UKC

I regularly have trouble with this on roads with a single lane of travel in each direction. I have to be quite forceful and insistent I'm pulling out in to the middle of my lane prior to taking a position to the right of my lane. Often I have to do this well ahead of the junction or cars all block me in to the left overtaking me whilst I'm signalling right - its my right of way not theirs. When I do get out there is often a car too close behind driving aggressively. Most drivers seem of the opinion they've done me a favour when its my right of way to pull over to the right hand side of the lane prior to turning right in this context.

I think the problem is worse in Edinburgh its the most hostile city towards bikes I've lived in. I've already been knocked off my bike from a car turning right from the other side of the road - my bike was write off and I haven't been able to climb since! (yes I'm making a successful fault claim on to their insurance for a new bike and damage to my body!)

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I know exactly what you mean, I have a particularly nasty right turn on my way home... I now cycle past it and turn left into a road after, turn around and go back so I approach it from the other direction. Its a pain in the arse but a hell of a lot safer than standing in the middle of the road with my arm out with cars whizzing by at 40 either side of me

In reply to CurlyStevo:

After years of suffering from the same thing, I've come to the conclusion that If you ride in the gutter you get treated like you belong in the gutter. Ride in the middle of the road, as is your right. You are doing them a favour if you let them past.

High vis jacket and bright, flashing lights are also a must. Retroreflective tape absolutely everywhere helps too. I used to be one of those idiots cycling around with none of the above till a taxi driver gave me a good talking to about how hard it is to see cyclists. RR tape on arms/gloves helps show which way you are indicating.

Also, if you think Edinburgh is bad, I recommend avoiding Glasgow at all costs.

In reply to Roberttaylor:
))

Yup I am now one of the hi vis brigade (jacket) also with lights on my helmet and bike!

and yeah I tend to hog the lanes more than most cyclists too..... Although there is a limit there when you anger car drivers and then they do something that further endangers your life.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
I get this as well where I live. Sometimes I wonder if people don't know what signalling means on a bike? Did get me thinking that maybe some kind of flashing wristband to mimic an indicator might be a good idea, it really shouldn't have to get to people considering that though! Anyway hope you're back on the rock soon.

Edit: Brilliant profile pic btw.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

It's a menace. I was once taking my daily right turn into my street when a car decided to overtake and clipped my signalling hand with his wing mirror. The driver got out and had a right go at me, apparently it was my fault for not looking. Thing was - I looked over my shoulder before signalling, then looked forwards and signalled, and then the berg decided to overtake.

Other than indicating that the driver was a pillock, it was a sound lesson in how little attention some people pay to the road. If I see a cyclist obviously look over their shoulder then my subconscious has them pegged as likely to either signal or turn. This guy didn't pick up on that cue, and then apparently either didn't see me signalling or just decided "what the f---k".

Bring on self driving cars, please. They'll be the best thing for cyclists ever.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I wonder about indicators, it would probably make things safer, and allow signalling for a longer period of time.

However car drivers (of which I am one) really need to have it hammered home that is never their right to overtake a bike in the same lane the bike is in. Actually AFAIK the highway code says they shouldn't share the same lane as the bike at any time side by side and should use the other side of the road to overtake. Which brings me to another gripe car drivers that don't overtake and instead drive along side you and think that's OK - its not - overtake or stay behind!

In reply to CurlyStevo:


You don't hog the lane, you are taking the primary position based on your safety needs.
http://road.cc/content/news/17033-cyclists-take-prime-position-says-iam-boo...

I have something similar, when I approach a T-junction with no right turn except for buses and bikes 9 times out of 10 a car/van will pull up alongside me and when I point to the sign they just shrug. I wouldn't mind but they only need to turn left and the reach a roundabout within 200m. I've nearly come a cropper a few times as drivers try to take the pinch point with me riding in it.

Also when cycling along a main road I ride roughly 1 meter from the kerb/gutter except when I come to central bollards, then I take the primary position rather than getting squeezed in to the kerb.

Hi-viz and good lights are a must.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm not saying this applies to you. But I see a lot of roadies signal right and then immediately pull right across the carriageway, no looking over shoulder etc to see what's there. Mirror - Signal - Manoeuvre applies.

If I'm riding on road and turning right, I've no problem with stopping on left and waiting for a gap. I much prefer giving up my right of way rather than getting squashed. Life is too short to get worked up about it, leave that to the car road ragers.

And there's nothing wrong with pulling out right well ahead of the junction. seems pretty good idea to me to plan way ahead and its often what I'll do.

Here is the Highway Code on the matter:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Road junctions (rules 72 to 75): Rule 74

'On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.'

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Nonsense - it doesn't. However, you are right to highlight the problem of turning right. I certainly try to give cyclists plenty of space when they signal right (or look like they might). The point above is also true though, the instances of cyclists signalling and moving right simultaneously are quite common, which is difficult for drivers to do much about.

In reply to MG:
which bit is nonsense.

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/overtaking-cyclists.html

"The point above is also true though, the instances of cyclists signalling and moving right simultaneously are quite common, which is difficult for drivers to do much about."

I check over my shoulder that a car is not already in the process of overtaking me, on a BUSY 30 road that would be 2-3 car lengths back from me and then stick out my hand, if I don't actually start to force my way over at this point most cars just proceed to overtake me thinking its their right of way, once this starts happening sometimes there is never an opportunity to get across the road before my turning

Sounds to me like you should be more aware of giving cyclists room and also when they look over their shoulder they do it for a reason, either you are too close or they want to turn right most likely, so give them some more room and slow down to anticipate them turning right.

Also if you overtaking a cyclist as per the highway code make sure there is enough room in front and overtake, do not drive side by side them in the same lane.

In reply to MG:

To be fair it does state: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". I can't think of many situations where a car could be in the same lane as a bike whilst overtaking them without compromising this rule.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Something I have noticed.

They don't try over take me when I am in the Land Rover funnily enough.

Happened to me a short while back. On a not too busy road, checked over my shoulder and moved into the middle, clearly indicating to turn right into a side road. Clear forward and as I moved across the other lane, some hoofwanking shitpellet in a Nissan Figaro decided to overtake me, almost put me on her bonnet.

The car behind her sounded his horn at her and I saw him shake his head. She was oblivious.

suffice to say, I have half the reg number, and given the are not many pale geeen Figaros in Much Wenlock, the girlfriend (small, half Brummie, half jockanese and ginger) has taken it on herself to scratch her eyes out.

In reply to Aly:

See the picture in the link that CurlySteve posted - it has the car sharing the lane with bike it is overtaking. (The link then tries to claim this isn't allowed...)

In reply to CurlyStevo:



The bit about not being in the same lane - it says give sufficient room, which is very different. In some with wide lanes, it is fine to be in the same lane.



What makes you think I don't do that, given that I just said I did!?


Agreed, that will often be dangerous, except with very wide roads.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


In this case, the HC Rule 74 says:

'It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.'

In reply to CurlyStevo:

This used to be a problem in London but increasingly less so (IMO). I think its down to more cyclists on the road and both groups learning how cars and bikes can use the same piece of tarmac. For me, the biggest risk in this maneuver is spending too long looking over your right shoulder and tw*tting into a bus! (...it's happened).

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


enjoyed that.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You live in Edinburgh! You have my sympathy. Even without idiot drivers you have traffic calming by way of pedestrian island chicanes, often with a nicely subsided drain feature to force you to the centre of the lane. Horrendous potholes mostly in the left hand metre of the road. No bicycle racks when you do get to the shops; in fact they have removed some.
And some tram tracks if you are really keen on peril.

In reply to ChrisJD:


It's sound ADVICE and that's all its meant to be, however if car drivers are following the code correctly and there is one lane of travel in each direction and the cyclists are signalling right, cars should not be overtaking and forcing the cyclist in to this situation. I can very very rarely think of a time this has happened to me (as I signal well before the junction) where car drivers have been following the highway code correctly.

In reply to digby:

Yeah and weirdly you hear people talk about the good cycle lanes etc here, its pretty much as bad as it gets for cyclists in the UK IMO

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Not so much a signalling right issue, but yesterday my mate and I were nearly taken out at a roundabout by a f*ckwitt in a light green Audi A4. We were in the correct road position waiting for traffic from our right to clear before moving off, and the Audi was behind us. We were going straight on, but the Audi driver thought it was perfectly OK to overtake us on our right then turn sharp left in front of us to take the LH exit from the R/A. Talk about deliberate dangerous driving. I wish I'd had one of those video cameras - cos the pictures would have been sent to one of our club members who just happens to be a serving police officer! ( in fact we've got a couple of serving officers as well as a couple of retired officers in our club).

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I sympathise. I have a couple of nasty right turns to make, but the most hostile is one out of a bus lane and across a lane of traffic. There are two others 100m after traffic lights, at a point at which the van man's launch control system has decided that it must not stop for anything......

So, I'm dayglo - normal roadie kit with fluo feet, reflective ankle bands, fluo armwarmers, reflective fluo wrist bands with red LEDS, a runners fluo gilet with reflective stripes, or a fluo jacket. Two bright flashing light on the back, and one on my helmet.

I take a quick look to spot a gap (if there is one), well in advance, and when that gap's approaching, whack out my arm in the most assertive way I can, and try and get eye contact. At the evry least, I signal when I know I'm not going to get smacked by a windscreen or wing mirror. I then move out steadily, again with intent, and a shoulder check as a further indication, and then occupy the primary position. I may then add a 'courtesy' indication to remind them why I'm in their way, and acknowledge them if they've made life easier for me. If I have to stop, I never, ever squeeze over to the right - I block the road. If they nudge me when they try to squeeze past, I'm just going to be punted into the traffic I've stopped for (I nearly always unclip my left foot, so the slightest bump will have me over.

I suppose that it's about 98% trouble-free, but there's always someone who can't cope with what's going on around them.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Then perhaps follow the advice....

In reply to ChrisJD:
Seems like you are off topic get with the program. Just because the highway code has some advice on how to deal with a certain situation (and something I have done in the past as mentioned already) it does not give car drivers right of way to overtake in the same lane as a cyclist signalling right?

Of course if you think different I invite you to prove it using the highway code. Something that advise clearly does not do.

In reply to nniff:
yeah I follow something akin to that. 2% trouble is too high when the trouble is metal boxes driving at speed. Also car drivers shouldn't be aggressively trying to pass me when they have already seen me signalling right. Literally if I didn't move over right as I'm signalling in to the gap very often I'd never get there and I can still often see car drivers aggressively looking for a way past as I do this. As mentioned Edinburgh is worse than most places I've lived for how the drivers treat cyclists.

In reply to CurlyStevo:



You have signaled too early, according to Rule 74, as it was not safe to move right (busy traffic). Therefore, you invoke the advice of "'It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road."

Just because you are signalling, this doesn't give you the right to move right, as you didn't apply Rule 74 ". If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, THEN signal." (my emphasis). You are signalling too early and demanding the right to move right.

In reply to ChrisJD:

It all gets a bit pedantic quoting somewhat contradictory HWC clauses back and forth. Cyclists on a busy, wide road are effectively in their own lane, with a steady stream of traffic passing them. This is fine until one wants to turn right at which point one view is they have the RoW and cars should stop to let them do so while another view is that they are changing lane and should wait until there is a gap in the traffic. The legal position will presumably depend on details of the situation but practically it requires good will and consideration from all concerned to work. What clearly won't work in practice is drivers expecting cyclists to cower by the roadside, or cyclists expecting the world to stop while they wobble rightwards.

In reply to ChrisJD:
Are you always this argumentative or just today?

Where do I start?

"You have signaled too early, according to Rule 74, as it was not safe to move right (busy traffic). Therefore, you invoke the advice of "'It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.""

"Rule 74 If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road."

Yes as mentioned first I check to see there is enough of a gap behind me that a car is not already over taking, in a 30 and busy traffic I would consider this to be around 10 - 20 m depending on the speed the traffic is moving. That is when I signal and start moving over. Also rule 74 of the highway code doesn't say anything
regarding that in heavy traffic cyclists give up the rights to turn right or indeed to move over to the right hand side of the lane for other reasons (for example wanting to move over to the other side of the road to get to a house or drive or a shop) as a road user with equal privileges to cars and the complete right to use a full lane we can do this legally!

Also you are incorrect about you assertation.

"Just because you are signalling, this doesn't give you the right to move right, as you didn't apply Rule 74 ". If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, THEN signal." (my emphasis). You are signalling too early and demanding the right to move right."

A cyclist has all the same rights as a normal road user and a car should never overtake a vehicle of any description signalling right

I refer you to rule 167 which clearly states you should not overtake a vehicle signalling right
"Rule 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
£approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
£where the road narrows
£when approaching a school crossing patrol
£between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
£where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
£when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
£at a level crossing
£when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
"

In reply to MG:


Exactly. And cyclists shouting "its my right!" "its my right!" doesn't help achieve that.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You started the thread not me!

In reply to ChrisJD:
Sounds like you need to calm down and respect cyclists fundamental rights to use a full lane in the same way as a car does. We have the right to use the full lane and move over to the other side of the lane by signalling when there is a gap in the traffic (for any number of reasons not just to turn in to a road junction) the same as any other vehicle. As rule 167 clearly states vehicles should not overtake another vehicle signalling right you should slow down to allow us, if a stream of vehicles starts over taking, blocking the cyclist from manoeuvring it is the cyclists right to start signalling their intent to move over to the right hand side of the lane and at the point cars should slow down to allow them. Of course its not the cyclists right to move in front of them and cause an accident if the cars do not allow this and I would assume that some responsibility would be put on the part of the cyclist if an accident occurred like this (but also on the driver if they should have had enough time to react to the cyclists signalling)

It seems as predicted that you have failed to prove your point using the highway code (as its clearly nonsense).

In reply to CurlyStevo:

What's' with the 'we'? I cycle as much as I drive (I work from home)

In reply to ChrisJD:
might be worth brushing up on the highway code then mate to make sure you understand it as you seem to have misunderstood some basic principles. I look forward to your next reply after you have spent much of your valuable time trying to formulate some kind of nonsensical argument from the highway code text.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

A quick question - does your route to work *have* to take you to this spot? - I'm saying this as a (sometime) cycle commuter before I get flamed BTW.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
Yeah I agree with this, I really should adjust my route journey to that of the least resistance, although it doesn't solve the problem it just lowers my chance of another accident (my one and only car / bike accident is a fault claim against the car and due to a completely different situation) . The real issue seems to be the misunderstanding by many motorists of who's right of way it is in this circumstance.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Rule 174?

Rule 174 is about Box Junctions: 'Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see ‘Road markings’). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.'

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I disagree, I think this is perfectly well understood by all drivers. Some however couldn't give a sh!t if it would slow them down for a few seconds.

As for comments about cyclists signalling and immediately manoeuvring without looking - it is a problem, one that seems almost endemic in motorised vehicle users (if they even bother signalling), so whilst it's clearly not a healthy activity for cyclists, I'm not sure why it seems to take so many people by surprise given it is so common on our roads.

In reply to ChrisJD:
rule 167 mate I quoted it here it is again if you are struggling to find it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=highway+code+rule+167

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Rule 167 applies to not overtaking 'road users' who are turning right.

The discussion here is about the pre-manaourvre of moving from the left hand side of the lane to the right hand side of the lane to get ready to turn right. This set up positioning is not turning right.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
interestingly the cycle section says this
""Rule 74 If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. "

Doesn't say anything about signalling waiting and then moving. In practice most the time I think waiting until its safe and then following this advice is the best policy. However if cars are continually passing you it is never safe and the only options are to try signalling if the cars continue to overtake and break the highway code, then you have no option than to either move to the side of the road and wheel your bike across or carry on and go another route. Really neither of these options should be necessary on a typical road with a lane in each direction if the cars are following the highway code.

I do regularly take different routes to avoid getting stuck in the middle of the road signalling or when I can't easily move over.

In reply to ChrisJD:


Mate you are really struggling with this aren't you. I hope you are only paying only a little bit of attention to it and your day job is distracting you

rules 167 applies to signalling right amongst other things - see the text I quoted from the highway code in my post above, I'll also paste it in again for you
"
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
£when a road user is indicating right
"

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'm not struggling at all. I'm trying to to at what the guidance is trying to tell us .

Which bring us back to 74 which is specifically for cycles turning right at road junctions:

'On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.'

Its interesting that it doesn't say: "Just Indicate right and move across as its your right of way and everyone else should yield as you are indicating right". Instead, it says, if need be, stop on left and wait and in some case get off your bike and cross like a pedestrian!

In reply to ChrisJD:
No of course it doesn't a car could be validly overtaking you or having just started the overtaking manoeuvre.

However it also doesn't say that a cyclist can not indicate to signal an intent. In fact all vehicle signals are meant to identity just that (intent to do something not that you will). It is perfectly legal for the cyclist to signal right that they want to move over to the other side of the lane and any vehicles that see them signalling should not proceed to overtake unless they have reached the point of no return.

If you actually think it is your right to over take a cyclist signalling right, then you are a case in point and you cycle! It is only your right to continue with the over taking manoeuvre if they have not signalled before you started overtaking. If the cyclist is already signalling right before you overtake you should not overtake the law is very clear in this regard.

I refer you to rule 103 hopefully I have already referred to rule 167 enough times now that you realise you should not overtake a cyclist signalling right.
"Rule 103

Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see £Signals to other road users), of your intended actions. You should always
£give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
£use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
£cancel them after use
£make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
£use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority.
"

you may also find this interesting
"Rule 212:
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so."

I honestly can't believe I'm having to convince a fellow cyclist that cars should not to over take you when you are signalling right in an attempt to take a right hand turn!

In reply to CurlyStevo:

It happens to me every-time I go out riding. It goes like this:

I'm approaching a junction on left hand side of carriageway,I start indicating right whilst looking over my shoulder, wait for cars to pass me Making eye contact), look for a suitable gap, move into right hand lane. If there is not a gap I stop on left and wait.


The point is, I don't expect them to give way. If they do, great, they get a smile and a wave. If they don't, no big deal.

In reply to ChrisJD:
the point is car drivers should be forcing you to do that every time you go out, it happens to me much less often but I follow a system more akin to that which nniff outlined above.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Anyway, I'm off out on the bike for a quick spin.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

They shouldn't. But must of the Highway Code is all about what 'should' happen. There's even a section that explains the difference between 'should' and 'must'.

Ultimately it's a guide.

Most of the problems arise when people seem to think they have some kind of right to being on the road.

Share the space.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

When Nobbers and Tanglefannies overtake me or pull out in front or generally do things that demonstrate they comprise mostly urine and cabbage I ask them the question

"Would you have done that to a police motorcycle"?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I'm actually thinking some fake police hi vis top would do the trick! Saying something like PLEASE

In reply to DancingOnRock:
I agree in principle we are all people using the rode

However you could say UK Law is just a guide. Some of the highway code is advice and other parts are a criminal offense. The section on not overtaking a vehicle signalling right is under the clause "DO NOT" which is the second highest, the top being MUST NOT which is a criminal offense. "SHOULD NOT" is also used which is less strong than DO NOT. Anything else is pure advise and wouldn't stand up in court against you.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

. Anything else is pure advise and wouldn't stand up in court against you.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's quite correct. I think the advice has "evidential status", so for example if you don't follow it and have an accident, that can be evidence you were not driving or cycling competently. So it's not in itself illegal not to follow it but if you don't follow it, you are open to that being used as evidence you were breaking laws.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I think we have just established what we both already know - that there are some people who are, shall we say (and being generous) unsympathetic. There are other terms that would suit. However, regular commuting in London or Edinburgh puts a rather different slant on it. Much as I would like to go for a ride now for the sun is shining, I am at work and so I'll wait until about 6pm. when I ride home.

To put this into context, my office overlooks Hanger Lane, a place to which the concept of 'light traffic' is entirely alien. Even the police cars turn their sirens off and just sit and wait with their lights flashing. Other delights await, particularly the approach to Kew Bridge

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Actually the HWC says as much in it:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a
person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings
under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules
which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

So it is quite a bit more than *just* advice.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Doesn't that mean you now have to cross 2 lanes of traffic instead of the original one or have I misread it?

In reply to MG:
Fair point I read the qualifiers as having some kind of stronger meaning. I guess they do to an extent if the code says DO NOT do something and you do it and their is accident then blame attribution is likely to be clearer. If its says it may be safer to do X and you don't do it that's a grey area.

Some of the points although useful are clearly much less frequently adhered to than others for example
"Rule 3 (for pedestrians)

Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (eg armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.
"

I can't imagine anyone normally blaming a pedestrian for being hit in a 30 at night if they weren't adhering to this.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Which appears to be the OP's point!

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Presumably applicable where there isn't a pavement? At a guess, if you drive in to a pedestrian in the middle of a fast road wearing head-to-toe black on a dark night, you could use that rule as evidence that you weren't driving carelessly, even if legally the pedestrian had a right to be there?

In reply to nniff:
Hanger Lane! erm yes worse traffic than Edinburgh I used to commute through London on my bike, in fact I did a lot of bike riding in London. The traffic is pretty mental but the car drivers are a little more cyclist friendly than up here (well they were)

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Back now. There wasn't a right hand turn in sight:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/szx5qapnw3rkzkm/20160204_145753.jpg?dl=0

In reply to MG:
I think its up to the car driver not to hit pedestrians on any road in any lightening conditions. You may find the percentage of blame is higher on the drivers part if the pedestrian was crossing a road wearing black in a lit area than the same on an unlit road. I'm not a legal expert either. But I think unless it was completely unavoidable on the drivers part they would likely be held at least partially accountable whatever clothing the pedestrian was wearing. I doubt wearing reflective light clothing or not would make much odds in a lit residential zone but I could be wrong.

I believe the way it works in general there is a greater duty of care that cars and lorries are supposed to have to cyclists and pedestrians as compares to other cars and lorries.

In reply to ChrisJD:

glad you enjoyed it

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Mine is "Would you have done that if I was driving a 40-ton truck...?"

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

Yes it does. But its much safer as I don't get marooned in the middle of the road with cars squeezing by inches from my handlebars at 40 (in a 30) on both sides. This way I do a nice safe left and a uturn in that quiet road, turn right onto original road when its clear and then left into where I want to go.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

This is good defensive road use. I would also do this in a car if a right turn would place me in a hazardous situation with traffic approaching from behind at speed where they had limited look ahead.

In reply to The New NickB:


I very much get the impression from his various posts that he thinks 'it is the responsibility for... to ....' in a very one sided way.

There's a shared responsibility - cyclists and pedestrians should make themselves seen and not run out in front of cars. And cars and cyclists should look out for cyclists and pedestrians not doing/doing the above.

As soon as you start using the roads presuming everyone will be doing what they 'should' be doing you're going to be pretty disappointed, and maybe quite angry.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Oh I never assume other road users will do what they should be doing. That was how up to recently I avoided getting knocked off my bike. I've had cars overtake me and pull left across me, cars pull out in front of me at T junctions, change lanes without seeing me, open car doors to where I could have been etc etc etc, I cycle very defensively. I've cycled extensively in many major cities including London (from a young age), Brighton, Bristol, Edinburgh and even Dundee - you get used to understanding what vehicles will do not what they should do. However I hadn't accounted for cars pulling across the road from the other direction in to me up until now - which is why I got knocked off.

I do however think that there needs to be some type of re-education of many road users with respect to the rights of cyclists. Cars should not be overtaking bikes even when it looks like they may turn right (before having signalled - there is a part of the highway code that specifically mentions this) and certainly should not continue overtaking in a stream when a cyclist is signalling they want to turn right! I also think many cars think its ok to move along side a bike in lane, on many roads this occurs its not, cars should be making sure they can overtake safely and there is enough room for them to pull in to in front and also that the cyclist isn't just going to need to overtake them again shortly afterwards.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Yes. But cars overtaking in a stream happens to other cars as well. If you're in London and don't look far enough ahead you'll get stuck behind a bus when the cars in the right hand lane won't stop to let you out.

It's a case of reading the road well ahead and possibly behind.

Effectively you're in a no win situation as to turn right in fast flowing traffic you have to put yourself in a dangerous situation.

If you were a pedestrian you'd have to wait for a gap before crossing.

No one has a 'right' to pull out into fast moving traffic. Which is effectively what is happening. The cyclist isn't (rightly or wrongly) part of the traffic flow in this situation.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
"Yes. But cars overtaking in a stream happens to other cars as well. If you're in London and don't look far enough ahead you'll get stuck behind a bus when the cars in the right hand lane won't stop to let you out. "

That's quite a different situation as the bus is in effect parked (all be it in the middle of the road) and the car behind it has stopped, however I believe the highway code states if the car behind the bus is in the main lane and is signalling right then the other cars should not continue overtaking it.

"Effectively you're in a no win situation as to turn right in fast flowing traffic you have to put yourself in a dangerous situation. "

No you don't have to put your self in a dangerous situation, there is risk involved but you can for the best part prevent the situation being dangerous much the same as in climbing. This doesn't mean other vehicles should prevent bikes from turning right.

"If you were a pedestrian you'd have to wait for a gap before crossing. "

I'm not a pedestrian I'm a cyclist with equal rights as other moving vehicles to use the lane I'm in.

"No one has a 'right' to pull out into fast moving traffic. Which is effectively what is happening. The cyclist isn't (rightly or wrongly) part of the traffic flow in this situation."

I think you've misunderstood the highway code. I link the relevant sections again.

"Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
.
.
£when a road user is indicating right
"

"Rule 212:
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so."

""Rule 103

Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see £Signals to other road users), of your intended actions. "

Its all about having respect for cyclists, they are not protected by a metal box and just because you are, you should not bully them and drive aggressively like many car drivers do with other drivers.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You can quote the Highway Code all you like. It doesn't change anything.

Drivers will overtake you unless you are right by the dotted lines in the middle of the road. You need to get out early.

If it's too busy for you to do this then as has already been said and is in the Highway Code, get off and cross.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
It's amazing the things people make up / imply on this thread, I signal too early, I don't get out early enough etc

As mentioned I cycle defensively and generally do give plenty of time to allow for my intended actions on the road. Even when I do this and pull in to a space plenty big enough for me to fit in to, there are still far too higher a percentage or car drivers aggressively pulling up too close behind me clearly of the attitude I am slowing them down unnecessarily!

The reason I'm quoting the highway code is its the defacto document to refer to in this area. The highway code does not say its ok for cars to over take a cyclist that wants to turn right as they can get off and cross. This is an incredibly arrogant attitude to take with other valid, much more vulnerable and less polluting road users. The section you mention offers advice to a cyclist that if cars are in effect not abiding to the code and being considerate as they are instructed to do so (or perhaps the cyclist got in to an unusual situation partly of their doing, and not something I'm discussing here) , it may be best to get off and cross, which is completely valid advice and something I follow.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


I'd be wary of classing actions as agressive. I've lost count of the number of drivers who tailgate me in a car and then when I change lanes, follow me into another lane.

I'm convinced most drivers are just switched into a mode of driving and just getting on with it and in particular have no idea how their position looks from another point of view.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Pedestrians have equal (or greater) rights than bikes or cars. Rather ironic you are complaining about cars dismissing cyclists as second class road users when you then go and do exactly the same towards pedestrians! It's this sort of attitude that is the problem - bikes, cars pedestrians all need to consider each other.

In reply to MG:
I wasn't really making that point. Generally you wouldn't expect a pedestrian to walk along the middle of a lane in the road and behave like a vehicle would you?

You would however expect pedestrians to need to cross roads. It's not reasonable for cyclists to be expected to turn right by pulling over to the left and crossing like a pedestrian because other road users are not giving the cyclist due consideration. Yes it's not a perfect world and sometimes its going to be the safest course of action, but other road users do need to be more considerate in this regard.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Its possible sometimes its that and not the drivers being aggressive. However it certainly seems aggressive when I signal right and I can see them start moving right to overtake even though there is plenty enough room for me to move in to for the speed and I'm signalling right, when I stick my hand out even more assertively and move in to the ample space they then deliberately tailgate me! The crazy thing is the road this happens on during my daily commute to work is faster to travel the length of on a bike at the time of day than by car so if I wasn't turning right and they overtook I would certainly be overtaking them again shortly!

In reply to CurlyStevo:
The point is; if this is regularly happening to you at a specific junction, and not in other places, it's a design problem for the junction or a behavioural problem with you and/or the car drivers.

Since you have no control over the car drivers or the design of the junction, the third factor is the one that you can change.

No one is 'expecting' anything.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Oh its not the design of the junction and I can take any one of several side roads off the main road so I pick my target due to the traffic conditions. If I was travelling a different way to work this would just happen some where else, unfortunately I can't lead my day to life without every needing to turn right

Its the way car drivers treat the cyclists on the road as an annoyance that slows them down. As mentioned Edinburgh is particularly bad in this regard and I'm not the only person I know to say it.

You see the same on country roads throughout the UK when driving. I give cyclists the room they need and don't overtake them on brows of hills or bends on narrow roads when on coming traffic may cause me to run them off the road to avoid a head on. I see lots of car drivers not abiding by this though and just overtaking them without thought.

If car drivers treated cyclists as the highway code outlines I wouldn't have a problem. I honestly think more effort needs to be put in to educating car drivers regarding cyclists both in the highway code and during testing / lessons.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I think you'll find it is.

It's the older drivers that are the problem.

The ones that have been driving for years and have never had an accident.

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Do as the motorcyclists are taught...

Presume everyone is out to kill you old boy, and have eyes on the back of your head.

Car driving 'Cagers' are the majority, and mainly nutjobs and madmen! Not much one can do about it, just suck it up and reward yourself when you pre-empt an event.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS your fault when you allow a near miss. Should have seen that one coming you see.

In reply to faffergotgunz:

I think there is a strong element of truth in this. I would like to see a change in attitude to cyclists also though.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


They (we) have a right to, though, don't they - isn't everyone allowed to use the road by right, not just those with wheels? The predominance of cars has just made is seem like no-one else should be on the road.

In reply to faffergotgunz:

It is certainly not a bad idea, whatever you are driving or riding, to assume that everyone else on the road is out to kill you. But in doing so also treat them as if they were your boss and be courteous, and let them do whatever idiocy they want to do. Adrenaline is a very, very bad thing to have flowing too much in a road traffic situation.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Pedestrians, cycles and horses use the road by right. Motor vehicles use it by licence. But that is no reason to be obstructive.

I'm going to quote that Honda advert again - don't we all just want to get somewhere?