Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it
is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close
to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a
cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a
cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side!

Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake
the cyclist to do so.

Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158.

Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like
that should not be allowed on the roads.

I assume you mean that once the driver starts a turn, he can't see
all of the vehicle in his mirrors. In what way is a bendy bus
different from an articulated lorry in that regard, or would you
ban all of them too?

Like railway practices and designs found to be dangerous I would
require changes to overcome the safety defects. Most railway lines
had to be fitted with TPWS to prevent SPADs and bufferstop
collisions and all the Mark I rolling stock had to be withdrawn
from service within quite a short time because it wasn't
crashworthy enough, for example.

I wasn't aware that articulated lorries had been "found to be
dangerous". Do you have any accident statistics to support this?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

The cyclist shouldn't *be* on the nearside of the vehicle when it
is indicating to turn left. As a car driver I usually pull close
to the kerb when I'm turning left if I've just overtaken a
cyclist, so as to block him making this dangerous manouvre; as a
cyclist I never overtake anything on the driver's blind side!

Other way round IME. The vehicle turning left should not overtake
the cyclist to do so.

Yes, that's Highway Code rule 158.

Worse, they can't even see what they are doing. Any vehicle like
that should not be allowed on the roads.

I assume you mean that once the driver starts a turn, he can't see
all of the vehicle in his mirrors. In what way is a bendy bus
different from an articulated lorry in that regard, or would you
ban all of them too?

Like railway practices and designs found to be dangerous I would
require changes to overcome the safety defects. Most railway lines
had to be fitted with TPWS to prevent SPADs and bufferstop
collisions and all the Mark I rolling stock had to be withdrawn
from service within quite a short time because it wasn't
crashworthy enough, for example.

I wasn't aware that articulated lorries had been "found to be
dangerous". Do you have any accident statistics to support this?

Two Cambridge accidents in the last few months in which cyclists were
killed by drivers who claim not to have seen them on their nearsides.
The lorries were turning left, one on a roundabout at Addenbrooke's
Hospital, the other at a T junction off a main road with a cycle lane on
the nearside.

There is no question in my mind that both drivers should have seen the
cyclists and if they couldn't then their vehicles were defective and
should not be allowed on the roads nor should similar vehicles unless
modified.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

I assume you mean that once the driver starts a turn, he can't
see all of the vehicle in his mirrors. In what way is a bendy
bus different from an articulated lorry in that regard, or would
you ban all of them too?

Like railway practices and designs found to be dangerous I would
require changes to overcome the safety defects. Most railway lines
had to be fitted with TPWS to prevent SPADs and bufferstop
collisions and all the Mark I rolling stock had to be withdrawn
from service within quite a short time because it wasn't
crashworthy enough, for example.

I wasn't aware that articulated lorries had been "found to be
dangerous". Do you have any accident statistics to support this?

Two Cambridge accidents in the last few months in which cyclists
were killed by drivers who claim not to have seen them on their
nearsides. The lorries were turning left, one on a roundabout at
Addenbrooke's Hospital, the other at a T junction off a main road
with a cycle lane on the nearside.

There is no question in my mind that both drivers should have seen
the cyclists and if they couldn't then their vehicles were
defective and should not be allowed on the roads nor should similar
vehicles unless modified.

.... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly adjusted.
The mirror check should be done *before* starting to turn; the
articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote in
:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:


... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly adjusted.
The mirror check should be done *before* starting to turn; the
articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have been in a
position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his left-hand mirror
before turning left. The rule is simple: never never even begin to overtake
a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards you. On the approach to a
junction, assume that any vehicle in front of you might be planning to turn
left or that you may not have seen his indicator, so don't overtake near
junctions.

The Highway Code lists "near junctions" as being one of the places not to
overtake a vehicle on the right; it should really extend this to prohibiting
cyclists from overtaking on the left near a junction. Unfortunately many
marked bike lanes extend right up to the junction (eg traffic lights) and so
are seen to be encouraging rather than prohibiting such an action.

Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions, because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be.

"Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from
the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I
always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions,
because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be. "

Yes, I agree entirely, and this situation is worsened by the imposition
of "bicycle boxes" or whatever they are called at the front of stop
lines at junctions, which can only encourage cycles and motorbikes to
overtake or undertake whenever there is stationery traffic waiting at
red lights.

I have been at the Bar long enough to remember motorcyclists being
prosecuted for this very action, which now seems to be officially
sanctioned if not encouraged.

Marc.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from
the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I
always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions,
because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be. "

Yes, I agree entirely, and this situation is worsened by the imposition
of "bicycle boxes" or whatever they are called at the front of stop
lines at junctions, which can only encourage cycles and motorbikes to
overtake or undertake whenever there is stationery traffic waiting at
red lights.

I have been at the Bar long enough to remember motorcyclists being
prosecuted for this very action, which now seems to be officially
sanctioned if not encouraged.

Just like women voting - whatever next!

Marc.

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Richard J. wrote in
:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

... or the drivers didn't have the nearside mirror properly
adjusted. The mirror check should be done *before* starting to
turn; the articulation of the lorry (or bendy bus) is not relevant.

If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have
been in a position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his
left-hand mirror before turning left. The rule is simple: never never
even begin to overtake a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards
you. On the approach to a junction, assume that any vehicle in front
of you might be planning to turn left or that you may not have seen
his indicator, so don't overtake near junctions.

The Highway Code lists "near junctions" as being one of the places
not to overtake a vehicle on the right; it should really extend this
to prohibiting cyclists from overtaking on the left near a junction.
Unfortunately many marked bike lanes extend right up to the junction
(eg traffic lights) and so are seen to be encouraging rather than
prohibiting such an action.

Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue
of traffic, rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I
say that from the perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when
I'm on my bike I always resist the temptation to overtake cars on the
left near junctions, because as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous
it can be.

You are making number of unwarranted assumptions there, especially about
queuing.

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no other
vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no other
vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

There is also a (moral) duty on the drivers of smaller vehicles to have
consideration for other vehicles on the road, including larger ones.
This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other
vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also includes,
for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It would
include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower one. It
would include many other courtesies.

Sadly, many drivers (of vehicles of all kinds, large and small, powered
and unpowered, passenger and goods) do not drive with this in mind. If
they did, the roads would be a far more pleasant and far safer place
for everyone on them.

Neil

In article .com,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

There has to be a duty on drivers of large vehicles to ensure no
other vehicles are in their way, no matter where they are going.

There is also a (moral) duty on the drivers of smaller vehicles to
have consideration for other vehicles on the road, including larger
ones.
This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other
vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also
includes, for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It
would include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower
one. It would include many other courtesies.

I'm not sure where the left turning vehicle is coming from behind, how a
cyclist or anyone else is supposed to do that.

Sadly, many drivers (of vehicles of all kinds, large and small,
powered and unpowered, passenger and goods) do not drive with this in
mind. If they did, the roads would be a far more pleasant and far safer
place for everyone on them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Martin Underwood wrote:
If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have been in a
position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his left-hand mirror
before turning left. The rule is simple: never never even begin to overtake
a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards you. On the approach to a
junction, assume that any vehicle in front of you might be planning to turn
left or that you may not have seen his indicator, so don't overtake near
junctions.

If a driver is turning left and is crossing another lane in doing so
then it is the driver's responsibility to check that lanes (s)he
crosses are clear beforehand. Whatever sort of lane is being crossed,
it is a courtesy to slow down and let the person turning left do so,
but not a requirement. So a cyclist in a cycle lane can, but doesn't
have to, give way to a car waiting in another lane. The same for a car
in an ordinary road when there is an oncoming car waiting to turn right
- ideally you would slow down and let them cross but you don't have to.
As soon as you start thinking about cycle lanes as "real lanes" it all
makes sense.

Back to the point about bendy buses.. The bendis seem to need to pull
out away from the kerb when going around a corner (left or right). If
the driver does this when going left, a cyclist may see a much
increased gap to the left of the bus and cycle into it just as the bus
pulls back in. A pretty useful sign.