Cyclist at traffic lights

[Soapboxqueen]

Just saw this and wondered on thoughts. Just for context there are no cycle lanes on this bit of road.

At a set of traffic lights. Lights turn green, cars start slowly moving forward. First car is turning left, a cyclist comes very quickly up the inside, car doesn't see him (in fairness with the speed the cyclist was moving it would have been difficult and because of the curvature of the road) so car continues to turn left, cyclist has to come to an abrupt stop. Cyclist makes it clear he isn't happy. I doubt the car saw him to know he was miffed .

So, I know with the new rules we are supposed to treat cyclist as if they are in their own lane and wait for them to pass but if they are coming very quickly/the road is obscured, is the driver still in the wrong or should the cyclist have taken more care?

The driver went around the corner quite slowly relatively speaking, so going slower wouldn't have helped.

I was in my car at 90 degrees to this so could see how fast the cyclist was going.

A cyclist passing on the left a car which is already turning left is incredibly stupid.

I’m a cyclist myself and it’s idiots like this that give cyclists a bad name. I don’t think you ever expect someone to overtake you on the left so I can’t see how the driver could have done anything differently.

Oh I do love a cyclist-bashing thread!

Yes the cyclist was in the wrong, they shouldn't have been undertaking and as they were doing so, should have watched the traffic.

The driver was also in the wrong, they should be paying attention to what's going on around them and looking out for hazards. "I didn't see him" isn't an excuse for killing him, even if he is on a bike.

Cyclist at fault. Whereas they can pass stationary traffic on the inside, they shouldn't pass moving traffic

Was the car indicating to turn left?

I appreciate they always seem to desend into that but that isn't my intention.

I agree that drivers need to be careful, particularly of more vulnerable road users but in this instance because of the curve of the road and the speed of the cyclist, I'm not sure how else he could have been safer.

I'm just aware that even with that, the law may not agree.

Yes.

Cyclist sounds like they had a death wish

If cyclists had to do some basic road use training they would have more chance of knowing how a left turn works. I nearly hit one two days ago cos he decide to ignore the red light at a cross roads. He gave me a really puzzled look when I honked at him!

Most cyclists are also drivers so they will have had some basic road use training

Agreed and having passed a test doesn't seem to stop some drivers doing some very bizarre things.

Sounds like the cyclist wasn’t fully paying due care and attention. Care to elaborate how many drivers you saw speeding, not observing stopping distances, not indicating etc. on the same
journey? Statistically it will be wayyyyy higher but that narrative doesn’t feed the MN bullying / anti-cyclist culture. I’m both btw and having driven 5+ hours today can honestly say I’m amazed there aren’t more accidents given the truly shocking standards of driving shown by many people behind the wheel. Personally find it hard to get wound up about a non-mechanical vehicle on many of these threads. 2 tons of metal hurtling along at high speeds is where you need to be directing your irritation.

Cyclist should hang back. Cyclist was in the wrong.

I cycle everywhere and would never try to pass a car on the side it was already turning towards. That's just stupid.

Best to get to the front of the queue at lights so you can go first and everyone can see you. If that's not possible for God's sake exercise some situational awareness.

But I wouldn't be on mumsnet asking if those drivers were in the wrong because I'd already know that they were.

This is about a specific situation of which I wasn't sure about. Hth

The lights turned green as he approached so whether he was aiming to go in the little cycle box at the front (though he would have had to come to a very hard stop because of his speed) but decided to keep going, or didn't notice the car indicating, I don't know.

I'm a cyclist and the cyclist was definitely at fault. As the pp said, it's cyclists like him that give the rest of us a bad name. I'm reasonably confident but also cautious....I've had two cycling accidents, admittedly over 30 years apart, but no I don't like hospital food.

There's a bit on my cycle to work where there's a park and directly opposite is a low traffic neighbourhood, separated by a busy road and traffic lights. Because the park and low traffic neighbourhood is popular with cyclists, the lights for pedestrians also includes light for cyclists going into the low traffic neighbourhood. So basically a crossroads , with East to West cars/buses/motorcycles/bicycles and North to South pedestrians and cyclists only. The amount of times the I've gone North to South obeying the lights and then a cyclist going east to west completely ignoring the lights and nearly colliding.

The cyclist was under taking in the left ignoring Highway Code so they were win the wrong. Id there has been an accident you would have been a great independent witness to the cyclist ignoring Highway Code and cycling without due care and attention

Yes, that helps explain you have a drivers license and fully understand every rule in the Highway Code and how to interpret the nuanced situations of each. It’s just this particular rule regarding a cyclist you are not sure about.

Another scenario might be you’re driving at 50 mph in a 60 mph area but are approaching the brow of a hill. You maintain speed but fail to be able to stop for a car waiting to turn right over the hill you didn’t see. You are still in the wrong if you run in the back of them as weren’t paying attention to conditions of the road. In this scenario the cyclist could have slowed but we have no way of knowing distances and ultimately drivers need to be away of the curvature of the road and all potential threats. You can wrap it up any which way but still reads as cyclist bashing.

Cyclists are not allowed to undertake . Full stop. It's not a grey area in Highway Code
The cyclist would have caused that accident had there been one. But the cyclist would have come off worse.

If I am filtering a line of stationary traffic at a lights and it starts moving before I can safely get to the advance cycle box, I move out to the right into the line of traffic, to prevent exactly this situation of someone cutting across you turning left.

It’s perfectly legal for cyclists to filter stationary or slow moving traffic on the left. You’d get nowhere on cycling on busy urban roads if you didn’t.

I usually stop at lights, if I'm going ahead I try to get in the box, that's in front of the card waiting for the lights to change, that said, not all drivers indicate, same with roundabouts, so it's managing expectations of drivers being distracted, or on their phones ect, then I try to plan accordingly.

"Cyclists can filter on left or right – ideally only on the left when traffic is stopped,” said Nadia Kerr of JMW solicitors, who specialise in personal injury claims from cyclists"

The rules in the highway code have recently changed so I had a genuine question. I'm sorry this bothers you.

Your analogy doesn't work because it is reasonable to slow if you can't see the road ahead. In this instance it doesn't matter how slow you are going when turning left, if you are being undertaken by a much faster vehicle (in this case a bike) with reduced visibility back up the road.

Now, the law could still have been on the cyclists side even if I thought the driver was in a difficult situation. Hence me asking the question.