Cycle Lane crossing a T-Junction… who has right of way ?

We've all seen cycle lanes crossing T-junctions, who has the right of way ? Does the vehicle approaching the T-junction have the right of way to drive straight over the cycle lane and up to the T or does the cyclist have right of way on the cycle path leaving the vehicle to wait for us to pass before approaching the T.

I've had several arguments with drivers over the last couple of years, one of which knocked me off sometime ago, and another this morning.. The main problem seems to be some drivers aren't even aware that they are crossing a cycle lane and think the bike has ridden straight out in front of them from using the pavement. Who's right of way is it ?

Kev

On UK roads usually the car drivers – all the cycle lane is is some paint on the road it does not cover right of way – unless there is a give way marking for the cars before the cycle lane

the give way markings should tell you. But I wouldn't trust a driver to stop…

Theoretically, even a pedestrian on the pavement has priority over cars joining and leaving the main road at a junction.

But dead is dead.

You know what's going to happen – if you then let it happen you are (partially, at least) at fault.

Those pictures you've put up are very small so it's a little hard to see but i'd say in the case of that junction there are give way markings on the road before the cycle lane so the car should give way.

…so in the example photos above the giveway markers are before the cycle lane giving the cyclist right of way. At junctions where giveway markers are not shown I'll give way to the vehicle. Thanks.

Ps… the gut that knocked me off was actually reversing back over the cycle lane to reposition his car for a right turn instead of a left turn. He had already crossed the cycle lane once as I was approaching the junction.

Kev

steveh.. the pictures are small to test your eyes. Can you see the approaching cyclist ?

the gut that knocked me off was actually reversing back over the cycle lane

*reasonably* sure that in reverse the car has no right of way whatsoever

Ooh bad luck on that, hope you and the bike are all right. I have to say that's the best marked cycle lane I've seen. The cyclist using the lane clearly has right of way, no excuse for a driver taking the normal level of care and attention to miss the markings unless they're obscured under snow or ice. Trouble is having "He had right of way" below your name on the headstone doesn't really help anyone.

on a general bad driving rant some twunt in an mx5 or something similiar overtook me doing about 50 and seemed to swerve in passing about 2cm from my bars

when i caught him at the lights to tell him what i thought he was eating an apple and totally oblivious to the fact hed even passed a cyclist

he was eating an apple and totally oblivious to the fact hed even passed a cyclist

similar argument I had with the lorry driver this morning except he was reading directions from a scrap of paper at the time he drove over the cycle lane… he'd probably already stuffed the yorkie bar down his throat.

In those pictures, the cycle lane has right of way.

If a cyclist or pedestrian is already crossing any side road, they have right of way over cars turning in.

In theory you have right of way simply because you're on a bike. But as above, dead is dead so I tend to go for the rifle rack approach.

i.e.
Q: 4 cars all approach a crossroads simultaneously and reach the intersection at the same time, who has right of way?

A: The guy in the pickup truck with a rifle rack and a bumper sticker that says 'Guns don't kill people, I do'.

you have right of way but personally I would give way as inevitably a driver will fail to do this and the consequences would be potentially dire.
Think I would be cycling down the road tbh in that scenario.

Don't think I would be comfortable going over a junction like that in the edge of the road, cycle lane or not. Move out and take the road as it passes the side road and then return to the cycle lane when safe would be the ideal. You are only expected to use a cycle lane if you judge it safe to do so.

I think the Highway Code makes it clear that there is no such concept as "Right of Way".

as glenp said

cycle lanes like these do little for the safety of cyclists

and as above think some drivers percieve them as an extension to the pavement so "logically" joining vehicle traffic expects non vehicles to stop and bow and be amazed at the wonder of it all

also above i wouldn't choose to ride behind a reversing car and i am assuming the driver was behaving erratically as they pulled out and stopped prior to reversing so unfortunately slowing down may have been the defensive option

Basically what junkyard and glenp said. That particular cycle lane just seems to make things more dangerous for cyclists than just sticking to the road- it's just setting you up for an accident.

antigee, the reversing incident happened well over a year ago, I didn't choose to ride behind his reversing car. He had already crossed the cycle path and was stationary at the junction waiting to turn left. The instant I was behind his car on the cycle path he shoved it in reverse to re position his car and in the process drove straight into me. If there had been a car behind him he would have driven into that, had there been a mother and push chair he would have driven into them also. He claimed he did look and that I was going too fast so he didn't see me. I said he didn't look properly.

Kev

I think the Highway Code makes it clear that there is no such concept as "Right of Way".

But it's a useful shorthand for "does not have to give way".

In the photos the cyclist has right of way or the car driver must give way.

But the car has right of weight so I'd move out towards the middle of the road. I was hit by a car pulling out at a junction. I was well into primary position which meant i was available to avoid a 20mph to 0mph door interface and I clipped his wing and rolled over the bonnet. Not much consolation but I think it prevented some much worse injuries.

On my route home there is a main road where the "Cycle lane" markings are only across the junctions.
Quite clearly an attempt at marking them so that cyclist has right of way over cars turning out or in to the junctions.
Its pathetic! the rest of the cycleway is a shared path with pedestrians. I don't understand it, so I'm not surprised thickos in cars don't!

Pic:

That's properly scary.

David Hembrow recently wrote a brilliant blog post (http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2010/03/oh-london-you-really-need-to-try-harder.html) on the designs for the London cycle superhighways, and describes how they should be done.

Good link that, Mike.

I'm quite into the view that all roadways are pedestrian prioritised in their construction, and everyone else (bikes, cars, etc.) has to work around that. Road planning in the 60s was so paranoid about separating peds from cars (for the peds saftey) they made the whole system unworkable for anyone but the drivers. Now those roads are full, they work for no user.

Something I notice about a large number of incidents mentioned on here -almost always the common factor is 'cyclelane'
If I was cynical, I'd assume that these lanes were put there in one of the few examples of joined-up thinking by the Highways agencies, specifically TO KILL the maximum number of cyclists.
Dont worry!, I'm not that cynical!….
Aye, right.

I'm quite into the view that all roadways are pedestrian prioritised in their construction, and everyone else (bikes, cars, etc.) has to work around that.

There's a hierarchy of users who should be taken into account when designing a road. The disabled get priority, then pedestrians, then cyclists, then public transport, then commercial vehicles and then, at the bottom, private cars.

Really.

Is this in the land of Oz, miketually? Neverland? 🙂
Certainly not in the real world, probably because the planners do nothing other than drive themselves, therefore the only well thought out solutions only involve private cars.

Is this in the land of Oz, miketually? Neverland?

I've been in council meetings, discussing road schemes, where this hierarchy is stressed. Then we've been shown yet another scheme where pedestrians get naff all space and bikes gets shunted off the main road altogether and onto a parallel residential street. Or, bus lanes get removed from plans because it would stop half a dozen people parking outside their front door.

Cyclists need to fight to get what they need and entitled to have. We've been told countless times that priority over side roads is not possible and that there are no suitable locations in town for advanced stop lines. We've kept banging on about them. A priority for 2010 is a feasibility study on locations for both.

Yeah, mike, wasn't having a dig at you there BTW, I did pick up your cynicism. (though the less ASLs, in particular, the better IMO-the only people to make safe use of them are the experienced cyclists that don't need them)

Yeah, mike, wasn't having a dig at you there BTW, I did pick up your cynicism.

I know 🙂

(though the less ASLs, in particular, the better IMO-the only people to make safe use of them are the experienced cyclists that don't need them)

And yet they work fine in other countries. Ideally, you'd have a pre-green bike light to give an extra head start.

Without that cyclist only green light though, I think they're a hazard that positively encourages (especially with the painted filter lanes) last minute undertaking of left turning traffic.
Here in Edinburgh they thoughtfully often have nice stiff railings to crush with too.
edit, and remember, the railings are there purely to keep pedestrians out of the way of 'more important traffic'

I’d like to dig up this thread if I may.

I was cycling up through tooting today on the CSH. Now, I consider myself a bit of a plonker for what happened but I really felt he was higher up the plonker ranking (if such a thing exists)

He went to turn left at the T, I was cycling perhaps 1-2 m behind him on the CSH, he did indicate but my thought was, he must have seen me, I’m sure this is my right of way and he must have looked, there’s this great blue strip of paint that screams, “check for cyclists!”. Unfortunately he didn’t and I was hit, not badly though. His reasoning was that he can’t have eyes in the back of his head, my answer was “well that’s why you have mirrors…”

Regardless of legalities, my feeling is that cars should not take priority in this instance.
My analogy would be that if you are in a car on a dual carriage way, and want to pull into the fast lane to over-take, you always wait for the car travelling faster than you to come past before pulling out (and you always check your mirrors) because it’s their right of way!

/end rant.

undertaking a car indicating left! Darwinian 🙂

oligjb

he was in the wrong for not checking his mirrors, but you could easily have avoided the accident. Consequently both at fault (the extent to which blame might be apportioned may not be equal).

I have had a couple of near misses recently, and whilst not my fault, if I had been riding differently (slower) then I could have avoided the incident – consequently I now slow down for corners! It (hopefully) saves the car drivers paintwork, and a hospital visit for me.

Yeah that is fair. I also agree on your point on riding slower. Was chatting it through with my flat mate and he agreed that I do seem to have these near misses fairly often and should probably slow down a bit. Trouble is I’m a bit of an adrenaline junky… hmm.