Primary position and the law

[Mike Hibbert]

Clive George wrote:
> "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.
>

But unless you are absolutely sure that no one will benefit then you
should always indicate. I'm not sure you could argue that it's not
helpful if a car was following you.

 

[Mike Hibbert]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> 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.
>

I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being pulled
for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker to
type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85" - my
bad!

 

[Clive George]

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

> But unless you are absolutely sure that no one will benefit then you
> should always indicate. I'm not sure you could argue that it's not helpful
> if a car was following you.

As others have mentioned, when on a bike, often it's actually more helpful
to not indicate - eg to prevent people from taking it as an indication to do
something silly.

So, for major -> minor T junction, car behind. If it's a little road which
will require me to swing out to make the turn, I will signal left and swing
right at the same time (obviously having ensured it's safe to do so). I
won't signal left then swing right - I don't want the car overtaking me when
I want to pull to the right.
Similar junction, car coming towards me. In this case, I may well
deliberately not signal - I don't want that car entering the junction at the
same time as me, thinking a left-turning clive takes up not very much road
space.
Similar junction, car behind, junction is big enough to make the turn
without slowing. What does the car behind gain from my left signal? What
help is it to them?

(I'll confess that since I don't do that type of junction with traffic
around very often, I'm not sure what I do normally).

cheers,
clive

 

[JohnB]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>
> 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...

What, and just repeat the debate on the instructors group? ;-)

John B

 

[Richard]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
> Could a helmet reduce the severity of a head injury?
> Yes. Possibly.

Could wearing an extra sweater reduce the severity of being shot in the
chest?
Yes. Possibly.

Would the reduction be significant in terms of the damage you took?
No.

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

False dichotomy.

R.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> 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 of s85 from <URL:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm>]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being
> pulled for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
> Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker to
> type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85" -
> my bad!

But it isn't even advice given by the highway code, section 85. The
highway code says exactly, and only, what I quoted: 'should', not
'must', and 'not when it will confuse others'. So it looks to me as if
you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.

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

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Mike Hibbert wrote:
> I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being pulled
> for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
> Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker to
> type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85" - my
> bad!

One odd thing are the rules for cyclists. Rule 57 does not mention
signalling when turning left, but rule 59 does when turning right.

Road junctions

57: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for
vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not
ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

58: Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room
to manoeuvre at corners. They may have to move over to the right before
turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the
rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted
to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

59: 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 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.

 

[Adrian Boliston]

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

> So, for major -> minor T junction, car behind. If it's a little road which
> will require me to swing out to make the turn, I will signal left and
> swing right at the same time (obviously having ensured it's safe to do
> so). I won't signal left then swing right - I don't want the car
> overtaking me when I want to pull to the right.
> Similar junction, car coming towards me. In this case, I may well
> deliberately not signal - I don't want that car entering the junction at
> the same time as me, thinking a left-turning clive takes up not very much
> road space.

My daily commute has a juction off a major road where I turn left onto a
minor road, and there are always vehicles coming the other way who also want
to turn into this same minor road. I used to indicate left till a van
coming the other way tried to turn into the side road the same time as me
and I was about 1" from being wiped out by the van, so I now avoid giving
*any remote hint* that I'm about to turn left as I nay not be so lucky next
time!

 

[Adrian Boliston]

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

> 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.

I find that if I'm cycling along the major road with a minor road juction on
my right, with a vehicle waiting to come out and go the same way as me, that
rather than pull out *before* or *after* me they tend to wait till I am
level with them and *then pull out* ! I mean why choose that exact
moment to pull out?

 

[Colin McKenzie]

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. 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 ...

But this is not good for your trainees. It's the job of the rear
instructor to block this manoeuvre if humanly possible, unless you're
positive the car can get all the way past in one go.

My second-worst trainee near-miss while snaking was when a car got
halfway past and moved in on a trainee in the middle of the snake.

FWIW the worst was turning right onto a main road when a car arrived
from our right at well over the speed limit about 2/3 of the way
through the snake. The road had looked clear for a very long way.

Colin McKenzie

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:33:55 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hmmm... We *could* have a fantastic debate about this...
>
>What, and just repeat the debate on the instructors group?

Indeed. And the same silly arguments could come up again.

 

[JohnB]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> 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. 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 ...
>
> But this is not good for your trainees. It's the job of the rear
> instructor to block this manoeuvre if humanly possible, unless you're
> positive the car can get all the way past in one go.
>
> My second-worst trainee near-miss while snaking was when a car got
> halfway past and moved in on a trainee in the middle of the snake.

We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
IMO 12 is far too many for safety.

John B

 

[JohnB]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:33:55 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Hmmm... We *could* have a fantastic debate about this...
> >
> >What, and just repeat the debate on the instructors group?
>
> Indeed. And the same silly arguments could come up again.

Aww, dunno. Could be fun?

Are you going to kick off ?

John B

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:40:29 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Are you going to kick off ?

I'll try to restrain myself.

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:28:19 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But this is not good for your trainees. It's the job of the rear
>instructor to block this manoeuvre if humanly possible, unless you're
>positive the car can get all the way past in one go.

I'd challenge any rear instructor to block all traffic on all the
London roads we cycle on. I was trained as an instructor on the same
roads, and the advanced instructors from CTUK couldn't manage it.

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:35:31 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
>IMO 12 is far too many for safety.

I don't think that safety is an issue for a long snake, 12 + 2/3 being
the maximum. The bigger the group the more visable they are. There
are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied. The way
we cope is to use a long run of road after the drill and to keep the
children moving. However, I am most used to working with two other
competent cyclists - one another an instructor. Now it's just two of
us it will be harder.

 

[Peter James]

JohnB wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>>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. 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 ...
>>
>>But this is not good for your trainees. It's the job of the rear
>>instructor to block this manoeuvre if humanly possible, unless you're
>>positive the car can get all the way past in one go.
>>
>>My second-worst trainee near-miss while snaking was when a car got
>>halfway past and moved in on a trainee in the middle of the snake.
>
>
> We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
> IMO 12 is far too many for safety.
>
> John B

It's also not too effective for training. IME, once you've got any more
than a couple of riders, each one is just following the rider in front -
they are not making their own independent decisions. And the snake
fundamentally affects how other road users behave, so there's no
opportunity for interaction between cyclist and driver.

--
Peter James
Ottawa, Ontario

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:13:54 -0400, Peter James <[email protected]>
wrote:

>JohnB wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>>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. 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 ...
>>>
>>>But this is not good for your trainees. It's the job of the rear
>>>instructor to block this manoeuvre if humanly possible, unless you're
>>>positive the car can get all the way past in one go.
>>>
>>>My second-worst trainee near-miss while snaking was when a car got
>>>halfway past and moved in on a trainee in the middle of the snake.
>>
>>
>> We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
>> IMO 12 is far too many for safety.
>>
>> John B
>
>It's also not too effective for training. IME, once you've got any more
>than a couple of riders, each one is just following the rider in front -
>they are not making their own independent decisions. And the snake
>fundamentally affects how other road users behave, so there's no
>opportunity for interaction between cyclist and driver.

The snake is used to move a group to a drill site, or from one drill
site to another. However, it is valuable road experience for
inexperienced road cyclists.

 

[p.k.]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
> The snake is used to move a group to a drill site, or from one drill
> site to another. However, it is valuable road experience for
> inexperienced road cyclists.

not in this case, the snake was being used to train re road positioning

pk

 

[ian henden]

"Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>
> I didn't describe that particularly well, but rest assured, it was not a
> safe place to overtake hence my lane positioning.
>
> 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..."
>
> Whilst not wishing to denigrate the CPT, that is a "how to not die, kids"
> initial training course.
>
> I could come up with a whole string of misdemeanours she had committed
> (overtaking on junction, overtaking approaching junction, not indicating,
> exceeding speed limit, leaving insufficient clearance to cyclist) with HC
> references, but that wasn't "her problem".
>
> 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.

Were you obstructing her? HC says something about keeping to the left......