Primary position and the law

[Brendan Halpin]

"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.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[[email protected]]

Fred wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Fred wrote:
> >
> >> As a cyclist and a motorist, I do try to keep to the left as much as
> >> possible with an exception where there is an artificial constriction in
> >> the road, such as an island.
> >
> > You may well do, but you're not doing yourself any favours on many
> > occasions, as the instruction manuals for roadcraft will tell you.
> >
> >> Therefore I see cycling in the middle of a lane seems perhaps a little
> >> antisocial.
> >
> > Why? Overtaking should be done according to HC Rule 139 which would put
> > you well over in any case. A cycle out there just forces you to overtake
> > /as you should be doing anyway/.
> >
> > I'd sooner be "antisocial" in such a way than in A&E or the morgue, which
> > would quite possibly be the consequence of riding in the gutter.
> >
> > Pete.
>
> HC rule 139 is not clear and very unhelpful. Personally I would generally
> give more clearance to a cyclist than a car.
>
> Yes I accept that seemingly antisocial behaviour is acceptable in many
> instances to reduce risk. However the story given by the OP doesn't suggest
> this was one of them.

HC142 and 143 were much more unequivocally contravened by the Ka driver
based on the opening sentence of the OP. They are "Do Nots" rather
than "should nots" although they are not "Must Nots"

bestw ishes
james

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

elyob wrote:
> "Nobody Here" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> elyob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, we had words. I suggested that she ought to rethink her
>>> current situation. She's arguing with a 6+ft, 16 stone male adult
>>> who is wearing a
>>> balaclava and who has his lumicycles currently blinding her. FFS,
>>> did she think she was made of metal or something? This is South
>>> London, she really
>>> needs to consider her well being, and arguning in the street with
>>> someone who is wearing a balaclava and twice the size of her isn't
>>> the brightest of
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Anyway, we had words. I suggested that he ought to rethink his
>> current situation. He's arguing with a drier of a 1 and a half ton
>> vehicle painted
>> in black who has his high beams currently blinding him. FFS, does
>> he hink he was made of metal or something? This is the road, he
>> really needs to consider his well being, and arguing in the street
>> with someone who is driving a 4x4 and 10 times the size of him isn't
>> the brightest of ideas.
>
> Except she'd gotten out of the vehicle as she had parked up. It'd
> still be hard to mow down a cyclist if he/she knew what you were
> doing. I had this pleasant experience on Danebury Avenue. Some wide
> boy trying to run me over, even chasing me the wrong side of some
> bollards. Didn't mount the kerb after me though.

Still, you threatened her with percieved impunity because you were bigger
than her. I can see Nobody Here's point.

--
Ambrose

 

[iakobski]

I'm having trouble with your train of thought here.

Are you saying that it is safe for a car to overtake while turning
left, providing the cyclist is also turning left?

I really, really hope you don't do that in your car.

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Fred wrote:
> "iakobski" <[email protected]> wrote

>>The car behind him was turning left - are you really suggesting it
>>would be appropriate to keep well over to the left and allow the car
>>behind to overtake while negotiating the junction?
>>
> He said he was also turning left. I assume he signalled to do so?

Yes, we were both making the left turn. I had signalled up to the point
where I really needed both hands on the bars to make the turn, which is
quite a fast one.

You'll have to trust me: it's not a safe place for a car to overtake.
I'm not a compulsive anti-social lane-blocker.

And to come back on elyob's post, I must insist that the Ka is a fine
vehicle, although I should declare a professional interest in the shape
of a blue oval...

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
> Yes, we were both making the left turn. I had signalled up to the point
> where I really needed both hands on the bars to make the turn, which is
> quite a fast one.

This is one reason I have pretty much given up signalling left turns
unless there are peds in view. It just encourages cars to cut you up in
the way you describe.

--chris

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> As a cyclist and a motorist, I do try to keep to the left as much as
> possible with an exception where there is an artificial constriction in
> the
> road, such as an island. Therefore I see cycling in the middle of a
> lane
> seems perhaps a little antisocial.

Maintaining safe space is not 'a little antisocial', it's staying alive.
Keeping to the left is very much more risky. If you wish to commit
suicide, might I suggest the public highway is not an appropriate place?
Stay out in the primary position unless you are absolutely sure it's
safe to move in to the secondary. It isn't called the 'primary riding
position' for nothing, you know.

> We'll have to take your word it was
> an appropriate line to take.

Except in exceptional circumstances, it's the only appropriate line to
take.

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

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

 

[Fred]

"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.
>
> Brendan
> --

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.

 

[wafflycat]

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

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

As a pedestrian, cyclist and I driver I can say that yes, I expect drivers
to obey the HC. Especially as when in driving mode mistakes can all too
often prove fatal to third parties...



> I feel there is nothing wrong in overtaking when turning left as long as
> the width of the road and visibility permit it.

Please do not drive anywhere near me.

Cheers, helen s

 

[iakobski]

I agree. If I'm intending to turn left, and there's a car behind me I
would never indicate left. If there's no car behind me, I'll indicate
for the benefit of cars waiting to pull out or any other road users who
might benefit

 

[iakobski]

Try HC 158: Do not overtake just before turning left.

Is that not clear enough? Or should it be changed just for the
hard-of-thinking to say "do not overtake just before turning left or in
the middle of turning left"?

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

elyob wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> elyob wrote:
>>> "Nobody Here" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> elyob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, we had words. I suggested that she ought to rethink her
>>>>> current situation. She's arguing with a 6+ft, 16 stone male adult
>>>>> who is wearing a
>>>>> balaclava and who has his lumicycles currently blinding her. FFS,
>>>>> did she think she was made of metal or something? This is South
>>>>> London, she really
>>>>> needs to consider her well being, and arguning in the street with
>>>>> someone who is wearing a balaclava and twice the size of her isn't
>>>>> the brightest of
>>>>> ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, we had words. I suggested that he ought to rethink his
>>>> current situation. He's arguing with a drier of a 1 and a half ton
>>>> vehicle painted
>>>> in black who has his high beams currently blinding him. FFS, does
>>>> he hink he was made of metal or something? This is the road, he
>>>> really needs to consider his well being, and arguing in the street
>>>> with someone who is driving a 4x4 and 10 times the size of him
>>>> isn't the brightest of ideas.
>>>
>>> Except she'd gotten out of the vehicle as she had parked up. It'd
>>> still be hard to mow down a cyclist if he/she knew what you were
>>> doing. I had this pleasant experience on Danebury Avenue. Some wide
>>> boy trying to run me over, even chasing me the wrong side of some
>>> bollards. Didn't mount the kerb after me though.
>>
>> Still, you threatened her with percieved impunity because you were
>> bigger than her. I can see Nobody Here's point.
>
> No, I was speaking to her about her driving, she was ranting and
> screaming at me. I just wanted to make her aware that she could have
> killed me. She carried on and started threatening getting her husband
> etc etc .. I just said not to go down that route as I only wanted to
> suggest she please look out for cyclists more, if she wanted to
> threaten me the odds weren't good.
>
> Nobody's point was that the car could kill me. It'd already tried
> that and failed.

Sorry, that wasn't how I read it.

--
Ambrose

 

[elyob]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sorry, that wasn't how I read it.

In South London, I wouldn't get in a slanging match with someone my size, or
smaller in fact. Chance of a knife being pulled is very high.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

elyob wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Sorry, that wasn't how I read it.
>
> In South London, I wouldn't get in a slanging match with someone my
> size, or smaller in fact. Chance of a knife being pulled is very high.

I wouldn't do it anywhere. Not just because of the very small chance of
someone my size or smaller not being an old lady, either. (Actually, I'm
only a little smaller than average.)

--
Ambrose

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> > I had hope that expectation of drivers to obey the HC would be reflected by
> > cyclists.
>
> The point of the Highway Code is primarily safety. Where our safety is
> actually reduced by following the letter of the rules, then the spirit
> should take precedence.
> I note that "Cyclecraft" is published by the same people as The Highway
> Code, and is the "official" book on How To Do It Properly for road using
> cyclists.
>
> > I feel there is nothing wrong in overtaking when turning left as long as the
> > width of the road and visibility permit it.
>
> Which is a judgment which many of us know some drivers get wrong.

I am surprised by the responses to Fred. I cannot conceive of a
situation when Fred's qualifying condition could be fulfilled without a
whole load of extra assumptions about how the cyclist is going to
proceed. Even if you assume that it is possible that a junction exists
that does not rule this out because of sightlines, lane widths etc
(which rules out just about all of them) and you rule out the cyclist
performing a manouvre that is either illegal, against highway code
advice or even not common practice amongst vehicular traffic I still
cannot think of a situation in it would be possible. For the purposes
of this discussion I am taking "permit" to mean that the manouvre could
be attempted with a reasonable safety margin for both parties

best wishes
james

 

[[email protected]]

Fred wrote:
[lots of snip]
Fred:
> >> HC rule 139 is not clear and very unhelpful. Personally I would
> >> generally
> >> give more clearance to a cyclist than a car.
> >>
> >> Yes I accept that seemingly antisocial behaviour is acceptable in many
> >> instances to reduce risk. However the story given by the OP doesn't
> >> suggest
> >> this was one of them.
james
> > HC142 and 143 were much more unequivocally contravened by the Ka driver
> > based on the opening sentence of the OP. They are "Do Nots" rather
> > than "should nots" although they are not "Must Nots"
Fred
> These "do nots" are when there is a conflict of intended direction or where
> there is any doubt.

Your assertion is not clear enough to describe exactly how it is wrong,
but it is certainly incorrect

best wishes
james

 

[Tony Raven]

Fred wrote:
>
> We'll have to take your word it was an
> appropriate line to take.
>

Either that or the government published advice for cyclists in Cyclecraft.

--
Tony

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

 

[Fred]

"iakobski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> I feel there is nothing wrong in overtaking when turning left as long as
>>> the
> width of the road and visibility permit it.
>
> No matter how wide the road is, the VAST majority of drivers will make
> a left turn smooth by going close to the kerb/edge at the bend. Maybe
> you're a driver who manages to swing wide, but how is a cyclist
> supposed to distinguish between you and the 99.9% of drivers who take a
> bend in the usual manner?
>
> Answer: they can't, so to avoid being clipped or pushed into the gutter
> any good cyclist will either block the lane or not indicate left (or
> both)
>

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.

 

[Fred]

"iakobski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Try HC 158: Do not overtake just before turning left.
>

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

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.
--
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/