- 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
- 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
- purple2585 3 min 22 sec ago
Like the perceived ride feel, I think that the review is a bit harsh....
- james-o 7 min 30 sec ago
"What’s interesting about Orro is that the bikes are designed and assembled In Britain."...
- jaymack 20 min 8 sec ago
The fact that this research's conclusion is considered newsworthy is thoroughly depressing. We're made to move not slouch around all day looking at...
- Rendel Harris 25 min 18 sec ago
By which syllogism if someone crashes a car trying to escape from the police, we should get rid of the police because criminals trying to escape...
- Hirsute 25 min 35 sec ago
Should have worn hi viz and a helmet with a strap !
- wtjs 36 min 54 sec ago
Consequently, other BMW owners in Lancashire don't have to bother with MOTs either. This is YB61 FBK
- Steve K 50 min 52 sec ago
I've now bought one. Too early to give a proper review, but so far I'm happy with it.
- stonojnr 1 hour 2 min ago
I actually thought they'd got out of the game years back when they stopped sponsoring cycle teams claiming UCI rules were too restrictive....
- timmyotool 1 hour 5 min ago
Galibier do a fantastic set of photochromic sunglasses for about £60. Can't see myself every spending Oakley money again.
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 47 min ago
Shame that the bike seemed to perform so poorly as I like the almost retro-futurism look of them. However, there's good reasons why the double...
Add new comment
48 comments
I understand that the blind spot can be as much as 3m in front of the cab. I realise that some of the blindspots can be minimised by moving the head from side to side for the blindspots caused by the pillars and mirrors and forward to see into the blindspot in front, but is it reasonable to ask a driver to have to move their head a little bit?
the point was mainly, whether walking or cycling, my preference would be to go around the "safe" side away from the direction of travel.
it does seem to happen quite often that people either cut in front or just wait, as if those are the only two options...
it is entirely possible that I have some special superpower - the gift of insight to do the most obvious, and what I consider safest thing - but I very much doubt it
Surely it's just as much courtesy for the lorry to stop for the pedestrians (who were here first, after all)?
To be honest, this is a specific case you cite and you might have a point, but my response is coloured by, for example, seeing a new supermarket open, with a new car-park, which involves plonking a new access road right across the busy pavement.
Then supermarket customers treat it as just another road, over which they can (constantly) zoom in and out at high speed and take it for granted that pedestrians will give way to them. I don't actually know what the legal position is, I just know it pisses me off that when walking I have to constantly give way to lazy buggers who feel their choice to drive to the supermarket makes them more important than pedestrians.
As a fully paid-up member of the liberal elite, I hate to rag on the BBC like some frothing-at-the-mouth 'kipper, but their article on this story is woeful. Its headline is currently a simplistic and clickbaity "Give way to cyclists when turning, says British Cycling", it doesn't mention the AA or RAC, it doesn't mention pedestrians, and it is illustrated with a picture of a burk in a bobble hat riding a fixie with chopped bars. Plus it quotes some bloke from the Road Haulage Association speaking on the Today Programme, who is clearly confused and bewildered by the whole thing (which I thought was John Humphrys' role.) He makes it out to be purely about cyclists undertaking drivers when it is really about everyone having respect for others (which is where I have a problem with it, as too many people simply don't.) It seems the BBC will, in search of balance, get in someone who is wilfully ignorant of the topic if that is the only way to have two opposing sides.
that's a great photo. The woman appears to be wondering wtf she's seeing.
The article's a bit classic too. "The Road Haulage Association (RHA) warned it would lead to more accidents." Well, of course they did! As any fule kno, it's much better for all concerned never to give way to anything under any circumstances. That way there will be no more accidents.
Agree whole heartedly with this.
Their bizarre idea of balance is why you'll never see the BBC on a bicycle.
Main reason why I have no TV - don't want to fund the BBC, because I'm fed up with stuff like this.
Trouble is that means I end up listening to Radio Four, which is actually one of the worst parts of the Beeb for this sort of false-balance and a distinctive kind of smugness that somehow manages to be both patronising elite liberal and deeply conservative at the same time.
[/quote] Main reason why I have no TV - don't want to fund the BBC, because I'm fed up with stuff like this. Trouble is that means I end up listening to Radio Four, which is actually one of the worst parts of the Beeb for this sort of false-balance and a distinctive kind of smugness that somehow manages to be both patronising elite liberal and deeply conservative at the same time.[/quote]
Totally agree. R4's coverage of transport and cycling could best be described as several miles to the right of Top Gear. Appalling, biased and just ignores the real problems.
This rule seems very similar to the general turning rules used in many other European countries (and beyond, no doubt). If that's the case, it will work very well for pedestrians but not make much difference to cyclists (unless cycling across pedestrian crossings). It could also "improve flow" for motor vehicles by allowing us to adopt the common continental style of trafic light sequence; instead of having an all-red phase to allow people to walk across the junction, there would be a green man in parallel with the green traffic light, with turning traffic giving way to pedestrians as it does so.
As it states in the article, the Highway Code isn't the law, so good luck with this.
Unless car drivers are overtaking and then immediately turning across cyclists, I'm not sure what the deal is here. As a cyclist I don't undertake vehicles at junctions. problem solved.
Not necessarily.
If you're ahead and to the left and get away first, there's not much you can do to stop a car speeding up and turning into you - a genuine left-hook. Probably pretty rare, but I have actually seen it happen.
If you take the lane, problem should be solved, but what really needs solving is MGIF.
Parts of the Highway Code are law.
On the online version where it says must and must not, then has various acts referenced underneath are law.
I note that in true road.cc tradition you have ignored that the proposed rule also applies to cyclists. So turning left you would now have to give way to any pedestrians that step out, even if you are on a green light or a filter.
Also the sketched example shouldn't actually exist as that cycle lane 'should' come with a segregated junction box due to the 'left-only' lane. Since that box doesn't exist, any cyclist wishing to go straight on 'should' have moved out to the middle trafffic lane rather than undertaking the left turning vehicle.
You may want to look again... (copied from article):
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.
The thinking seems to apply to junctions in urban areas (rather than the overtake-and-turn-left-hook we're all familiar with in both rural and urban areas) where cyclists wishing to proceed straight on are channelled up the left hand side of vehicles waiting to turn left (signalling seems to be optional). Whilst I applaud any attempt to discuss/improve/change rules and laws to protect vulnerable road users it is the infrastructure that needs to be discussed/improved/standardised for all road users to understand what they should and shouldn't do.
In the meantime, confident riders may take the lane for safety but less confident and new riders are herded into danger and fear discourages them from riding.
Rules are there if councils would simply paint the lines (dashed are enough) across a junction continuing the cycle lane across. Then it's a clear lane change and give way required.
If there is no cycle lane, take the lane, a junction is NOT a place a car should overtake anyway.
Cycling proficiency (or whatever it's called today) should be teaching the next generation of cyclists to take the lane at a junction until across to make a left hook harder.
In fact much of the highway code could do with a rewrite and consolidation to clarify things in terms of today's traffic situation.
National Standards adminstered by DfT, marketed as Bikeability but almost everyone still calls it cycling proficiency. And it does indeed teach primary position at junctions.
It would be good to have another rule to hear misquoted in every youtube flare-up.
The Daily Mail's gonna lay an egg over this.
Pages