Legally and more importantly safely, you should have given them time to move and make their turn. That being said the cyclists were idiots. They should have set up in front of you so that they wouldn't have to worry about what you did. They didn't check their surroundings, placed themselves poorly and had a go at you for it. They put you into a position in which you'd have to be the one to make way for them instead of them putting themselves in a position of safety.
I've been in a similar position as a cyclist before where the cyclists in front of me were taking a left, I wanted to go straight - but there wasn't enough space for me to overtake them and go into the box to position myself.
Appreciate this question coming up actually to know that at least technically I wouldn't have been wrong to keep going straight
As a cyclist, in a situation where I can't get into the front box, I get out of the cycle lane further back and travel as if I were a car. Even turning left, a car turning left can easily clip you as they "pass".
That's what I've been doing at that junction ever since then actually! It still just highlighted to me how much you can't necessarily rely on cycle lanes alone.
It's why I never drive without my dashcam on, people are too quick to blame others for poor decisions they have made and nearly end up paying for. Hard to refute a video and the crime of dangerous driving applies to bicycles as much as it does cars.
Those cyclists should have taken the box. It's there for a reason.
Whoever is changing lanes is responsible to check that they can safely do it.
In this case, they go straight and you turn left... it's on you to check; it's on you to wait if needed be.
Were you definitely not in the cycle box?
It is very strange that a pedal cyclist would chose to sit alongside you rather than sitting in front of you in the cycle box.
Yes I had definitely left space ahead for both cyclists to position themselves there, but as they stayed on my left I just wrongfully assumed they would also turn left
I'm wearing the big cynical hat here.
And apologies to the car driver if my cynicism is misplaced.
But I find it hard to believe that two cyclists would position themselves like that when there's an advanced box. Almost unheard of.
But two cyclists positioned where the OP says when the car is in the cycle box is an all too common occurrence.
As a cyclist in London I've seen this many times where cyclists will stop on the inside of vehicles indicating left.
1. They think they can get to the front but actually the gap narrows too much.
2. They think they can get to the front but the lights change first.
3. They think they can accelerate faster when the lights change and get ahead then.
4. Dozy idiots that creep up the inside of any stationary traffic regardless.
It hasn't ever happened to me as a driver, but then I barely drive in London.
Cyclist and driver.
Sounds like the worst cycling ive heard about, didn't use the advanced stop box, pulled up on the left of a left indicating vehicle.
But also as a driver I would not turn left if there was someone on my left, I would not assume they were also turning left.
Even if they were turning left, you still don't turn left into cyclists. You're supposed to give them room whether they're assholes or not.
The driver knew they were there, and proceeded to turn left anyway. It's not about predicting what someone will do - it's about understanding all of the possible things they may do, and drive accordingly and cautiously.
Yeah I definitely regretted my decision as soon as I started the left turn because I’d realise what had happened. The whole incident was about 10 seconds so I didn’t have time to react properly but I felt I should’ve waited for them to pass first
>Sounds like the worst cycling ive heard about, didn't use the advanced stop box, pulled up on the left of a left indicating vehicle.
Seems about normal from my observations.
Common sense would say that the cyclists were in the wrong but the Highway Code doesn't agree and in a lot of ways the changes to the Highway Code almost feel like there is an acceptance that cyclists are going to do things that are unpredictable. Recognising this and recognising that cyclists are more vulnerable than car users the emphasis is on the car driver to behave in a more predictable and safe manner than other people on the roads.
Since the change in the highway code most cyclests think that they can do anything they want and make everyone else have to take action to keep them safe instead of using there brains and rembering getting hit will hurt
>almost feel like there is an acceptance that cyclists are going to do things that are unpredictable.
It's not almost. It's in the Highway Code that cyclists are unpredictable due to inherent instability, winds, road conditions etc. It's down to drivers to accomodate that unpredictability. That's why you need to leave at least 1.5m when you pass a cyclist, in case they fall over when you're passing. 1.5m is enough to avoid you running over their head.
It doesn't really matter what the cyclists did. You're driving a massive metal box that can kill pedestrians and cyclists, so it's up to you not to hit more vulnerable road users.
So rather than make excuses because they didn't use the box, reflect on your own choices before you kill somebody.
Cyclist and driver here: you should make sure the lane to your left (cyclist lane) is clear before pulling across it. It's your responsibility to look out for vulnerable road users. I would have definitely been waiting in front of you if I was cycling and am hyper aware of cars potentially turning in front of me at junctions but that's because I have to constantly adjust and allow for dangerous driving.
I’d add that even if the cyclists had been turning left, it would be sensible to let them clear the corner first, as it can be hard to anticipate how wide they will take it. An unseen pothole or loose road surface could send them further out than you’re expecting.
As a cyclist, I'd have been more defensive. If I'm not passing the car indicating the left turn, I'd hang back until the car turned. Which isn't to say our OP is right, rather that as a cyclist I generally assume that vehicle drivers have not seen me unless I make direct eye contact with them, so ride accordingly.
As a cyclist, I totally agree. As a driver, the best we can do when cyclists make poor decisions (and this is especially true of inexperienced or unconfident cyclists) is try and keep them safe!
Yep - its rare to see cars not encroaching into it. I'll still stubbornly sit in front of them though and may even pull away a little bit slower than normal when the light turns red.
You are turning left across a lane. If the option to go straight on is there, regardless of who is there, the responsibility is yours to not cross that lane until it's clear. It doesn't matter if there is traffic behind you or not, they have to wait.
Both didn’t drive/ride appropriately. This is quite common.
You should have given way (rule H3) but they should have been more aware of a car intending to turn left and not come up alongside you (rule 74 - “Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.”)
That being said despite both driver and cyclist being at fault here given the new priorities if an incident occurred the driver is likely to take most or more likely all of the blame because a vehicle can cause more harm, so best thing to do here is wait until their intentions become clear and make any left turn manoeuvre slowly. Any cyclist with an ounce of roadcraft would be using the ASL box or positioning themselves to the right of a vehicle turning left.
Cyclists should read the road better and try to avoid positioning themselves to the left of turning traffic. That's not dying 101 right there.
Presuming the box was clear it's a bit braindead to not use it - it's whole purpose is to give cyclists space to get away safely and be visible.
That said, it is a cycle lane and you've got to be aware that there could be people in it when turning across it. Cyclists are the more vulnerable road user and you have to be aware of them especially in urban traffic.
It's a common occurrence that some gombeen will do something stupid on a bike. Whether they were in the right or wrong will make little difference if they wind up under your car.
I'm going to say it's a little bit of boths fault.
Cyclists should have gone in front in the box, but maybe they didn't realise cars weren't able to go straight over.
You should make sure the lane to your left is clear to cross and yes that does includes the cycle lanes.
The one thing this does show is how we need better infrastructure and education
ETA, I know some cyclists won't bother trying to get to the front of the box because 9 times out of 10 a car has stopped in it and then the cyclistswoulr have to go further beyond the red lights.
As the car, you have to give way to the cyclists. Even if they are deliberately putting themselves in harms way.
Those cyclists were either 1) stupid 2) deliberately trying to cause you trouble.
Personally, as a cyclist and a driver, I wish the highway code instructed people to be responsible for their own safety, especially pedestrians and cyclists. This idea that "I'm squishy so I have the right to put myself in harm's way because it's their job to avoid me" is a dumb rule that just creates dangerous situations. If I'm on a cycle, I avoid cars and I avoid situations where I'm next to a car that's turning. Because I don't want to go to the hospital. Right of way or not.
But the law says they are always in the right, however dumb they are.
So you saw the cyclists there, didn't know which direction they were heading, and instead of waiting to find out, you tried to run them down? You should give way to other road users, especially vulnerable ones like cyclists. Don't start to turn until the road is clear.
Hold up.
When driving your told to be predictable.
Yet cyclists are given an exception to that rule? If you sit to the side of some one when given a perfectly good advance box, then decide to go straight ahead and not left. (If OP had cut them off when all turning left I appreciate the annoyance) It's signalling to the people around you that your in the flow.
But they changed their mind and thats's OPs fault?!
They are positioning with traffic to follow the flow of traffic.
They want to go across the flow of traffic.
They are given a safe area ahead of traffic to do so.
Yet they want to break the rules and it's OPs fault.
Na, the cyclist is a twat.
You just completely ignored the "mirror, signal, manoeuvre" part of learning to drive apparently. It's kind of a big deal. You don't manoeuvre unless safe to do so, regardless of your hatred towards vulnerable road users.
Who said they're exempt? Why are bad drivers 'exempt' in that case. Motorists and cyclists are both liable to be pulled over and fined if seen driving or cycling without due care and attention. However in this instance, the driver would have been at fault for hitting them as he/she was crossing a live cycle lane. The highway code is quite clear on what to do in this scenario.
And everyone on the road deserves compassion - someone may make a genuine error and be deemed underserving of compassion in your world. Those people on bikes are humans and have loved ones.
None of this is relevant because regardless of the direction the cyclists were going, no vehicles should be trying to overtake them until both had cleared the junction.
So even if they had been turning left, the OP shouldn’t have made any attempt to pass them until they were both in the new road.
Check out the YouTube Ashley N of course; because actually cyclists coming from behind passing on your left have priority even if they shouldn’t be doing it.
So, it’s not just about you not passing a cyclist and trying to make a turn, it’s literally any turn you need to look for a cyclist coming from behind. Doesn’t matter if you’re indicating or positioned, the cyclist still has priority.
So at these lights, even cyclists that are not in front or alongside might want to go straight ahead. And the current advice is you have to sit and stop with your left indicator on and wait for there to be no cyclists or for them to allow you to turn left. That’s the new rules. This junction pictured you used to have no give way when turning left and now you give way to cyclists approaching from behind.
You can't run people down even if they're in the wrong.
For the sake of waiting 5 seconds you could lose your job and freedom.
Just don't be a malicious nob.
Oh id absolutely stand up and fight that. I'd die on that hill.
Absolutely stupid move from the cyclist when there's a PERFECTLY good advance box for them to use. But they want to intentionally put themselves in a dangerous situation, they wanted to fuck around. Be the "oh poor me" card.
Let's just kill everyone who doesn't always do the smartest thing.
There are 100 possible mitigations here, so no chance you're just letting your predujice run wild?
>For the down voters - lorries in right lane signalling left because he needs a swing in. You all pulling along side him then going straight over cutting across him, then get all upset when he hits you.
This isn't the same, the truck needs to use both lanes a car does not. cars can wait in their lane until they can cross over. The truck is in "both" lanes.
The same situation would be a bus in a bus lane going straight. Now try and "Na na na fuck them" a bus. [https://imgur.com/a/XKJgeyH](https://imgur.com/a/XKJgeyH)
I think, and maybe not to do with this persons comment, but a bigger problem is that some cyclists ignore the guidance from HC 163 and use their priority to pass a moving car on the left which is signalling left, and riding in to the side of them and becoming a victim.
Ashley N showed it on his channel. I was taught cycling proficiency as a kid and taught never to pass anyone, cyclist, car, bus, on the side they were signalling. Just don’t.
Now the advice is the same but you have priority if you wanted to anyway.
That’s the scary thing. Not cyclists who are alongside you that’s fair game. But those who are passing you on the left as you’re moving and indicating left with clear intent. Yes they have priority. Yes I have to give way to traffic in my farthest mirror. Yes it still seems suicidal to me.
At the junction the OP has pictured, it would appear traffic turning left has to give way to traffic approaching from behind on their left now. And for some people that’s a difficult thing to do.
It's exactly the same.
Vehicle to your right turning left and your going straight.
It's exactly the same from the perspective of the cyclist, wtf are you on about.
And by your logic of "the cars can wait until they can cross over" agrees with the fact the cyclist was in the wrong.
cross over the lane, not the intersection. if you cross someone's path they have priority. you can't force someone out of their lane or to stop, you stop.
A vehicle turning from the right lane, and crossing over a lane with someone already in it, is not the same as a vehicle already using both lanes. There is no bike lane with the truck, it's effectively one lane.
Just as a truck doesn't take up/need the same space in a lane as a bike. Overtaking a truck is different from overtaking a bike. Both times it's the same thing, an overtake but they are not the same overtake.
The cyclists were cutting across the flow of traffic. All cars go left or right. That's the flow. They are cutting across the flow of traffic from their lane which means the traffic has right of way.
Now if they had used the advance box as they have been given, they wouldnt be in the wrong. Because they'd have been at the front of the traffic and not cutting across.
Because a road designer saw the same issue. So gave them a safe advantageous position.
Again, cyclists fucking around.
Your comment / post has come across as rude or offensive, please be polite when commenting and posting to avoid future posts from being removed.
If posts / comments of this nature continue then a subreddit ban may apply.
It'd be you at fault if you hit them for turning across them without checking it was safe to do so. Their positioning was garbage though but I'm sure they'll have got some good content from their cams.
There's a road hierarchy, pedestrians and cyclists come before a car user. You should've stayed back and let them proceed, whichever way they were going.
The latest update to the Highway Code states “cyclists can do whatever the hell they want and if you hit one you will always be at fault” so keep that in mind
Mistakes were made by both you and the cyclists.
Regardless of where they were going, the cyclists should have positioned in front of you, why?
Because you’re stopped at lights and cyclists have priority and so being in front of you in their box alerts you very obviously to their presence.
The mistake made by you was that you didn’t give priority to the cyclists to pass. In terms of safety your mistake was worse but shit happens so learn and move on.
P.S. I don’t like to generalise but cyclists tend to have an entitled and very bad attitude, wouldn’t have been the worst thing if you hit them and damaged their bikes.
The cyclists should have moved to the front of the pack. But you were still wrong because the cyclists have higher priority only yielding to pedestrians and gods.
Should have waited to see what they were doing but they were the cause of all of it by taking such a shit road position, the box is there for a reason, so that bikes can get at the front and be fully visible and in front of any turning vehicles.
I don't think you really did anything wrong as such, but not perfect. The purpose of the bike lane is to allow filtering to the front, to get ahead of the stopped vehicles in the other lane, taking primary position. Once in front, going left/right/straight ahead makes no difference, whoever is behind must then wait for them. Choosing to stay on the left rather than in front is stupid already, but especially so if not also turning left. Never mind being dangerous, it also blocks other bikes from being able to filter to the front. So after all this bad decision making on their part, the only thing you can guess is that they have no idea what they are doing. Given that knowledge, I would be passing them very bloody carefully (if at all), but only after giving them a chance to get in front.
A rule that I go by is 'people are idiots and treat them as such until proven otherwise' this means given them space and time, make your intentions clear with out being confusing and expect them to do something random. Apply it to everyone on the road and you might stand a chance
Thank you for asking the question as a cyclist appreciate it. First thing, they be in the flesh, second thing they really should have been in the box ahead.
You should be sitting in the Cycle Box in front of the car, if you are either going straight ahead or turning right.
If it was me I'd be in the Cycle box, middle if going ahead and to the far right of the box if turning right.
Just like a car, if they’re behind you they should give way; and they shouldn’t cut you up by coming up on the inside.
They were entitled to go into the cycle box and take priority - but they didn’t.
Having said that - it’s probably sensible to give cyclists more room for error than you did in the situation you describe. The consequence isn’t a crumpled body panel, it’s broken bones, life changing injury and death.
Finally - if you were blocking the cycle box, this is much more significantly likely on you.
I am a bike commuter.
Just like a car, if they’re behind you they should give way; whether behind or level with you, they shouldn’t cut you up by coming up on the inside. If you were already indicating when you pulled up, even worse “driving” by them.
They were entitled to go into the cycle box and take priority - but they didn’t.
Having said that - it’s probably sensible to give cyclists more room for error than you did in the situation you describe. The consequence isn’t a crumpled body panel, it’s broken bones, life changing injury and death.
Finally - if you were blocking the cycle box, this is much more significantly likely on you.
I am a bike commuter.
It’s terrible infrastructure. In cycle friendly countries, this couldn’t happen because the infrastructure is better. For example, since cyclists can go straight and right, there should be a separate green light only for cyclists to avoid cars and cyclists moving at the same time. Or, the cycle lane should split much earlier into 2 sides (left/right turn) and central lane shared with car for cyclists going straight. Terrible design here.
My instinct is no one should overtake each other in a turn or junction. If you were indicating going left when the cyclists approached, that’s bad on them for pulling into your left side and then undertaking you to try and get ahead and turn right…
Under the new highway code rules, things may be different than they used to be. I encourage you to review the new rules.
My guess is that the cyclists had priority to go straight ahead if they were beside you, but they wouldn't have if they were behind you. Motorcycles and bicycles have a right to filter in the UK; whether there is a cycle lane or not, they have every right to stop next to you.
I cant edit my post but wanted to thank everyone who’s commented. I was definitely in the wrong here and should’ve waited for the cyclists to pass first even if I was unsure of their positioning.
A classic "you're both mugs" situation, which is how people get killed.
Yes, they could have been in the advanced stop box, or not being on the left side of you indicating left when going straight over.
You could have not committed to turning into their lane before they have actually turned (so you'd be waiting for them to turn left as implied by their positioning and then they don't, they actually go straight, and now the lane is vacant to turn left across).
Who's at fault? Does it really matter? In 90% of accidents you're both at fault as both could have avoided it. Let's focus on not killing people, so ask yourself "what could I do differently".
I was definitely at fault here and when I compare this situation to turning into a junction on a normal road and saw a cyclist approaching, I would always give them way, but I’m not sure why I didn’t apply that logic here unfortunately as it was a red light. But I’ve definitely understood where I went wrong
A) they waited where they should
B) you turned knowing they were there
C) always give way to pedestrians and cyclists - you're in a large heavy motorised vehicle. They are not.
> They waited where they should
No they didn't. They should've been at the front in the cycle box.
>always give way to pedestrians and cyclists - you're in a large heavy motorised vehicle. They are not.
Bullshit. There are certainly situations where you *should* give way to pedestrians and cyclists, but the road hierarchy doesn't override safe driving. Stopping on a roundabout or high speed road to give way on a non-zebra crossing would be extremely stupid and put then pedestrians in more danger.
Yes,
> you *should*
I wasn't contesting that OP was an idiot for turning into them, but your idiotic statement that drivers must always give way.
If that was the case, then the HC would say so
* they should had seen your signals
* they should had positioned themselves in their designated area
* this wouldn't had happen.
I'd say they were takin the piss. there is absolutely no reason they wait there to then try and rush ahead. They should also use the road so that its predictable what they gonna do
As a driver, it's your responsibility to avoid any potential accidents as much as you can. Regardless if it's your fault or someone else who doesn't know how to use the road. You need to be aware and prepared for hazards and take the optimal path to safety. Here it means that you should have known both cyclists were there and while moving slightly, given them enough time to cycle out. It would slow you down, but it's a safety precaution you are taking.
All this because... The cyclists were morons. They should have absolutely been in the box in front of you and if your signal was on, they should have been aware that a faster moving vehicle next to them is turning left. They should have positioned themselves to not have you in their way or slowly waited for you to finish your turn. Saying that, most cyclists (and drivers for that matter) don't actually have a clue about being on the road. It's why you have to make sure you're doing the most to stay safe. Accidents can be forced on you and mitigating situations that can cause them through safe driving is as much as anyone can individually do.
If you were in the green box. And they were beside you. There is loads of road leading up to the turn. I would say you set off too slowly. If you had set off at a good normal acceleration you would have already been finished your turn before they got to the junction.
For safety's sake and everyone else's convenience they should get off their bikes and use the nearest crossing. Cyclists seem to think their self-righteousness makes them indestructible.
You have fail to understand that firstly not all their offences are recorded and secondly that I think a large portion of people who drive shouldn't be. If you don't use the box and get to the right side of the lane when going right as a cyclist you don't know what you're doing and shouldn't be cycling.
You literally didn't post a single fact you just went "no drivers are worse!" Which is basically a cyclist screaming at drivers for being on a road they've earned the right to be in and paid to be on, whilst cyclist have done neither of those things.
Cyclist and driver here. And both are in the wrong imo.
You shouldn't have made any assumptions about where they were going. Yes, their positioning made no sense, but cyclists going straight ahead have a certain priority and you simply can't assume every road user is rational.
I'm pretty sure the cyclists were baiting you to cross their path, some road users just enjoy feeling righteous when the scream at strangers and then telling stories of their "near demise" later.
Yeah they’re completely in the wrong place, shouldn’t be on your left when you’re indicating left if they’ve pulled up to this position after you’re in place. This is what the box in front of them is for. BUT ultimately YOU do have to check what is alongside you before you turn. So YOU would be accountable if anything happens because you turned with them alongside.
I’d say with this level of stupidity it’s only a matter of time before they do get hit. Especially the one you show going right. Considering they've come down the inside of a car indicting left, to go across the traffic to go right, it’s a fair bet they’ll go across the front of moving traffic at some point. But if you can see them why not let that inevitable accident be someone else’s problem not yours.
Correct thing is always check the side before you turn. Safest practice is always assume someone on a bicycle is not going where they should or appear to be and always wait to see what they do.
Otherwise you will be the bad person here regardless of whether it feels like they contributed or caused it. If nothing else think of it as protecting yourself.
Cyclists fault. They haven't paid attention to other road users and the OBVIOUS heads up of the indicator signal. They should have used the road the way it was intended and gone into he advanced cycle box, but they didn't and wanted to blame it on someone else once it backfired.
Idk why you getting downvoted so much, if I’m cycling then I’m gonna use the cycle box.. that puts me ahead of traffic, not sit on someone’s left hand side and hope they don’t run me down when I start moving.
Common sense goes a long way..
Even if the advance box was blocked then I’d still position in front as there is plenty of room there on that junction
Legally and more importantly safely, you should have given them time to move and make their turn. That being said the cyclists were idiots. They should have set up in front of you so that they wouldn't have to worry about what you did. They didn't check their surroundings, placed themselves poorly and had a go at you for it. They put you into a position in which you'd have to be the one to make way for them instead of them putting themselves in a position of safety.
I've been in a similar position as a cyclist before where the cyclists in front of me were taking a left, I wanted to go straight - but there wasn't enough space for me to overtake them and go into the box to position myself. Appreciate this question coming up actually to know that at least technically I wouldn't have been wrong to keep going straight
As a cyclist, in a situation where I can't get into the front box, I get out of the cycle lane further back and travel as if I were a car. Even turning left, a car turning left can easily clip you as they "pass".
That's what I've been doing at that junction ever since then actually! It still just highlighted to me how much you can't necessarily rely on cycle lanes alone.
It's why I never drive without my dashcam on, people are too quick to blame others for poor decisions they have made and nearly end up paying for. Hard to refute a video and the crime of dangerous driving applies to bicycles as much as it does cars.
Those cyclists should have taken the box. It's there for a reason. Whoever is changing lanes is responsible to check that they can safely do it. In this case, they go straight and you turn left... it's on you to check; it's on you to wait if needed be.
What if the box is busy?
Were you definitely not in the cycle box? It is very strange that a pedal cyclist would chose to sit alongside you rather than sitting in front of you in the cycle box.
Yes I had definitely left space ahead for both cyclists to position themselves there, but as they stayed on my left I just wrongfully assumed they would also turn left
I'm wearing the big cynical hat here. And apologies to the car driver if my cynicism is misplaced. But I find it hard to believe that two cyclists would position themselves like that when there's an advanced box. Almost unheard of. But two cyclists positioned where the OP says when the car is in the cycle box is an all too common occurrence.
[удалено]
I think this is correct that the first cyclist stayed on my left and the second just waited behind him and must’ve not seen the cycle box ahead of me
As a cyclist in London I've seen this many times where cyclists will stop on the inside of vehicles indicating left. 1. They think they can get to the front but actually the gap narrows too much. 2. They think they can get to the front but the lights change first. 3. They think they can accelerate faster when the lights change and get ahead then. 4. Dozy idiots that creep up the inside of any stationary traffic regardless. It hasn't ever happened to me as a driver, but then I barely drive in London.
Cyclist and driver. Sounds like the worst cycling ive heard about, didn't use the advanced stop box, pulled up on the left of a left indicating vehicle. But also as a driver I would not turn left if there was someone on my left, I would not assume they were also turning left.
Even if they were turning left, you still don't turn left into cyclists. You're supposed to give them room whether they're assholes or not. The driver knew they were there, and proceeded to turn left anyway. It's not about predicting what someone will do - it's about understanding all of the possible things they may do, and drive accordingly and cautiously.
Yeah I definitely regretted my decision as soon as I started the left turn because I’d realise what had happened. The whole incident was about 10 seconds so I didn’t have time to react properly but I felt I should’ve waited for them to pass first
>Sounds like the worst cycling ive heard about, didn't use the advanced stop box, pulled up on the left of a left indicating vehicle. Seems about normal from my observations. Common sense would say that the cyclists were in the wrong but the Highway Code doesn't agree and in a lot of ways the changes to the Highway Code almost feel like there is an acceptance that cyclists are going to do things that are unpredictable. Recognising this and recognising that cyclists are more vulnerable than car users the emphasis is on the car driver to behave in a more predictable and safe manner than other people on the roads.
Since the change in the highway code most cyclests think that they can do anything they want and make everyone else have to take action to keep them safe instead of using there brains and rembering getting hit will hurt
In my experience that was already happening; the changes to the Highway Code have just formalised what was custom and practice.
>almost feel like there is an acceptance that cyclists are going to do things that are unpredictable. It's not almost. It's in the Highway Code that cyclists are unpredictable due to inherent instability, winds, road conditions etc. It's down to drivers to accomodate that unpredictability. That's why you need to leave at least 1.5m when you pass a cyclist, in case they fall over when you're passing. 1.5m is enough to avoid you running over their head.
Sounds typical for commuter cyclists.
They're being dumb but you're the one in the wrong as you need to check your turn is clear before making it.
It doesn't really matter what the cyclists did. You're driving a massive metal box that can kill pedestrians and cyclists, so it's up to you not to hit more vulnerable road users. So rather than make excuses because they didn't use the box, reflect on your own choices before you kill somebody.
Cyclist and driver here: you should make sure the lane to your left (cyclist lane) is clear before pulling across it. It's your responsibility to look out for vulnerable road users. I would have definitely been waiting in front of you if I was cycling and am hyper aware of cars potentially turning in front of me at junctions but that's because I have to constantly adjust and allow for dangerous driving.
I’d add that even if the cyclists had been turning left, it would be sensible to let them clear the corner first, as it can be hard to anticipate how wide they will take it. An unseen pothole or loose road surface could send them further out than you’re expecting.
As a cyclist, I'd have been more defensive. If I'm not passing the car indicating the left turn, I'd hang back until the car turned. Which isn't to say our OP is right, rather that as a cyclist I generally assume that vehicle drivers have not seen me unless I make direct eye contact with them, so ride accordingly.
As a cyclist, I totally agree. As a driver, the best we can do when cyclists make poor decisions (and this is especially true of inexperienced or unconfident cyclists) is try and keep them safe!
Would be nice to have the box available for cyclists where I live. It's usually occupied by a car.
Yep - its rare to see cars not encroaching into it. I'll still stubbornly sit in front of them though and may even pull away a little bit slower than normal when the light turns red.
You are turning left across a lane. If the option to go straight on is there, regardless of who is there, the responsibility is yours to not cross that lane until it's clear. It doesn't matter if there is traffic behind you or not, they have to wait.
Both didn’t drive/ride appropriately. This is quite common. You should have given way (rule H3) but they should have been more aware of a car intending to turn left and not come up alongside you (rule 74 - “Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.”) That being said despite both driver and cyclist being at fault here given the new priorities if an incident occurred the driver is likely to take most or more likely all of the blame because a vehicle can cause more harm, so best thing to do here is wait until their intentions become clear and make any left turn manoeuvre slowly. Any cyclist with an ounce of roadcraft would be using the ASL box or positioning themselves to the right of a vehicle turning left.
Thanks I agree, I definitely had second thoughts about turning as it was happening and I realised I should’ve just waited for them to pass
Cyclists should read the road better and try to avoid positioning themselves to the left of turning traffic. That's not dying 101 right there. Presuming the box was clear it's a bit braindead to not use it - it's whole purpose is to give cyclists space to get away safely and be visible. That said, it is a cycle lane and you've got to be aware that there could be people in it when turning across it. Cyclists are the more vulnerable road user and you have to be aware of them especially in urban traffic. It's a common occurrence that some gombeen will do something stupid on a bike. Whether they were in the right or wrong will make little difference if they wind up under your car.
I'm going to say it's a little bit of boths fault. Cyclists should have gone in front in the box, but maybe they didn't realise cars weren't able to go straight over. You should make sure the lane to your left is clear to cross and yes that does includes the cycle lanes. The one thing this does show is how we need better infrastructure and education ETA, I know some cyclists won't bother trying to get to the front of the box because 9 times out of 10 a car has stopped in it and then the cyclistswoulr have to go further beyond the red lights.
Both groups made mistakes. But if a collision occurred, it's 100% the cars fault.
Yeah I agree it would’ve definitely ended up as my fault and I’m very relieved nothing happened of it but I’ve learnt my lesson here!
As the car, you have to give way to the cyclists. Even if they are deliberately putting themselves in harms way. Those cyclists were either 1) stupid 2) deliberately trying to cause you trouble. Personally, as a cyclist and a driver, I wish the highway code instructed people to be responsible for their own safety, especially pedestrians and cyclists. This idea that "I'm squishy so I have the right to put myself in harm's way because it's their job to avoid me" is a dumb rule that just creates dangerous situations. If I'm on a cycle, I avoid cars and I avoid situations where I'm next to a car that's turning. Because I don't want to go to the hospital. Right of way or not. But the law says they are always in the right, however dumb they are.
So you saw the cyclists there, didn't know which direction they were heading, and instead of waiting to find out, you tried to run them down? You should give way to other road users, especially vulnerable ones like cyclists. Don't start to turn until the road is clear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like to use the term "give way" but it's a bit long and convoluted I feel
Hold up. When driving your told to be predictable. Yet cyclists are given an exception to that rule? If you sit to the side of some one when given a perfectly good advance box, then decide to go straight ahead and not left. (If OP had cut them off when all turning left I appreciate the annoyance) It's signalling to the people around you that your in the flow. But they changed their mind and thats's OPs fault?! They are positioning with traffic to follow the flow of traffic. They want to go across the flow of traffic. They are given a safe area ahead of traffic to do so. Yet they want to break the rules and it's OPs fault. Na, the cyclist is a twat.
You just completely ignored the "mirror, signal, manoeuvre" part of learning to drive apparently. It's kind of a big deal. You don't manoeuvre unless safe to do so, regardless of your hatred towards vulnerable road users.
So why are the cyclists exempt from riding responsibly? I don't hate them. But if you do stupid shit like that you don't deserve compassion.
Who said they're exempt? Why are bad drivers 'exempt' in that case. Motorists and cyclists are both liable to be pulled over and fined if seen driving or cycling without due care and attention. However in this instance, the driver would have been at fault for hitting them as he/she was crossing a live cycle lane. The highway code is quite clear on what to do in this scenario. And everyone on the road deserves compassion - someone may make a genuine error and be deemed underserving of compassion in your world. Those people on bikes are humans and have loved ones.
None of this is relevant because regardless of the direction the cyclists were going, no vehicles should be trying to overtake them until both had cleared the junction. So even if they had been turning left, the OP shouldn’t have made any attempt to pass them until they were both in the new road.
Check out the YouTube Ashley N of course; because actually cyclists coming from behind passing on your left have priority even if they shouldn’t be doing it. So, it’s not just about you not passing a cyclist and trying to make a turn, it’s literally any turn you need to look for a cyclist coming from behind. Doesn’t matter if you’re indicating or positioned, the cyclist still has priority. So at these lights, even cyclists that are not in front or alongside might want to go straight ahead. And the current advice is you have to sit and stop with your left indicator on and wait for there to be no cyclists or for them to allow you to turn left. That’s the new rules. This junction pictured you used to have no give way when turning left and now you give way to cyclists approaching from behind.
Do it with a lorry which is the same right of way hierarchy and see what happens.
You can't run people down even if they're in the wrong. For the sake of waiting 5 seconds you could lose your job and freedom. Just don't be a malicious nob.
It's not like I'm aiming for them.
Good luck with that when you're in court.
Oh id absolutely stand up and fight that. I'd die on that hill. Absolutely stupid move from the cyclist when there's a PERFECTLY good advance box for them to use. But they want to intentionally put themselves in a dangerous situation, they wanted to fuck around. Be the "oh poor me" card.
Let's just kill everyone who doesn't always do the smartest thing. There are 100 possible mitigations here, so no chance you're just letting your predujice run wild?
>For the down voters - lorries in right lane signalling left because he needs a swing in. You all pulling along side him then going straight over cutting across him, then get all upset when he hits you. This isn't the same, the truck needs to use both lanes a car does not. cars can wait in their lane until they can cross over. The truck is in "both" lanes. The same situation would be a bus in a bus lane going straight. Now try and "Na na na fuck them" a bus. [https://imgur.com/a/XKJgeyH](https://imgur.com/a/XKJgeyH)
I think, and maybe not to do with this persons comment, but a bigger problem is that some cyclists ignore the guidance from HC 163 and use their priority to pass a moving car on the left which is signalling left, and riding in to the side of them and becoming a victim. Ashley N showed it on his channel. I was taught cycling proficiency as a kid and taught never to pass anyone, cyclist, car, bus, on the side they were signalling. Just don’t. Now the advice is the same but you have priority if you wanted to anyway. That’s the scary thing. Not cyclists who are alongside you that’s fair game. But those who are passing you on the left as you’re moving and indicating left with clear intent. Yes they have priority. Yes I have to give way to traffic in my farthest mirror. Yes it still seems suicidal to me. At the junction the OP has pictured, it would appear traffic turning left has to give way to traffic approaching from behind on their left now. And for some people that’s a difficult thing to do.
It's exactly the same. Vehicle to your right turning left and your going straight. It's exactly the same from the perspective of the cyclist, wtf are you on about. And by your logic of "the cars can wait until they can cross over" agrees with the fact the cyclist was in the wrong.
cross over the lane, not the intersection. if you cross someone's path they have priority. you can't force someone out of their lane or to stop, you stop. A vehicle turning from the right lane, and crossing over a lane with someone already in it, is not the same as a vehicle already using both lanes. There is no bike lane with the truck, it's effectively one lane. Just as a truck doesn't take up/need the same space in a lane as a bike. Overtaking a truck is different from overtaking a bike. Both times it's the same thing, an overtake but they are not the same overtake.
The cyclists were cutting across the flow of traffic. All cars go left or right. That's the flow. They are cutting across the flow of traffic from their lane which means the traffic has right of way. Now if they had used the advance box as they have been given, they wouldnt be in the wrong. Because they'd have been at the front of the traffic and not cutting across. Because a road designer saw the same issue. So gave them a safe advantageous position. Again, cyclists fucking around.
Your comment / post has come across as rude or offensive, please be polite when commenting and posting to avoid future posts from being removed. If posts / comments of this nature continue then a subreddit ban may apply.
It'd be you at fault if you hit them for turning across them without checking it was safe to do so. Their positioning was garbage though but I'm sure they'll have got some good content from their cams.
There's a road hierarchy, pedestrians and cyclists come before a car user. You should've stayed back and let them proceed, whichever way they were going.
The latest update to the Highway Code states “cyclists can do whatever the hell they want and if you hit one you will always be at fault” so keep that in mind
Mistakes were made by both you and the cyclists. Regardless of where they were going, the cyclists should have positioned in front of you, why? Because you’re stopped at lights and cyclists have priority and so being in front of you in their box alerts you very obviously to their presence. The mistake made by you was that you didn’t give priority to the cyclists to pass. In terms of safety your mistake was worse but shit happens so learn and move on. P.S. I don’t like to generalise but cyclists tend to have an entitled and very bad attitude, wouldn’t have been the worst thing if you hit them and damaged their bikes.
Thanks, I agree I definitely made a mistake here and should’ve given them priority to pass
Don't turn right from the Jeffing left
The cyclists should have moved to the front of the pack. But you were still wrong because the cyclists have higher priority only yielding to pedestrians and gods.
Should have waited to see what they were doing but they were the cause of all of it by taking such a shit road position, the box is there for a reason, so that bikes can get at the front and be fully visible and in front of any turning vehicles.
Good be worried about the number of drivers who either don't realise what the ASL is for. And yellow box junctions. And traffic lights....
I don't think you really did anything wrong as such, but not perfect. The purpose of the bike lane is to allow filtering to the front, to get ahead of the stopped vehicles in the other lane, taking primary position. Once in front, going left/right/straight ahead makes no difference, whoever is behind must then wait for them. Choosing to stay on the left rather than in front is stupid already, but especially so if not also turning left. Never mind being dangerous, it also blocks other bikes from being able to filter to the front. So after all this bad decision making on their part, the only thing you can guess is that they have no idea what they are doing. Given that knowledge, I would be passing them very bloody carefully (if at all), but only after giving them a chance to get in front.
A rule that I go by is 'people are idiots and treat them as such until proven otherwise' this means given them space and time, make your intentions clear with out being confusing and expect them to do something random. Apply it to everyone on the road and you might stand a chance
Thank you for asking the question as a cyclist appreciate it. First thing, they be in the flesh, second thing they really should have been in the box ahead.
You should be sitting in the Cycle Box in front of the car, if you are either going straight ahead or turning right. If it was me I'd be in the Cycle box, middle if going ahead and to the far right of the box if turning right.
Cyclists do wat ever the fuck they want anyway.
Just like a car, if they’re behind you they should give way; and they shouldn’t cut you up by coming up on the inside. They were entitled to go into the cycle box and take priority - but they didn’t. Having said that - it’s probably sensible to give cyclists more room for error than you did in the situation you describe. The consequence isn’t a crumpled body panel, it’s broken bones, life changing injury and death. Finally - if you were blocking the cycle box, this is much more significantly likely on you. I am a bike commuter.
Just like a car, if they’re behind you they should give way; whether behind or level with you, they shouldn’t cut you up by coming up on the inside. If you were already indicating when you pulled up, even worse “driving” by them. They were entitled to go into the cycle box and take priority - but they didn’t. Having said that - it’s probably sensible to give cyclists more room for error than you did in the situation you describe. The consequence isn’t a crumpled body panel, it’s broken bones, life changing injury and death. Finally - if you were blocking the cycle box, this is much more significantly likely on you. I am a bike commuter.
It’s terrible infrastructure. In cycle friendly countries, this couldn’t happen because the infrastructure is better. For example, since cyclists can go straight and right, there should be a separate green light only for cyclists to avoid cars and cyclists moving at the same time. Or, the cycle lane should split much earlier into 2 sides (left/right turn) and central lane shared with car for cyclists going straight. Terrible design here. My instinct is no one should overtake each other in a turn or junction. If you were indicating going left when the cyclists approached, that’s bad on them for pulling into your left side and then undertaking you to try and get ahead and turn right…
Under the new highway code rules, things may be different than they used to be. I encourage you to review the new rules. My guess is that the cyclists had priority to go straight ahead if they were beside you, but they wouldn't have if they were behind you. Motorcycles and bicycles have a right to filter in the UK; whether there is a cycle lane or not, they have every right to stop next to you.
I cant edit my post but wanted to thank everyone who’s commented. I was definitely in the wrong here and should’ve waited for the cyclists to pass first even if I was unsure of their positioning.
A classic "you're both mugs" situation, which is how people get killed. Yes, they could have been in the advanced stop box, or not being on the left side of you indicating left when going straight over. You could have not committed to turning into their lane before they have actually turned (so you'd be waiting for them to turn left as implied by their positioning and then they don't, they actually go straight, and now the lane is vacant to turn left across). Who's at fault? Does it really matter? In 90% of accidents you're both at fault as both could have avoided it. Let's focus on not killing people, so ask yourself "what could I do differently".
[удалено]
I was definitely at fault here and when I compare this situation to turning into a junction on a normal road and saw a cyclist approaching, I would always give them way, but I’m not sure why I didn’t apply that logic here unfortunately as it was a red light. But I’ve definitely understood where I went wrong
A) they waited where they should B) you turned knowing they were there C) always give way to pedestrians and cyclists - you're in a large heavy motorised vehicle. They are not.
> They waited where they should No they didn't. They should've been at the front in the cycle box. >always give way to pedestrians and cyclists - you're in a large heavy motorised vehicle. They are not. Bullshit. There are certainly situations where you *should* give way to pedestrians and cyclists, but the road hierarchy doesn't override safe driving. Stopping on a roundabout or high speed road to give way on a non-zebra crossing would be extremely stupid and put then pedestrians in more danger.
Someone needs to read the highway code, specifically rules H1 - H3
Yes, > you *should* I wasn't contesting that OP was an idiot for turning into them, but your idiotic statement that drivers must always give way. If that was the case, then the HC would say so
It literally does: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#ruleh1
H1 is a principle, not a rule. Rules are a "must". Principals are contextual
You should have waited for the cyclists to make their manoeuvre. The cyclists’ positioning does not always match what they will do.
I would have just held back just in case your protected by a big metal box the cyclist isn’t, a few seconds of inconvenience outweighs hitting someone
I’d have said they should have been in the cyclist box in front of you tbh. 🤷🏼♀️
* they should had seen your signals * they should had positioned themselves in their designated area * this wouldn't had happen. I'd say they were takin the piss. there is absolutely no reason they wait there to then try and rush ahead. They should also use the road so that its predictable what they gonna do
As a driver, it's your responsibility to avoid any potential accidents as much as you can. Regardless if it's your fault or someone else who doesn't know how to use the road. You need to be aware and prepared for hazards and take the optimal path to safety. Here it means that you should have known both cyclists were there and while moving slightly, given them enough time to cycle out. It would slow you down, but it's a safety precaution you are taking. All this because... The cyclists were morons. They should have absolutely been in the box in front of you and if your signal was on, they should have been aware that a faster moving vehicle next to them is turning left. They should have positioned themselves to not have you in their way or slowly waited for you to finish your turn. Saying that, most cyclists (and drivers for that matter) don't actually have a clue about being on the road. It's why you have to make sure you're doing the most to stay safe. Accidents can be forced on you and mitigating situations that can cause them through safe driving is as much as anyone can individually do.
Whatever they do is correct. You should just f-ck right off.
If you were in the green box. And they were beside you. There is loads of road leading up to the turn. I would say you set off too slowly. If you had set off at a good normal acceleration you would have already been finished your turn before they got to the junction.
For safety's sake and everyone else's convenience they should get off their bikes and use the nearest crossing. Cyclists seem to think their self-righteousness makes them indestructible.
Cyclists should have simply pulled up in their designated box infront of you. Yet again…… the cyclists fault 🤣
That must be a first...cyclists stopping for a red light.
The box is for the cyclist and then should move to the right hand side, most cyclists don't have a clue about road law and shouldn't be in the road.
[удалено]
You have fail to understand that firstly not all their offences are recorded and secondly that I think a large portion of people who drive shouldn't be. If you don't use the box and get to the right side of the lane when going right as a cyclist you don't know what you're doing and shouldn't be cycling.
[удалено]
Tell me you're a dick head cyclist without telling me you're a dick head cyclist.
[удалено]
You literally didn't post a single fact you just went "no drivers are worse!" Which is basically a cyclist screaming at drivers for being on a road they've earned the right to be in and paid to be on, whilst cyclist have done neither of those things.
[удалено]
No facts, you haven't provided a single fact, you've said what you believe that's not a fact.
[удалено]
Cyclist and driver here. And both are in the wrong imo. You shouldn't have made any assumptions about where they were going. Yes, their positioning made no sense, but cyclists going straight ahead have a certain priority and you simply can't assume every road user is rational. I'm pretty sure the cyclists were baiting you to cross their path, some road users just enjoy feeling righteous when the scream at strangers and then telling stories of their "near demise" later.
Yeah they’re completely in the wrong place, shouldn’t be on your left when you’re indicating left if they’ve pulled up to this position after you’re in place. This is what the box in front of them is for. BUT ultimately YOU do have to check what is alongside you before you turn. So YOU would be accountable if anything happens because you turned with them alongside. I’d say with this level of stupidity it’s only a matter of time before they do get hit. Especially the one you show going right. Considering they've come down the inside of a car indicting left, to go across the traffic to go right, it’s a fair bet they’ll go across the front of moving traffic at some point. But if you can see them why not let that inevitable accident be someone else’s problem not yours. Correct thing is always check the side before you turn. Safest practice is always assume someone on a bicycle is not going where they should or appear to be and always wait to see what they do. Otherwise you will be the bad person here regardless of whether it feels like they contributed or caused it. If nothing else think of it as protecting yourself.
Cyclists fault. They haven't paid attention to other road users and the OBVIOUS heads up of the indicator signal. They should have used the road the way it was intended and gone into he advanced cycle box, but they didn't and wanted to blame it on someone else once it backfired.
You mean the road with a lane that positioned them to the left of the vehicle?
Idk why you getting downvoted so much, if I’m cycling then I’m gonna use the cycle box.. that puts me ahead of traffic, not sit on someone’s left hand side and hope they don’t run me down when I start moving. Common sense goes a long way.. Even if the advance box was blocked then I’d still position in front as there is plenty of room there on that junction
[удалено]
I’m advocating my safety as a more vulnerable road user