Primary position and the law

[Peter Clinch]

Fred wrote:

> I think that's pretty clear, that until now no one here has quoted that
> section.

And? So it would be all right to break it if you didn't know about it?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:02:26 +0100, Fred <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I had hope that expectation of drivers to obey the HC would be reflected by
> cyclists.

Cyclists who base their cycling on expecting motorists to obey the
highway code don't live as long as those that don't.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:50:14 +0100, Fred <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> No a good cyclist will tell others what he's doing. Similarly a good driver
> would give sufficient room. Or if there's insufficient room to have the
> patience to wait.

So you're claiming a cyclist should bet his/her life on the chance
that the driver behind is a good driver?
That this is preferable to delaying the driver by about 10 seconds.

Idiot.

Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Fred
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Brendan Halpin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Fred" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> He said he was also turning left. I assume he signalled to do so?
>>
>> If I'm turning left I'm generally very reluctant to signal so if
>> there is a car behind -- you can never tell if it is driven
>> by a mental defective who'll take the signal as an invitation to
>> turn left around me.
>
> I had hope that expectation of drivers to obey the HC would be
> reflected by cyclists.
>
> I feel there is nothing wrong in overtaking when turning left as long
> as the width of the road and visibility permit it.

Then I suggest it's about time you took some driving lessons.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

 

[Tony Raven]

Fred wrote:
>
> I had hope that expectation of drivers to obey the HC would be reflected by
> cyclists.
>

You are starting to get it! Cyclists' expectations of drivers obeying
the HC are that they don't and we act accordingly. Are cyclists making
a reasonable assumption? Well given that Home Office figures for 2003
are 469 motoring offences per 1000 registered cars and that most
motorists admit to breaking the speed limit I guess we are right in
assuming that drivers don't obey the HC.



--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:54:31 +0100, the person
known to the court as Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in
Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>I got shouted at yesterday by a young woman in a Ka who was shocked to
>find me riding in the middle of my lane whilst trying to overtake me as
>we were both negotiating a left-hand junction in a 30mph zone with more
>junctions ahead.

Funnily [FSVO] enough, the last time I was harassed for riding in the
primary position through a pinch point, it was a woman in a Ford
Kack...

>Needless to say, she did still overtake me, and then turned up a
>cul-de-sac (at over 30mph, cutting over the lines, no indicators). I
>followed her to ask what her problem was (fairly politely), and she
>informed me that I should stick within an imaginary line 1m from the
>kerb. Her authority?
>"There's this thing called the Cycling Proficiency Test..."

My son has done the equivalent recently, and no such advice was
included (thankfully, as it would have been Complete Bollocks [tm])

>Is there anything in law that *explicitly* permits or encourages
>cyclists to control the traffic through lane positioning where
>appropriate? I have a copy of Cyclecraft on order, but that's just
>RoSPA-approved advice, I understand.

Nothing explicitly permitting it, but then nothing against either.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Mike Hibbert]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>> No a good cyclist will tell others what he's doing. Similarly a good
>> driver would give sufficient room. Or if there's insufficient room to
>> have the patience to wait.
>
>
> The point you missed being that not every driver is a good one, and a
> cyclist doesn't know if a driver behind is good or bad. So there is the
> choice of assuming one or the other. If it's a false negative then the
> driver is delayed by a few seconds, if it's a false positive then the
> cyclise gets a free trip to A&E.
>
> Pretty bloody stupid gambling your life against a few seconds delay for
> someone else. Which is why people choose not to do it.
>
> Pete.

Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that
wants to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little
old lady that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you
hit and injured her, then your arguement against signalling isn't very
strong.

Or is it just car drivers that make mistakes?

 

[Clive George]

"Mike Hibbert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> No a good cyclist will tell others what he's doing. Similarly a good
>>> driver would give sufficient room. Or if there's insufficient room to
>>> have the patience to wait.
>>
>>
>> The point you missed being that not every driver is a good one, and a
>> cyclist doesn't know if a driver behind is good or bad. So there is the
>> choice of assuming one or the other. If it's a false negative then the
>> driver is delayed by a few seconds, if it's a false positive then the
>> cyclise gets a free trip to A&E.
>>
>> Pretty bloody stupid gambling your life against a few seconds delay for
>> someone else. Which is why people choose not to do it.
>>
>> Pete.
>
> Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
> statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that wants
> to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little old lady
> that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you hit and
> injured her, then your arguement against signalling isn't very strong.

The OP was talking about emerging from the junction, ie minor to major
rather than the major to minor you're talking about. So none of your
examples apply.

FWIW even if I am signalling left to go into a minor road, the little old
lady is fully entitled to cross the road. Hitting her would be wrong
irrespective of what signal I used.

cheers,
clive

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:45:18 GMT,
Mike Hibbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
> statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that
> wants to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little
Do you cycle much? There are three cases - 1 - you are sufficiently far
from the junction that the car can (and will) pull out. Here
sufficiently far includes being close enough that, at the very least,
you will have to stop pedalling in order to avoid hitting the car if you
are going straight on.

2 - you are so close to the junction that you are turning into that you
have already had to put your hand back on the bars for the turn and
couldn't reasonably have given the car a signal that the driver would
have seen.

3 - You and the car are positioned just about correctly for your signal
to be useful to the car. There are two sub cases here
a) the car driver doesn't even start to look to see if they can pull
into the main road until they are on top of the junction - this reverts
to 2

b) (very rarely) the driver does look, does see you, but, very sensibly,
still slows down/waits until they are sure your signal really does mean
you are turning left.



> old lady that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you
You can look it up but there is a highway code rule "You MUST give way
to pedestrians crossing a road you are turning into"


There is also a problem that drivers _MUST_ get infront of bikes. This
can mean that the car coming from the other direction will race to turn
right infront of you, often without any indication at all. While not
related to signalling, this bizarre behaviour of drivers is particularly
apparent when the driver is turning right onto the major road and
wanting to travel in the same direction as you are already going. When
the driver sees the cyclist coming along the major route and thinks "I'm
going to be behind a cyclist" they immediately pull out to turn right
irrespective of the traffic coming from their right.

Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[JohnB]

Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
> I got shouted at yesterday by a young woman in a Ka who was shocked to
> find me riding in the middle of my lane whilst trying to overtake me as

> "There's this thing called the Cycling Proficiency Test..."

No there isn't. It has been replaced by the National Standards for Cycle Training.

> Whilst not wishing to denigrate the CPT, that is a "how to not die,
> kids" initial training course.

So true.

> Is there anything in law that *explicitly* permits or encourages
> cyclists to control the traffic through lane positioning where
> appropriate? I have a copy of Cyclecraft on order, but that's just
> RoSPA-approved advice, I understand.

Cyclecraft is a Stationery Office publication, and whilst not law it is
the recommended course book for the National Cyclist Training Standard.
These Standards are approved by the Dept for Transport, Dept of Health,
ROSPA, CTC, LARSOA (road safety officers association) and many other bodies.

A major focus of Cyclecraft relates to riding in the primary position as
a safety exercise, and as such the principles of correct road
positioning are taught when delivering professional cycle training.

Yestrday i was teaching two youngsters the correct position to take when
going through a central island traffic calming farcility. The impatient
driver behind began overtaking, then when confronted with the bollard as
the riders held their line, decided to go the wrong side of it. The two
tailgaters naturally followed.
I suspect your driver was like most motorists, - they abide by the HC
rule that thou must always overtake a cyclist - whatever.

John B
http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/

 

[Colin McKenzie]

JohnB wrote:

> Yestrday i was teaching two youngsters the correct position to take when
> going through a central island traffic calming farcility. The impatient
> driver behind began overtaking, then when confronted with the bollard as
> the riders held their line, decided to go the wrong side of it.

Yes, I get a lot of this at the two road narrowings near my house.
Despite the fact it's downhill and I'm usually doing around 25mph.

I don't really mind - it puts them firmly in the wrong AND a long way
from me.

> I suspect your driver was like most motorists, - they abide by the HC
> rule that thou must always overtake a cyclist - whatever.

Colin McKenzie

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:02:34 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem with being a troll is that people can't tell when you are
>being serious.Then they don't bother replying to you.

I wouldn't afford you the label of troll.

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:52:14 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yestrday i was teaching two youngsters the correct position to take when
>going through a central island traffic calming farcility. The impatient
>driver behind began overtaking, then when confronted with the bollard as
>the riders held their line, decided to go the wrong side of it. The two
>tailgaters naturally followed.

Yesterday | was teaching ten youngsters road positioning (a car door's
width from parked cars). I was delighted at how courteous and patient
the drivers were: the majority are. A very few feel the need to
overtake a line of twelve cyclists when we are moving from one drill
site to another. They end up feeling stupid when they have to cut
into the snake because they cannot overtake the lot before an oncoming
vehicle. Instructors fore and aft always give a thank you wave
regardless of the behaviour of the driver.

 

[JohnB]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:

> Yesterday | was teaching ten youngsters road positioning (a car door's
> width from parked cars). I was delighted at how courteous and patient
> the drivers were: the majority are.

The majority are - *especially* when they see an instructor and trainees
all donned up in reflectives.

Unfortunately it only takes one idiot....

> Instructors fore and aft always give a thank you wave
> regardless of the behaviour of the driver.

Courtesy costs nothing and can have benefits later on.

John B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Mike Hibbert wrote:

> Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
> statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that
> wants to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little
> old lady that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you
> hit and injured her, then your arguement against signalling isn't very
> strong.

Indeed the case. So what you do is you make a judgment on the
circumstances at the time. But your #1 is maximising safety, especially
your own, and if that is to be achieved by not signalling, you don't
signal. FWIW I usually do, but not always.

> Or is it just car drivers that make mistakes?

Not at all, but when they do they make a mistake in a tonne and a half
of steel typically moving at speeds that can get people killed.
Pedestrians and cyclists don't generally get people dead, motorists get
over 3,000 folk a year dead. That's quite a significant difference in
the outcome for mistakes.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:28:35 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>The majority are - *especially* when they see an instructor and trainees
>all donned up in reflectives.

Hmmm... We *could* have a fantastic debate about this...

I had my favourite little safety chat with a new group of trainees
this afternoon:

Will a helmet make you any less likely to fall off your bike?
No.
Will a helmet make it less likely for a car to hit you?
No.
Will a helmet protect your knee in the event of a crash?
No.
Could a helmet reduce the severity of a head injury?
Yes. Possibly.

Will a hi-vis make you less likely to fall off your bike?
No.
Will a hi-vis make it less likely for a car to hit you?
Yes.
Will a hi-vis protect your knee in the event of a crash?
No.
Could a hi-vis reduce the severity of a head injury?
No.

What do *you* think is a better bit of safety equipment, a hi-vis
costing £3.49 or a Helmet costing £20?
Discussion follows.

Helmets and hi-vis are compulsory for cycle training at my school. I'd
rather they be compulsory than cycle training not take place.

 

[Mike Hibbert]

Clive George wrote:
> "Mike Hibbert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>>Fred wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No a good cyclist will tell others what he's doing. Similarly a good
>>>>driver would give sufficient room. Or if there's insufficient room to
>>>>have the patience to wait.
>>>
>>>
>>>The point you missed being that not every driver is a good one, and a
>>>cyclist doesn't know if a driver behind is good or bad. So there is the
>>>choice of assuming one or the other. If it's a false negative then the
>>>driver is delayed by a few seconds, if it's a false positive then the
>>>cyclise gets a free trip to A&E.
>>>
>>>Pretty bloody stupid gambling your life against a few seconds delay for
>>>someone else. Which is why people choose not to do it.
>>>
>>>Pete.
>>
>>Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
>>statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that wants
>>to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little old lady
>>that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you hit and
>>injured her, then your arguement against signalling isn't very strong.
>
>
> The OP was talking about emerging from the junction, ie minor to major
> rather than the major to minor you're talking about. So none of your
> examples apply.
>
> FWIW even if I am signalling left to go into a minor road, the little old
> lady is fully entitled to cross the road. Hitting her would be wrong
> irrespective of what signal I used.
>

But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
the road, thus making it safer all round.

 

[Mike Hibbert]

Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:45:18 GMT,
> Mike Hibbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Signalling isn't just for the car behind though. It's meant to be a
>>statement of intent for ALL other road users, including the car that
>>wants to pull out of the road you are turning left into, and the little
>
> Do you cycle much?

Yes a fair bit, although I have no idea why you would think that is
relevent. I'm a cyclist, a motorcyclist, and a IAM driver, I have fair
understanding of the rules of the road and my observation is good.

There are three cases - 1 - you are sufficiently far
> from the junction that the car can (and will) pull out. Here
> sufficiently far includes being close enough that, at the very least,
> you will have to stop pedalling in order to avoid hitting the car if you
> are going straight on.
>
> 2 - you are so close to the junction that you are turning into that you
> have already had to put your hand back on the bars for the turn and
> couldn't reasonably have given the car a signal that the driver would
> have seen.
>
> 3 - You and the car are positioned just about correctly for your signal
> to be useful to the car. There are two sub cases here
> a) the car driver doesn't even start to look to see if they can pull
> into the main road until they are on top of the junction - this reverts
> to 2
>
> b) (very rarely) the driver does look, does see you, but, very sensibly,
> still slows down/waits until they are sure your signal really does mean
> you are turning left.

I do take your point(s), but it is the law and you seem to want to pick
and choose which bits apply to cycists.
>
>
>>old lady that is about to cross the road that you turn left into. If you
>
> You can look it up but there is a highway code rule "You MUST give way
> to pedestrians crossing a road you are turning into"
>

Yes I'm aware of that, is it anywhere near the section that states you
should indiacte you intention when turning?

I wasn't implying that you can legally run her over, but at least give
her the opportunity to see what you intend to do!

 

[Clive George]

"Mike Hibbert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> FWIW even if I am signalling left to go into a minor road, the little old
>> lady is fully entitled to cross the road. Hitting her would be wrong
>> irrespective of what signal I used.
>>
>
> But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
> the road, thus making it safer all round.

If I don't signal, she's more likely to cross the road, which means she
hasn't been held up unnecessarily. Either way I'm not going to hit her.

You mentioned being IAM in another post - so you do know about not
indicating unless it's helpful.

clive

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
('[email protected]') wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote:
>
[snip: reasons why you might not signal left before turning]
>
> I do take your point(s), but it is the law and you seem to want to pick
> and choose which bits apply to cycists.

Errrmmm... /what/, exactly, are you saying 'is the law', and precisely
what piece of legislation /requires/ any road user to make any signal?

The Highway Code says:

(quote from <URL:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm>)
"85: Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see
Signals to other road users section), of your intended actions. You
should

* give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not
misleading to signal at that time

* use them, if necessary, 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."
(end of quote)

Note the use of 'should' and 'if necessary' and the significant absence
of the word 'MUST'; note also 'make sure your signals will not confuse
others'. Part of the argument against signalling left when cycling is
that it tends to lead motorists to believe it is safe to overtake during
the manoeuvre, and I think it's reasonable to describe that as
'confusion'. But I admit I am not a member of the Institute of Advanced
Motorists, and am thus less well informed on this subject than you. So
please, do enlighten me: which part of cyclists signalling a left turn
'is the law'?

Disclaimer: I normally signal left turns when in light traffic, sometimes
in heavier traffic.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error