On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Walter Briscoe wrote:
In message of Thu, 12
Jan 2006 10:53:10 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes
Walter Briscoe wrote in
:
In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes
first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me.
Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait
until I've turned? I reckon the latter.
I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of
way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus
in a bus lane.
Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to
overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's
indicating.
I think a cycle in a cycle lane has right of way and usual rules about
streams of traffic do not apply.
I don't think we're talking about cycle lanes - i think we're talking
about the practice of cycling up the left side of a normal lane, between
the traffic and the kerb ('undertaking', i think it's called). Since this
is illegal, the law doesn't have anything to say on the right of way of
someone doing it!
Myself, as a cyclist, i agree with Martin - if the car is ahead, the car
gets priority. If the cyclist doesn't notice that the car is indicating,
and rides into the side of the car as it turns, that's the cyclist's own
stupid fault. I've done this myself a number of times (never actually hit
the car, but been forced to brake or maneuver sharply), and it's quite
clear to me that i have only myself to blame.
If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane, though,
then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning motorist,
regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something that drivers
along Torrington Place could do with reminding of.
tom
--
I sometimes think that the IETF is one of the crown jewels in all of
western civilization. -- Tim O'Reilly