Cyclists need to learn to give way

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

Now IMO whether the guy should have emerged or not, what I don't understand (and I've had all day to think about this) is why the cyclist did not slow down until arriving at the guys bumper where he had to brake sharply and swerve. There was clearly 2 tons of car in front of him directly in his lane.

As I keep saying it would not have hurt to slow down and let the guy finish his move.

Totally agree, given the car was there (rightly or wrongly) Marin boy should have backed off, and everyone would have gone on their merry way.

That said, we've probably all had cars basically trying to bully us to giving way to them in a maneuvre they wouldn't attempt if we were in a car or they were on a bike. Some days I must admit I feel less inclined to accept it than others , although obviously taking it to the point of risking an accident is very, very stupid.

gtvlusso

OptimisticBiker wrote:

Sorry, disagree... AirZounds are perfect if you have to commute (as I used to but not now) anywhere where large crowds of tourists insist on crossing when the little red man says no... e.g. Oxford Street area... its the only thing that makes them stop... shouting has little effect and a bell is next to useless... an AirZound definitely gets the desired result!

For that reason alone, you have made us all look bad :-(

Airzounds are not necessary at all, being more attentative whilst riding would negate any need for a high db alarm.

As for DDD's unabridged explanation - DDD, you were in the right, Mr Airzound was a tw@t and should have anticipated better.

bigmat

gtvlusso wrote:

OptimisticBiker wrote:

Sorry, disagree... AirZounds are perfect if you have to commute (as I used to but not now) anywhere where large crowds of tourists insist on crossing when the little red man says no... e.g. Oxford Street area... its the only thing that makes them stop... shouting has little effect and a bell is next to useless... an AirZound definitely gets the desired result!

For that reason alone, you have made us all look bad :-(

Airzounds are not necessary at all, being more attentative whilst riding would negate any need for a high db alarm.

As for DDD's unabridged explanation - DDD, you were in the right, Mr Airzound was a tw@t and should have anticipated better.

I reckon DDD was wrong - you shouldn't wave people through unless the only person who might need to give way is you. Marin boy had the right of way and was under no obligation to give way. Fair enough, its good form to ride considerately, sometimes letting people out at junctions etc (same as when driving) but if he was in a hurry, or not wanting to be bullied by yet another car thinking he had no right to be there, or just feeling that way out, it is clear that it was his right of way and the car was in the wrong pulling out on him.

As for Airzounding tourists, I wouldn't use one myself but I can see the appeal - would come in handy along the daily Fenchurch Street lemming run, there are certain roads where people just fling themselves in front of your wheels, anticipation is one thing but when people clearly don't have any respect for your presence on the road it gets a bit much.

Lookyhere

Why did you signal for Golf driver to pull out? your not a traffic cop. You r in a busy london street and anyone of a 100 different things could happen that you couldnt predict.
No doubt if Marin boy had crashed into the back of YOU you'd not be so quick to pass judgement on him.

DonDaddyD

No doubt if Marin boy had crashed into the back of YOU you'd not be so quick to pass judgement on him.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. In my years of cycling I have yet to end up in the back of another cyclist because I anticipate their need to stop. No one should be following you so closely or riding so blindly that they cannot see a stationary object in front of them.


Bottom line

When driving in the face of a obstruction or meeting situation, whether you have priority or whether said obstruction is right or wrong, you are advised to look up the road, anticipate the situation, slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary.

The cyclist did none of these things.

Instead he decided to ride straight towards a car that was already in the road and attempting to merge with traffic. Priority or not, that's just stupid.

There was a sufficient time gap between me signalling the car, the car moving out and the Marin actually reaching the car for the Marin to think, anticipate, slow and be prepared to stop.

I accept my actions were wrong but the sheer bloody minded arrogance of some cyclist would see the guy, who may have been in the right, continue at that speed and hit the car. I wouldn't hit the car, I wouldn't have been hurt, neither would the driver. Only the Marin.

But for the sake of being right, sure lets collide into cars that are rightly or wrongly straight in front of us.

I'd rather just slow the f*ck down and give way.

DonDaddyD

And to add.

Same road, same side road. Happened prior to my initial point.

Traffic heavy but gap in traffic to my right at the side road. I'm at 20+ and slowing. Why? I've seen the gap and start thinking....

"MMMmmmm that massive gap in traffic at the side road may indicate a car is turning off the main road... perhaps I should slow down and be prepared to stop".

I slow. Self preservation and that. The fact that I've slowed in anticipation gives me time to look through a windscreen to see that a car is in actual fact turning off the main road. Had I not been able to see through the windscreen I'd look underneath the car around the tyres.

Other cyclist <sound effect> whoosh </sound effect> then

"whoa, f*ck watch it you nearly right hooked me!

No mate you nearly right hooked yourself with your tunnel vision. Would it have hurt to slow, be prepared to stop and maybe just maybe given way? Safest option and all that.

bails87

But for the sake of being right, sure lets collide into cars that are rightly or wrongly straight in front of us

You must have missed the bit with the collision out of the story? Did you stay to call an ambulance for the Marin rider?






I think the people who go with the 'no good being right and dead' thing are a bit dramatic really. Obviously, if a lorry cuts you up, don't fling yourself under the wheels just to make a point....and that last example you've just given, yeah, anticipate, see that a car is turning right so don't try to overtake it (I think that's what you're describing).

As for the first tale, the car driver was wrong to pull out when there was traffic approaching. Would you think it okay for a car to have pulled out in front of a bus there, if a cyclist had waved the car out?

Origamist

Here's a vid that illustrates the issues well - (traffic turning from a major road to minor, traffic wanting to join the major road from the minor road and a stream of cyclists deciding whether to brake or plough through) it's also very close to the junction DDD mentions on Clapham Rd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGPIPygh1qk

bails87

Origamist wrote:

Here's a vid that illustrates the issues well - (traffic turning from a major road to minor, traffic wanting to join the major road from the minor road and a stream of cyclists deciding whether to brake or plough through) it's also very close to the junction DDD mentions on Clapham Rd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGPIPygh1qk

If I was going through there I'd be watching out for people turning, and if someone pulled out and blocked my path I'd stop (obviously), but I wouldn't stop to let people turn, you can see the confusion it causes. The same regularly happens at a crossroads near me. Traffic coming along the main road in both directions, both wanting to turn left and right, traffic in one of the minor roads (splits to 2 lanes at the junction) wanting to go left, right or straight on, when someone pulls up short of the junction and flashes their lights. There's now 4 conflicting streams of traffic, all of whom have been 'told' to go. It's stupid and potentially dangerous, as you can see from the orange car and the van in your vid.

DonDaddyD

Origamist wrote:

Here's a vid that illustrates the issues well - (traffic turning from a major road to minor, traffic wanting to join the major road from the minor road and a stream of cyclists deciding whether to brake or plough through) it's also very close to the junction DDD mentions on Clapham Rd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGPIPygh1qk

That's brillinat and that's the type of thing I'm talking about.

Imagine now that the Marin rider was going much faster. There was also more time between my Golf driver moving out and the Marin rider having a near miss. Than there was from the moment you stopped and the second cyclist ploughing through.

Now imagine that the car in the side road (in your vid) had left the side road and was 3/4 across the bus lane attempting to complete it's move as the Marin went around it's bumper beeping the airzound and complaining.

Yes, I shouldn't have signalled the driver. The Marin should have slowed and been prepared to stop.

Cyclists need to learn to give way.

staringatthesea

This is ridiculous. Marin guy overtook a slowing vehicle and was then surprised by the hazard the vehicle was slowing for. Very bad riding.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

That cyclist needs to learn to give way.

FTFY

bails87

StaringattheSea wrote:

This is ridiculous. Marin guy overtook a slowing vehicle and was then surprised by the hazard the vehicle was slowing for. Very bad riding.

It's possible for more than one party to be wrong y'know.

DDD was in the wrong for putting other people in danger by waving someone out across traffic when he knew someone was behind him.

The driver was wrong for pulling out when traffic was approaching

The Marin rider was wrong for going in front of the car rather than anticipating and slowing.

Now you can all sit on the naughty step.

alansd1980

I thought that before overtaking another vehicle you had to make sure it was safe to do so, in this situation Marin obviously hadnt checked and just ploughed on head down. If the bike, car or motorbike ahead of you slows down its normally for a reason.

After reading this yesterday on my way home I was more aware of what was my right. There must have been about 50 occasions where it was my right to continue but the correct thing to do was stop pedalling for a couple of seconds let another road user through and keep traffic flowing. By just ploughing on because it's your right is often what causes frustration in other drivers and result in them doing something stupid.

I go up and down there every day DDD on a motorbike and a road bikeand I think you did the corrcect thing.

Bassjunkieuk

As others have said it's not just impatient cyclists I saw a motorcyclist do pretty much the same thing on way in today in Streatham (IIRC), car turning across traffic which both me and another motorcyclists have stopped for, along with the cars (obviously). 2nd motorcyclists just swerves in front of the car before gunning it down the road....

In slow or stationary traffic being right hooked is a constant danger and it really does requite the spidey senses to be switched upto 11 and for you to be reading the road well ahead, side road + gap in traffic = potential conflict. (Un)luckily it seems quite a few drivers lack the common sense/courtesy to actually NOT block side roads when they are sitting still!

kieranb

Well it's just inconsiderate people, not cyclists, as I see similar actions done daily by both cyclists and drivers. I think your topic title is worded very badly, which suggests cyclists should always give way to cars regardless of who had right of way.

Origamist

bails87 wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Here's a vid that illustrates the issues well - (traffic turning from a major road to minor, traffic wanting to join the major road from the minor road and a stream of cyclists deciding whether to brake or plough through) it's also very close to the junction DDD mentions on Clapham Rd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGPIPygh1qk

If I was going through there I'd be watching out for people turning, and if someone pulled out and blocked my path I'd stop (obviously), but I wouldn't stop to let people turn, you can see the confusion it causes. The same regularly happens at a crossroads near me. Traffic coming along the main road in both directions, both wanting to turn left and right, traffic in one of the minor roads (splits to 2 lanes at the junction) wanting to go left, right or straight on, when someone pulls up short of the junction and flashes their lights. There's now 4 conflicting streams of traffic, all of whom have been 'told' to go. It's stupid and potentially dangerous, as you can see from the orange car and the van in your vid.

You might want to shoulder check too, as you could still get hit from behind.

More seriously, ceding priority can cause confusion, but it can also reduce road danger for vulnerable road users. I pass around 250 side roads every day when commuting and rarely have to give way.

In Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark etc, I would not cede priority in similar circumstances as drivers very, very rarely cut across the path of an oncoming cyclist. They wait untill the road is clear before pulling out or turning into a junction. If I did cede priority on the continent, it could lead to a long stand-off.

In London, drivers are becoming increasingly aware of cyclists in the rush-hours. However, things have not changed that dramatically in the last 5 years and tackling such a junction in similar circs (even gingerly) would be something I would not always be prerpared to do. If I was hit, I would expect my fellow, hardened forumites would have little sympathy for me and would impart pithy words of commuting wisdom about gaps opening up, a junction approaching etc.

sketchley

Perhaps the thread should be re-titled

"Some Cyclists need to learn that having right of way doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the dangers to you and others around you" seems more apt.

The original title implies the cyclist should learn that they do not have right or way and therefore should give way when in fact they do. Which is clearly bonkers.

As for the right hooking this is pet hate of mine, me in bus lane or cycle lane, outside lane not moving, driver in outside lane flashes or leaves a gap for oncoming car to turn right without checking the cycle lane or bus lane first. This is particularly bad when vehicle flashing or leaving the gap is high sided.

In this circumstance I always without question look for the gap they have left and brake, slow down and look. Doesn't help if they do it at the last minute though. That being said, I still have right of way so will not give way in the this scenario instead having slowed down to make sure car has seen me and stopped I will proceed in front of them, often making the point that I'm not happy with a shake of the head. Mainly this is directed at the car flashing rather than one turning who I think is more responsible even though the law thinks differently. If the turning car continues doesn't look etc I will shout at them, on the few occasions they shouted back it's normally something like "They flashed me to tell me it was ok".

At times I have considered the possibility that bike hating drivers flash intentionally in this scenario knowing they will not be held responsible. But I like to think people are not like that.

Simply answer for any road user is not to flash anyone unless you are absolutely sure the road is clear in all directions (so best not too). Beware that the person behind cannot see your lights flashing or your hand signals in most circumstance, be aware in high sided vehicles including 4by4s that a cyclist cannot see the car turning in front of you and the turning car cannot see them. This is really important as despite what the law says the driver of the turning vehicle thinks you have said it's clear.

One that has caught me out the other way is the assumption that as the pedestrian lights are flashing amber there is no one in front of the lorry / bus or that no one will dive across at the last minute. Very careful of that one now.

tailwindhome

Would DDD's safety not be increased by getting past and clear of the junction (a danger zone) as quickly as possible?

Perhaps the thread should be re-titled

DDD didn't give way to the car.....he let him out into the stream of traffic.

Good manners yes.

But in my view not a safe thing to do on bicycle.

Specialized Needs

kieranb wrote:

Well it's just inconsiderate people, not cyclists

I agree.

I think that there was an article in the Guardian (or elsewhere) a few years back when a journalist tried to drive across London in the rush 'hour' obeying the rules of the road - such as not pushing into traffic from a side road. I'm sure you can imagine how that worked out. Right or wrong, these situations will happen.

DDD has already accepted that his indication to the driver was unwise. He seems to have learnt from this. I think that is to be applauded. (DDD, as you are open to learning from this, another situation where it is generally not a good idea to signal a driver is when you are riding in a group and the driver wants to overtake - you do not know their ability - let them judge the situation).

That said, as the situation developed, in my view the Marin also has an obligation to be aware of the road ahead. It could easily have been a pedestrian crossing the road through traffic - surely a car is easier to spot?

Is it the use of the Airzound that makes this worse? Would the incident have been worth remark had the Marin just rounded the car, perhaps riskily, and cycled on (as so many London cyclists might do)?

DonDaddyD

TWH, the safest thing to do was what I did. Slow down and be prepared to stop. They teach you that when driving the same applies to cycling as well.

You're usually on the ball but that's just bonkers.

Specialized Needs wrote:

Is it the use of the Airzound that makes this worse? Would the incident have been worth remark had the Marin just rounded the car, perhaps riskily, and cycled on (as so many London cyclists might do)?

To be honest no the Airzound didn't make it worst. I just don't understand why a cyclist would hurtle themselves towards a car infront of them and not slow down.

veronese68

I think the use of the Airzound just underlines the fact that the bloke was a pillock. I'm not saying all users are pillocks, just that it's an item more likely to be used by a confrontational type of person.

lemoncurd

The guy on the Marin should have slowed down, that much is obvious.

However, if you wave a vehicle out and another vehicle (E.g. Marin man) hits the vehicle you waved out then you are 10% liable for any costs or injuries, the crossing vehicle the remaining 90%

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

TWH, the safest thing to do was what I did. Slow down and be prepared to stop. They teach you that when driving the same applies to cycling as well.

You're usually on the ball but that's just bonkers.

There's a difference between 'slowing down and preparing to stop' and 'stopping at a junction to let a stationary car out.'

First one sensible. Second one silly.


That said, if the car was on it's way out anyway and you just acknowledged it, then it changes the scenario....

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TWH, the safest thing to do was what I did. Slow down and be prepared to stop. They teach you that when driving the same applies to cycling as well.

You're usually on the ball but that's just bonkers.

There's a difference between 'slowing down and preparing to stop' and 'stopping at a junction to let a stationary car out.'

First one sensible. Second one silly.


That said, if the car was on it's way out anyway and you just acknowledged it, then it changes the scenario....

You're just nit picking now. I don't know why....

Point 1:

You have video footage of a similar scenario in a similar level of traffic.

(1) In that footage there's a car to the left waiting to move out, a gap to the right where there could be and is a vehicle shaping to turn right.

(2) In that (video footage) scenario the right thing to do was slow down, be prepared to stop and eventually stop.

(3) In that scenario (rightly or wrongly) there wasn't a massive car across the lane.

(4) In that scenario the cyclists had less time to act than the guy in my scenario, he chose to ride straight at a ca that had emerged from a side road.

Point 2:
In my first post (the quoted box below) I explained that I slowed down, I did not stop. I slowed down to a sensible speed to:

(ii) give the driver time to complete the turn.

(ii) give me time to assess the situation.

(iii) be prepared to stop if necessary.

(iv) as this was technically a meeting situation I slowed so that should I need to take 'evasive action' I could do so at a speed where I'm still in full control of my bike.

What I originally wrote:

After all, I was ahead of the cyclist in question, managed to slow down from 20+mph (this is a road I sprint to 30+mph on and always slow down by the time I get to this side road), signal the Golf to move out and was still pedaling towards the driver at a decent speed.

I don't slow for every side road I approach, but this was sufficient enough for me to believe that slowing was the best course of action.

Point 3:

I think I have exhausted this now. I don't think I have anything more to say except that if the roles had been reversed and I was the Marin:

(a) I would have slowed down regardless of the actions of another cyclist infront of me. I look further up the road than that.

(b) I still would have slowed down if I was the only rider approach this side road.

(c) I certainly would have slowed down if there was a car across my lane/in front of me/moving across my lane (no matter how slowly).

(d) I wouldn't have had a near miss like he did.

So, along with the fact that I admit fault and have learnt not to let cars out, I guess that's your answer. It's up to you if you agree or disagree.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

You're just nit picking now. I don't know why....

Mainly cos I didn't read the OP properly and got the wrong end of the stick,,,,,,,

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TWH, the safest thing to do was what I did. Slow down and be prepared to stop. They teach you that when driving the same applies to cycling as well.

You're usually on the ball but that's just bonkers.

There's a difference between 'slowing down and preparing to stop' and 'stopping at a junction to let a stationary car out.'

First one sensible. Second one silly.


That said, if the car was on it's way out anyway and you just acknowledged it, then it changes the scenario....

You're just nit picking now. I don't know why....

Point 1:

You have video footage of a similar scenario in a similar level of traffic.

(1) In that footage there's a car to the left waiting to move out, a gap to the right where there could be and is a vehicle shaping to turn right.

(2) In that (video footage) scenario the right thing to do was slow down, be prepared to stop and eventually stop.

(3) In that scenario (rightly or wrongly) there wasn't a massive car across the lane.

(4) In that scenario the cyclists had less time to act than the guy in my scenario, he chose to ride straight at a ca that had emerged from a side road.

Point 2:
In my first post (the quoted box below) I explained that I slowed down, I did not stop. I slowed down to a sensible speed to:

(ii) give the driver time to complete the turn.

(ii) give me time to assess the situation.

(iii) be prepared to stop if necessary.

(iv) as this was technically a meeting situation I slowed so that should I need to take 'evasive action' I could do so at a speed where I'm still in full control of my bike.

What I originally wrote:

After all, I was ahead of the cyclist in question, managed to slow down from 20+mph (this is a road I sprint to 30+mph on and always slow down by the time I get to this side road), signal the Golf to move out and was still pedaling towards the driver at a decent speed.

I don't slow for every side road I approach, but this was sufficient enough for me to believe that slowing was the best course of action.

Point 3:

I think I have exhausted this now. I don't think I have anything more to say except that if the roles had been reversed and I was the Marin:

(a) I would have slowed down regardless of the actions of another cyclist infront of me. I look further up the road than that.

(b) I still would have slowed down if I was the only rider approach this side road.

(c) I certainly would have slowed down if there was a car across my lane/in front of me/moving across my lane (no matter how slowly).

(d) I wouldn't have had a near miss like he did.

So, along with the fact that I admit fault and have learnt not to let cars out, I guess that's your answer. It's up to you if you agree or disagree.

So what you're basically saying is you were in a nice and considerate mood so you slowed down to let a car out even though it was your right of way. Marin guy, for whatever reason, didn't want to cede priority so continued ahead. Because you had dangerously waved the car through, there was nearly a collision. I reckon its car 80%, DDD 15% and Marin 5% contrib (and that's being harsh)

il_principe

Fecking hell. If I stopped to let out every car nosing out of junctions then I'd never get anywhere. Trying riding a SS, takes me a bit of leg to get up to cruising speed so I'm not budging from my right of way unless some twunt forces me to.

tomlockbart

Il Principe wrote:

Fecking hell. If I stopped to let out every car nosing out of junctions then I'd never get anywhere. Trying riding a SS, takes me a bit of leg to get up to cruising speed so I'm not budging from my right of way unless some twunt forces me to.

+1

Headhuunter

BigMat wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TWH, the safest thing to do was what I did. Slow down and be prepared to stop. They teach you that when driving the same applies to cycling as well.

You're usually on the ball but that's just bonkers.

There's a difference between 'slowing down and preparing to stop' and 'stopping at a junction to let a stationary car out.'

First one sensible. Second one silly.


That said, if the car was on it's way out anyway and you just acknowledged it, then it changes the scenario....

You're just nit picking now. I don't know why....

Point 1:

You have video footage of a similar scenario in a similar level of traffic.

(1) In that footage there's a car to the left waiting to move out, a gap to the right where there could be and is a vehicle shaping to turn right.

(2) In that (video footage) scenario the right thing to do was slow down, be prepared to stop and eventually stop.

(3) In that scenario (rightly or wrongly) there wasn't a massive car across the lane.

(4) In that scenario the cyclists had less time to act than the guy in my scenario, he chose to ride straight at a ca that had emerged from a side road.

Point 2:
In my first post (the quoted box below) I explained that I slowed down, I did not stop. I slowed down to a sensible speed to:

(ii) give the driver time to complete the turn.

(ii) give me time to assess the situation.

(iii) be prepared to stop if necessary.

(iv) as this was technically a meeting situation I slowed so that should I need to take 'evasive action' I could do so at a speed where I'm still in full control of my bike.

What I originally wrote:

After all, I was ahead of the cyclist in question, managed to slow down from 20+mph (this is a road I sprint to 30+mph on and always slow down by the time I get to this side road), signal the Golf to move out and was still pedaling towards the driver at a decent speed.

I don't slow for every side road I approach, but this was sufficient enough for me to believe that slowing was the best course of action.

Point 3:

I think I have exhausted this now. I don't think I have anything more to say except that if the roles had been reversed and I was the Marin:

(a) I would have slowed down regardless of the actions of another cyclist infront of me. I look further up the road than that.

(b) I still would have slowed down if I was the only rider approach this side road.

(c) I certainly would have slowed down if there was a car across my lane/in front of me/moving across my lane (no matter how slowly).

(d) I wouldn't have had a near miss like he did.

So, along with the fact that I admit fault and have learnt not to let cars out, I guess that's your answer. It's up to you if you agree or disagree.

So what you're basically saying is you were in a nice and considerate mood so you slowed down to let a car out even though it was your right of way. Marin guy, for whatever reason, didn't want to cede priority so continued ahead. Because you had dangerously waved the car through, there was nearly a collision. I reckon its car 80%, DDD 15% and Marin 5% contrib (and that's being harsh)

I agree. I absolutely hate it when drivers "let each other out" with zero regard for cyclists still moving through traffic. I almost got taken out by a van this morning which was "let out" by another vehicle which was queuing. I was cycling up the centre of the road and couldn't see that there was a gap in the queuing traffic, let alone that the van was piling through the gap looking in the opposite direction. Luckily something in me had sensed that I was approaching a dangerous situation and had slowed down, but if I had maintained my speed as I had right of way, I would have gone under the van which was pulling across in front of me.

Yes, it's all very nice to "let people out" but it often leads to very dangerous situations in my experience and should not be encouraged.