RED Light jumpers!!

[morsing]

Did anyone actually read my post?! I didn't invite anyone to do anything. As I hadn't manage to get eye contact from the cyclist approaching the crossing still at speed, I HAD TO stop as if he really hadn't realised I was turning there would have been a collision.

You can argue priorities all you want, I do not believe you have a right to create a dangerous situation just for the sake of following the road markings!

[ScoobyChris]

Unfortunately this is the nature of driving discussions on a forum where people offer their own interpretation of situations based on the description given. No substitute for being there at the time and seeing and experiencing what you were, but some good general points have come out of it nonetheless.

You can argue priorities all you want, I do not believe you have a right to create a dangerous situation just for the sake of following the road markings!

I think this is an interesting comment and I agree you shouldn't create a dangerous situation just because of the road markings. However, danger comes from all around and by reducing the danger at the front, you may actually be increasing the danger to the rear by not driving inline with their expectations and "make" them do something dangerous/unexpected which also leads to compromising your safety at the front. It's a balancing act and by no means an easy one

Chris

[Gareth]

It strikes me one sequence that may have reduced potential danger would have been for the OP to have been driving along the dual carriageway, indicating at the appropriate place, then spying the cyclist give a short toot of the horn just before beginning to turn in.

This has the advantage of potentially alerting the cyclist, assuming he or she is not deaf and not using a personal music player.

However the correct sequence for negotiating the turn into the side-road would also mean that after indicating, the OP would be braking while still on the dual carriageway, changing to either 1st or 2nd gear and then starting to turn. This also means that the OP's vehicle would be traveling quite slowly, so if the cyclist decided to take a chance by not giving way, the OP could perform an emergency stop on a sixpence.

[GJD]

Did anyone actually read my post?! I didn't invite anyone to do anything. As I hadn't manage to get eye contact from the cyclist approaching the crossing still at speed, I HAD TO stop as if he really hadn't realised I was turning there would have been a collision.

I don't think anyone here would suggest you did the wrong thing by waiting if you weren't sure the cyclist had seen you.

You can argue priorities all you want, I do not believe you have a right to create a dangerous situation just for the sake of following the road markings!

Neither does anyone else. I think the reason the discussion has focussed on the priorities is because you said: "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."

This does sound like you invited him across. I think most people here would suggest that if you were confident that the cyclist had now seen you and was giving way, you should have proceeded into the turning while they waited, in keeping with the marked priorites.

Unnecessarily conceding your priority would not be a courtesy to the cyclist, it would be a discourtesy to the traffic behind that you hold up.

[morsing]

This does sound like you invited him across. I think most people here would suggest that if you were confident that the cyclist had now seen you and was giving way, you should have proceeded into the turning while they waited, in keeping with the marked priorites.

You're right, apologies, however, it does not change the reason for stopping in the first place and as the cyclist was still on his bike and rolling it barely took a second for him to cross.

Does it excuse the other driver's behaviour?

[GJD]

Does it excuse the other driver's behaviour?

Certainly not.