Tom Anderson wrote in
:

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.

I don't know about "of course". I don't think it's at all obvious. I'd have
expected the cars that were indicating to have priority over everything that
was planning to pass them, whether or not it's in a different lane, and
whether or not it's bikes in a bike lane or buses in a bus lane. Evidently
not. It's a case of which rule ("traffic in a separate lane" versus
"overtaking cars that are indicating") over-rides the other: I reasoned
things the wrong way round.

I'll have to see if the Highway Code mentions this situation explicitly.

Whatever the HC says, I'll check for cyclists over my left shoulder even
more than I already do when I'm turning left.

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?

Because road users going along a main road have priority over those
turning in or out of side roads - whether either user is a ped. or with
a vehicle is irrelevant.

In practice, might usually rules -

I'd suggest it dosn't really - motorists who 'steal' priority by
threatening to run down anyone who gets in their path are like most
bullies: parasites upon the existence of an (imperfect) level of order
and cooperation. If might really ruled (i.e. anarchy) the vulnerability
of cars to arson, theft & vandalism, either random or as revenge
attacks by disgruntled other road users, would probably make owning one
more trouble than it was worth. (Not a situation I advocate -
personally, I'd prefer a shift towards more order rather than less).

Jon

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Martin Underwood wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in
:

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.

I don't know about "of course". I don't think it's at all obvious.

Okay, that's interesting. I think the first rule of the road i ever
learned was that at a junction, vehicles not turning off have priority
over those which are.

I'd have expected the cars that were indicating to have priority over
everything that was planning to pass them, whether or not it's in a
different lane, and whether or not it's bikes in a bike lane or buses in
a bus lane. Evidently not. It's a case of which rule ("traffic in a
separate lane" versus "overtaking cars that are indicating") over-rides
the other: I reasoned things the wrong way round.

Is there an 'overtaking cars that are indicating' rule? The only thing i
can find in the HC is rule 143, clause 8 [1]:

143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users. For example

[...]
* when a vehicle is indicating right, even if you believe the signal
should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be
cancelled.

That explicitly mentions indicating right - it doesn't prohibit overtaking
a vehicle indicating left, as in this case. Although 139.7 [2] says:

139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should
[...]
* only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to
turn right, and there is room to do so

Which does cover this case, and is even stronger than an 'overtaking cars
that are indicating' rule - you can't overtake even if they aren't
indicating.

However ...

I'll have to see if the Highway Code mentions this situation explicitly.

Rule 159 [3], in the section 'Turning left':

159: When turning

* keep as close to the left as is safe and practical
* give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway
from either direction.

That second clause is the bunny, i think.

Rule 158 sort of retroactively (proactively?) clarifies this:

158: Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn
left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic
coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a
large vehicle. Cyclists and motorcyclists in particular may be hidden from
your view.

[image showing vehicle cutting in on cyclists]
[image showing vehicle giving a cyclist space on the road]

Do not cut in on cyclists

I think those two rules pretty definitely cover the situation that
involves a cycle lane.

Whatever the HC says, I'll check for cyclists over my left shoulder even
more than I already do when I'm turning left.

Very prudent!

tom

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#143
[2] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139
[3] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#159

--
Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Should I
delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've
turned? I reckon the latter.

Doubtless you're correct. But in practice you'd make no assumptions,
keep a firm eye on him and drive defensively. Wouldn't you?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:53:10 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

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?

Where did you invent that one from? If a pedestrian's on the
pavement, he waits. If he's on the road, obviously you don't run into
him using "right of way" as an excuse. D'oh!

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
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 always have right of way, simply because they're more squishy
and easily broken than cars and trucks.

d wrote:
I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the
pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen
them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I
hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the
public.

I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it.

Crossing Vauxhall Bridge last night, one ******* sailed through the
green pedestrian phase at high speed and actually had the nerve to call
me a **** when I shouted ****** at him.
These people are little more than scum and the sooner the police do
something the better, not that that will ever happen.

Kevin

"Jon" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Because road users going along a main road have priority over those
turning in or out of side roads - whether either user is a ped. or with
a vehicle is irrelevant.

In practice, might usually rules -

I'd suggest it dosn't really - motorists who 'steal' priority by
threatening to run down anyone who gets in their path are like most
bullies: parasites upon the existence of an (imperfect) level of order
and cooperation. If might really ruled (i.e. anarchy) the vulnerability
of cars to arson, theft & vandalism, either random or as revenge
attacks by disgruntled other road users, would probably make owning one
more trouble than it was worth. (Not a situation I advocate -
personally, I'd prefer a shift towards more order rather than less).

There's a bit more to anarchy than just might rulling

Jon

In message ,
Martin Underwood writes
Where I live (near Abingdon in Oxfordshire) I see a lot of cyclists go
through red traffic lights as if they don't apply to cyclists -
especially in the centre of Oxford.

When Oxford's traffic system changed a couple (?) of years ago, I saw a
cyclist cycling the wrong way alongside Balliol. A policeman on duty
stopped her and gave her a pretty stern warning. The woman was
absolutely astounded - and I *mean* **astounded** - at being pulled over
for a traffic violation as she was "only on a bike". She simply could
not believe that the rules of the road applied to her.

(Most of the group I was with thought this was quite amusing. At
couple or so people in the group, though, were themselves surprised that
the highway code applied to cyclists.)

As an occasional (and I hope law-abiding) cyclist, it rather shook me at
the time.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

wrote:

Crossing Vauxhall Bridge last night, one ******* sailed through the
green pedestrian phase at high speed and actually had the nerve to
call me a **** when I shouted ****** at him.
These people are little more than scum and the sooner the police do
something the better, not that that will ever happen.

Carry a walking stick. Stick it through their spokes as they pass you. That
should focus their mind (probably on the road!).

- and I speak as a RESPONSIBLE cyclist, equally as ****ed off with these
kamikaze idiots who get us all a bad name.