RED Light jumpers!!

[7db]

Was the chap behind indicating that you had priority over the cyclist, or perhaps that you could have comfortably passed ahead? I confess to not understanding the situation at all.

As I posted in the other thread, if its a particular issue, then sitting with other drivers on an AD-UK day is a tremendous way for them to help see things which you might not be.

[morsing]

Was the chap behind indicating that you had priority over the cyclist, or perhaps that you could have comfortably passed ahead? I confess to not understanding the situation at all.

As I posted in the other thread, if its a particular issue, then sitting with other drivers on an AD-UK day is a tremendous way for them to help see things which you might not be.

I do have priority yes, but had only come up slightly ahead as I was breaking for the turn and decided to let the cyclist continue as I wasn't sure he'd seen me indicate and if not, there would be a collision. The cyclist did start to slow down looking at me which added a second but at that time I was pretty much at a stand-still anyway so waved him across - that was appreciated only by one party...

So should I just have barged through hoping for the best? I still don't think shouting abuse at me was justified...

This is it:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 01666&z=19

Where do I find details of AD-UK days?

[Gareth]

I held back turning left off a road because a cyclist going with traffic was approaching

It took me a while to work out what you meant ...

So, you were in the left lane of a dual carriageway and planning to turn left into what looks like an industrial estate. You noticed a cyclist riding along the cycle path adjacent to the dual carriageway, (I'm guessing they were headed in the same direction as the road traffic on your side of the dual carriageway), and instead of making your turn you waited until the cyclist had negotiated crossing the side road.

If you look carefully at the lane markings on the cycle path you can see that the cyclist is required to give way to traffic turning into or leaving the side road, so your actions were unexpected by other users of the dual carriageway.

If this isn't the country in which you learned to drive, it would be a good idea to try to understand the rules (and expectations) here a little better. I have experience of Sweden, where drivers on main roads must give way to cyclists who typically share a footpath with pedestrians. While drivers in both countries would give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the side road, I noticed that drivers in Sweden nearly always give way to pedestrians and cyclists who would soon be crossing their intended path.

To British eyes this has the strange affect of traffic on the main road waiting for the entrance to the side turning to be completely clear before passing across it. Of course you may reasonably argue that such a system would result in improved road safety, but that's not how the rules operate here.

[crr003]

It took me a while to work out what you meant ...

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Gareth]

Where do I find details of AD-UK days?

In the Driver Network forum, part of the Members Only area.

[7db]

If you look carefully at the lane markings on the cycle path you can see that the cyclist is required to give way to traffic turning into or leaving the side road, so your actions were unexpected by other users of the dual carriageway.

Look again.

The cyclists giveway is like the pedestrian giveway in a minor road -- it is to traffic leaving the road.
The giveway for the cars leaving the major road means that they must cede precedence to cyclists or pedestrians already crossing the road.

[Gareth]

Look again.

The way I read the comments of the OP is that he waited, long enough to annoy the driver behind, for the cyclist to reach the end of the cycle lane. If, instead, he had already been turning in, the cyclist would have had to give way as per the markings at the end of the cycle lane.

Being pedantic, I felt I was being reasonably precise. I specifically didn't say that the cyclist had to give way to motorists who were about to turn in to the side road, as that would have been wrong

[7db]

If you want pedantry...

... do you really want pedantry?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Is this the 5 minute pedantry exercise, or the full half hour?

I can't get the map link to go big enough without it wanting to start displaying street view (and failing). I assume morsing was travelling SouthEast and turning into Leyden Road?

Is there a way of having just the satellite imagery on Google - no huge yellow street lines overlaying it?

[kfae8959]

Is there a way of having just the satellite imagery on Google - no huge yellow street lines overlaying it?

C-W,

I think you should be able to click the "satellite" button and un-check the "show labels" box that drops down from it. That ought to give you an unadulterated aerial photograph.

David

[morsing]

If this isn't the country in which you learned to drive, it would be a good idea to try to understand the rules (and expectations) here a little better.

I do understand the rules, please read my explanation above again. In fact, I know the rules far, far better than pretty much any driver I've ever driven with here who's taken their test in Britain, maybe bar one, but even he has been wrong on occasions.

The way I read the comments of the OP is that he waited, long enough to annoy the driver behind, for the cyclist to reach the end of the cycle lane. If, instead, he had already been turning in, the cyclist would have had to give way as per the markings at the end of the cycle lane.

We're talking approximately two seconds. Also, please read my explanation above again. "Would have had to" isn't the same as would have done... I can't just drive around hoping for the best, just have to drive in a way that takes into account that other people don't always do as they're supposed to or expect.

I was thinking about this insident and I think what I could have done to ensure a better flow was to have been aware of the cyclist earlier and slowed down earlier to allow the cyclist to have passed the crossing even before I reached it. If the cyclist had then decided to stop, fine, if not, at least I wouldn't have hit him nor would I have even had to slow down for him.

Going back to your learn the rules of the country comment, it's slightly un-satisfactory that I got my full UK licence with no questions asked, no requirements, not even a leaflet saying where I could find and read the rules of the road...

[martine]

I think there's a big difference between this junction where the cycle lane is quite seperate (by distance and kerbed off) and more common lanes where it's just a white line on the same piece of tarmac.

In your situation I think I would have dropped my speed lots and kept a careful eye on the cyclist to make sure he did giveway and if so, proceeded without stopping.

I can see it might be a little annoying for someone behind to come have to stop when the lane markings clearly show you have priority - then again, to shout abuse and gesticulate is completely OTT.

I would be conscious of possible frustration, the risk of being rear-ended and also of encouraging the cyclist across without perhaps checking both ways etc. The junction markings give the clue as to the expected behaviour from both you and the cyclist.

[jont]

I would be conscious of possible frustration, the risk of being rear-ended and also of encouraging the cyclist across without perhaps checking both ways etc. The junction markings give the clue as to the expected behaviour from both you and the cyclist.

Indeed, as a cyclist I get frustrated (and sometimes concerned) when drivers go out of their way to upset the marked priority without concern about what knock on effect it may have. Things work much better (in most cases) when people follow the guidelines on the road layout. It might often be meant with the best intentions, but as a cyclist in this situation I still would probably wait for the driver to go past.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Hear, hear!

Cyclists have an unfortunately increasingly bad reputation as regards their adherence to the Highway Code. The majority, however, are law-abiding, and expect to give way where it is their duty to do so. As Jon says, when motorists seek to modify the rules of priority, this leads to uncertainty, and of course, inconsistency. One motorist may wait, but another going in the opposite direction, or in another lane, may not. In extreme circumstances an impatient motorist behind might overtake the waiting one and wipe out the cyclist. The only safe course for the cyclist is to assume nothing, and expect to give way. This is as much about self-preservation as any legal consideration.

[fungus]

Hear, hear!

Cyclists have an unfortunately increasingly bad reputation as regards their adherence to the Highway Code. The majority, however, are law-abiding, and expect to give way where it is their duty to do so. As Jon says, when motorists seek to modify the rules of priority, this leads to uncertainty, and of course, inconsistency. One motorist may wait, but another going in the opposite direction, or in another lane, may not. In extreme circumstances an impatient motorist behind might overtake the waiting one and wipe out the cyclist. The only safe course for the cyclist is to assume nothing, and expect to give way. This is as much about self-preservation as any legal consideration.

Indeed. The advice given to learners is not to invite. The invited party may not check that it's safe. You then have the situation that you may be held partly responsible if an accident happened. In the case of pedestrians, the DSA definately advise not to invite them to cross, in case you have missed another road user in your observations who may be a danger to them. Let them make their own decisions based on their own observations, not yours.

As Mr CW said an impatient motorist may sieze the opportunity to overtake.