"Even when you think you're safe, there are drivers to show you, you never are"; County reviews speed limits; What's the most annoying sound on a bike ride?; 2025 Giro could finish with Stelvio summit finish + more on the live blog

Not sure I follow: the cyclist would have been to the driver's right throughout. Once making the turn, the driver would have had to twist (right) well past 90 degrees to check the lane was clear, and so the commenter's suggestion that the driver should have slowed/stopped because of the poor angle/visibility seems sensible to me. 

They should have slowed / stopped to give them time to make absolutely sure, but they should also be planning ahead and observing the developing situation on the road well before the manoeuvre, allowing them to spot the person on a bike before they reached the junction.

mdavidford wrote:

They should have slowed / stopped to give them time to make absolutely sure, but they should also be planning ahead and observing the developing situation on the road well before the manoeuvre, allowing them to spot the person on a bike before they reached the junction.

A lot of people on the roads just can't seem to think that far ahead, and asking them to even ease off on the accelerator to slow down a bit is tantamount to asking them to hand their keys in and ride a bike.

(Except then they'd be riding a bike like a twunt instead and other motorists would use them as an object example of why bikes are Bad).

brooksby wrote:

A lot of people on the roads just can't seem to think that far ahead, and asking them to even ease off on the accelerator to slow down a bit is tantamount to asking them to hand their keys in and ride a bike.

(Except then they'd be riding a bike like a twunt instead and other motorists would use them as an object example of why bikes are Bad).

Bikes are good partly because you can ride one like a twunt and be very unlikely to cause anyone any significant harm. Please, let's get all the incompetent drivers onto bikes or scooters instead.

In other words what you're saying is any half-decent driver with reasonable awareness should have had no issues with managing their own and others road safety in this instance . Sadly , all vulnerable road-users need to be constantly aware of the shit-housery potential  of the well protected road-users in their 1+ tonne of rolling metal  at all times

Brauchsel wrote:

Not sure I follow: the cyclist would have been to the driver's right throughout. Once making the turn, the driver would have had to twist (right) well past 90 degrees to check the lane was clear, and so the commenter's suggestion that the driver should have slowed/stopped because of the poor angle/visibility seems sensible to me. 

If only there was some way of attaching a mirror to the door or wing of a car.  Then motorist could approach at the angle needed here and be able to check if the cycleway was clear when they get to the giveway line (if the so unskilled that they can't check on the approach).

jh2727 wrote:

If only there was some way of attaching a mirror to the door or wing of a car.  Then motorist could approach at the angle needed here and be able to check if the cycleway was clear when they get to the giveway line (if the so unskilled that they can't check on the approach).

But even if you could attach such a device, what would we call it?

Peripheral rear view mirrors?

jh2727 wrote:

If only there was some way of attaching a mirror to the door or wing of a car.  Then motorist could approach at the angle needed here and be able to check if the cycleway was clear when they get to the giveway line (if the so unskilled that they can't check on the approach).

Next you'll be suggesting cars should be fitted with big see through sheets of clear glass to give the occupants a nice view of the outside world and other road users! You're crazy, it'll never catch on . . . . .

Brauchsel wrote:

Not sure I follow: the cyclist would have been to the driver's right throughout. Once making the turn, the driver would have had to twist (right) well past 90 degrees to check the lane was clear, and so the commenter's suggestion that the driver should have slowed/stopped because of the poor angle/visibility seems sensible to me. 

Yes the driver should have slowed and stopped.

On the other hand, the driver was travelling along a road parallel to the cycle path, at a greater speed, so would have been behind the cyclist albeit away from a direct line of sight, but still sufficient to see the cyclists.

It just smacks of a deliberate move to try and get to the junction ahead of the cyclist.  I could be wrong but thats what it appears to me

If that was my commute I'd have an Airzound or Loud Bike Horn for many pre-emptive toots.

"actually, I'd just close the turn"

Actually it gets worse - it appears that before the construction of the cycleway, there was no opening in the central reservation there for cars (see link below). Why TF would whatever authority designed and built it (using dedicated cycling funding no doubt), design in a new feature for the convenience of drivers that can only increase the danger to cyclists???

https://goo.gl/maps/fLm2cCkyv3xqGE4A7

Flâneur wrote:

"actually, I'd just close the turn"

Actually it gets worse - it appears that before the construction of the cycleway, there was no opening in the central reservation there for cars (see link below). Why TF would whatever authority designed and built it (using dedicated cycling funding no doubt), design in a new feature for the convenience of drivers that can only increase the danger to cyclists???

https://goo.gl/maps/fLm2cCkyv3xqGE4A7

Would it be that the UK is institutionally car-obsessed and the relevant authority has literally no clue about cyclist needs?

Look slightly further ahead, they added the turn as they removed the two way turning 30 yards ahead to I assume, approve the safety and segregation there. 

Agree - don't let cars across.  There is a fundamental good reason for not having cycle paths in the middle of car infra (was it Manchester that was proposing this in places, I recall?) Also while there is no absolute proof against drivers not looking in practice the risk can be hugely reduced by design.  The best (what should be "the standard") infrastructure design does the following:
a) Ensures that everyone knows what to expect. In the UK cars are not going to expect cyclists in between traffic lanes and this crossing does nothing to prompt them.
b) Puts the safety of vulnerable users back in their own control.  To do that:
c) Ensure it's very clear when one direction of flow crosses another.  That's not the case here for either the motorists or the cyclists.  As a secondary point the "priority" - or rather whose space this is - should be absolutely clear if different types of traffic cross (e.g. cars and cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians etc.)
d) Ensure that the crossing is as close to 90 degrees as possible.  In theory that happens here but in practice because the cars are still going fast into the turn they're not at exactly 90 degrees as they start to cross.
e) Ensure you have good sight lines and both crossing parties can see the other for some seconds in advance.  Again that's the opposite of the case here, cars are going to approach you from behind due to speed. (EDIT - yes, I know the cars should be looking and will be capable of seeing the cyclists in advance but see my comment about vulnerable users - cyclists here - not having to rely on the motorist's perfect behavour for their safety).
f) Reduce the speed of the crossing vehicles.  This helps extend the time for observation, reduces the mental workload and mitigates any mistakes.  Here the drivers are already doing too many things: slowing down and turning.  Cyclists may only see the driver at the last moment.

There's a couple of excellent illustrations of exactly this in BicycleDutch videos e.g. showing cars not seeing cyclists - but it's OK because the cyclists can see that the car's not slowed.  Alas I can't lay my paws on the exact one ATM!

There was a huge grass central reservation in the middle of the A38, so it was the obvious place to find space for a cycle track.

No cycle infra is ever going to be perfect, but the Birmingham Blue Cycle Routes are pretty good.

I think I saw that when they were trailed a while back.  Not wanting to make perfect the enemy of good - and for the UK they look pretty good - possibly first class.  (I hate "superhighways" - I'd suggest only a handful of routes in the world merit that name and - spoiler - they're not in the UK).

However at some point I still think this layout needs to change.  Bikes in the middle just aren't good.  Same with places which for convenience put bikes on the road side of bus stops and parked cars, or on the inside of pedestrians.

I know that making any changes to the carriageway beyond bolt-ons / paint are the last option of our councils / road authorities for reasons of expense and disruption.  I've some sympathy for favouring smaller changes on "getting a network in place" and environmental grounds.  As long as the infra is segregated / minimum standard (e.g. "best" UK standard).  However when the time comes round to resurface a road / do some major maintenance we absolutely should be upgrading the non-motoring infra too.  Put the modes in the right places, shifting the kerbs and cars as necessary.  Call it fixing outdated layouts e.g. ones which priorise motor vehicles and feature nice wide lanes (for fast driving!) at the expense of everyone else.

Yet again the Dutch seem pretty good at scheduling / batching this so you get occasional major disruption but as much as possible gets fixed when that is done - not just a refresh of the tarmac and some changes to the paint.

Just been for a ride round some parts of town I've not visited in a while.  Several areas of new build - nothing for bikes.  A couple of distributor roads closed for resurfacing and it looks like we're just refreshing the nice wide tarmac.  Which will likely be cratered again in a year, this being Scotland.  (Nice surprise for any gravel enthusiasts though).

This is "cycling mad" Edinburgh by the way where some feel it's not so much a war on the motorist as "cultural genocide" (to use a Russian term).

Still didn't stop me having a wonderful ride.  I just feel sad for the others who don't fancy trying it.  I know they would because the car-free paths were pretty busy!

.

Needs to be STOP, not Give Way, for the drivers, and a couple of decent humps are also called for.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Needs to be STOP, not Give Way, for the drivers, and a couple of decent humps are also called for.

Although I agree, I reckon it'd be really useful to have poor junctions like this designed on purpose (or just keep our current useless road designers) but set them up with cameras and use them as a way of detecting and prosecuting the incompetent drivers. If we're going to have a war on motorists, then we should at least set up some traps for them.

Incompetent drivers you want? Some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.  So no need to design a screen / filter.  Just dig a heffalump trap in the carriageway.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Incompetent drivers you want? Some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.  So no need to design a screen / filter.  Just dig a heffalump trap in the carriageway.

It's not that I want incompetent drivers, it's just that we've got too many and now driving standard are being normalised down to their level. If we can catch some/most of them and get them to improve their skills, then there should be less carnage on the roads.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's not that I want incompetent drivers, it's just that we've got too many and now driving standard are being normalised down to their level. If we can catch some/most of them and get them to improve their skills, then there should be less carnage on the roads.

You clearly wouldn't last in political office! What we need to do is show we are reducing bad driving.  There are actually two main ways to do this:
1) lower the standards so fewer drivers fail them or
2) stop counting.  The second is the more popular method because you can play with "coding" (e.g. "they didn't die from Covid, it was actually a heart attack / shortness of breath") and scope / time limits.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Needs to be STOP, not Give Way, for the drivers, and a couple of decent humps are also called for.

.

I think someone should tell Flintshire Boy that their login has been hacked...  This comment appears to actually be relevant to the subject at hand, and related to cycling 

There seem to be a couple of ways their posts go - reasonable - if a little elegaic - and alt-right. So maybe it should be Shropshire lad and Skin-flint?