Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: BashfulAnthony on June 18, 2015, 07:54:29 PM
-
I'm sure that certain members of the Forum would be delighted to see that Boris Johnson, MP, Mayor of London, prospective Tory Leader, possible future Prime Minister, is as foul-mouthed as they are.
"Mayor of London Boris Johnson had a foul-mouthed exchange with a taxi driver in north London
First published 05:35 Thursday 18 June 2015 in National News
© by Press Association 2014
Mr Johnson has been caught on film telling the black-cab driver to "f*** off and die".
The 10-second video, obtained by the Sun and Daily Mail, shows Mr Johnson, recently elected as Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, being harrangued by the driver while cycling in Islington, north London.
Captured by a by-stander, the film shows the driver leaning out of his window and shouting: "You are one of them mate, that's what you are. One of them."
Mr Johnson then replies: "Why don't you f*** off and die - and not in that order." As he drives away, the cab driver shouts: "Yeah b******s, hope you die."
The incident reportedly took place as Mr Johnson was cycling home on June 5 at around 12.20am in St John's Street, Islington."
-
Isn't the issue that he tokd someone that he wished them dead?
-
While I am delighted by the fact that Mr Johnson swears as much as ordinary, normal, everyday people do, I'm less sanguine about his intellectual capacities if he tells a hapless taxi driver to fuck off and die - and not in that order since it can only be done the one way round.
Silly man.
-
So what, I say.
-
Isn't the issue that he tokd someone that he wished them dead?
No, because it's only magical thinking (of the "lucky pants/socks" variety, which I'd hoped we had grown out of by now and know that many haven't) which thinks that there's some sort of superstitious link between wishing someone you despise to be dead and their dying. (I have a personal anecdote about this, which I won't relate as it's rather lame and of no interest to anyone but myself).
-
Isn't the issue that he tokd someone that he wished them dead?
No, because it's only magical thinking (of the "lucky pants/socks" variety, which I'd hoped we had grown out of by now and know that many haven't) which thinks that there's some sort of superstitious link between wishing someone you despise to be dead and their dying. (I have a personal anecdote about this, which I won't relate as it's rather lame and of no interest to anyone but myself).
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing. I didn't mean I thought that Boris was some kind of wizard.
-
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing.
Sure.
Why?
-
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing.
Sure.
Why?
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
-
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing.
Sure.
Why?
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
-
While I am delighted by the fact that Mr Johnson swears as much as ordinary, normal, everyday people do, I'm less sanguine about his intellectual capacities if he tells a hapless taxi driver to fuck off and die - and not in that order since it can only be done the one way round.
Silly man.
I have some sympathy with him. He was cycling home and then a taxi driver decided to have it out with him, apparently.
-
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing.
Sure.
Why?
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
Of course not. But I've told my phone to fuck off. I don't think I can ever recall telling anyone I'd wish they'd die. Not because of any magical thinking, but because it is hurtful and unnecessary.
-
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
It's a mystery to me, I tell you, a mystery. Intent without action amounts to precisely and equally arse-all. I intend to kill you, but I won't do anything about it and I intend to kill you, and here is my claw hammer and here is the back of your skull, and ooh, doesn't it make a lovely noise and a satisfying squelch as it goes in aren't equivalent.
This is the first and almost certainly the last time I will have had a philosophical discussion based on the actions or even the existence of Boris Johnson.
-
While I am delighted by the fact that Mr Johnson swears as much as ordinary, normal, everyday people do, I'm less sanguine about his intellectual capacities if he tells a hapless taxi driver to fuck off and die - and not in that order since it can only be done the one way round.
Silly man.
I have some sympathy with him. He was cycling home and then a taxi driver decided to have it out with him, apparently.
I think it pretty unusual for someone so high profile to put himself in the public firing line as Boris does, to be fair.
-
Because it has more intent behind
Do you honestly think that telling somebody to "fuck off and die" means you really want them dead? It's an expression that means "go away now".
-
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
It's a mystery to me, I tell you, a mystery. Intent without action amounts to precisely and equally arse-all. I intend to kill you, but I won't do anything about it and I intend to kill you, and here is my claw hammer and here is the back of your skull, and ooh, doesn't it make a lovely noise and a satisfying squelch as it goes in aren't equivalent.
This is the first and almost certainly the last time I will have had a philosophical discussion based on the actions or even the existence of Boris Johnson.
Nooooo, telling someone that you wish they'd die is that you wish that they were dead and unable to be with their families and loved ones and that you want them all to suffer and grieve. It doesn't mean you think you've put a curse on them.
Mind you, I happily tear photos up.
-
I meant that I find that more offensive than the swearing.
Sure.
Why?
Because it has more intent behind it. I've told someone to fuck off when they've made me laugh - it's banter. Telling someone you want them to die is never banter.
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
Of course not. But I've told my phone to fuck off. I don't think I can ever recall telling anyone I'd wish they'd die. Not because of any magical thinking, but because it is hurtful and unnecessary.
"Unnecessary" - which brings us back to the real point: I agree it was unnecessary, so shouldn't someone of such a high profile have been sufficiently aware of that to curb his temper/vitriol, or whatever prompted him?
-
Of course not. But I've told my phone to fuck off.
Ahhhhh ... another Samsung Galaxy S4 owner, then.
I don't think I can ever recall telling anyone I'd wish they'd die. Not because of any magical thinking, but because it is hurtful and unnecessary.
Unnecessary I will give you - but then most things most people do in most ways in most places most of the time are. It's only hurtful until and unless you have some element of magical thinking involved, surely. As it seems to me.
-
Mind you, I happily tear photos up.
I'm more prey to magical thinking than you are, then. That's something I've never done and would never, ever do :( I've seen people do it in front of me and have been absolutely ceiling-wallpaper horrified :-\
-
Mind you, I happily tear photos up.
I'm more prey to magical thinking than you are, then. That's something I've never done and would never, ever do :(
They were mostly of my wedding day. :-X
-
Black cab drivers are no Angels. Well done Boris.
-
Black cab drivers are no Angels. Well done Boris.
But they've got a genuine gripe, and all the cabbie said was, "you are one of them," whatever that meant.
-
Black cab drivers are no Angels. Well done Boris.
But they've got a genuine gripe, and all the cabbie said was, "you are one of them," whatever that meant.
Yeah but when you are driving around London you notice how rude these drivers are with no road sense and breaking every motoring law. You will get a mouth ful if you try doing the same.
-
Black cab drivers are no Angels. Well done Boris.
But they've got a genuine gripe, and all the cabbie said was, "you are one of them," whatever that meant.
Yeah but when you are driving around London you notice how rude these drivers are with no road sense and breaking every motoring law. You will get a mouth ful if you try doing the same.
I'm not defending cabbies: I've had experience of their mouths. But should Boris, supposedly a pillar of the Establishment, have sunk to the cabby's level? Not that the cabby's remark was that awful, really.
-
But should Boris, supposedly a pillar of the Establishment, have sunk to the cabby's level?
No he shouldn't have. However in this scenario I'm inclined to cut hims some slack.
-
But should Boris, supposedly a pillar of the Establishment, have sunk to the cabby's level?
No he shouldn't have. However in this scenario I'm inclined to cut hims some slack.
I think you're being generous to him.
Apart from the language aspect, to get into an altercationafter midnight in a London street, only on a push bike, was a pretty stupid move.
-
I'm sure that certain members of the Forum would be delighted to see that Boris Johnson, MP, Mayor of London, prospective Tory Leader, possible future Prime Minister, is as foul-mouthed as they are.
"Mayor of London Boris Johnson had a foul-mouthed exchange with a taxi driver in north London
First published 05:35 Thursday 18 June 2015 in National News
© by Press Association 2014
Mr Johnson has been caught on film telling the black-cab driver to "f*** off and die".
The 10-second video, obtained by the Sun and Daily Mail, shows Mr Johnson, recently elected as Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, being harrangued by the driver while cycling in Islington, north London.
Captured by a by-stander, the film shows the driver leaning out of his window and shouting: "You are one of them mate, that's what you are. One of them."
Mr Johnson then replies: "Why don't you f*** off and die - and not in that order." As he drives away, the cab driver shouts: "Yeah b******s, hope you die."
The incident reportedly took place as Mr Johnson was cycling home on June 5 at around 12.20am in St John's Street, Islington."
Let's face it... had be been plain old Boris the bin man would it have got in the papers? The guy is human being an MP does not make him a saint or perfect...
-
But should Boris, supposedly a pillar of the Establishment, have sunk to the cabby's level?
No he shouldn't have. However in this scenario I'm inclined to cut hims some slack.
Me too.
-
My cabbie mate has huge problems with cyclists in the city, sometimes they hang on to his cab for a tow and his paintwork gets scratched regularly. Equally though I think Boris is to be applauded for putting himself in the firing line day in day out, among the people he represents. I don't think it a big deal but as I said up BA at the start I find that if anything is offensive it is the sentiment rather than the language.
But no, no big deal.
-
I would have done exactly the same as Boris. "Fuck off, pal!" or something like that. We all have to put up with dickheads on the road, even politicians.
-
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs. Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.
-
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs. Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.
What you do is:
1 Go to YouTube
2 In the search box insert " Boris"
3 Press return.
If that is too complicated then try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=060nY-sQ1eo (ftp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=060nY-sQ1eo)
Having watched the 5 second or so exchange I think it is all a grossly inflated non-event.
-
Having watched the 5 second or so exchange I think it is all a grossly inflated non-event.
Likewise. A chlidish display by both taxi-driver and Boris.
-
Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.
Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs. Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.
www.theguardian.com/.../boris-johnson-filmed-swearing-taxi-driver-london- uber
You could very easily have looked it up yourself.
-
If we don't like people swearing, the best way to stop it would be to abolish the whole concept of swearing. Who needs it?
Get the Queen to use a few choice words next Christmas, and nobody will notice what Boris says. Problem solved.
-
My cabbie mate has huge problems with cyclists in the city, sometimes they hang on to his cab for a tow and his paintwork gets scratched regularly. Equally though I think Boris is to be applauded for putting himself in the firing line day in day out, among the people he represents. I don't think it a big deal but as I said up BA at the start I find that if anything is offensive it is the sentiment rather than the language.
But no, no big deal.
Well must admit in all my 10 years of cycling in London I've never seen a cyclist get a tow from a cab. And would be a pretty daft and dangerous thing to do anyhow.
As a cyclists taxis in London are an absolute nightmare. Typically you tend to cycle near the curb and taxis regularly simply pull in without indicating or looking when hailed. Also they often pull out again without proper attention to the presence of cyclist and often without indication. Then there is the classic u-turn scenario when you suddenly face a taxi side on as it has decided it wants to go in the opposite direction. Finally (and not really the fault of the taxi driver directly) there is the common issue of the passengers. So a taxi pulls in without indicating or realising you are behind. You pull out to overtake and suddenly are confronted with a door opened (again without anyone checking it is safe to do so) directly into your path.
So frankly I have very little sympathy for taxi drivers in the taxi driver vs cyclist stakes. The most you can come up with is that (allegedly) they might end up very occasionally with some scratched paintwork. The irresponsible actions of the taxi drivers are likely to result in the cyclist being hospitalised or worse. The notion of a little damage to the bike's paintwork is hardly worth worrying about.
-
Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them! >:(
-
Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them! >:(
Sure there are plenty of dick-head cyclists, but a couple of things are worth noting.
First, cyclists acting in an irresponsible fashion are rarely a risk to anyone but themselves. Drivers are very rarely killed or injured in collisions with bikes - although cyclist often are, whether or not they are to blame. Acting irresponsibly when in control of a one ton car (or multi-ton lorry etc) is lethal to other road users. Being irresponsible when riding a few kg of bike is usually only a risk to you.
And a tiny minority of deaths and injuries caused on our roads and pavements involve collisions between pedestrians and cyclists - so in 2013 only about 1.5% of pedestrian deaths or serious injuries involved bikes - the rest motor vehicles.
And worth noting these stats don't tell us who was to blame, nor whether the accident was on the road or pavement. From my extensive experience as a cyclist and a pedestrian, cyclists are much more at risk of irresponsible behaviour by pedestrians than the other way around.
The other point worth noting is that as a cyclist you tend to be far more aware of what is going on around you and also better able to negotiate situations than you ever are as a pedestrian or motorist. So the cyclist you may consider to be being irresponsible may be very well aware of the situation around them and in complete control of negotiating the situation.
Not trying to defend all cyclists, but cyclists as a group often undeservedly get a very bad press, despite them being perhaps the most vulnerable of all road users. And often those who have a go at cyclists haven't been in the saddle for years, if ever. Before having a pop at cyclists I'd recommend spending a week cycling around London, or any other city, or just negotiating those country lanes you speak of. You might well change your tune, as I have know many times when friends of mine have taken up cycling.
-
After the first time we had this cyclist conversation, in which I claimed all cyclists were menaces, having recently been almost run over by one on a pedestrian crossing, I started counting the number of cyclists who ran red lights on my walk to work. It turned out that the vast majority of them are completely law abiding. In fact, the worst menaces were pedestrians, particularly in the semi pedestrianised areas.
-
After the first time we had this cyclist conversation, in which I claimed all cyclists were menaces, having recently been almost run over by one on a pedestrian crossing, I started counting the number of cyclists who ran red lights on my walk to work. It turned out that the vast majority of them are completely law abiding. In fact, the worst menaces were pedestrians, particularly in the semi pedestrianised areas.
Indeed, I think if you asked any cyclist they'd tell you that, and of course all are pedestrians at some time or other as well.
Every day I cycle for about one hour on my way to and from work, mostly across London. On average I think I have about a dozen incidents where I need to take mild evasive action to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is simply unaware of my presence. This is always on the road where I have right of way, and I am usually wearing a fluorescent jacket and have (and use) a bell. Often (but not always) the pedestrians are on the phone or wearing headphones, and for some reason seem to think it is OK to step off the pavement without even looking. I must admit I don't understand the psychology here, but seems so common that it has to be a behaviour.
It would be interesting whether the cyclist who 'almost ran you over' on a pedestrian crossing really did nearly run you over, or whether they were clearly aware of your presence, your trajectory and easily able to miss you (albeit without your realising).
In the past 10 years I've been knocked off my bike three times in collisions with pedestrians - every time on the road, when I was not at fault. On each occasion I (and my bike) came off worse in the collision. Still waiting for the reverse -being knocked over as a pedestrian by a cyclist when it was there fault - has yet to happen in a lifetime. And I can't remember as a pedestrian having to take the kind of evasive action I take many times a day as a cyclist to avoid a collision.
-
Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them! >:(
A significant minority of cyclists are totally irresponsible. They regularly break traffic laws because they know that the police are normally too busy to be bothered with minor offences. I have lost count of the number of times that cyclists have overtaken me on the inside, in an inside lane, while I was signalling left.
However, one day I was walking on the pavement carrying a heavy box of tools when I caught sight of a cyclist bearing down on me in my peripheral vision. I shifted the the load slightly - and ZAP - I got the bugger.
Coincidentally, this was in front of a large police sign warning cyclists not to cycle on the pavement . . . he didn't hang around to complain.
-
They regularly break traffic laws because they know that the police are normally too busy to be bothered with minor offences. I have lost count of the number of times that cyclists have overtaken me on the inside, in an inside lane, while I was signalling left.
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
The notion that you seem to feel that as a driver you have the right of way turning left if there is other traffic on your inside going straight on is really, really scary. But of course what cyclist face every day of the week.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.
-
It would be interesting whether the cyclist who 'almost ran you over' on a pedestrian crossing really did nearly run you over, or whether they were clearly aware of your presence, your trajectory and easily able to miss you (albeit without your realising).
I was on a pedestrian crossing that was showing green for pedestrians. If I hadn't stopped in the middle of the road, He would have mowed me down. From his point of view, I was walking right to left so I was nearly across the road. I think he thought he could get through ahead of me but misjudged my speed, either that or he failed to see me at all because he was watching for people coming from the left. Of course he totally ignored the red light.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
The Highway Code says this
[Rule 72] When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/road-junctions-72-to-75
That does not mean you have an excuse to run them over if they do overtake on the inside.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.
The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.
If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.
-
Perhaps I should add that the last thing in the world I would want would be to have a horribly mangled cyclist under my car - so obviously I always try to take every precaution to avoid that possibility - but I would have no qualms if a cyclist who came too close to me (as a pedestrian) found himself badly bruised in a ditch needing expensive repairs to his machine.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
The Highway Code says this
[Rule 72] When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/road-junctions-72-to-75
That does not mean you have an excuse to run them over if they do overtake on the inside.
If you are a motorist turning left they shouldn't be on your inside anyway if you are following the Highway Code. And if they are it is your responsibility to take caution to ensure you see them and also not to make the manoeuvre unless safe to do so - which it wouldn't be if there is a bike on your inside.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183
Turning left
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
Even gives a little picture showing that the car should stay behind the bike and not overtake it if turning left. Given that in most circumstances a bike ends up on the inside of a car because the car has just overtaken it the Highway code is clear that a car about to turn left should not overtake a bike in the first place, but should hang back behind the bike and turn left behind it. It is also clear that the driver must watch out for traffic coming up on the left (which would of course be a bike).
But the most important is the law on right of way. Turning traffic must give way to traffic going straight on (unless there is a right or left filter and the straight on traffic is stopped). This applies to both turning left and right. Further vehicles should only make a manoeuvre if safe to do so. A left turning car which cuts across a bike on its inside which is going straight on falls foul of these regulations.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.
The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.
If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.
The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).
'Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.'
You suggest you learn your responsibilities as a driver rather than engaging in classic 'victim blaming' - it is their fault they are in hospital because I turned left without realising they were on my inside and mangled them. Nope, it is your fault - you've got the one ton metal box - learn to drive it responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code and laws of the road.
-
but I would have no qualms if a cyclist who came too close to me (as a pedestrian) found himself badly bruised in a ditch needing expensive repairs to his machine.
Blimey really demonstrates your attitude - appalling. What does too close mean that is sufficient to justify violence.
Perhaps as a cyclist I should punch any pedestrian that gets too close to me by stepping out onto the road into my path without even looking (by the way I wouldn't dream of doing this despite this being a regular occurrence, totally their fault and rather dangerous). Happens regularly - I'll let you know later this morning how often on my standard 30 minute cycle commute later this morning.
-
I think the latest few posts here show the problem. There seem to be two or more situations being conflated - that of a cyclist trying to 'squeeze through', and that of a cyclist who is overtaken by a car that promptly turns left. In the first case, it seems likely that the cyclist is approaching from behind a car that is already (hopefully) indicating to turn left. In such a case, the cyclist is at fault if there is an accident - though with the way that drivers often don't bother indicating their intentions, that could differ. However, a cyclist is at least less to blame if a car overtakes them and immediately turns left. I have seen cases where the car hasn't even fully passed the cyclist before they turn, thus not allowing the cyclist to even know of their intention of turning left!!
On the other hand, I have also seen cyclists travelling up the inside of a left-hand turn only lane, and getting angry when they are cut off from going straight ahead by cars turning left!!
Each road user is responsible for both their own and other users' safety and well-being.
I believe that with the careless attitude of some cyclists, the government will soon be forced to introduce an annual registration for all cyclists who use the road (with some form of reg. plates), so that miscreants can be recognised and punished appropriately.
-
The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).
In my experience, the problem is the other way round. Cars are moving slowly in traffic when the suicyclist comes bombing through on the inside.
-
The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).
In my experience, the problem is the other way round. Cars are moving slowly in traffic when the suicyclist comes bombing through on the inside.
But almost always that car had previously overtaken the bike in the run up to the junction where they plan to turn left. If you are following the Highway Code as a car intending to turn left you should not overtake that bike in the run up to the junction. You should hang behind so you can turn left behind the bike.
It is amazing how often you get overtaken by a car who becomes suddenly oblivious to the fact that you are on their inside. Where on earth do the drivers think you have gone. Suddenly vanished. Then they turn left completely cutting you up and seem completely bemused despite the fact that they'd just overtaken you seconds before.
And you also need to remember that increasingly junctions now have 'ahead' boxes for bikes only which often have a short (or even long) bike lane on the left leading up to it. That cyclist 'bombing through on the inside' may well be riding in a designated bike lane and acting completely legitimately.
But none that changes the fact that you may only make a manoeuvre is you have the right of way and if it is safe to do so. And signalling makes no difference - it only indicates your intentions, it does not give you the right to make a manoeuvre unless those two criteria are met. If you are turning left and there is a bike on your inside going straight on you fail on both counts - you don't have right of way (they do) and you cannot make that manoeuvre safely. Therefore you should not be turning until that bike is safely out of the way.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
-
Every day pretty much I head down the narrow lanes into town and back out again. On weekdays I often encounter cycling commuters - apart from the fact some are very slow there's generally no problem.
At the weekend though we get the club riders - even more so since the TdeF came through here last year. They often organise unofficial races and time trials meaning on a ten mile trip I can encounter dozens of riders - if they are racing they can be three or four abreast and in groups of seven or eight. If they are more strung out there is often too small a gap in between in order to overtake safely and pull back in. Some are aware of how difficult the lanes are and pull into driveways or turning places to let traffic by but most don't; I've seen some cycle close to the broken white line in the middle and one guy doing this made obscene hand gestures at every car coming the other way.
I've only one ever had near miss with a cyclist so far - a teenager turned left into a one way street when I did and then cut sharp right across the road in front of me to mount the pavement and cut out a busy junction.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.
I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.
After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.
I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.
I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.
Hmm - thought so. So a non cyclist who can't see beyond the cyclist being at fault.
Spend a week in the saddle in busy traffic and you'll change your tune.
-
Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.
I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.
I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)
You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.
It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.
The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.
If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.
The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).
'Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.'
You suggest you learn your responsibilities as a driver rather than engaging in classic 'victim blaming' - it is their fault they are in hospital because I turned left without realising they were on my inside and mangled them. Nope, it is your fault - you've got the one ton metal box - learn to drive it responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code and laws of the road.
I had an incident with a cyclist a few years ago, it still puzzles me to this day.
Two lanes one a bus lane with cyclist, me in the other lane both down hill.
I needed to turn in left, saw cyclist, indicated and stopped car waiting for cyclist to pass LH turn.
Thought I was being polite.
Said cyclist stopped bike and started swearing furiously at me.
I have never figured out what the cyclists issue was, as I had stopped so I didn't turn across the bus lane in front of them.
I'm always very careful with bikes and try and give them plenty of room.
Sounds as if you did exactly the right thing - no idea why he had a go at you. Seems very odd.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I'm too fond of life to ever attempt to ride a cycle in a city centre - if anyone makes a mistake it will always be the cyclist who gets mashed.
Hmm - thought so. So a non cyclist who can't see beyond the cyclist being at fault.
Spend a week in the saddle in busy traffic and you'll change your tune.
What's all this got to do with "Boris"?
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.
I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.
After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.
I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.
I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.
Yes, horses are loons - I've seen a horse nearly buck its rider off because I was walking past with a baby buggy and my daughter's pony freaked once when I was wearing sunglasses. Anything that is vaguely unusual might set a horse off - a car backfiring, loud music from a stereo, a piece of tarpaulin waving in a breeze, a bloke wearing a cycling helmet...you have to give them as wide a berth as possible and crawl past.
Three times in the past week I or another driver that I've witnessed have had to take evasive action because of car drivers overtaking other cars at speed where it wasn't safe to do so. Some cyclists I've seen are irresponsible and rude but they are still likely to come off worse in any accidents they cause. Not so car drivers.
-
Boris is a cyclist 😜
Yes, Rose, but the thread is not about Boris cycling, but about Boris swearing.
-
For Lapsed Atheist.
Some more evidence that if he is turning left and there is a cyclist on his inside he must give the cyclist priority.
http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/turning-left.html
Note the following section:
'As the driver, you should always give way to cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road, even if it means stopping in an inappropriate area.'
And interestingly although there is a single example in the Highway Code that might indicate that it is not advisable for cyclists to pass on the inside of a car signalling left, there are many examples where drivers are reminded that cyclists may be on their inside, including in busy roads and at junctions etc. Plus also the expectation that a left turning car should overtake the cyclist in the first place, and therefore create the situation where they might end up passing on the left.
For example:
151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.
167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
-
In my experience ...
And I trust your experience is both as a driver and as a cyclist, because if it is only as a driver I fail to see how you have any understanding of what may be going on from the cyclist's perspective.
Frankly anyone who doesn't both cycle and drive really has no concept of the challenges faced by each type of road user in relation to the other.
I would have thought common sense would have allowed people to work out a lot of it.
I wouldn't have thought you would need to be a car driver or a cyclist to see certain manoeuvres could lead to harm, which is always going to be worse for the cyclist.
After all I don't have to know about riding a horse to understand roaring past a horse in a noisy car might be problematic.
I disagree - the issues and dangers that are absolutely obvious to a cyclist are often unlikely to be recognised by a driver if they don't also cycle. That's the big difficulty. It is a case of 'walk a day in my shoes'.
I'd also bet there are issues that horse riders face and are really problematic for them that wouldn't be at all obvious if you'd never negotiated a road on horseback.
Yes, horses are loons - I've seen a horse nearly buck its rider off because I was walking past with a baby buggy and my daughter's pony freaked once when I was wearing sunglasses. Anything that is vaguely unusual might set a horse off - a car backfiring, loud music from a stereo, a piece of tarpaulin waving in a breeze, a bloke wearing a cycling helmet...you have to give them as wide a berth as possible and crawl past.
Three times in the past week I or another driver that I've witnessed have had to take evasive action because of car drivers overtaking other cars at speed where it wasn't safe to do so. Some cyclists I've seen are irresponsible and rude but they are still likely to come off worse in any accidents they cause. Not so car drivers.
I can certainly imagine that riding a horse on a road is very challenging, but because I've never ridden a horse on a road the exact challenges are a bit of a mystery to me.
Same for non cyclists. I doubt many non cycling drivers would come close to understanding the challenged faced by cyclists from pedestrians in busy places stepping out into the road in front of them. It kind of makes no sense, because drivers don't face anything like the same challenge. Somehow there are a group of pedestrian who step off the curb and then (sometimes) look. And of course that puts them just where a cyclist is.
Happened four times to me, requiring minor evasive action, on my journey in this morning. Fairly par for the course.
Also I don't think drivers understand the problems of pot holes to cyclists. If you hit a sizeable one you are likely to end up sprawled over the road (or worse under a bus). So cyclists have to avoid them and that sometimes means swinging a little further out into the road (with associated risk). A driver who is also a cyclist understands this, and tends to give the cyclist a wide berth, a non cycling driver is unlikely to.
Another one - any regular cyclist knows you never cycle nearer than a doors width when passing parked cars (because getting an door opened into you is kind of painful). Yet if you do this you regularly get drivers shouting abuse at you to 'get over' so they can sped past you a hair's breadth away.
You need to be a cyclist to understand the challenges that cyclists face.
-
Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT! >:(
-
Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT! >:(
Doesn't seem very sensible at all.
But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.
-
I guess I am lucky.
Where I live there is over 200miles of cycle way so not coming into contact with traffic is relatively easy.
We've got a good cycle path near us (on an old railway), but you still need to get to it which for my daughter for the time being means on pavements.
-
Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT! >:(
Doesn't seem very sensible at all.
But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.
Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible, though their parents can may be held responsible for their behaviour. I doubt many would object to a very young child riding on the pavement.
-
Last week I was shocked to see what I a man cycling along a narrow road near our home with a small boy, no more than three at most, cycling behind him. They were in the middle of the road, the boy was obviously just learning to ride his bike and very unsteady. Cars approached from both directions the man mounted the pavement, the little boy stopped in the middle of the road nearly falling off his bike. The bloke didn't seem a bit phased by the near accident, WHAT AN IDIOT! >:(
Doesn't seem very sensible at all.
But there is a bit of an issue that the only safe place you the younger kids to cycle is on the pavement but increasingly there are 'anti-cyclist' pedestrians who know the law - i.e. that cyclists can't ride on pavements. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think it is a really good idea to get kids cycling early and safely (albeit nominally illegally) on pavements. With a recognition of respect for others using the pavement. Once they are confident enough, then you can begin to get them riding in a highly supervised manner on the road and progress from there. So currently my 8-year old does quite a lot of cycling, on the way to various clubs and sometimes to school. She's too young (in my opinion) to be on the road, so the pavement it has to be.
Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible, though their parents can may be held responsible for their behaviour. I doubt many would object to a very young child riding on the pavement.
I've had a few comments - not often but it does happen.
-
151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.
167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
All of which is fine: if there is a cyclist in front of you, you don't cut them up. The problems arise when a cyclist comes from behind and tries to overtake you on the inside - not in a cycle lane, but in the few inches between you and the kerb. Is that lawful or sensible?
In many ways the law doesn't matter. When the law of the land comes head to head with the laws of physics - the laws of physics win. When a heavy hard object hits a light squelchy object, light squelchy will always come out second best, and for the cyclist, being in the right would be of little consolation.
-
151.In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.
167 stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
182 Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
183
When turning keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
All of which is fine: if there is a cyclist in front of you, you don't cut them up. The problems arise when a cyclist comes from behind and tries to overtake you on the inside - not in a cycle lane, but in the few inches between you and the kerb. Is that lawful or sensible?
In many ways the law doesn't matter. When the law of the land comes head to head with the laws of physics - the laws of physics win. When a heavy hard object hits a light squelchy object, light squelchy will always come out second best, and for the cyclist, being in the right would be of little consolation.
But fundamentally this comes down to the fundamental rules that govern road use. Namely that when turning you must give priority to other road users that have priority over you. In this case if you are next to a bike and they are on your inside, they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have priority. Simple as that. And it is your responsibility as a road user to be aware of what is going on around you and act accordingly. That's what the Highway Code says, hence all the stuff about being aware of cyclist who may be passing on either side.
Can a cyclist legitimately pass on your inside - sure they can in just the same manner as you can pass on the inside of another car that might be in slower moving or stationary traffic. And if they are going straight on they have priority over you if you are turning left.
And you keep talking about this mythical bike that appears behind you. In normal traffic cars move faster than bikes so it is very rare that a bike will come up behind you when you are perhaps in traffic at a junction that wasn't there earlier on when you were travelling faster. In most cases that bike coming up behind you on the inside will be the bike that you overtook a few seconds before. Where on earth do you think it will have gone - miraculously disappeared. The bottom line is to recognise your responsibilities, to understand that you don't 'own the road' and that sometimes bike will have priority over you, and to take special care because your error may put them in hospital or worse while the worst you are likely to suffer is the need to get your front wing repaired.
Stop victim blaming and take some responsibility for your own actions.
-
I guess I am lucky.
Where I live there is over 200miles of cycle way so not coming into contact with traffic is relatively easy.
We've got a good cycle path near us (on an old railway), but you still need to get to it which for my daughter for the time being means on pavements.
The law on riding on pavements is ridiculous, so is widely ignored and not enforced. Children should be explicitly allowed, up to a certain age/wheel size. Adults should be prosecuted - unfortunately many now ride on pavements or footpaths; for some reason they, incorrectly, think it is safer.
Many of the cycle paths, lanes or even shared use, bike + pedestrians, paths are very badly designed and can be less safe than cycling properly on the roads - often due to the motorist turning left issues as discussed above. I suspect that many of the designers just don't cycle.
If an adult is riding with a child on the road, usually the child should be in front so the adult can see them at all times and shout instructions as needed.
In all cases care and consideration should prevail - swearing and other offensive behaviour is not useful or helpful.
-
And you keep talking about this mythical bike that appears behind you. In normal traffic cars move faster than bikes so it is very rare that a bike will come up behind you when you are perhaps in traffic at a junction that wasn't there earlier on when you were travelling faster. In most cases that bike coming up behind you on the inside will be the bike that you overtook a few seconds before. Where on earth do you think it will have gone - miraculously disappeared. The bottom line is to recognise your responsibilities, to understand that you don't 'own the road' and that sometimes bike will have priority over you, and to take special care because your error may put them in hospital or worse while the worst you are likely to suffer is the need to get your front wing repaired.
There is nothing mythical about these cyclists. Typically traffic speed varies, stopping and starting in response to lights ahead, so cyclist are able to move faster than cars at times. Like the majority of drivers, I do my utmost to check what all vehicles around me are doing but the reality is that cycles can easily move into a blind-spot and be missed; especially when they come up on the inside. Even if you've passed them a few hundred yards earlier it's no indication of where they might have gone since.
As you point out, cyclists are very vulnerable so it's difficult to understand why they sometimes behave so recklessly.
-
In this, circumstance, which I encounter quite often, I either:
a) wait behind the vehicle or slow down behind it
b) overtake on the inside (undertake) and wait in front of it - sometimes having to cross the stop line so I can be clearly seen
or
c) stop by it but make sure that the driver has seen me - I expect the driver to give way, especially as I can usually start off faster than them
d) where possible of-course I pull out and overtake on their outside - eg in a queue or if they are ahead of me but still waiting to turn left
The most dangerous for me is when a car overtakes me then turns left in front of me without giving me any room even to slow down. I should not have to slow down or stop: just because it was going faster than me when it overtook does not mean that I cannot have caught up with it - and be parallel on their inside by the time they have slowed down for their turn.
-
There is nothing mythical about these cyclists. Typically traffic speed varies, stopping and starting in response to lights ahead, so cyclist are able to move faster than cars at times.
Which is exactly my point - in busy traffic there will be times when the car is moving faster and will likely overtake the bike, and then other times when the car is slowed and the bike overtakes. So you will most likely have already overtaken the bike during the time when you are traveling faster. It isn't rocket science to realise that when you are slowing down the bike is likely to be quite legitimately moving through the slowed traffic, and quite possibly on your inside. Why then is it so difficult for you to take extra care to ensure you are confident that bike isn't on your inside (you know it is round and about somewhere because you've recently overtaken it).
Like the majority of drivers, I do my utmost to check what all vehicles around me are doing but the reality is that cycles can easily move into a blind-spot and be missed; especially when they come up on the inside. Even if you've passed them a few hundred yards earlier it's no indication of where they might have gone since.
Sure they might have turned off or be overtaken on the out-side. But they may just as likely be on your inside and it isn't rocket science to expect that's where they may well be. The responsibility is on you in your one ton car to check very carefully before making a manoeuvre that could end that person's life.
And what ever happened to mirror, signal, manoeuvre. If you were regularly checking in your rear view and wing mirrors surely you'd be aware of where that bike that you'd just overtaken was. And that it might have ended up in your blind spot. The whole point about mirrors is you check them regularly so there should be no way that you suddenly discover something in your blind stop. With bikes and cars moving at different speeds there really is no excuse - if a bike is in your blind stop now, but is travelling faster than you because traffic has slowed then a few seconds earlier it wouldn't have been in your blind spot.
-
In this, circumstance, which I encounter quite often, I either:
a) wait behind the vehicle or slow down behind it
b) overtake on the inside (undertake) and wait in front of it - sometimes having to cross the stop line so I can be clearly seen
or
c) stop by it but make sure that the driver has seen me - I expect the driver to give way, especially as I can usually start off faster than them
d) where possible of-course I pull out and overtake on their outside - eg in a queue or if they are ahead of me but still waiting to turn left
The most dangerous for me is when a car overtakes me then turns left in front of me without giving me any room even to slow down. I should not have to slow down or stop: just because it was going faster than me when it overtook does not mean that I cannot have caught up with it - and be parallel on their inside by the time they have slowed down for their turn.
The safest place for a cyclist to be at a junction is directly in front of all the other vehicles, so there is no possibility it can be in anyone's blind spot. That's why many junctions have boxes only for bikes in advance of the stop line for other road users (not that that stops cars regularly blocking them).
But one of the most dangerous places to be is within the block of traffic at a junction (or even trying to get to the 'safe' advance box), because you are always in someone's blind spot.
And many junctions have a dedicate left hand lane for bikes specifically to allow them safely to get to the advance box. But as often as not some numpty driver is blocking it often because they want to turn left and position themselves as near to the kerb as they can. And it only takes one deeply inconsiderate driver out of a whole line of stationary traffic to make the journey to the advance box impossible or much more dangerous than it needs to be.
-
I would say twit but he is far too dangerous for that
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/06/wheelchair-user-takes-boris-johnson-to-task-at-lbc-debate/
-
In this, circumstance, which I encounter quite often, I either:
a) wait behind the vehicle or slow down behind it
b) overtake on the inside (undertake) and wait in front of it - sometimes having to cross the stop line so I can be clearly seen
or
c) stop by it but make sure that the driver has seen me - I expect the driver to give way, especially as I can usually start off faster than them
d) where possible of-course I pull out and overtake on their outside - eg in a queue or if they are ahead of me but still waiting to turn left
The most dangerous for me is when a car overtakes me then turns left in front of me without giving me any room even to slow down. I should not have to slow down or stop: just because it was going faster than me when it overtook does not mean that I cannot have caught up with it - and be parallel on their inside by the time they have slowed down for their turn.
A typical incident this morning on my London bike commute.
Cycling near Old Street. Three lanes - left lane is a bus lane also allowed to be used as a cycle lane. The middle and right hand lanes for other traffic. I was cycling along the left hand bus/cycle lane going straight on. I was passed by a car in the middle lane, who then slowed when directly alongside me (I was probably in line with the back wheel). The car then (without signalling) started moving across into my lane, then signalled left and proceeded to try to turn into a side street with me still on her inside. Had it not been for me yelling stop and the driver having her window open due to the heat so she heard me, she'd have taken me out.
Given that she'd been overtaking me I struggle to understand how she couldn't have been aware of my presence, nor that I'd now be in her blind spot. When I asked what on earth she was doing, she looked completely bemused as if I suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Fortunately I didn't get a mouthful of abuse which is pretty par for the course from drivers who have nearly killed or injured you due to their own inability to drive safely.
Did I do anything wrong - nope, not a thing. I had priority and was going straight on.
Did she do anything wrong - yup, lots:
1. She shouldn't have overtaken me if she then planned to turn left.
2. Mirror, signal, manoeuvre - hmm in her case the manoeuvre came largely before the signal and I've no idea whether she even checked her mirrors - certainly she seemed blissfully ignorant of my presence.
3. She drifted across the bus lane, which she isn't allowed to enter. If turning left she needs to do that from her own lane, having checked it is safe to do.
4. She attempted to turn left when she didn't have priority so to do. When turning off a major route onto a minor one (whether turning right or left) traffic going straight on has priority.
5. She made a manoeuvre that was inherently unsafe.
A fairly standard occurrence as a regular cyclist, placing the cyclist in danger of injury or worse.
-
-
Yes, PD, I've had similar experiences ...basically due to zombie drivers >:(
-
Whether it is true or not I don't know, but I have been told that in France if there is an incident involving a car and a bicycle there is an assumption of no fault on the part of the cyclist unless it can be proved different.
I spend about three months each year in France and try to treat cyclists with appropriate respect. I try to be equally wary in England. I don't find it difficult.
-
It's not difficult as long as one pays attention - not on the phone, arguing with wife or kids or thinking up excuses for work etc. Not driving on mental "auto".
-
How is it that the Mods have let this thread proceed so long without pointing out that it is, and has been for a long time, totally derailed? It is pointed out often enough elsewhere.
-
But the most important is the law on right of way. Turning traffic must give way to traffic going straight on (unless there is a right or left filter and the straight on traffic is stopped). This applies to both turning left and right. Further vehicles should only make a manoeuvre if safe to do so. A left turning car which cuts across a bike on its inside which is going straight on falls foul of these regulations.
And there's also a general rule not to overtake on the inside precisely because a vehicle outside you is not expecting it.
A cyclist should not be overtaking cars on the inside, which can easily happen in urban areas - cyclists are often the fastest vehicles on the road.
-
But the most important is the law on right of way. Turning traffic must give way to traffic going straight on (unless there is a right or left filter and the straight on traffic is stopped). This applies to both turning left and right. Further vehicles should only make a manoeuvre if safe to do so. A left turning car which cuts across a bike on its inside which is going straight on falls foul of these regulations.
And there's also a general rule not to overtake on the inside precisely because a vehicle outside you is not expecting it.
A cyclist should not be overtaking cars on the inside, which can easily happen in urban areas - cyclists are often the fastest vehicles on the road.
Firstly it is understandable that you didn't really understand the real example I gave a couple of days ago, because obviously you weren't there. But I was and much of what you say is either irrelevant or flat out wrong.
Firstly in my recent incident (one of many similar ones) I never overtook the car at all. The car overtook me and then when alongside me drifted into my lane (a bus lane) without indicating and then manoeuvred to turn left into a side street only at that point indicating left. This left me trapped on her inside and had I not been able to attract her attention she would have knocked my off my bike or worse.
It would be the equivalent of driving in the inside lane of a motorway and being overtaken by a car in the middle lane who while still alongside you moved into your lane without signalling to try to exit the motorway directly from the middle lane with a car on their inside. Except of course in that scenario the car is allowed in the inside pan, while in my incident the car isn't allowed in the lane I was in as it is a bus/cycle lane.
As a pointed out previously she did a whole raft of things that were wrong - I did nothing wrong.
But on your more general point you aren't right. The only time (well unless you are Bradley Wiggins) a bike is likely to be going fast enough to overtake a car is if the traffic is congested otherwise slowed, which as you indicate is often in urban areas. Where there are more than one line of traffic (which could of course include a line of cars and a separate line of bikes) and one line is moving slowly the Highway Code is absolutely clear that you can overtake on the left:
'stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left'
So a cycle is perfectly entitled to pass a line of stationary or slow moving cars on the left. Indeed the Highway Code also indicates in many places that this is likely to happen and for drivers (and indeed cyclists themselves) to be aware that bikes may be passing them (legitimately) on the left hand side e.g.
'In slow-moving traffic. You should ... be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.'
'Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.'
And there is a further point here relating to bus/cycle lanes. These are specifically designed to allow buses to pass more rapidly through traffic (and bikes allegedly more safety). These are nearly always on the left - if a bus in a bus lane (or a cycle) was not permitted to pass slow moving or stationary traffic on the left hand side there would be no point in having a bus lane in the first place as the buses would be forced to move at the speed of the rest of the traffic to avoid passing on the left.
On priority for traffic going straight on rather than turning, well the general rule is clear. Unless otherwise specifically indicated traffic continuing straight on on a main route has priority over traffic turning off that main route onto a minor route - and that applies whether turning right or left and for traffic going in the same direction or the opposite direction.
To suggest that a car turning left with a bike on its inside going straight has priority is the equivalent of saying that a car turning left off a motorway from the middle lane has priority over a car on its inside in the inside lane going straight on. This is non-sense and simply not correct.
But in my specific example the priority is even clearer (and again me in the right, her in the wrong). Remember I was in a bus/cycle lane and the Highway code specifically says:
'give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.'
-
To suggest that a car turning left with a bike on its inside going straight has priority is the equivalent of saying that a car turning left off a motorway from the middle lane has priority over a car on its inside in the inside lane going straight on. This is non-sense and simply not correct.
The simplest way to consider this is by reference to lines on the road. If your planned manoeuvre involves crossing a line (e.g. stop or give way, line dividing lanes, line that goes across the entrance of a minor road, central dividing lines on a road) then you do not have priority over traffic that plans to continue on a path that doesn't mean it crosses a line.
So you don't have priority exiting a minor road over traffic on a major road. You don't have priority turning right on a major road compared to oncoming traffic going straight on. You don't have priority if overtaking or chaining lanes over traffic going straight on.
And of course if turing left into a minor road (which means crossing a line) you don't have priority over traffic going straight on and won't cross a line, which of course includes over a bike on your inside.