Cyclists not using hand signals

custardy

well mentioning buses
Edinburghsbus provider LRT are pretty good with respect to cyclists
thats a message from up top
complaints are actioned as well(from my and other cyclists experience
First bus could take note!

heres one of their training vids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-71rEJNvMXQ

Tilt

I also was a bus driver and while working in Wolverhampton, one of my colleges came across a cyclist immediately in front of her bus attempting an illegal right turn into a no entry street. As she wasnt' expecting him (the cyclist) to do this, she unfortunately managed to run over him, killing him instantly.

Somehow she managed to escaped being done for causing death by dangerous driving (which I believe she should of been btw as imo, she must of been travelling to close and too fast) because the cyclist was deemed to to have caused the incident in the first place.

In any event, even if she had have been done, it wouldn't have done much for the cyclist.

This was a prime example how some cyclists do put themselves in un-necessary danger. Fortunately for most of them, they get away with it but to me (like I said earlier in the thread), its like playing Russian Roulette.

Billy-no-Money

Tilt wrote: »

I also was a bus driver and while working in Wolverhampton, one of my colleges came across a cyclist immediately in front of her bus attempting an illegal right turn into a no entry street. As she wasnt' expecting him (the cyclist) to do this, she unfortunately managed to run over him, killing him instantly.

Difficult one, and it reminds me of one hazard that can have a similar effect; to stop rat-running it's common for councils to block one end of a minor road and make it no entry - but leave the junction open to cyclists by providing a lane either side of the barrier. The road itself remains two-way.

This means drivers don't expect anybody to turn right, and indeed I've had cases of drivers trying to 'educate' me while I'm performing a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre. There must have been mitigating circumstances, otherwise I would have expected that bus driver to have the book thrown at her.

(Why do some drivers think they automatically know more about the rules of the road than a cyclist? Most of us have cars too!)

Tilt

The incident i'm referring to was a busy junction slap bang in the middle of the town so there were loads of witnesses. I personally didn't see it happen but I saw the aftermath. Not very pleasent. The guy had ended up under the rear wheels of the bus! I too don't understand why she wasn't prosecuted because imho, she was either driving too fast (but not necesarily over the speed limit) for the conditions or she was following too close to the cyclist. But apparently it was deemed that the cyclist was at fault.

cyclonebri1

custardy wrote: »

but the left isnt always the safest option.
I go up a hill to a mare of a junction
you have to sit right to get over the junction
there are nearly always cars going right
pull left and you are in the squish zone
I open my min because I am a driver and a cyclist
I see both sides. however many drivers think they know whats right for both.

I never said the pull to the left was the safest option under all conditions, merely that there were times when it was.

We all know specific road junctions where there is clearly a safe option and sometimes a non conforming option is the safest.

And many cyclists have the view that if they have thew right to position themselves at a certain point on the road then because it is correct to do so, it renders them impervious to being squised/sqashed.

It's called defensive driving, or in this case riding, and it disregards the mode of transport.

And finally if you think I'm anti cyclist read again, the very 1st words I posted on this topic went along the lines of "I'm with the cyclists on this one"

Dave_C_2

alastairq wrote: »

If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
I highlight in red precisely the point I was making.
In other words, there are valid circumstances where a vehicle might be stopped within the cycle area, to comply with the HC and Law.
Therefore it is unfair to vilify motorists for doing so.

I won't repeat the full HC rule.but here's the picture


Basically you must stop at the first white line if the signal is amber or red.
The distance between the two white lines is only a bike length.
So legally to stop at the second white line, you have to go over the first white line at green then in a bike length the lights have to go from green through amber and finally at red, then you must have time to stop. This means that the traffic is moving very slowly!
In normal traffic flow this should very rarely happen. Any good driver will realise that the traffic is such that he will be be blocking the Advanced Stop Zone and stop at the first white line - just as you should on pedestrian crossings (rule 192).

Therefore it is quite easy to vilify motorists who unnecessarily encroach on the cyclist's waiting area.

Why do you do it?

Dave

alastairq

On the contrary!

It is quite normal in slow-moving traffic to have crossed the first 'stop' line.....and then have to halt....reasons are irrelevant!

What the HC [and the Law] seek to specify is, if the first 'stop' line has been crossed, then a vehicle must use the second 'stop' line should the lights turn to amber or red.

The reason for this is simple.


If the first 'stop' line is to be deemed the only 'stop' line with regards to motor vehicles, then, under the law...if that 'stop' line is crossed legitimately, but the lights subsequently turn to amber or red, then that vehicle is no longer under the control of those traffic lights.

Since there now exist a green zone with it's own 'stop' line....there could be confusion, hence the rule as the HC mentions?


If a cyclist comes across a vehicle stopped within the green area at a traffic lights, there can and may be, extremely valid reasons for it being there......and the driver has in fact responded correctly to the regulations...and should not be vilified for having done so.....lest the cyclist find themselves under scrutiny?

[perhaps ask the question as to why cyclists deem it fine to use the main carriageway when a specific cycles-only path is signed and available to them?]

There are no such things as 'good' drivers, or 'good' cyclists.

Everybody responds in the appropriate manner to the prevailing circumstances.

custardy

alastairq wrote: »

On the contrary!

It is quite normal in slow-moving traffic to have crossed the first 'stop' line.....and then have to halt....reasons are irrelevant!

What the HC [and the Law] seek to specify is, if the first 'stop' line has been crossed, then a vehicle must use the second 'stop' line should the lights turn to amber or red.

The reason for this is simple.


If the first 'stop' line is to be deemed the only 'stop' line with regards to motor vehicles, then, under the law...if that 'stop' line is crossed legitimately, but the lights subsequently turn to amber or red, then that vehicle is no longer under the control of those traffic lights.

Since there now exist a green zone with it's own 'stop' line....there could be confusion, hence the rule as the HC mentions?


If a cyclist comes across a vehicle stopped within the green area at a traffic lights, there can and may be, extremely valid reasons for it being there......and the driver has in fact responded correctly to the regulations...and should not be vilified for having done so.....lest the cyclist find themselves under scrutiny?

[perhaps ask the question as to why cyclists deem it fine to use the main carriageway when a specific cycles-only path is signed and available to them?]

There are no such things as 'good' drivers, or 'good' cyclists.

Everybody responds in the appropriate manner to the prevailing circumstances.

in slow moving traffic.theres no reason not to simply wait until that section is clear before moving through it
same as those divers who stop in pedestrian crossings whilst 'in traffic'

Harry_Flashman

custardy wrote: »

in slow moving traffic.theres no reason not to simply wait until that section is clear before moving through it

Except a failed (although legitimate) attempt to be across both lines before the lights change?

Dave_C_2

It is quite normal in slow-moving traffic to have crossed the first 'stop' line.....and then have to halt....reasons are irrelevant!

Except a failed (although legitimate) attempt to be across both lines before the lights change?

These are nothing more than excuses!
The distance between the two white lines is only a bike length, not even one car length.
As with Pedestrian crossings, you should be able to anticipate that you will get stuck in an Advanced Stop Zone (ASZ) You wouldn't stop on a pedestrian crossing, so why stop in an ASZ?

Dave