Derek Dooley Way cycle lane

[Cyclone]

How does the right of way work on the turn offs? Before we start, I've not killed anyone or even maimed anyone, this is purely from curiousity.

 

I drive on Derek Dooley way and when I turn off I cross a cycle lane; how does right of way work? If I was in my car, I would look for cyclists and assume they wouldn't stop to let me turn off. If I was on my bike I would assume cars hadn't seen me and be extra cautious. But I doubt both me's are right

 

So how does it all work?

 

I would think that it works the same as if it were any other type of lane to your left, the vehicle in that lane has the right of way. It's a bit of a stupid design though, a bike would be safer being in the main carriage, meaning that you shouldn't be overtaking them if you were intending to turn left shortly afterwards.

[Spikie]

A road user turning right across a single carriageway with a cycle lane on the near side should treat it as if they were turning across a dual carriageway. i.e. you check both lanes are clear before making the turn. Oncoming traffic has the right of way in both lanes but whether in a car or on a bicycle they should anticipate the right turning traffic having not seen them.

 

I was never in any doubt about that, to suggest you should pull out as a cyclist comes is just odd.

 

To be fair, the idea of turning across the cycle lane as you leave the road is also odd, it just seems if I was cycling in those circumstances I would only expect someone to pull out (in the quoted example) because I'm cautious, clearly right of way is to the cyclist; the idea someone would stop and wait for me to pass the junction as in my example just feels less certain.

 

Meh, when all's said and done I look for bikes before every manouver as they are stealthy so and so's sometimes, and when I cycle I assume all car drivers are out to kill me (as a lot of them are). Right of way is largely irrelevant at that point, I was mostly just curious

[Cyclone]

A road user turning right across a single carriageway with a cycle lane on the near side should treat it as if they were turning across a dual carriageway. i.e. you check both lanes are clear before making the turn. Oncoming traffic has the right of way in both lanes but whether in a car or on a bicycle they should anticipate the right turning traffic having not seen them.

 

This is nothing to do with turning right though, the cycle lane is to the left and the car driver wishes to move left into a filter lane on the other side of the cycle lane.

[Spikie]

you shouldn't be overtaking them if you were intending to turn left shortly afterwards.

 

Also true, I suppose my scenario was more if you were sat in traffic, waiting to turn, should cyclists see you about to turn and stop, or carry on in their lane and expect you to wait.

 

As above, meh

[Cyclone]

Also true, I suppose my scenario was more if you were sat in traffic, waiting to turn, should cyclists see you about to turn and stop, or carry on in their lane and expect you to wait.

 

As above, meh

 

The cyclist has right of way, but if it were me on the bike I'd be quite careful in that situation. Presumably if you're indicating it's because you haven't reached the point where you can make the lane change, so I'd look ahead to see if the traffic were starting to move, if it were I'd probably hand back and wait for you to go.

[meshuga]

This is nothing to do with turning right though, the cycle lane is to the left and the car driver wishes to move left into a filter lane on the other side of the cycle lane.

 

I wasn't familiar with the road but I see now, yes in that case, if the road user has just passed the cyclist they should be able to remember the cyclist is there and not "left hook" them (if only this was the case every time!)

 

In congestion where cyclists are "filtering" up the cycle lane on the near side they have right of way, and road users on the main carriageway should check the mirrors or look over the shoulder before moving left. However I myself in these situations proceed with extreme caution as again I've seen many road users move without indicating.

[DT Ralge]

Sorry to be a pain but ...

"The rules in the HC do not give you the right of way in any circumstance but they do advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." p34 HC 2007.

[Spikie]

Sorry to be a pain but ...

"The rules in the HC do not give you the right of way in any circumstance but they do advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." p34 HC 2007.

 

I'm missing so much clearly, how are you being a pain?

 

That makes perfect sense, I'm all for avoiding incidents!

[DT Ralge]

I'm missing so much clearly, how are you being a pain?

 

That makes perfect sense, I'm all for avoiding incidents!

 

I was keen not to look like a clever Richard at the same time as rushing to correct anyone who believes in a "right of way" - there is no such thing. Even a green traffic light is a "proceed with caution".

[Cyclone]

It's quicker to say "Who has the right of way" than "Who is it that shouldn't have to give way", amounts to the same thing though doesn't it.