Safe Speed Forums

just a quick query for my sanity.

cycling to work today there's a section of road which has traffic islands/pedestrian refuges (not roundabouts!) at regular intervals.
30mph limit, i'm maintaining 17-20mph.

as a cyclist this can be a bonus or a curse depending on the driver, but overall.. its ok.

i was aware the car behind had had to wait for a couple of these islands before a gap the other way was suitably timed for them to pass.

i could hear the car (small van as it happens) behind them starting to overtake as the next island was approaching, i suspect they knew it was there but it would have been blocked by the previous vehicle.

either he was going to have to do some hefty braking to drop behind again.. or take me out.

given the engine note increased i was basically waiting for the crunch (either my back wheel or the island)... but he passed on the right hand side on the other side of the island.

well at least i got plenty of room....

was this move actually illegal ?
or just slightly dubious.

If the island had a white on blue 'keep left' arrow at the end then this is an instruction. Passing on the right is as illegal as driving the wrong way down a one-way street. I think........

I dunno about that, I would have thought the test was whether there was a solid white line.

Regardless, if he had good vis ahead, and the road was clear, there is no common sense reason why he shouldn't pass to the other side of the refuge. It would only become dangerous if the situation may require him to 'duck in' and be prevented by the road furniture.

I pass on the right hand side of them sometimes - when I'm on my bike overtaking stationary traffic that has not given me any room to pass on my own side.

Personally I find traffic islands the biggest problem for cyclists. They are there as a refuge for pedestrians crossing the road and also are put there to slow down traffic, but for cyclists they are a pain because it prevents safe overtaking for both cyclists and motor vehicles.

Sure, but the question was is it illegal to pass on the right?

If it has a blue sign with an arrow, which they usually do, then the good old HC suggests that it is illegal...
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm

Granted, but do the tiny little ones printed onto the plastic bollards carry the same force? What is that force at law?

Yes they are just as lawful regardless of their size.

I am not sure if a "turn right" sign at a traffic light also carries a "no U-turn" restriction with it (or is a U-turn just a right followed very quickly by another right?). If a U-turn is forbidden, why is there sometimes an addition no U-turn sign?

A few years ago, my friend was overtaking another car on a stretch of road he drives down regulary. As he was overtaking a car, he slammed into a traffic island that had just been put in, and damaged his alloy wheels. The island didn't have any white bollards on it. So he contacted the council and told them. They then paid for his wheels to the repaired without hesitation. I'm wondering whey they did this? is it because they have to have bollards on them?

_________________
go for it

One would presume so! Who in their right mind would put unmarked, unlit kerbed sections in the middle of the road!? You'd think they were trying to increase accidents or congestion or something!

ok.. tah... thought so.

yes they have bollards & blue arrows on.

And here's just another example of road-users ignoring traffic law, when these obstacles are put in place, similar to un-needed traffic lights, just to try to strangle traffic flow.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I do believe that a correctly drawn (and illuminated?) "keep left" sign is the only important thing in such situations. From a legal point of view, obviously.

_________________
Andrew.

what if the "correct" side is blocked, usually by a bus? this is increasingly common in london and I suspect elsewhere.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

No, I believe that this is precisely why many LAs put them by bus stops in the first place. They stop other vehicles passing the bus, permitting disembarking passengers who might want to cross the road to use the 'island' as a refuge on which to wait until traffic coming from the other way is clear.

If it had a "keep left" arrow on the refuge, then what he did was most definately 100% illegal.
I speak from personal experience of this after being captured by an unmarked police car when despatching many years ago in London.
The road itself was at a standstill on my side, and because I chose to take my weekend bike to work on this particular day (a Suzi GSX 1100), the bastard wouldn't fit through the gap between the refuge & the car next to it.
The road on the opposite side was clear and nothing was coming the other way, so I thought "sod this" and went around the refuge on the wrong side of the road.......that cost me £30 at Bow Street Magistrates back in 1983 for "failing to comply with a traffic sign" (fortunately it didn't carry any points).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Hmm, whilst I can see that working in theory, the practice around here tends to go more like this:

Bus pulls up at stop adjacent to island.

Passengers who manage to get off before the bus starts to move again aren't able to use the island because the bus stop has been positioned immediately adjacent to the island rather than just in front of it, or because the bus stopped a little further forward than expected due to passengers ringing the bell at the last minute, vehicles parked too close to the stop to allow the bus to pull in etc.

Passengers who get off just before the bus starts to move again have no chance to use the island regardless of where the bus stopped.

Once the bus moves off, all the traffic that's been stuck behind it follows on in a lengthly nose-tail procession, giving no opportunities for any of the waiting ex-passengers to cross the road unless one of the drivers in the procession deliberately opens up a gap for them.

_________________
Chris

Let's just say we' be "'avin' a word" if the guy was copped doing this up here!

Would depend on what was actually seen as to whether we'd do for undue care, inconsiderate, careless or dangerous or whether it warranted just a "verbal reprimand"

There are for and against these islands. If engineered properly - they work well. However, as we all know and "appreciate with no great praise" - most are badly planned and engineered.


But.. expert - to pleasingly skilled - drivers, riders and cyclists just calmly deal with the hazard. The rest?

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Just out of interest IG, I'm not trying to be confrontational at all, but why would you be "'avin' a word" merely on the grounds of passing the wrong side of the refuge? If, in the absence of a refuge, the overtaking manoeuvre would be safe, then how does the fact that there is a bit of kerb there for a couple of metres suddenly make it dangerous?

No, that's not why they are there, it is an anti-car measure. If cars have to stop at every bus-stop then there is no longer an advantage of travelling by car and so they want everyone to get out of their cars and take the bus instead.

Will of course mean that drivers will take every measure possible not to get stuck behind a bus.

Or because some selfish people, even on this site won't let a bus out if it indicates right.


Back to the original topic, if anyone overtook me (cycling) on the wrong side of an island and got caught I would be willing to defend them and congratulated them for common sense in the name of road safety.