Silly commuting racing

vpnikolov

Turning left
When you’re turning left, use the MSM/PSL routine as you approach the junction. If you’re driving a long vehicle, you might need to move to the middle of the road to avoid the rear wheels cutting in while you’re turning.

You should

check carefully ahead and on your right-hand side before moving across
signal in good time that you’re going to turn left
make sure the area to your left is clear before you start to turn: vulnerable road users such as cyclists might move into this area and are difficult to see.

Watch out for

vehicles parking or parked just before a left-hand junction or parked just around the corner
vehicles approaching in the side road
pedestrians already crossing the road – they have priority
cyclists coming up on your left.

Official DVSA guide for lorries turning left. Out of all those, which one exactly did he not do?

mattsaw

I can count two

What do I win?

vpnikolov

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Agree you have to help yourself, absolutely (there's a bit on Embankment, just before Grosvenor Square, where buses make a left turn and have to move into the RHL), but he's turning across a lane of traffic that can go straight on, and the driver's not to absolved on this basis.

I can't really agree with that statement. In order to make that turn he needs to be in the right lane. I don't understand why are you trying to blame the driver for something he is not to blame. :roll:

You're driving a car and there are two lanes. You're in the right hand lane, and the left lane is the bus lane, so you can't drive in it. There's a left turn up ahead, and the bus lane ends before the turning, so you don't have to go in the bus lane to make the turn.

But that bus lane can also be used by taxis and bikes.

To make the turn, you have to cross a lane in which the users of that lane have priority over yo because you're crossing their path; it's your job to make sure you can make the turn safely.

Okay. Let's work with that example then. If the cyclist is in a blind spot, how could the lorry driver be aware of him/her being there? The position she was in was very bad for visibility purposes.

cjcp

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

He's turning across another lane, and making a turn he can't actually make without performing what must be an illegal manoeuvre. And is that a bike lane he's also crossing? Hard to tell at the camera level.

Refer to my previous comment. Not illegal.

What? The reversing on a junction bit?

Can't see how that would be considered illegal - No mention of this in the Highway Code.
Large vehicle performing a manoeuvre. Clear and simple.

Huh? He can't make the turn in one go so he has to reverse back, against the correct direction of travel. I don't think that just because the Highway Code says you can't do something, it's ok to do. You still have to drive with due care and attention, and he's the one making a turn, so he has to be sure he can make the turn safely, which he couldn't.

It seems I will have to repeat myself. Cyclist was in a blind spot. Not really possible to see her where she was, no?

You are taking a very hard stance on something you obviously need to be more understanding of.

If you can't see, don't make the turn. Reasonable?

vpnikolov

Or if you cycle parallel to a large moving vehicle AT THE SAME SPEED, make sure you are seen by not riding in the gutter? Reasonable?

cjcp

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Agree you have to help yourself, absolutely (there's a bit on Embankment, just before Grosvenor Square, where buses make a left turn and have to move into the RHL), but he's turning across a lane of traffic that can go straight on, and the driver's not to absolved on this basis.

I can't really agree with that statement. In order to make that turn he needs to be in the right lane. I don't understand why are you trying to blame the driver for something he is not to blame. :roll:

You're driving a car and there are two lanes. You're in the right hand lane, and the left lane is the bus lane, so you can't drive in it. There's a left turn up ahead, and the bus lane ends before the turning, so you don't have to go in the bus lane to make the turn.

But that bus lane can also be used by taxis and bikes.

To make the turn, you have to cross a lane in which the users of that lane have priority over yo because you're crossing their path; it's your job to make sure you can make the turn safely.

Okay. Let's work with that example then. If the cyclist is in a blind spot, how could the lorry driver be aware of him/her being there? The position she was in was very bad for visibility purposes.

You're assuming she was in a blind spot rather than the driver just not looking. He says his indicator was on, which, if you were a cynic, would suggest he relied on that rather than alsp looking.

dinyull

Isn't it amazing how people can see the same 30 second clip so differently.

ryan_w-2

The woman is at fault.

I don't give two fcuks if the lorry had to pull out wide to make the turn, if he saw her or not.

As a cyclist, you have a responsibility to not make dickhead moves, this was one of those.

If something that can kill me in 0.1s is potentially going to cross my path, I shall wait and then be on my way.

cjcp

We don't know for sure how the rider came to be in that position. We can guess, but can't be sure. Unlike the taxi behind, she may not have seen the indicators.

Btw, I see you stopped in the cafe for your post-ride trough again. I called out, but no response. It's fine, don't worry .

elbowloh

Ryan_W wrote:

The woman is at fault.

I don't give two fcuks if the lorry had to pull out wide to make the turn, if he saw her or not.

As a cyclist, you have a responsibility to not make dickhead moves, this was one of those.

If something that can kill me in 0.1s is potentially going to cross my path, I shall wait and then be on my way.

But he is the one making the manoeuvre , across a lane. He is the one responsible for making sure it was clear before making the turn. He clearly didn't.

Yes there is a blind spot, but he should also be aware that he has a blind spot and wait to see if anything is coming out of that blind spot before turning.

elbowloh

cjcp wrote:

If you can't see, don't make the turn. Reasonable?

100% agree. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure it is clear before turning, blind spot or not.

dekant

Ryan_W wrote:

The woman is at fault.

I don't give two fcuks if the lorry had to pull out wide to make the turn, if he saw her or not.

As a cyclist, you have a responsibility to not make dickhead moves, this was one of those.

If something that can kill me in 0.1s is potentially going to cross my path, I shall wait and then be on my way.

Sage advice, but that's just being practical and doesn't mean she was in the wrong.

Otherwise the logical conclusion of that position is that drivers can just do whatever the hell they want and you are always in the wrong because you're the one that stands to get hurt.

ryan_w-2

cjcp wrote:

We don't know for sure how the rider came to be in that position. We can guess, but can't be sure. Unlike the taxi behind, she may not have seen the indicators.

Btw, I see you stopped in the cafe for your post-ride trough again. I called out, but no response. It's fine, don't worry .

Sorry darling, I didn't see you. Be sure if I did, a kiss would have been blown your way.

vpnikolov

Some of you are really missing the point... responsibility does not work one way. The cyclist also needs to ensure he is seen by the driver. If I cycle at the same speed as the lorry, parallel to the cabin and two meters away from it, the driver will never see me there. It is just a very dangerous position to be in.

elbowloh

vpnikolov wrote:

Some of you are really missing the point... responsibility does not work one way. The cyclist also needs to ensure he is seen by the driver. If I cycle at the same speed as the lorry, parallel to the cabin and two meters away from it, the driver will never see me there. It is just a very dangerous position to be in.

No one is saying it's not dangerous to be there, but the lorry driver still has to make sure the lane is clear, as per the highway code statements you yourself posted.

dekant

vpnikolov wrote:

Some of you are really missing the point... responsibility does not work one way. The cyclist also needs to ensure he is seen by the driver. If I cycle at the same speed as the lorry, parallel to the cabin and two meters away from it, the driver will never see me there. It is just a very dangerous position to be in.

I think people agree with this, but in the case where a driver caused them to be in that position they are wrong first and foremost for causing the situation. The cyclist should ideally notice it and move out of that position but they shouldn't have to in the first place.

In the same way, it usually takes two people to cause a car crash. One to do something stupid and the second to not notice it and take evasive action. Yes, there are obviously exceptions where the second driver can do nothing but there are thousands of near misses that occur every day because the second driver took action to avoid it being more serious.

This is why your insurance goes up for accidents that aren't your fault.

ricky_h-2

There are a number of issues which should be up for rational debate. First up, why are vehicles like the one in the clip only permitted to operate on building sites with banksmen yet are seen as suitable for the urban environment without said banksmen ?
Why are so many young women KSI'd by construction traffic in London ?
There's a whole load of prevention that could be put in place rapidly but just isn't because the value of life isn't high enough on London's roads in my honest opinion. The same goes for buses which have a consistent track record on KSI's.
Sure, most on here are experienced and know better about self preservation but the life of a novice cyclist really shouldn't come down to a roll of the dice.

inbike

Why was the lorry taking the corner so fast? At half that speed the cyclist would have had plenty of time to see the turn starting and get in front/dive for the pavement.

sgt.pepper

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

vpnikolov wrote:

cjcp wrote:

He's turning across another lane, and making a turn he can't actually make without performing what must be an illegal manoeuvre. And is that a bike lane he's also crossing? Hard to tell at the camera level.

Refer to my previous comment. Not illegal.

What? The reversing on a junction bit?

Can't see how that would be considered illegal - No mention of this in the Highway Code.
Large vehicle performing a manoeuvre. Clear and simple.

Huh? He can't make the turn in one go so he has to reverse back, against the correct direction of travel. I don't think that just because the Highway Code says you can't do something, it's ok to do. You still have to drive with due care and attention, and he's the one making a turn, so he has to be sure he can make the turn safely, which he couldn't.

It seems I will have to repeat myself. Cyclist was in a blind spot. Not really possible to see her where she was, no?

You are taking a very hard stance on something you obviously need to be more understanding of.

If you can't see, don't make the turn. Reasonable?

To my eyes, his lorry is crazy long, and he should of been more aware of his surroundings and taken the turn more cautiously. The cyclist should have also been a little more cautious around an HGV because they have such shocking blind spots. It just seems to be one of those things.

In reality, it's a case against having 30ft, 10 tonne trucks (and arguably cars, too) in city centres built around the horse and cart unless absolutely necessary.


Edit to avoid double post - anybody here use the A307? Went to a seminar for work and it was brought up as one that's had some work done to make it more pedestrian/bike friendly.

smokey_bacon

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Edit to avoid double post - anybody here use the A307? Went to a seminar for work and it was brought up as one that's had some work done to make it more pedestrian/bike friendly.

Also known as Portsmouth road. Long story short. Yes work was done but Its rubbish.

veronese68

Smokey Bacon wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Edit to avoid double post - anybody here use the A307? Went to a seminar for work and it was brought up as one that's had some work done to make it more pedestrian/bike friendly.

Also known as Portsmouth road. Long story short. Yes work was done but Its rubbish.

To be fair I think the lane itself is fine, I'm much happier with my wife and kids riding on that than the road as it was. That type of cycle lane is not designed to help the likes of us it's to encourage people that wouldn't normally cycle to get on their bikes. The main problem with it is that when it gets to the Kingston/Surrey border it just stops with no way for people riding out of Kingston to get across to the right (left) side of the road.

Regarding the video discussed over the previous comments, we don't really know exactly what happened leading up to what we saw. It does illustrate how easily that kind of accident can happen and as pointed out that type of vehicle is not safe on city streets.

errorist

I quite like what's been done on the Portsmouth Road. Shame it stops where it does and the road becomes a very poorly surfaced mess.

cjcp

Veronese68 wrote:

Smokey Bacon wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Edit to avoid double post - anybody here use the A307? Went to a seminar for work and it was brought up as one that's had some work done to make it more pedestrian/bike friendly.

Also known as Portsmouth road. Long story short. Yes work was done but Its rubbish.

To be fair I think the lane itself is fine, I'm much happier with my wife and kids riding on that than the road as it was. That type of cycle lane is not designed to help the likes of us it's to encourage people that wouldn't normally cycle to get on their bikes. The main problem with it is that when it gets to the Kingston/Surrey border it just stops with no way for people riding out of Kingston to get across to the right (left) side of the road.

Regarding the video discussed over the previous comments, we don't really know exactly what happened leading up to what we saw. It does illustrate how easily that kind of accident can happen and as pointed out that type of vehicle is not safe on city streets.

Yeah, it started off life as a bit of a shambles, but, now that they've finally linked the stretch from the Kingston/Surrey border to the town centre, it's much better.

But that bit they've just completed by the town centre has a couple of issues:

1. The start of the southbound lane (heading out of town) has a bit concrete bollard smack bang in the middle of it; and

2. There's a lorry loading bay shortly after the bollard which straddles the lane and the road.

You can see the pix on the Kingston Cycling Twitter feed.

I think the bollard may be moved soon.

cjcp

Errorist wrote:

I quite like what's been done on the Portsmouth Road. Shame it stops where it does and the road becomes a very poorly surfaced mess.

I think that's the border with Surrey. Bloody horrible surface

errorist

cjcp wrote:

Errorist wrote:

I quite like what's been done on the Portsmouth Road. Shame it stops where it does and the road becomes a very poorly surfaced mess.

I think that's the border with Surrey. Bloody horrible surface

Always a frustration when rolling out on a Kingston Wheelers club run onto that surface. You're immediately pointing and taking evasive action to avoid the sketchy ruts and potholes.

rhodrich

Re: Portsmouth Road. It's on my commute.....

The new section is useless. Perhaps if you want to get onto it going south, it might be better (if you ignore the fact that there's a loading bay slap bang in the middle of it), but if you're going north, there's no way to safely turn right at the roundabout from the lane. I therefore ignore it.

Going south, I ignore it too, as it dumps you off on the wrong side of the road as you hit the Surrey border. Much easier to stay on the road.

The only section I do use is the segregated 'road' section, going north. I switch to the carriageway once it turns into a poorly surfaced pavement that's too narrow for two cyclists to pass safely, especially when there's someone wheeling a buggy along there too......

Needless to say, when I do use the road rather than the cycle path, many motorists helpfully toot their horns, and give friendly waves.

kingstongraham

Surely it's obvious that if a cycle lane looks like a pavement, lots of people will walk on it, and if it looks like a road, they won't? The section of the Portsmouth road where there is no pavement but a cycle path that looks like a pavement was always going to be a problem.

Otherwise, I'd rather be on a wider road, but it's not designed for cyclists who will ride anyway.

anonymousblackfg

It's been discussed here before, for fast cyclists like most here, it is useless, for riding with a toddler on the back, great, I am in the market for a Cargo bike as for getting from Surbo to Kingston it is good, despite the sh1te surface, misplaced bollard, coaches parked on it, walkers marooned on parts, misplaced bollards, tree roots coming through the surface, non floating bus stops, the misappropriated cash from TfL to fund public realm works and near impossible way to get onto it from Brighton Road.

What is disappointing is the learning that the GoCycle team at the council are not learning much from their mistakes.

dekant

It's not actually a pavement where it switches from segregated road to looking like a pavement. It's supposed to be bikes only still with pedestrians routed on the other side of the fence next to the river.

Not well signed though, so that bit usually has people in it.

ryan_w-2

Thanks for the kiss CJ...