In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
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.


I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which
permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream
of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to
overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right
would be equally absurd.

There is a tendency to have advance stop lines to favour cyclists. They
seem not to apply to motor bikes or taxis.

As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

Is there a blind spot for car drivers who glance behind?
I recently became aware that my practice of changing lane to the left is
unsafe for motor bikes passing on the left.
I am trying to teach myself to glance behind as well as use my mirror.
A collision is never a good idea regardless of right of way.
--
Walter Briscoe

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are
indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb
as I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently
overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking
illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic.

It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know
you'll be turning left shortly afterwards.

It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as
slowly as 5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards
from the junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for
ages is absurd and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I
overtake him. Then the lights change just as I'm approaching the
lights: maybe I'm first or second car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist
catches up with me. The lights turn green.

Ah, sorry - was thinking of a junction off a free-flowing road, not TL
controlled.

I think my closest near-death on a bike was sat stationary at lights and
had a truck pull up just behind me - then when the lights went green, he
overtook and promptly turned left without indicating...

If he's already level with
me or in front of me, fine - he goes 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.

Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be utterly
stupid to pass you on the inside.

As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both
points of view.

Likewise.

Adrian wrote in
70:

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

If he's already level with
me or in front of me, fine - he goes 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.

Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be
utterly stupid to pass you on the inside.

.... something that's never stopped cyclists trying to force their way
through in those circumstances!

Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
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.

It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning
traffic is not in the left-most lane.


The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should
pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the
traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be
given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely
a junction with another road?

Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on
the same side as he's indicating.

It's an offence against basic common sense and self-preservation.

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

[snip]
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.


It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning
traffic is not in the left-most lane.

I think you have to wait before you change lane.



The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should
pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the
traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be
given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely
a junction with another road?

ISTR, driving test says pedestrians always have right of way.
In practice, might usually rules unless there is a shunt.
--
Walter Briscoe

Martin Underwood wrote:
Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood
writes

[snip]
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.

It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning
traffic is not in the left-most lane.


The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should
pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the
traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be
given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely
a junction with another road?

Pedestrians only have priority if they have already begun crossing the
road, and that's because in the time between checking whether a vehicle
is approaching the turning and crossing, it's quite easy for a
fast-moving vehicle to catch a crossing pedestrian by surprise.

Personally, I check to see if approaching vehicles are indicating to
turn into the side road I want to cross. If they are, then I'll wait; if
no-one is indicating, then it's fine for me to cross (assuming there are
no vehicles coming out of the side road). If a vehicle reaches the side
road as I'm crossing, then they either didn't indicate (which is their
fault, so they can wait) or they got there faster than I can cross (in
which case, it's still my priority).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Martin Underwood wrote:
Adrian wrote in
70:
(snip)
As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points
of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible
to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never
getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In
dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number
plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and
(via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is
moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm
capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come
to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary
traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be
turning, either with or without an indicator.

I can totally understand not overtaking slow traffic on the left, as
that can get you squashed easily. However, I'm unconvinced that
overtaking stationary traffic is a problem. Stationary = not moving =
not a risk, unless someone is getting out of a vehicle. I would (slowly)
overtake stationary traffic until it begins to move again, at which
point I'll ease myself back into the stream as appropriate to make sure
that I am visible.

An inability to overtake stationary traffic renders the
congestion-busting benefit of cycling pointless. The only rule should be
to cycle at an appropriate speed to take avoiding action when necessary.
Obviously particular care should be taken at side roads.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...


- mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with
the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel
with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in
front


You hadn't noticed that motorcycles haven't needed front registration plates
for maybe 30? years or more? Hence they are immune from certain speed
cameras.

Paul

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