- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Left hook.pngJunction rule change could prevent left-hook danger, say campaigners as petition launched
British Cycling, the AA and pedestrian groups are calling for a universal rule to give way when turning, to reduce left hook risks for those cycling and walking, and have launched a petition to drum up support.
At the moment, they say, the Highway Code features 14 rules relating to walking and cycling at junctions, which are unclear, often with a different emphasis, while failing to cover all scenarios.
The proposal, based on research commissioned by British Cycling, is to make one rule, requiring those driving or cycling to give way when turning to people going straight on. At the moment a lack of clarity and legal protection for cyclists and pedestrians against turning traffic mean councils are reluctant to provide innovative infrastructure, instead building “stop-start” bike lanes which, research suggests, undermines safety, rather than protecting cyclists.
Ministerial car filmed left-hooking cyclist as it enters Parliament ahead of Autumn Statement
Chris Boardman, British Cycling’s policy adviser, said the proposals would eliminate confusion and encourage more people to walk and cycle.
“Whether driving, cycling or walking, negotiating a junction is the most hazardous manoeuvre you can make on the road – this is evidenced by the fact that nearly two thirds of motor vehicle collisions take place at junctions,” he said.
“There are at least 14 different rules in the Highway Code which relate to people walking and cycling at junctions, and it can be difficult for anyone to interpret what is the correct behaviour. A change needs to be made – the rules need to be simple and unambiguous.
Edmund King, AA president, said: “It would be beneficial for all road users if the Highway Code simplified the rules at junctions where a disproportionate amount of injury crashes occur.”
Safer cycle infrastructure possible after signage rule changes
The new proposal follows research conducted on behalf of British Cycling, and is based on Danish, Dutch and Swedish models where vehicles travelling straight give way to pedestrians as well as cyclists crossing side roads, riding on cycle lanes on the inside of traffic.
Rule changes would mean:
- Drivers turning at a junction giving way to people cycling and walking who may be on your nearside, or crossing the road you wish to turn into;
- Cyclists turning at a junction giving way to people walking who are crossing the road you wish to turn into;
- Pedestrians getting increased protection when crossing a side road or other junction.
At the moment rule 170 of the Highway Code states drivers must give way to pedestrians who are already crossing a side road, but this rule is rarely observed and is not directly enforceable by law, says report authors, Phil Jones Associates.
The report, titled Turning the Corner, suggests current laws do not adequately protect cyclists from turning traffic, whether people are riding on cycle lanes or on the road. This encourages cyclists to ‘take the lane’ to avoid left hooks, reducing the value of investment in cycle infrastructure, it says.
It adds lack of clarified rules and the fact rules aren’t enforceable means local authorities are reluctant to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists over turning traffic.
British Cycling launched a petition today to build support for the new proposal. Among those to have already signed are Chris Boardman, Olympic champions Joanna Rowsell Shand, Katie Archibald, Elinor Barker and Steven Burke and Paralympic legend Dame Sarah Storey.
Video: Driver left hooks cyclist on upgraded Cycle Superhighway
Steve Gooding, Director of the RAC Foundation, said: “As pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists we all need to recognise that the road is a shared space which works best when we all respect each other. The clearer we can make the rules of the road the easier it is for us all to see what’s expected of us and to comply. The rules also need to be complemented with the right streetscape engineering, with markings, surfaces and road geometry all telling us the same story.”
A fear of sharing road space with motor traffic represents a major barrier to more people cycling. British Cycling argues changing the rules would allow more and better infrastructure to be built, improving both actual and perceived safety for those on foot and on bikes.
Suggestions made by the report include a single rule regarding left turns in the Highway Code, and strengthening the wording of that rule; changes to rules for road markings (the Transport Signs Regulations and General Directions, or TSRGD) including use of ‘elephant’s footprints’ indicating side road priorities. Alternatively it suggests a change to primary legislation under an act of Parliament to support the various rules of the Highway Code, introducing a ‘Universal duty to give way’, as applied in Nordic countries.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- Backladder 18 min 47 sec ago
Not a football fan so asking out of ignorance, why do you need different boots for grass and astro, different studs I could understand but...
- wtjs 19 min 25 sec ago
Don't forget that at least some of the people claiming to be cyclists themselves, while espousing plainly false notions such as 'the majority of...
- LookAhead 59 min 23 sec ago
Except the accompanying picture features an aluminum frame bike with what is quite obviously mechanical 105 (shifter hoods are enormous and angular...
- wtjs 1 hour 41 min ago
The fact that such self driving cars don't BMW/Audi drivers do exist is proof - as if it were needed - that Gods don't exist
- Johnny Rags 2 hours 35 min ago
Wouldn't generalisations about generations be, I don't know, "generationalisations"?
- ErnieC 3 hours 39 min ago
No chance of that ever being a human being.
- Rik Mayals underpants 19 hours 53 min ago
Here's my cycling related Christmas gift. Beautiful enamel garage sign to go above my Campagnolo Super Record RS equipped Colnago.
- Rendel Harris 1 day 1 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- SecretSam 1 day 2 hours ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
Add new comment
48 comments
From the article: "‘elephant’s footprints’ indicating side road priorities".
No-one challenged this? Wrong!
6.3.13 " ‘sharks’ teeth’ triangular give way markings. These are often used in conjunction with elephants’ footprints but confer formal priority on the cyclist in a way that elephants’ footprints alone do not."
"they are not in and of themselves a 'give way', or 'priority' marking"
Elephant's feet that may have played part in death of Lynne Dring in Cleethorpes could be removed
So - the rues are going to change to reflect what I - and most other drivers - do anyway? I hadn't realised that there were no rules to cover the 3 bullet points above. Will it make a difference?- perhaps only insofa as drivers and insurers arguing the toss have more clarification on what the legal situation is (its clear what's right and whats wrong already, for most people)
I don't know where everybody is checking the wording of rule 170 - but this is what it says on the government website:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
That is pretty clear, right? Technically that means you have to stop for any pedestrian hovering at the kerb. If they take even one step onto the road and you hit them it's your fault, as they have priority.
And why can this not be enforced? I take great pleasure in shouting at motorists and cyclists alike who think they can just bulldoze over me as I start to cross at junctions. And I always give way to people about to cross. Problem is nobody knows about rule 170. I've quizzed several policemen and they always say the car has the right of way. As far as I remember the Germans have a neat rule for this: As soon as you turn off the road you are travelling on - or cross another road - you lose your right of way. Simples.
Not so sure about the photo. Yes, it shows a hipster with ridiculous cut-down bars, but at least all three of the cyclists it shows look like normal people doing normal travel-type things. (No, I didn't read the article, because as you say "BBC balance". I've got other things to waste my time on!)
Why is it that the multiple pedestrians have to be reasonable? To one man in a large van. How many of them might have been neurosurgeons, heart surgeons intensive care nurses, we're talking London hospital here, a lot of public transport use for everyone. Why was he reversing into a service road, was it for his convienience so as not to have to turn around in the road later? Or is it an infrastructure defect? Would it be reasonable to have a banksman perhaps? The blindspot on a reversing 7.5 ton truck is quite large.
When I was getting ready for my driving test (circa 1986) one of my school mates failed his test for failing to give way to a pedestrian crossing the side street he was turning into. So I've always been aware that you as a driver or a cyclist should give way to pedestrians when turning but recently I've been thinking I was the only one.
Hell's teeth, on my (car) commute home along a wide road with a solid-line bike lane I see drivers encroaching into it - daily! Good luck educating road users with any kind of Highway Code amendment.
And where there is a dotted line where I live because there is not enough room for 2 lanes, an ambulance behind them wanted to use the outside lane to turn right and no cyclists they don't.
How's this?
Motorist crossings.
Like Toucan crossings, but with priorities reversed. The pedestrian and cyclist always have the green light, the motorist the red. The large and dangerous vehicle would trundle up to the crossing and the driver would have to ask permission to cross. Press a button or drive over detectors in the road, of course the detector might not register the vehicle because it's made of not quite standard material. Then they have to wait, maybe three, maybe four minutes. Then they get a green light, (unless the black lines didn't register their vehicle, who knows what happens then) but not for long, fifteen to twenty seconds maybe. Then back to red.
Why does this seem quite so ridiculous?
Why do the killers, the breakers of laws, always get priority?
The ones in the safety bubble, the ones set apart from the environment, the ones in their comfortable chairs in the dry, warm or cool are always considered more important.
It isn't ridiculous if you're a pedestrian or cyclist, and that is the problem; the laws are made by drivers for drivers. So they get priority.
The situation will not change until there is political change, and currently the only hope for this seems to be the Greens.
There is an Esso petrol station right near me, in fact I can see some of it from my front window. Right in the middle of a busy little high street. To get into and out of it the motorist has to drive across a wide pavement. The block paving continues and the double yellow lines keep running past. You take your life into your hands walking along that pavement. This is Britain. Car is king and might is right. And this is an obvious bit of pavement, not just a bit of paint and no need to check their mirrors.
Given the lack of awareness of Highway Code rules already shown to cyclists, I have little faith in this.
The proposed changed benefits pedestrians just as much. It seems a no-brainer to me. Many countries already do it this way, and I remember being surprised to discover its not actually legally the case here. As far as I see it, the existing lack of such a rule is just another signifier that the motorist is King.
Agreed, but it's not just about cyclists. I would go further and say that the majority of motorists see the Highway Code as a necessary device to get through their driving test, after which it can be ignored. How many drivers do you see failing to signal correctly at roundabouts, straightlining 2 lane roundabouts, failing to observe yellow box junction rules (which in fact apply to all junctions) failing to indicate (anywhere), and so on. One more rule for people to ignore will hardly help.
I thought that if someone's crossing a junction, then you have to give way to them anyway?
This proposed change wouldn't stop left hooks happening, but might be extra ammo for the CPS and/or police when the driver has to explain why they ran someone over...
The article says
But this is wrong - the rule says drivers _should_ give way, not must. It is rarely observed, but that's partly because its only advisory (and, to be honest, nobody takes any notice of the advisory bits, e.g. high viz and helmets)
Yes, you're right - in the same way that on a roundabout you give way to those already on it, you'd give way to those already crossing the road.
Problem is in London Pedestrians are lemmings, so if a driver or cyclist stopped to give way in a turning they'd be there for weeks as it never occurs to Pedestrians to stop. Just yesterday I stopped because a lorry was backing into a service lane at London Bridge Hospital, and Pedestrians were actually continuing to walk round the back of it until almost all of it was in the turning.
Because - lose precious seconds. Bunch of salads.
And on the left-hook issue itself, it'd be nice if (the minority of moron) cyclists actually slowed down when drivers were already turning instead of trying to dive down the inside ahead of them. The times I see this everyday makes me cringe.
Again though, I think the use of 'should' rather than 'must' in the code means its not legally obligatory. Which has to have some bearing on the fact so few drivers pay attention to it.
Hmm - lots of things drivers 'should' do but don't....
Well, yes, which is why it _might_ improve things were it to instead become a 'must'.
If it were compulsory rather than advisory, then it would, I presume, be possible to issue fines or points on licence for those who ignore it. Whether that is actually enforced is another matter of course, but even occasional, sporadic enforcement could help change the norm. It presumably would also change the legal situation if breaking the rule led to a collision.
Why should loads of pedestrians give way to one lorry in central London?
...Not sure if serious...but in case you are: Said lorry is reversing into a narrow service road and contrary to popular belief, Pedestrians don't have the right of way all the time. Longer lorry has to wait because people are too stupid / ignorant to wait so can get manoeuvre, longer the road is blocked. And as he's having to watch for morons walking round the back of his lorry, people are also walking round the cab IN THE CYCLE LANE, so cyclists have nowhere to go.
In short, no bastards prepared to wait for anyone anymore. Courtesy is dead.
Sounds like poor infrastructure again.
Poorly designed service road, lack of planning for optimal windows for deliveries taking into account pedestrian movements, vehicles too large for urban delivery logistics.
pda
Short of a monumental investment in the infrastructure and shutting London for twenty years while they sorted it all out, the city is what it is and everyone has to deal with it. Yes, a lot of deliveries could, I'm sure, wait until later in the day or get done at night, but allowing a 7.5t rigid to deliver into a purpose-built (wide entry / exit, clear sight lines) service road isn't to much of a stretch, imo.
That didn't answer my question, really, but spare me the 'hell in a handcart'. I was thinking less in terms of 'well, because it just is' and more 'well, why is it like that?'.
In short, current city 'design' and use is dysfunctional and has got us to the situation where you unthinkingly accept that one truck, quite possibly delivering one thing (during rush hour?), should take priority across a pavement over a streetload of pedestrians because 'service road = road' and 'truck'. In central London.
Can you not see how absurd that is?
London wasn't designed, it was thrown together over centuries and in built-up areas the layout may never change. It's only dysfunctional insofar as those using it refuse to accept that everyone is trying to get somewhere, and they need to understand the concept of waiting.
It's because of thought that I accept that the lorry needs to get into the service road, and it's using a turning, not driving over the pavement so I fail to see why it's unreasonable to stop and let the guy in. It's about courtesy, not priority.
So, no, I don't see how absured that is.
1 Truck. Delivering 1 thing*. During rush hour. Across a pavement. Thirty* pedestrians just wait, because 'road'. Not even a proper road. A service road that cuts across a pavement. That isn't absurd? And it's not about priority, it's about courtesy? What does that even mean? Some people just need to learn to wait? What?!
What would be scarier to me, is if everyone just waited like automotons, accepting how ridiculous that situation is, and that whatever was in the back of that truck was more important than delivering thirty individuals across London by foot. If you waited for every vehicle doing A Daft Thing while walking across London, you wouldn't get anywhere.
I'm well aware that London has just evolved and isn't designed. It is entirely dysfunctional because the way it has evolved is along roads that weren't designed for trucks cutting into hospitals across pavements.
Given your response to psling, I think you just don't like change. 'It's the way it is' is often a shit answer to a reasonable question.
* Assumption, but a reasonable one.
Sorry - I was working under the hope that being reasonable to your fellow man in everyday life wasn't a hard ask. Clearly I was wrong.
My choice would be to walk around the front, away from the direction of movement and where the driver can see you.
TBH that's what I would too. How far in front do you have to walk to make sure that the driver of an HGV has seen you...?
Pages