London SE1 community website

Sick of all the push bikers jumping lights on Borough High St

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 10 of 45
Monday 21 May 2012 3.27pm
Chalkey, that's fair enough and thanks for clarifying - my experience is that often this is not the case, as it is rare for the car turning left to need to slow down for long enough that a bike can 'catch them', unless it has only recently been overtaken.

I think in some cases removal of traffic lights can work, but in London where everyone is in such a rish to get everywhere, I think it would only lead to more problems.
Monday 21 May 2012 3.30pm
urbanite wrote:
Guy's street wrote:
urbanite wrote:
Guy's Street there are laws in place...they say don't undertake and don't jump lights!
Yep - funnily enough both laws regularly flouted by people driving cars, as well as cyclists.
What are the laws on 'undertaking' when the cyclist is in a clearly marked cycle-lane, such as the blue ones? Not trying to catch anyone out, I just genuinely don't know - this route is effectively part of the road, and often crossed by buses and taxis, and intersects junctions where cars may want to turn left.

Is there a different rule for people cycling on this sort of route, rather than just on the road?


When the blue cycle land has a fixed white line dividing it from the vehicle lane it is a cycle only lane...when the white line is broken it is a lane for anyone to use and is part of the vehicle lane. Where blue lanes approach junctions they are invariably broken white lanes and therefore not cycle lanes but part of the vehicle lane they are next to. In such cases (most if not all to the best of my knowledge) therfore cycles should not undertake coming towards a junction.

Thanks - yet another example of those cycle super highways being a complete waste of time and actually more of a danger to cyclists (who probably presume they have right of way at all times on the 'blue' bit, and why wouldn't you, given their name) than a help.
Monday 21 May 2012 3.33pm
Broken line is not not a cycle lane, it is a cycle lane that others may enter when necessary, for example, to turn, or go around someone stopped to turn right.

White solid line means you may not enter under any circumstances (this includes parking, 24/7/236).

I failed a driving test for driving in a dotted one, so this is well remembered for me!
Monday 21 May 2012 3.34pm
Guy's street wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
Guy's street wrote:
Ivanhoe, I agree with you - but given the speed the the two vehicles travel at, I find it hard to imagine in most cases that for the cyclist be crossing a junction as the car is turning left, the car has not recently overtaken that bike, knowing full well they are going to have to turn across the path of that bike to make the left turn. Unless there is a long line of traffic turning left which has slowed down the traffic flow...

Yes. You are quite right. I am making it all up.

Either that, or I'm actually telling the truth and you're just wittering on trying to blindly defend cyclists any which way you can.

I'm happy to let the other posters decide (but I'll give you a clue. For road users other than cyclists, a lot of time is spent waiting in stationary traffic, or stopped at a red light. Now, if I see a vehicle - of any kind - ahead of me in a queue, indicating to turn left, I wouldn't try to take a path up its inside. Whereas many cyclists seem to think this is acceptable, if not obligatory).

I didn't say the cyclist shouldn't slow down and wait for the car to turn left once the car is ahead and signalling left. But if the driver of the car held back a little initially then it wouldn't be an issue. As far as I see it, there's a bit more common sense which could be shown by both people.

I'll try this just once more, in case you're not really deliberately misreading my posts.

I've already said I wouldn't overtake a vehicle just before I wanted to turn left.

Which means that any cycles coming up my inside as I'm in the process of turning have come from behind me, and have not just been overtaken by me.

Those vehicles have caught me up whilst I'm turning because of any one or any combination of the following factors:

- I've probably been waiting to make the turn (whilst the cyclist has been moving towards me)

- In many situations, I'm waiting to turn at some traffic lights. Traffic lights are often on red, which means that I will stop (giving cyclists the chance to catch me up)

- depending on the junction, I'll turn slowly until I can get good visibility of what's round the corner (e.g. a pedestrian crossing the road I'm just about to turn into).

As far as I'm concerned, I'm showing common sense. The person who's not showing common sense is the cyclist who undertakes me whilst I'm clearly indicating left and about to make the turn.

...if you press it, they will come.
Monday 21 May 2012 3.34pm
Lots of vehicles may also be turning from a stationary position after being held at a red light...watching lights and then moving to turn left possibly (probably) with another vehicle behind an undertaking cyclist coming up to lights might not be aware that the car intends to turn...and in this case would easily "catch up" the car...there is no excuse or good reason for undertaking where the traffic flow is not impeeded for an unnaturally long duration. Impatience from cyclists and poor lane positioning, often by vehicles and cyclists, and some really poor road layouts bt TfL make the whole situation very difficult if everyone doesn't follow the rules.
Monday 21 May 2012 3.38pm
Guy's street wrote:
yet another example of those cycle super highways being a complete waste of time and actually more of a danger to cyclists (who probably presume they have right of way at all times on the 'blue' bit, and why wouldn't you, given their name) than a help.

Well, the reason I wouldn't presume right of way is because I've taken the trouble to try and learn my highway code.

...if you press it, they will come.
Monday 21 May 2012 3.43pm
Ivanhoe - I'm not accussing you, I'm talking about people in general - I've already told you I agree with you and your approach. I think you'd realise this is you practiced what you preach and read my posts properly. I don't know why you're spoiling for an argument. When I learnt the highway code, it didn't include Cycle Super Highways.

Urbanite - completely agree, andm I've actually already made the same point about a queue of stationary traffic waiting to turn left.

Jamesup - does that mean that the person on the bike, or person in the car, has priority when the car is turning left across a cycle lane?
Monday 21 May 2012 3.55pm
The priority in a cycle lane if it is a full lane is with whoever is in that lane...your question to Jamesup is very dificult to answer as the conditions at any point vary...but in general the vehicle or cycle in that lane has priority if it is indeed in a full lane...if the lane is not a full lane (has a broken white line) and a vehicle is in it then anything behind or coming up next to does NOT have a priority right of way. I have a feeling that for an awful lot of cyclists this may come as a bit of a surprise..or if not an unwelcome truth....but we do not have seperate cycle lanes in 99% of London and cyclists as much as they preach to vehicle users need to understand how roads work for all users not just their own vested interests.
Monday 21 May 2012 4.05pm
Guy's street wrote:
When I learnt the highway code, it didn't include Cycle Super Highways.
No, but I expect it did include the meaning of solid white lines and broken white lines.

I'm really not spoiling for an argument. It just gets on my chest when you keep telling me that I don't know what I'm saying and that if a cyclist cuts up my inside when I'm turning left, that it's probably my fault and that I must have just overtaken them.

I'm sorry if I've lost my cool over the last couple of posts. I'll try to maintain it

...if you press it, they will come.
Monday 21 May 2012 4.24pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
Guy's street wrote:
When I learnt the highway code, it didn't include Cycle Super Highways.
No, but I expect it did include the meaning of solid white lines and broken white lines.

I'm really not spoiling for an argument. It just gets on my chest when you keep telling me that I don't know what I'm saying and that if a cyclist cuts up my inside when I'm turning left, that it's probably my fault and that I must have just overtaken them.

I'm sorry if I've lost my cool over the last couple of posts. I'll try to maintain it

You're quite right it did include solid/broken lines. You must agree though, that calling a lane a 'cycle superhighway', or even just a 'cycle lane' gives the impression that a bicycle would have priority within this lane at all times. In an ideal world everyone who took to the road, in a car, on a bike, or by foot, would be familiar with the highway code, but I'm sure only a minority of all groups are.

I'm not telling you anything - I'm talking about the general behaviour of your average road user. You sound to me like a very careful, sensible road user and your approach sounds like the right one.

Apology accepted, by the way.
Current: 10 of 45

To post a message, please log in or register..
September at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions