Should it be made illegal to ride up the left of a lorry?

DonDaddyD

The following post from the this news article got me thinking:

deejay.
Posted Wed 17 Mar, 1:05 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate

Let's go a stage further and make it illegal for cyclists to ride up the inside of left turning traffic at a junction, regardless of whether or not they plan to turn left or continue straight ahead. I never do this when I am cycling in traffic: as car driver as well as a cyclist I understand how nervous this kind of cycling makes other road users - it's just not defencible in any way to me.

deej

Should it be made illegal to pass lorries on the left? Including the removal of the filter cycle lane that leads up to the ASL?

If the rule was wait behing the lorry/HGV or you the cyclist are liable for any potential accidents would that increase safety?

For what its worth I think that a lot of road safety is about keeping traffic moving in a clockwise manner, why we give way to things on the right but there is a need to stop cyclists instinctively pushing forward ahead of vehicles especially on the left.

Rich158

How would you enforce it, for instance just look at RLJ's. Just making something illegal won't discourage people from doing it.

Porgy

I don't see how such a law could be enforcable to be honest. I would have thought a possible death sentance should be deterent enough.

However, I did see a right idiot this morning trying to overtake a lorry on the left while entering a very narrow section of road that was exactly lorry width. He would never have made it and I thought I was looking at cyclist under lorry incident in the making - but the thankfully the lorry driver was - on this occasion - paying attention and stuck his left indicators on - waking the cyclists up from his sleepwalk into the causalty department.

I had words with the cyclist a little later on when he tried to overtake me - failed - but pulled in front of me to undertake a bus anyway - forcing me to either brake or take action - which I took - told him to watch where he was going - have some road awareness - oh and by the way - remember that lorry you tried to undertake a little while back?

DonDaddyD

Rich158 wrote:

How would you enforce it, for instance just look at RLJ's. Just making something illegal won't discourage people from doing it.

the whole crash into the back of a vehicle responsibility thing. Though if cyclists were made liable for all left turning accidents then nothing would protect them from getting cut up.

itboffin

Nope just looking at it this way if you do it and you get squashed was it really worth it...! wow you got to wherever a fews mins quicker, awesome :roll:

Porgy

I propose we also make it illegal for cars to be in two lanes at once or to change lanes without indicating or open doors without looking in their mirrors first. :?

rjsterry

+1 on the unenforceability, but a change to those motherf... ASL filter lanes would make a big difference. (sorry this is a bit stuck record) It's no wonder people keep filtering up the inside, particularly near junctions (where these accidents seem to usually happen), when there are big diagrams painted all over the road pretty much telling you to do so!

Joe Average cyclist bimbling along is never going to get the message that nearside filtering is a bad idea if the road markings tell him/her the exact opposite. [/rant]

always_tyred

Death not an adequate deterrant? Got to make it illegal as well?

How very new labour.

In your new law, you'd have to define "filtering". You'd have to explain how it would apply to cars. You'd have to figure out what happens in the case of a lhd lorry. You'd have to determine whether or not, in a 2 lane road, with a lorry in the right lane and traffic in the left, the filtering cyclist is in the same or a different lane. You'd have to decide what constituted a lorry, and what constituted a truck etc.

Once you'd done all of that, you could issue government filtering leaflets which road users could consult prior to passing any stationary vehicle.

vorsprung

highway code rule 163 says

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

Also 166 and 167 advise caution at all times

see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314

So I think that undertaking Lorries that are indicating left is already completely at odds with the highway code.

ALL PEOPLE HAVE TO DO IS READ THE HIGHWAY CODE

Making it additionally illegal is a utter waste of time

rjsterry

Given the stats, death is clearly not sufficient deterrent, or rather ignorance prevents awareness of potential death.

sarajoy

rjsterry wrote:

It's no wonder people keep filtering up the inside, particularly near junctions (where these accidents seem to usually happen), when there are big diagrams painted all over the road pretty much telling you to do so!

Joe Average cyclist bimbling along is never going to get the message that nearside filtering is a bad idea if the road markings tell him/her the exact opposite. [/rant]

This gets my goat too.

As far as those in the cycle lanes are concerned, that's their patch and they should be safe there. There isn't all that much telling you about the dangers.

Loads of places where I want to go straight on, I come out of the bike markings on the left-turn-lane and make sure I'm in the lane of traffic which shouldn't left-hook me - and what do I get for that? Abuse telling me to get back in the cycle lane.

Also I'd quite like to see a plate on the back of HGVs etc saying CYCLISTS: CRUSH DANGER and pointing to the left (hasn't TFL suggested this?).

rjsterry

vorsprung wrote:

highway code rule 163 says

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

Also 166 and 167 advise caution at all times

see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314

So I think that undertaking Lorries that are indicating left is already completely at odds with the highway code.

ALL PEOPLE HAVE TO DO IS READ THE HIGHWAY CODE

Making it additionally illegal is a utter waste of time

EDIT: Plenty of HGVs and other large vehicles now have stickers on the back warning against nearside filtering, although that would be something that could be fairly easily applied/enforced to all large vehicles.

But (And I really am repeating myself here) the road markings clearly contradict this. If ASL 'tails' are not for filtering round the LHS of stationary traffic (undertaking) then what are they for?

iPete

I'd just put bigger brighter warning stickers on the back of Lorries/HGVs that you already see about or a TV advert or two, making it illegal is going to be a big spider web of red tape and near impossible to define...

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

EDIT: Plenty of HGVs and other large vehicles now have stickers on the back warning against nearside filtering, although that would be something that could be fairly easily applied/enforced to all large vehicles.

+1

Yep, today I read the following on the back of a lorry:

"If you can read this sign, then I can't see you in my mirrors".

I got the point obviously, but then I'm aware of the danger so I can't say how effective or clear the message is. But I get the point it's trying to make.

I've also seen signs saying "cyclist beware stay back" or words to that affect. Again see sentence above.

But (And I really am repeating myself here) the road markings clearly contradict this. If ASL 'tails' are not for filtering round the LHS of stationary traffic (undertaking) then what are they for?

Plus one. Too many time have I stopped behind the lorry and had to lean towards the curb while a gun-ho cyclist makes their way ahead of the very large vehicle. I soon overtake them again.

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

+1 on the unenforceability, but a change to those motherf... ASL filter lanes would make a big difference. (sorry this is a bit stuck record) It's no wonder people keep filtering up the inside, particularly near junctions (where these accidents seem to usually happen), when there are big diagrams painted all over the road pretty much telling you to do so!Joe Average cyclist bimbling along is never going to get the message that nearside filtering is a bad idea if the road markings tell him/her the exact opposite. [/rant]

The diagrams tell you you CAN not that you should.

In the same way that a green light sdoesn't mean its safe to go, merely you can go if safe.

Its up to cyclists to use their common sense

jonginge

vorsprung wrote:

highway code rule 163 says

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

Also 166 and 167 advise caution at all times

see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314

So I think that undertaking Lorries that are indicating left is already completely at odds with the highway code.

ALL PEOPLE HAVE TO DO IS READ THE HIGHWAY CODE

Making it additionally illegal is a utter waste of time

FWIW Filtering!=overtaking
http://www.sites4bikes.com/Motorbike_filtering.htm

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1 on the unenforceability, but a change to those motherf... ASL filter lanes would make a big difference. (sorry this is a bit stuck record) It's no wonder people keep filtering up the inside, particularly near junctions (where these accidents seem to usually happen), when there are big diagrams painted all over the road pretty much telling you to do so!Joe Average cyclist bimbling along is never going to get the message that nearside filtering is a bad idea if the road markings tell him/her the exact opposite. [/rant]

The diagrams tell you you CAN not that you should.

In the same way that a green light sdoesn't mean its safe to go, merely you can go if safe.

Its up to cyclists to use their common sense

Absolutely, hence the wording of the THINK! campaign - I think people tend to follow road markings at a slightly subconscious level rather than evaluating each situation on its merits.

However, is there ever a time when it is 'safe' to filter up the inside of an HGV when it could turn left? I'm not sure there is, or at least, it is a rare occurrence, and so I think that they do at least encourage the unsafe filtering, which seems a bit backwards for something that is intended to improve safety. Apologies for overuse of commas.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

Death not an adequate deterrant? Got to make it illegal as well?

How very new labour.

Gah, beaten to it. More legislation is not the answer to this problem, although it is Nu Labours answer to practically everything. :roll:

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Death not an adequate deterrant? Got to make it illegal as well?

How very new labour.

Gah, beaten to it. More legislation is not the answer to this problem, although it is Nu Labours answer to practically everything. :roll:

I'm not sure that New Labour are a special case in this - I seem to remember UK governments always being absolutely obsessed with new legislation - even the the holy one* MargaretTthatcher.


*please note: irony.

Eau Rouge

Porgy wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Death not an adequate deterrant? Got to make it illegal as well?

How very new labour.

Gah, beaten to it. More legislation is not the answer to this problem, although it is Nu Labours answer to practically everything. :roll:

I'm not sure that New Labour are a special case in this - I seem to remember UK governments always being absolutely obsessed with new legislation - even the the holy one* MargaretTthatcher.


*please note: irony.

All governments everywhere are. Legislation is their only actual tool to do anything. To a man witha hammer everything looks a nail.

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

spen666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1 on the unenforceability, but a change to those motherf... ASL filter lanes would make a big difference. (sorry this is a bit stuck record) It's no wonder people keep filtering up the inside, particularly near junctions (where these accidents seem to usually happen), when there are big diagrams painted all over the road pretty much telling you to do so!Joe Average cyclist bimbling along is never going to get the message that nearside filtering is a bad idea if the road markings tell him/her the exact opposite. [/rant]

The diagrams tell you you CAN not that you should.

In the same way that a green light sdoesn't mean its safe to go, merely you can go if safe.

Its up to cyclists to use their common sense

Absolutely, hence the wording of the THINK! campaign - I think people tend to follow road markings at a slightly subconscious level rather than evaluating each situation on its merits.

However, is there ever a time when it is 'safe' to filter up the inside of an HGV when it could turn left? I'm not sure there is, or at least, it is a rare occurrence, and so I think that they do at least encourage the unsafe filtering, which seems a bit backwards for something that is intended to improve safety. Apologies for overuse of commas.

This is a judgement call. i do filter up the left hand side - when I consider it safe. - ie if I have seen lights turn to red as I arrive at rear of lorry.

People need to use their brainss and not rely on others to keep them safe by banning them doing things

always_tyred

You forget about taxes. That's another weapon of control.

No, the thing that bothers me about New Labour is the proliferation of secondary legislation that they sneak through without anyone having read it or thought about it (including the people who draft it), and the proliferation of legislation to protect us from our own supposed stupidity.

That's two things isn't it?

Damn, I'll come in again.

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

No, the thing that bothers me about New Labour is the proliferation of secondary legislation that they sneak through without anyone having read it or thought about it (including the people who draft it)

I agree - but I believe - yet again - this was a line first crossed by John Major's government - I was hoping that Labour might reverse it. Oh hum.

Craggers

I saw a tipper yesterday which had two car numberplates stuck on the back at eye level, one on each side.

The one on the left said 'SUICIDE'.......on the right it said 'SAFE SIDE'

Pretty cool I thought!

it's been a slow day

coopster_the_1st

Not sure anyone else has noticed but it feels as if the views of people seem to be moving towards the cyclist being to blame for a lot of these accidents. Feels like that from a lot of the posts I am reading on this board.

And based on what others have typed on this and other threads it seems good lorry driving has stopped more accidents occurring.

While I do not cycle in the center of London it feels as if better education for cyclists is needed. And it needs to be targetted at the people who do not frequent cycling forums as people on here are aware of the dangers.

oscarbudgie

Cyclists who filter on the left hand side of HGV's at lights are not the problem its the lorries who don't look in their mirrors or have insufficient mirrors who are the problem. I should say emphatically that I'm not advocating anyone should filter to the left of HGV's but it seems that there is a trend towards apportioning partial blame to (maybe naive or inexperienced) cyclists who are victims of HGV's. HGV drivers only have to look in their mirrors to solve this problem.

always_tyred

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

No, the thing that bothers me about New Labour is the proliferation of secondary legislation that they sneak through without anyone having read it or thought about it (including the people who draft it)

I agree - but I believe - yet again - this was a line first crossed by John Major's government - I was hoping that Labour might reverse it. Oh hum.

Well, Labour might have. Unfortunately, I understand that it ceased to exist about 15 years ago.

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

No, the thing that bothers me about New Labour is the proliferation of secondary legislation that they sneak through without anyone having read it or thought about it (including the people who draft it)

I agree - but I believe - yet again - this was a line first crossed by John Major's government - I was hoping that Labour might reverse it. Oh hum.

Well, Labour might have. Unfortunately, I understand that it ceased to exist about 15 years ago.

again, we seem to agree.

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

People need to use their brainss and not rely on others to keep them safe by banning them doing things

Quite agree that banning things is pretty much always a bad idea. On a related point, I'm sure you have heard of the various continental experiments (soon to come to Exhibition road I think) with removing all railings and road markings, which pretty much forces people to think. Hence my opposition to all the green (and now blue) paint, which I think promotes not-thinking.

Porgy

rjsterry wrote:

spen666 wrote:

People need to use their brainss and not rely on others to keep them safe by banning them doing things

Quite agree that banning things is pretty much always a bad idea. On a related point, I'm sure you have heard of the various continental experiments (soon to come to Exhibition road I think) with removing all railings and road markings, which pretty much forces people to think. Hence my opposition to all the green (and now blue) paint, which I think promotes not-thinking.

More than that - i reckon we've got to the stage now where some bits of the road are justing bl**dy confusing. Let common sense prevail I say*.




*not in a Daily Mail way, I hasten to add

tarquin_foxglove

oscarbudgie wrote:

Cyclists who filter on the left hand side of HGV's at lights are not the problem its the lorries who don't look in their mirrors or have insufficient mirrors who are the problem. I should say emphatically that I'm not advocating anyone should filter to the left of HGV's but it seems that there is a trend towards apportioning partial blame to (maybe naive or inexperienced) cyclists who are victims of HGV's. HGV drivers only have to look in their mirrors to solve this problem.

But with their blindspots the HGV driver could be attentive & still miss a cyclist. I'm not trying to blame cyclists but you owe it to yourself to minimise the risks you take.

Going up the inside of a HGV is a risk too far for me (a non-helmeted cyclist :oops: )