urbanite wrote:Guy's street wrote:urbanite wrote:Yep - funnily enough both laws regularly flouted by people driving cars, as well as cyclists.Guy's Street there are laws in place...they say don't undertake and don't jump lights!
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.
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.
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.
Guy's street wrote:No, but I expect it did include the meaning of solid white lines and broken white lines.When I learnt the highway code, it didn't include Cycle Super Highways.
Ivanhoe wrote:Guy's street wrote:No, but I expect it did include the meaning of solid white lines and broken white lines.When I learnt the highway code, it didn't include Cycle Super Highways.
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
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