• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Plans to give cyclists right of way when drivers turn lwft
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
RobinOfLoxley
08-12-2016
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.
molliepops
08-12-2016
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
Chris Frost
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Glyn W:
“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.”

Some sense here. Particularly the BIB.
Chris Frost
08-12-2016
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.
Pitman
08-12-2016
another law that won't be enforced as the police sit in their cars in traffic eating doughnuts
eggchen
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Chris Frost:
“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.”

I don't believe that it does. Cyclists, whether we like it or not, are road users, and common sense dictates that they ride on the road as close to the kerb as possible to ensure they don't hold up the flow of traffic, being slower than motor vehicles. It isn't beyond the wit of most drivers, who are the least vulnerable party, to ensure they aren't cutting up a cyclist when they make a left turn right across their path.
spanna5
08-12-2016
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
gomezz
08-12-2016
Trying to pass at a junction is stupid in any case, whether they are indicating or not.
Mark.
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by gomezz:
“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.”

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.

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.
tealady
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by gomezz:
“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.”

We have very different definitions of left hook.
The other problem is people overtaking, then they rapidly brake and you have to avoid them.
RobinOfLoxley
08-12-2016
That's Essex for you. Probably Gypsies.
TeeGee
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“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??
(”

Correct, but also IIRC the Highway Code (170) states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
Evo102
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“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.”

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?
Mark.
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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?”

Where did I mention "cyclists going up the inside of stationary large vehicles that are already indicating"?
spanna5
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Where did I mention "cyclists going up the inside of stationary large vehicles that are already indicating"?”

You may not have mentioned it but this law would
tealady
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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?”

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."
Mark.
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by spanna5:
“You may not have mentioned it but this law would”

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..
tealady
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“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..”

take that!
Evo102
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by tealady:
“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."”

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.
Mark.
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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.”

It turns out I have an "ilk". How fun. Do I get a badge?

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.
Bej
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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.”

Typical victim-blaming.
tealady
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“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.”

Well, if you trail back you can see we were both responding to gomezz strange claim of "they would *never* be left-hooked".
Evo102
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Bej:
“Typical victim-blaming.”

If the victim is the one at fault then what is wrong with stating that?
Evo102
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“It turns out I have an "ilk". How fun. Do I get a badge?”

Yep, would go well with the chip on your shoulder.
Mark.
08-12-2016
Originally Posted by Evo102:
“Yep, would go well with the chip on your shoulder.”

Strange that I'm the one with the chip, yet it's you who can't seem to pass a thread about cyclists without sniping about them in some way (including the obligatory mention of lycra).
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map