|
||||||||
Plans to give cyclists right of way when drivers turn lwft |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,838
|
I give way to everyone, if a dangerous, or costly, situation may result, regardless of who is 'in the right'
Usually, I am a very generous and polite driver and aware people make mistakes. If I think someone, is being deliberately cheeky, I may play a bit of (safe) Chicken with them to prove a point, but I try not to do that too often. Usually in Jams, when everyone takes turns to merge or turn out of a junction then suddenly 4 Audi ( ) drivers don't want to take turns.I'll edge forward just a bit to frustrate those ones. I'll let two out, but the person behind me can let the next two out. I certainly don't do it with Cyclists and Pedestrians who may be in a world of their own, and any mis-calculation on my part, even at very low speeds, could be catastrophic. I don't engage in road-rage with miscreants either, but merely Tut. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: woking
Posts: 21,660
|
If everyone dressed appropriately, lit vehicles appropriately and obeyed rules of he road and had a more courtesious approach to getting around we wouldn't have half the problems on the roads we are seeing these days.
I've seen drivers forgetting to put head lights on because town centre is so brightly lit they didn't realise it was dark, cyclists in black with no lights at 8pm, various people walking wearing black coats in badly lit areas and a cyclist hit a parked car ended up spread eagled on the bonnet because he was head down cycling so fast he didn't see it ! All within the past three days
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
Quote:
Much simpler to make indicating a legal requirement for car drivers. That would help everybody - pedestrians and other drivers and not just cyclists.
Any cyclist trying to undertake a moving car already indicating that they are turning left is a bloody fool in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,450
|
I don't have a problem with checking mirrors. Those of us who have done their motorcycle test within the last 25 years will probably have been taught about doing a "life saver" which is a look back over the left shoulder before making a left turn. (Ditto right for right turns).
What very much concerns me is that the conversation on the news program made out that it would change the responsibility ofor who was to blame for an accident. Currently, if someone drives it to the back of your car then it's the other drivers fault. The same would be true if a motorbike zoomed up the nearside as you were making a left turn off the main carriageway on to a minor road. They've hit you from behind, so the fault is theirs. If these proposals were passed in to Law then that would all change. The driver executing the turn would be at fault. The rider colliding from behind would be blameless. I think that idea is fundamentally wrong. It goes against all the rest of the principles we have that govern road use. Another problem I have with these proposals is how exactly does one prove one way or the other that a driver/rider did or didn't check their mirrors? Even if they did, there are cases such as the HGV driver turning left on to a side street where the angle of the vehicle and it's mirror makes it impossible to see a rider approaching on the nearside. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 16,527
|
another law that won't be enforced as the police sit in their cars in traffic eating doughnuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
The driver executing the turn would be at fault. The rider colliding from behind would be blameless. I think that idea is fundamentally wrong. It goes against all the rest of the principles we have that govern road use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 288
|
If i crash trying to overtake a car who is turning right I take it that would be their fault too
The person coming up from behind has the best view of what is happening ahead - trying to blame the driver in this instance is stupid |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
Trying to pass at a junction is stupid in any case, whether they are indicating or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
Why not just enforce the current law for all road users not to pass another road user at or on the approach to a junction? If cyclists followed that rule then they would *never* be left-hooked.
A left-hook almost always occurs when a car overtakes a cyclist then immediately turns left. In other words, it's the driver that isn't following the rule. As for the proposal, in moving traffic it's already covered by the careless/dangerous driving laws that cover left hooks. If traffic is moving then you should not overtake then turn left unless there is sufficient room for you to complete both manoeuvres before the cyclist reaches the junction. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,350
|
Quote:
Why not just enforce the current law for all road users not to pass another road user at or on the approach to a junction? If cyclists followed that rule then they would *never* be left-hooked.
The other problem is people overtaking, then they rapidly brake and you have to avoid them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,838
|
That's Essex for you. Probably Gypsies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dark Satanic Mills
Posts: 4,815
|
Quote:
I'm struggling to understand the pedestrian comparison. If a pedestrian is turning left, he's likely to be on the pavement, so not an issue. If he's waiting to cross the road, then it's his responsibility to ensure there's no traffic turning left, not the drivers??
( |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
Well that's quite obviously bull excrement.
A left-hook almost always occurs when a car overtakes a cyclist then immediately turns left. In other words, it's the driver that isn't following the rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
So all those countless incidents of cyclists going up the inside of stationary large vehicles that are already indicating (and some even with audible warnings sounding) and getting squashed are just inventions of an anti-cycling establishment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 288
|
Quote:
Where did I mention "cyclists going up the inside of stationary large vehicles that are already indicating"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,350
|
Quote:
So all those countless incidents of cyclists going up the inside of stationary large vehicles that are already indicating (and some even with audible warnings sounding) and getting squashed are just inventions of an anti-cycling establishment?
"A 'left hook' involves a motor vehicle overtaking a person cycling, then turning left across the latter's path." |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
You may not have mentioned it but this law would
My post had sod all to do with stationary traffic. It was about left-hooks and the poster's apparent belief that they would be eradicated if cyclists stopped doing something that doesn't actually cause them.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,350
|
Quote:
Right, and?
My post had sod all to do with stationary traffic. It was about left-hooks and the poster's apparent belief that they would be eradicated if cyclists stopped doing something that doesn't actually cause them.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
That's not a left hook though
"A 'left hook' involves a motor vehicle overtaking a person cycling, then turning left across the latter's path." |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
Yes, I know what is euphemistically called a left hook, but I'd question how many of the collisions attributed to left hooks by Mark. and his ilk are in fact as a result of irresponsible behaviour by the cyclist undertaking (that's filtering in Lycra language) dangerously.
If you'd actually care to read my post, instead of just picking up on the fact it was posted by me, you'll see that I actually define a left-hook. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 154
|
Quote:
Yes, I know what is euphemistically called a left hook, but I'd question how many of the collisions attributed to left hooks by Mark. and his ilk are in fact as a result of irresponsible behaviour by the cyclist undertaking (that's filtering in Lycra language) dangerously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: colchester
Posts: 15,350
|
Quote:
Yes, I know what is euphemistically called a left hook, but I'd question how many of the collisions attributed to left hooks by Mark. and his ilk are in fact as a result of irresponsible behaviour by the cyclist undertaking (that's filtering in Lycra language) dangerously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
Typical victim-blaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 5,899
|
Quote:
It turns out I have an "ilk". How fun. Do I get a badge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
Yep, would go well with the chip on your shoulder.
![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:49.



) drivers don't want to take turns.