would still be quite a lot. No way to fix it bar banning all cars and lorries, you'd still get trampled by a horse occasionally though. Even if everyone could drive as perfectly 100% of the time there would still be drivers who had a hart attack or sneezed at just the wrong time.
-
People make mistakes you can't legislate or train that out of them no matter how hard you try.
So HASAW Legislation is pointless?
The issue is not people "making mistakes", it is that for driving a car a far lower standard is acceptable to the country and the legislature than for driving (for example) a fork lift truck.
That is why it is fine to kill someone whilst distracted by kids in the car, but not fine to kill someone whilst distracted by something on a fork-lift.
-
suggestions that he may not have had any lights on Cyclist killed in Wallington was former boxing champion Gary Mason (From This Is Local London) (http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8777362.UPDATE__Cyclist_killed_believed_to_be_boxing_champ/?ref=rss)
This suggestion is wrong. There is a large photo of the wrecked bike in situ on the front of our local paper today, and it is clear that there is at least a rear light attached. There seems to be a mount for a front light, but that may have come off in the collision. Of course, there is no way of telling that he had them switched on from what we know, but there was definitely a rear light fitted. Whoever is spreading this malicious rumour is just muddying the water. >:(
-
People make mistakes you can't legislate or train that out of them no matter how hard you try.
So HASAW Legislation is pointless?
The issue is not people "making mistakes", it is that for driving a car a far lower standard is acceptable to the country and the legislature than for driving (for example) a fork lift truck.
That is why it is fine to kill someone whilst distracted by kids in the car, but not fine to kill someone whilst distracted by something on a fork-lift.
No HASAW is good. Better training and being careful will reduce deaths and accidents but never eliminate them. I'm not suggesting that it's OK to kill someone whilst distracted just that you can never stop it happening entirely.
-
I would also say that, like it or not, as drivers we should remember "there for the grace of god go I". No matter how considerate of other road users and committed to safety we are, we all run the risk of making an unforced error. Kids arguing in the back; the girl in the short skirt; can't stand the tune on the radio - they are distractions that any of us could fall foul of and whilst they shouldn't happen we all know that they do. People are human and mistakes are made. Not every driver is a psychotic murderer; some are just like us. In fact one day they could be us and we shouldn't forget that.
So are you saying all drivers knowingly gamble with the lives of others everytime they start the car?
If by gamble you mean to willfully risk the lives of others then no, I don't; but I do think that all drivers put the lives of others at risk because driving is an inherently dangerous activity. The point I was trying to make was that as drivers we all have the potential to be the person that kills the cyclist because we're all fallible, no matter how careful we are. I think it is reality check with regards our own driving standards and I also think it should be something we remember before we are too damning of others.
-
So are you saying all drivers knowingly gamble with the lives of others everytime they start the car?
Absolutely. However the odds are the thing under discusion, not the gambling.
-
Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts' -
Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-left-unprotected-by-police-and-courts-2179752.html)
Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts'
Drivers who claim they couldn't see bikes are too often believed, say campaigners.
Greater protection for cyclists on Britain's roads is being demanded after a former British heavyweight boxing champion was killed on his bicycle last week. Gary Mason, 48, died after a collision with a van while cycling in Wallington, south London. He is the second cyclist to die in the UK this year.
Eilidh Cairns was crushed by a lorry in Notting Hill, west London, while cycling to work in February last year. The driver subsequently pleaded guilty to having defective eyesight. He was fined just £200 and given three points on his licence.
Emma Chesterman, a friend of Ms Cairns, said:
"He admitted his eyesight was not good enough and gets £200 and three points on his licence. It does not seem fair. We are bewildered by the whole system that treats cyclists' deaths in this way. It seems to be the attitude that you are putting yourself in the way of danger and therefore it is your own fault if it happens to you, which is not the same as if it were a pedestrian killed."
-
Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts' -
Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-left-unprotected-by-police-and-courts-2179752.html)
The readers comments on that are very very depressing reading
-
Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts' -
Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-left-unprotected-by-police-and-courts-2179752.html)
The readers comments on that are very very depressing reading
Not all of them. Some are from idiots. That's what the internet's for.
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.
-
I know that junction well as it was on my commute home when I cycled from BikePlus, one of the stop lines is in the path that vehicles often take; as in the google maps picture of the area below. At that angle a rider could be in the blind spot of the car driver’s windscreen pillar, plus the riders lights would be side on especially if the cyclist was turning right away from the oncoming vehicle. I don’t know what the actual circumstances were, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Gary was on the stop line where that car, shown more clearly in the lower picture was.
I would often get off my bike at that junction, as I was sensitive to the fact that the white lines, especially in the dark are not as obvious in the from a drivers eye view as they are from above as in that picture of course; the route that the many motorists take are the same as in that picture below, along with the potential blind spot often their focus is on missing the oncoming traffic on the main road, as many then swoop right, often at speed, into the side road and into the path of….…..; I’ve always disliked that junction!
I repeat, I’m not saying that’s what infact did happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5341914287_d042c3b580_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5342524914_704a902455_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
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.
-
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23912479-barrister-calls-for-tougher-action-on-lorry-drivers-who-kill-cyclists.do)
-
I know that junction well as it was on my commute home when I cycled from BikePlus, one of the stop lines is in the path that vehicles often take; as in the google maps picture of the area below. At that angle a rider could be in the blind spot of the car driver’s windscreen pillar, plus the riders lights would be side on especially if the cyclist was turning right away from the oncoming vehicle. I don’t know what the actual circumstances were, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Gary was on the stop line where that car, shown more clearly in the lower picture was.
I would often get off my bike at that junction, as I was sensitive to the fact that the white lines, especially in the dark are not as obvious in the from a drivers eye view as they are from above as in that picture of course; the route that the many motorists take are the same as in that picture below, along with the potential blind spot often their focus is on missing the oncoming traffic on the main road, as many then swoop right, often at speed, into the side road and into the path of….…..; I’ve always disliked that junction!
I repeat, I’m not saying that’s what infact did happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5341914287_d042c3b580_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5342524914_704a902455_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
Paul,
if I am viewing the images correctly, that is not a stop line but the edge line for the hatching. The markings are supposed to direct traffic to wait at the give way line at a more perpendicular angle to the major route, so improving their view of traffic flow accross their path. The car in the image is taking the lazy way through the junction and making it a damn sight harder to check the way is clear to proceed.
-
Having seen Pauls photos of the junction and his assumption that the cyclist has come from either the NE or SE side roads and is turning North. I can easily see how being stopped at the GW to turn into the major road you are broadside on to a driver approaching from the south and forking Right, who may well drive over those hatchings to make their turn.
The alignment of the car in the photo is odd as they have not started their right turn as indicated by their road position. Unless it is a hatchback cutting the corner exactly as discribed above.
-
The alignment of the car in the photo is odd as they have not started their right turn as indicated by their road position. Unless it is a hatchback cutting the corner exactly as discribed above.
That was my inference.
And if not, it does at least illustrate where a corner-cutter would drive!
-
Having seen Pauls photos of the junction and his assumption that the cyclist has come from either the NE or SE side roads and is turning North. I can easily see how being stopped at the GW to turn into the major road you are broadside on to a driver approaching from the south and forking Right, who may well drive over those hatchings to make their turn.
The alignment of the car in the photo is odd as they have not started their right turn as indicated by their road position. Unless it is a hatchback cutting the corner exactly as discribed above.
I was implying the following;
Red circles Gary’s route with yellow his planned route
Red arrow the car’s route, yellow their planned route
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/5343197950_836550b719_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
Looking at the image again (and precipitated by your arrows Paul) I have to ask, why are there Give Way lines marked on the right (incorrect) side of the road?
Something odd there.
-
Looks OK to me; one set of Give Way lines for right turners, one for left turners/mergers and a set on the smaller side road.
The car should NOT be where it is but I'm sure this abuse is commonplace.
-
Fuzzy there not wrong, replace the hatchings with an island and it becomes clear that you have a NE to S left turning lane and a small stub right turn lane.
In my view the junction is incorrectly laid out only in that there should be a traffic island in the place of the hatches though that may not be possible and retain the ability for larger vehicles to turn from the E bound side road into the left turning lane and then south down the main road.
-
maybe the car should have gone further down the round and turned 90 right where the firt yellow dot is rather than cut the corner?
-
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23912479-barrister-calls-for-tougher-action-on-lorry-drivers-who-kill-cyclists.do)
This got some airtime at about 0740 on the BBC breakfast program. They had two experts in the studio - a female journalist who cycles, and a male motoring journalist. Didn't get their names, but it took the latter all of about 5 seconds to get on to the "cyclists jump red lights" kind of tack... ::-)
-
Is that section of road one way with 2 lanes or two way, one lane in each direction. If it is one way, then there should not be Give Way markings there unless the direction of travel is North to South, just a broken white line to delinate the start of the road/ edge of the major route. If two way, why Give Way markings for a right turn that is effectively on the side of the road for traffic entering the side road? Look at the lane division lines on the approach to the junction- they are constant up to the hatchings.
-
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists
Barrister calls for tougher action on lorry drivers who kill cyclists | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23912479-barrister-calls-for-tougher-action-on-lorry-drivers-who-kill-cyclists.do)
This got some airtime at about 0740 on the BBC breakfast program. They had two experts in the studio - a female journalist who cycles, and a male motoring journalist. Didn't get their names, but it took the latter all of about 5 seconds to get on to the "cyclists jump red lights" kind of tack... ::-)
The hack was Zoe Williams.
I've no idea who the fat man was and why he would attach his ragtag caravan of ignorance and prejudice to a man's violent death.
-
maybe the car should have gone further down the round and turned 90 right where the firt yellow dot is rather than cut the corner?
Car Red Dots
Cyclist yellow dot
In stead of the route it took the car should have taken the red dot route
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5082/5343305120_ec3261888d_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
Man was someone Rayner, one of Claires sons I assume by voice and mannerisms
-
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3892/mapj.jpg)
I think the yellow arrow shows the correct turn. The car in the photo probably took the route in the red arrow.
-
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.
-
(http://pixelres.com/wp-content/dads-army-01.jpg)
(one for older readers there ... )
-
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.
It's a confusing junction and the road markings if followed would have stopped what I believed may have happened, which is that the car cut the corner.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5343402358_bcb0f33628_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
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.
This is just round the corner from son number 1's school so, not surprisingly, there's been a lot of talk there. i don't know yet if he's having to deal with idiotic comments at school - he has a slight tendency to get a bit militant about cyclists' rights, which I admire, but he probably ought to be concentrating on his "critical thinking" exam today.
-
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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5343402358_bcb0f33628_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
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.
-
Perhaps a (mini) roundabout there would make the road markings easier to comprehend.
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5343402358_bcb0f33628_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
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 (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5343402358_bcb0f33628_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
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.
-
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!
-
I've never seen a junction like that in my life and I've been driving 25 years!
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/potters_bar_cyclist_dies_in_accident_1_770647)
(http://maps.google.com/maps/empw?url=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fhl%3DEN%26ie%3DUTF8%26hq%3D%26hnear%3D94%2BStag%2BLn,%2BEdgware%2BHA8%2B5LW,%2BUnited%2BKingdom%26ll%3D51.681736,-0.186778%26spn%3D0.000534,0.001321%26t%3Dk%26z%3D20%26output%3Dembed&hl=EN)
-
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.
-
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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5343402358_bcb0f33628_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
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.
-
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 (http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/potters_bar_cyclist_dies_in_accident_1_770647)
(http://maps.google.com/maps/empw?url=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fhl%3DEN%26ie%3DUTF8%26hq%3D%26hnear%3D94%2BStag%2BLn,%2BEdgware%2BHA8%2B5LW,%2BUnited%2BKingdom%26ll%3D51.681736,-0.186778%26spn%3D0.000534,0.001321%26t%3Dk%26z%3D20%26output%3Dembed&hl=EN)
That's three fatalities nationwide so far this year and it's only the 11th January....Not good.
-
Unfortunately, I've just looked at the junction on Street View.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bqmPl3WMT-1bGfFG-c0LiQ?feat=directlink (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?
-
"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) (http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/8783038.Safety_plans_for_Gary_Mason_death_junction_were__shelved_/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Very sad.
-
Unfortunately, I've just looked at the junction on Street View.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bqmPl3WMT-1bGfFG-c0LiQ?feat=directlink (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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5349228308_88cd061b31_o.jpg)
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
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5343184540_d28a410294_o.jpg)
Paul Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
Touring Tips (http://www.corridori.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=9)
-
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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xbdvr/5_live_Breakfast_10_01_2011/)
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
Mr Rayner has been all over the place....trotting out his paticular rehearsed utterances
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696)
-
Mr Rayner has been all over the place....trotting out his paticular rehearsed utterances
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12149696 (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.
-
Cyclists are just nicer people! If this has to have a few down sides, so be it.
-
Cyclists are just nicer people! If this has to have a few down sides, so be it.
'Nice guys don't win'.
-
And yes, I now have to agree with Jaded, cyclists need more vociferous voices in these 'debates'.
Yes. I thought the CTC chap put some good points across. But the motoring knob was allowed to ignore them and go back to his own agenda. The CTC chap should have been more forcefull IMO. The Radio presenters seemed to side with the motoring knob.
Cyclists are just nicer people! If this has to have a few down sides, so be it.
No need for unpleasentness. Just a bit more forcefullness and reasonably explaining why the motoring knob was talking rubbish.
The CTC bloke sounded like a drip who could be bullied even if he was talking sense. We want someone like Paxman IMO.
-
this, along with a general lack of direction, is the ctc's problem.
-
The Radio presenters seemed to side with the motoring knob.
That is also often a big problem! The host of any debate can have a massive effect.
-
That is what media training and preparation is for. Given the exposure the CTC gets they should have this sown up.