Left Turning Vehicles and Highway Code

.

You have attempt to be absolutely carful all of the time, whatever vehicle you are riding/driving. You should never move a vehicle into a space without looking to see if it is safe to do so and that shouldn't be too hard to remember.

This is because everyone makes mistakes (ourselves included) and sometimes people do moronic things. Even morons don't deserve to be hurt so we should aim to be alert for the mistakes of others to avoid the worst from happening. All of the time.

In relation to points 3, i think there is lots of publicity about this. Have you seen the stickers on the back of trucks/busses/vans recently?

I don't think point 4 is an issue if your already taking your time and being carful.

For all the rules regulations and rationalisations out there we all just need to take our time and look out for each other and quit the blame game. It doesn't help anyone.

In fairness, getting drivers to signal consistently and early would be a good start.

Hand on heart, i can say i **always **check mirrors when turning left to make sure no one is coming on my inside. Cycling in London, and seeing morons undertake left indicating vehicles, has taught me to do this!

I also always check my mirrors and do an over-the-shoulder when turning or moving in either direction. I don't know why anyone wouldn't, especially the OP who seems to understand why you should. You may be a moron for undertaking an indicating vehicle, but that doesn't mean you deserve to get knocked off.

Other than my other points what I am trying to say / ask is -

(1) Does everyone else on here really drive perfectly double and treble checking their inside before every single left turn?

(2) Even if they do (which I sincerely doubt) if someone like me who really does try to be a good driver and a very cycle-friendly driver forgets to check as well and often as they should then how easy must it be for someone busy, stressed, never cycled, hates cyclists to make the same mistake?

Acutally, checking your mirrors before turning left isn't good enough. Passenger cars do have blind spots as well. The only way of making sure there isn't any cyclist on your inside is a shoulder check.

I'm German and passed my driving test in Germany 20 years ago. The shoulder check before the left (on the continent: right) turn is one thing the driving instructors are really mental about until it really becomes ingrained. You instantly fail your driving test if you forget to do it.

I rarely drive in London, but yes, I think I do the shoulder check before I turn.

A related problem is that turning cars in the UK do not stop for pedestrians who are crossing the street. That's absolutely common in Germany (and, I think, other parts of contintental Europe). Since drivers do not have to stop here, they can turn at significantly higher speed (which also induces many to cut corners, which annoys me as a cyclist time and again.)

At the core of the whole issue is the lack of strict liability for motorists in the UK, I think. The knowlegde that you as the operator of a potentially deadly machine are liable for any damages you cause EVEN WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING WRONG INTENTIONALLY is a big incentive to drive more carefully, I think. Realistically, however, campaigning for strict liability in the UK is probably a lost cause.

What I find particularly difficult about the recent inquest into the death at Southampton Way is that the coach turned left from the right hand lane, across two lanes of traffic. I understand he was indicating, and I know that coaches have a wider turning circle than smaller vehicles, but essentially the driver was lost, and in the wrong lane, and forced his way across two lanes of traffic.

Experienced riders might stay the hell away from long vehicles, but less experienced riders might (reasonably) expect if a driver's in the outside lane and the two nearside lanes are moving freely, that they can proceed. If a vehicle has such large blind spots, is it really reasonable for them to take up a road position that increases the field of that blind spot to include two whole lanes, and expect no other road user to be in that space?

Strict liability is the only answer, not least as it would - I think - make everyone have to have a black box / camera if they want to afford insurance.

AFAIK this is already starting to come in, at the mo only for those wanting to save a bit on their insurance by having a camera running all the time, but I can see in the years to come them being more popular.

Yesterday I caught on camera a 4x4 ripping its front bumper off on my properly parked car, well, got a few still images, but anyway it instantly sorts the 'it was already like that, word vs word, who dunnit' questions, I was 3 floors up so not able to actually stop it from happening.

Despite what highway code rule 183 says if a driver looks but doesn't see a cyclist on the near side that is often enough to avoid a prosecution. The coach driver at Southampton row said that he braked to give way to a taxi coming up on his left in lane 1, he looked again and didn't see the cyclist so continued his turn.
As he began the turn from lane three by the time he crossed lane one he was more than half way through the turn so would have little or no view of lane one in his mirrors. I suspect that he saw the lights of the taxi "cutting him up" through the left side windows. He didn't see the lights of Francis Golding's bike following the taxi.
While the driver may not have followed highway code rules 182-3 the cyclist did not follow rules 72-73 . In practice people don't analyse road situations with respect to the highway code as they ride or drive around.
My guess is that Francis Golding saw the bus stop for the taxi and assumed the driver would see him too and not pull out in front. The cyclist behind him interpreted the situation differently and assumed the bus would continue to turn so he slowed down and stopped.

Post 52 Chameleon says "* lcc should be campaigning on the position 'blind spots are not an excuse for killing people. look twice..', not accepting the status quo"*
That has always been my position. While a lot can be done to make lorries safer that does not excuse the driver who doesn't pay attention to the road all around them.
There has been a great deal of misleading publicity around the myth of blind spots. Not least the appalling, misleading video and poster put out by TfL which falsely suggests that drivers cannot see cyclists along the left side of a lorry.
Many people mis-interpret the marked area around the front and side of lorries used in police hgv 'changing places' events. That area isn that which the driver must be able to see through class V and VI overhead mirrors. He should be checking this area when stationary and before moving off. Once the lorry is moving these areas are much harder to see.
I suspect there have been fewer prosecutions of careless drivers in recent years as the police investigations have been led by detectives who do not understand driving and traffic law instead of the uniformed police who were experts.

That has always been my position. While a lot can be done to make lorries safer that does not excuse the driver who doesn't pay attention to the road all around them.
There has been a great deal of misleading publicity around the myth of blind spots. Not least the appalling, misleading video and poster put out by TfL which falsely suggests that drivers cannot see cyclists along the left side of a lorry.
Many people mis-interpret the marked area around the front and side of lorries used in police hgv 'changing places' events. That area isn that which the driver must be able to see through class V and VI overhead mirrors. He should be checking this area when stationary and before moving off. Once the lorry is moving these areas are much harder to see.
I suspect there have been fewer prosecutions of careless drivers in recent years as the police investigations have been led by detectives who do not understand driving and traffic law instead of the uniformed police who were experts.

I have to say that when I recently tried one of the police-sponsored sit-in-a-lorry things then I was quite surprised just how much coverage there was with mirrors these days. There seemed to be one very specific blind spot (though it was unfortunately in a place cyclists often seem to end up in at junctions) but that was about it - not that I'd place myself left of a lorry anyway.

I noticed that as usual they used an articulated job for the demonstration but I can't help thinking this is a bit misleading as the poorly regulated and driven fixed wheel base 'waste management' lorries used at building sites are the real problem. Their drivers kill far more cyclists as I understand it...come to think of it one of them nearly took me out as a pedestrian a while back by cutting a corner too sharply.

Acutally, checking your mirrors before turning left isn't good enough. Passenger cars do have blind spots as well. The only way of making sure there isn't any cyclist on your inside is a shoulder check.

I'm German and passed my driving test in Germany 20 years ago. The shoulder check before the left (on the continent: right) turn is one thing the driving instructors are really mental about until it really becomes ingrained. You instantly fail your driving test if you forget to do it.

I rarely drive in London, but yes, I think I do the shoulder check before I turn.

A related problem is that turning cars in the UK do not stop for pedestrians who are crossing the street. That's absolutely common in Germany (and, I think, other parts of contintental Europe). Since drivers do not have to stop here, they can turn at significantly higher speed (which also induces many to cut corners, which annoys me as a cyclist time and again.)

At the core of the whole issue is the lack of strict liability for motorists in the UK, I think. The knowlegde that you as the operator of a potentially deadly machine are liable for any damages you cause EVEN WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING WRONG INTENTIONALLY is a big incentive to drive more carefully, I think. Realistically, however, campaigning for strict liability in the UK is probably a lost cause.

vehicles turning into side roads are instructed to give way to pedestrians crossing the road in rule 170:

Rule 170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

• watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
  
  • watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
    
    

better awareness and more enforcement of this rule would be useful..

rule 170 is rarely observed and never enforced. Recently I have tried to observe it as much as possible. pedestrians are surprised and disbelieving.
In the uk it only applies if the pedestrian has begun to cross, and doesn't apply at all if there are traffic signals.
In the Netherlands the primary rule of the road is that all turning traffic must give way to straight on traffic (includes peds and cycles). That makes junctions much safer and signalled junctions much simpler and efficient as peds and motors both get green at the same time. Motors turning on green slow down or stop to give way to people on bikes or foot.

I've found in the last few years just about no one observes the code about turning left.
I've nearly bought it twice this year, which I consider fair odds!

Apologies for the dredge, but though that this was the best place for this question.

Chris Boardman was on the Today programme this morning talking about this proposal from British Cycling.

Can anyone confirm how the highway code on turning left currently applies to the cycle superhighways? I regularly see uncertainty from drivers and cyclists as to who has right of way where a car is turning left across the path of a cyclist continuing straight on.

Sometimes both will stop, other times (as I saw this morning), vehicles will assume that they have right of way, and that cyclists should stop while they turn over their path.

My gut feeling is that, like with any other lane of traffic, the obligation is on the turning vehicle to wait until it's path is clear before turning, but is this correct by the Highway Code?

Your last statement is correct as far as I know. A segregated cycle lane is a normal lane of carriageway and drivers turning over it into or out of a junction must give way to those in the lane
Edit: I don't think the proposal is to make this the Highway Code but rather to make it specifically in there so there's less misunderstanding I would have thought

A change like this will require quite a step change in behaviour though. When ever I'm on the continent and see this way in action, I'm always surprised at how good drivers are at checking their mirrors and how happy cyclists are to fly up the inside.

It is a "different way" of driving/using the road. Now, if someone is indicating left at a junction, and a cyclist is approaching from behind, it is the cyclists responsibility to stop and allow the vehicle to complete it's manoeuvre, however the driver should not do so, until they are sure the cyclist has stopped to allow this.

The new proposal would basically mean cars have to wait to turn left until all cyclsists have passed. This is "fine" if you have a left turn lane at the junction, but its going to be very unpopular where there is no filter lane and all the traffic behind has to back up waiting.

As usual, it's probably a case of it could work, if our junctions had been designed with this in mind in the first place, but as they haven't, it would be very tricky to implement. I imagine it would also be monumentally unpopular...

Reminds me of the shock and awe I felt cycling in the Netherlands that seg'd bike tracks crossing roads had priority over motors as they exited a roundabout! Would love to see that in Milton Bloomin Keynes, they drive at 70 everywhere there.

What I think it would do is get 'round that problem of drivers left hooking cyclists then claiming that the cyclist 'undertook'.

Hi without reading any updates since I passed my test (30 yrs ago) the rule was that when turning a vehicle reguardless left right backwards etc you don't have right of way unless it's clear, unfortunately with time and lack of policing it seems to have become the norm to flick the indicator and turn and fuck anyone else, when I'm cycling I just give way in an attempt to stay alive and it's worked thus far. I'm still amazed at how many drivers think indicating gives them right of way.

I'm German and passed my driving test in Germany 20 years ago. The shoulder check before the left (on the continent: right) turn is one thing the driving instructors are really mental about until it really becomes ingrained. You instantly fail your driving test if you forget to do it.

I got my driving license in France 5 or 6 years ago, and it's the same drill: no over-the-shoulder check + mirror check before turning or changing lane is an instant fail. It becomes second nature quite quickly, fortunately.

I passed my test earlier in the year and even in lessons my instructor wondered why I waited when turning left over a cycle path

it seems to have become the norm to flick the indicator and turn and fuck anyone else

This. Not just in towns; on the motorway, a lot of people seem to think if they've put their indicators on then they can now come barging in and fuck the consequences.

Looks like drivers would yield only if there's a cycle lane?

Doesn't really make sense. Pedestrians all the time (basically every junction becomes a zebra crossing? Cyclists only when there is a cycle lane?