Workmate in cyclist conflict
ishmael
Posts: 35
She said: "I was turning right at a TJ and he was on the left hand side of the car, but he turned right as well and went right across me."
I say: "Was he there first?"
She says: "Well, sort of, we both got there together really. But I thought if he was going to turn right he would have been on the right hand side of me."
I say: "Why didn't you just wait a second to see what he was going to do?"
Blank look.
I know the piece of road. It's over a humpback bridge to an immediate T-junction and quite tight. I ride this way home too and am always over to the right for the RH turn. Personally if was caught on the left I would either make a wide swing to allow the car to turn away from me or and let the car go first.
She's 22, in a modded Clio, low pros, tuned exhaust etc. I would have given due consideration.
Words were exchanged of course from both sides, including the ones beginning with F and C.
In her defence, she checked with me what the 'etiquette' should have been.
I say: "Was he there first?"
She says: "Well, sort of, we both got there together really. But I thought if he was going to turn right he would have been on the right hand side of me."
I say: "Why didn't you just wait a second to see what he was going to do?"
Blank look.
I know the piece of road. It's over a humpback bridge to an immediate T-junction and quite tight. I ride this way home too and am always over to the right for the RH turn. Personally if was caught on the left I would either make a wide swing to allow the car to turn away from me or and let the car go first.
She's 22, in a modded Clio, low pros, tuned exhaust etc. I would have given due consideration.
Words were exchanged of course from both sides, including the ones beginning with F and C.
In her defence, she checked with me what the 'etiquette' should have been.
0
Comments
-
Based on what you said and I don't know the law, she should have waited to see what the cyclist was going to do, then move.
Others with more experience/knowledge will be along shortly.0 -
Would always be careful about turning across a car when pulling away if I was left of them and turning right. If you can't make sure that they know what you're about to do then let them go first. Especially if it's a kid in a modded Clio </prejudice>0
-
Well this is a tricky one. It is difficult for people in cars to foresee such a maneuver. If a cyclist wants to turn left s/he should position him/herself on the right, perhaps even indicate with his/her hand. Or you can do it Copenhagen style - turn left against the traffic and position yourself there and wait for another green - takes longer, but is definitely safer on busier roads.0
-
If they got there together, there'd be little reason for the cyclist to be on the right, alongside a car turning right, as he would just make his life difficult getting back to the left after the turn had been completed. The only time I take up position centre stage at a T junction waiting to turn right is if I'm first there.
That said, if they were lined up with the cyclist on the left and the car on the right, both waiting to turn right, and a gap appears that is big enough for both of them to take, my view is that it is poor driving/riding for either of them to cut the other up. Obv the cyclist has slightly more capacity to do so, but the car could have done so by grinding the rider into the kerb at the completion of the turn.
I'm guessing that the cut-up resulted in a bit of leaning on the horn, leading to a frank exchange of views...0 -
If the cyclist was on the left side of the car, ie not in front of the car I would have thought that it was equally encumbent on the cyclist to wait to see what the car was going to do.
ETA Did the cyclist or driver indicate in any way that they were planning to turn right?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:ETA Did the cyclist or driver indicate in any way that they were planning to turn right?
I'm pretty sure I'd have used a hand signal in this case. No, not that one.0 -
She says she was indicating but It's unlikely he could see that on the other side of the car. She said he didn't "have his arm out or anything."
My only advice to her was in the future, wait a beat or two to see what the cyclist is going to do. I hope she doesn't let the experience cloud her view of cyclist's generally.0 -
Even if the cyclist 'sort of' got there first, it sounds like they didn't give much indication of what they were intending to do. Combined with the less than obvious road positioning it sounds like slightly crap cycling.0
-
The only bit I am not clear about is the 'got there together'.
Either she was overtaking the cyclist shortly before the junction, something that happens to me quite frequently at some junctions where the lane kind of widens to allow this sort of thing.
Or the cyclist undertook her, or was (incorrectly) "filtering" on the left.
Either way, the cyclist was positioned incorrectly, so the blame can't be given 100% to the driver in either case.
It is, IMHO, a characteristic of some road layouts.
I have seen worse: cyclist coming up to T junction, car waiting to turn right already at junction watching for oncoming traffic, cyclist being 'smart' and underaking the car and then turning right just in front of them. I thought of stopping the cyclist and have a few words but I thought Darwin might get there before me...0 -
Pufftmw wrote:Is she fit?
Nice girl, but no.
Spoken to her again and she says it only naffed her off because he swore at her first. Plus, if she hadn't been aware as much as she was she felt she would have taken him out, which would have really upset her (not to mention the cyclist!).0 -
You should have D-locked b*tch out of principle!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
To be fair, if I arrived at a junction with a cyclist on the left who wasnt signalling, I'd assume he was turning left.
If I was a cyclist at a T junction, on the left... and a car blah. blah..... either wait for the car to pass, or signal and make eye contact.
Things like this make me picture the cyclist half squished shouting up from the floor in a monty python style "I was right damn you, dont you dare step in my blood"
0 -
As a driver who also cycles on the road, I'd have half expected the cyclist to be doing that. I see plenty of cyclists turning right at roundabout, but who ride all the way around the edge of it, because they clearly think that's where cyclists have to be.
So, as a driver I'd have hung back and got through the junction before trying to get past the cyclist.
As a cyclist, I'd probably avoid getting in that situation, or at least give a signal to show what I was intending to do.
So the driver could have been a little more aware of a possible mistake from the cyclist, but the cyclist really should have indicated.0 -
As a cyclist, turning right at a T-Junction, I'd be in the primary position at the least, and signalling right on approach, therefore, would have expected the driver to line up behind me, not end up next to me. If I found myself wanting to make a right turn with a car already on my right then I'd let the car go first, signal and move across into primary behind the first car. Unless the cyclist thought she was letting him out, then carving across the front of a car pulling away from a junction is never going to be a good idea.
Did you tell her that for future reference the driving etiquette in such a situation is to ram the cyclist off his bike and then drive off? That's been my experience anyway. 0 -
Cyclist at fault; should have been in corect position for turning right, if a car pulls up, you dont cut in front of it....... well not unless you want a trip in an ambulance.0
-
Yeah, I'm inclined to side with the driver here too, the onus is surely on the cyclist to take evasive action as much as it is the driver.0
-
I suppose the worst case is that the cyclist was signalling right, positioned sensibly, and your colleague started to overtake anyway, finishing up at the lights still on the right of the cyclist (from what she's said, it doesn't sound like that's what happened in this case). If that had happened to me, I wouldn't be best pleased, and might have shouted a few choice words through the passenger window, but I'd still let the car pull away first and tuck in behind rather than attempting to turn across the front of a car as it pulls away.0
-
Hmmm - reminds of the young laydee I see most nights in a bronze coloured, open top mini copper S. Usually on phone and smoking a fag.....
She drives it like she stole it, and barges her way through traffic.
Classic moment the other night on a double parked road - traffic coming down the road towards her and me - through the double parked area. She flies by me, radio on, smoking, mobile etc etc....loads of places she can pull in and allow the oncoming traffic to pass (no traffic following her) - but she just tries to go through anyway! It ends up with her braking hard before she hits the front of a Land Rover and said Land Rover with following traffic braking equally hard! She then has to reverse into a gap in the parked traffic - swearing and shouting that everyone should get out of her way....when clearly she has blocked the road!
As she is now stationary and the Land Rover driver has berated her verbally;
I cycle up and say "Your're an idiot, I could see that was gonna happen from 200meters away"
She says "F*ck off"
I say "get yourself a good plastic surgeon love.....a smart car won't make you pretty"
Ignorant, stupid, no care and no attention or thinking ahead - just not interested in anyone else but herself (to be honest, she was quite fit - but quite thick!)
And that folks is how some people are.....0 -
The rule 'Don't overtake when approaching a hazard' applies here. The driver shouldn't have overtaken the cyclist immediately before the junction, and certainly not going over the humped back bridge. If this rule was followed the cyclist may well have been able to position himself correctly for the junction.To err is human, but to make a real balls up takes a super computer.0
-
but if he'd been in primary getting to the bridge and correctly positioned for a right turn, then this wouldn't have happened0
-
gbsahne wrote:but if he'd been in primary getting to the bridge and correctly positioned for a right turn, then this wouldn't have happened
Agreed. Unless the cyclist was pushed out of the road by the driver, he should have been out in primary (where the driver wanted/expected him!).
Interesting that a non-cycling (I guess) driver wanted the cyclist to be out on the right hand side. Rather than just saying that he shouldn't have been in her way. Good to see some people are able to see what's sensible.0 -
It's all very well saying the cyclist should have been in primary, but we don't know what just happened. Had a car/truck/watever just steamed through the junction, keeping him on the left, slowing him down, expecting to be able to pull out when a car comes along, attempts an overtaking manoeuvre they clearly can never expect to be completed safely and appropriately?
The car should not have been alongside the cyclist. It's wrong. End of.Riding on 5310 -
Clarion wrote:It's all very well saying the cyclist should have been in primary, but we don't know what just happened. Had a car/truck/watever just steamed through the junction, keeping him on the left, slowing him down, expecting to be able to pull out when a car comes along, attempts an overtaking manoeuvre they clearly can never expect to be completed safely and appropriately?
The car should not have been alongside the cyclist. It's wrong. End of.
I have now read this three times. I still can't make sense of it.
Can someone translate please?0 -
Err, I don't think I can, no. Clarion, don't suppose you could elaborate/edit that could you?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Clarion wrote:It's all very well saying the cyclist should have been in primary, but we don't know what just happened. Had a car/truck/watever just steamed through the junction, keeping him on the left, slowing him down, expecting to be able to pull out when a car comes along, attempts an overtaking manoeuvre they clearly can never expect to be completed safely and appropriately?
The car should not have been alongside the cyclist. It's wrong. End of.
Or the cyclist could've been riding like a nob. End of.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Clarion wrote:It's all very well saying the cyclist should have been in primary, but we don't know what just happened. Had a car/truck/watever just steamed through the junction, keeping him on the left, slowing him down, expecting to be able to pull out when a car comes along, attempts an overtaking manoeuvre they clearly can never expect to be completed safely and appropriately?
The car should not have been alongside the cyclist. It's wrong. End of.
I have now read this three times. I still can't make sense of it.
Can someone translate please?
I believe that the poster is suggesting that a car or other motorised vehicle/s prevented the cyclist from pulling out to the right. Just as they were about to, the driver in question goes by them, again preventing them from pulling out. The expectation is that the driver should not have been overtaking this close to a junction.
However we do not know what the intentions of the cyclist were or how much room there was in the road to allow a car past. We do not know if the cyclist signaled or indicated a manouver."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
This seems a pointless thread. As I understand it the situation is as below (car is blue, bike is red):
The blue and red arrows are the ones both vehicles should take, obviously and incontrovertibly. Are we saying that the bike actually took the green route? In that case the cyclist is a complete tool and should have expected to be knocked over.0 -
In fact whichever orietnation of the t-junction: if the bike is to the car's left, and the bike is staying to the car's left, then how can there even be oppoortunity for the bike to cut up the car?
People are stupid.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:Greg66 wrote:Clarion wrote:It's all very well saying the cyclist should have been in primary, but we don't know what just happened. Had a car/truck/watever just steamed through the junction, keeping him on the left, slowing him down, expecting to be able to pull out when a car comes along, attempts an overtaking manoeuvre they clearly can never expect to be completed safely and appropriately?
The car should not have been alongside the cyclist. It's wrong. End of.
I have now read this three times. I still can't make sense of it.
Can someone translate please?
I believe that the poster is suggesting that a car or other motorised vehicle/s prevented the cyclist from pulling out to the right. Just as they were about to, the driver in question goes by them, again preventing them from pulling out. The expectation is that the driver should not have been overtaking this close to a junction.
Having re-read it again, I think the suggestion is that the cyclist was prevented from taking primary whilst approaching the junction, whether by the protagonist, or another car (that bit I can't work out) that is also set on negotiating the junction. Where it goes from there, I'm still not clear. It doesn't seem to fit the account in the OP, though, as the driver suggested that they both got to the junction together.
It's not overtaking to roll up to a junction alongside someone.
How one gets to the conclusion "The car should not have been alongside the cyclist" is unfathomable.
Blondie's diagram and analysis seems spot on.0
