What is the hand signal for 'I am going to make a U turn' ?

[MrCheerful]

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

MrCheerful wrote:
> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122

I don't think there is such a hand signal whilst driving or cycling.

[Simon Jester]

In a car I would put the right indicator on.
On a bike it would depend on the circumstances. The problem is some motorists are so horrified at the prospect of having to wait for a cyclist that they accelerate when a cyclist uses a right arm signal.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Pillock.

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 4:11:02 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> Pillock.

Reasoned argument, logically presented.
Excellent (If you are still in kindergarten).

[JNugent]

On 24/11/2018 10:10, MrCheerful wrote:

> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122

QUOTE:
Joe Guy, the 16-year-old cyclist from Wolverhampton who was killed in a
collision with a van in May 2017, died in a “genuinely tragic accident”,
a coroner’s inquest into his death has concluded....

The inquest heard how the van driver, who did not attend the hearing,
was preparing to overtake Guy when the collision took place, with Guy
moving out from the left-hand side of the road in an apparent attempt to
make a U-turn.
ENDQUOTE

Irrespective of the circumstances of the incident, it is always
distressing to hear of the death of someone of this age in a road
accident. I think back to when we had teenage offspring and how we might
have reacted. Loss like this must be absolutely unbearable.

[JNugent]

I dunno so much (on this occasion).

That's what I would do too.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I would not do a uturn unless it was Very safe to do so.

[JNugent]

I expect that that kid just didn't consider the possibility that there
was a vehicle coming along the road behind him. I have seen a car-driver
do the same (and be hit broadside by a police car which had overtaken me).

A U-turn is entirely practical and safe if performed properly.

[MrCheerful]

So what did this mean:

"a motorist travelling in the opposite direction had seen Guy indicating
to the van driver that he was intending to turn around, "

I would assume that the bicycle had no indicators, therefore, what is
the hand signal for 'I am going to make a U turn' ???

and why would anyone of any age assume that other traffic has to stop
for them to make a U turn?

even the cyclist's dad seems to think that there is a signal for a U turn:

"However Guy’s father told the hearing that his son was an experienced
cyclist and would have known which hand signals to use."

It is odd that after all these years of rding, driving, instructing,
advanced and Police training that I have never come across a U turn signal.

[JNugent]

On 25/11/2018 00:14, MrCheerful wrote:

> On 24/11/2018 19:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/11/2018 16:10, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>> Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>> MrCheerful wrote:

>>>>>> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122
>
>>>>> I don't think there is such a hand signal whilst driving or cycling.

>>>> In a car I would put the right indicator on.
>>>> On a bike it would depend on the circumstances. The problem is some
>>>> motorists are so horrified at the prospect of having to wait for a
>>>> cyclist that they accelerate when a cyclist uses a right arm signal.

>>> "In a car I would put the right indicator on".

>>> Pillock.

>> I dunno so much (on this occasion).
>> That's what I would do too.
>
> So what did this mean:
>
> "a motorist travelling in the opposite direction had seen Guy indicating
> to the van driver that he was intending to turn around, "
>
> I would assume that the bicycle had no indicators, therefore, what is
> the hand signal for 'I am going to make a U turn'  ???

I don't know (but see below). It strikes me that the question is better
address to that observant witness.

> and why would anyone of any age assume that other traffic has to stop
> for them to make a U turn?

No reason at all. I find it difficult to believe that the cyclist really
expected an approaching vehicle (from either direction) to realise that
he wanted to make a U turn and just stop in order to allow him to do it.
I also can't believe that he pulled knowingly into the path of the
approaching van. Not with his experience as described. I wouldn't have
done it on a bike when I was a teenager. I am sure that (a) the witness
is conveying his impressions rather than anything he knew for certain
and (b) the cyclist did not appreciate that the van was even there.

> even the cyclist's dad seems to think that there is a signal for a U turn:
>
> "However Guy’s father told the hearing that his son was an experienced
> cyclist and would have known which hand signals to use."

See below. The signal is that for a right-turn.

> It is odd that after all these years of rding, driving, instructing,
> advanced and Police training that I have never come across a U turn signal.

If I am stopped nearside to the kerb and intending to make a U turn, I
use my right indicator throughout the maneouvre and during the wait for
a gap. It first conveys the information to traffic approaching from
behind that I intend to pull away from the kerb into the space which
into which that traffic is heading. Once I have pulled away from the
kerb to the crown of the road, the signal, taken together with the
position and angle of the vehicle, tells traffic approaching from the
other direction that my intention is to (eventually) cross onto their
side of the road in some form (whether to turn into a street, amake a
U-turn or just to pull up on the "wrong" side of the road).

None of it confers any right to move into the path(s) of nearby
approaching traffic of course. It simply indicates the eventual intended
direction of travel. I'm not sure that a hand signal would be anything
like as useful, mainly because it isn't easy to maintain the signal,
whereas with indicator lamps, you switch them on and they stay on and
they are very visible in all lighting conditions. But still, the only
signal that cyclist could have used would have been a hand-signal for
turning right. As you say, there is nothing else.

[Simon Jester]

That is what you have to do in a car because the turning circle requires the whole carriageway.
A bicycle can be turned within a lane or even by moving forward out of the saddle, picking up the back wheel and flipping it around. A perfectly reasonable u turn for a cyclist would be to use the correct procedure for a right turn and continuing the turn until facing the opposite direction.

[JNugent]

That depends. I could not do a U-turn in the road in which I live. Even
though it's a main road and bus-route, there just isn't enough space
between kerbs for anything with four wheels other than an Austin cab or
a Reliant Kitten (remember them? they both had 24" turning circles) to
make a single-move U-turn.

> A bicycle can be turned within a lane or even by moving forward out of the saddle, picking up the back wheel and flipping it around. A perfectly reasonable u turn for a cyclist would be to use the correct procedure for a right turn and continuing the turn until facing the opposite direction.

That's all very well (even if moves the bicycle out of U-turn territory
and into some other category for the maneouvre), but what was the signal
the witness claimed he saw the cyclist give? It can only have been a
right-turn indication. There is nothing else it could be. Of course, he
(the witness) could have been mistaken.

[Simon Jester]

We are discussing the appropriate signal for a u-turn. If I am signalling a right turn on my bicycle and you are behind me you must not overtake.
What happened in the published case is not relevant. The court has ruled after due process and we must accept the verdict since none of us was there.

[JNugent]

That isn't true. It isn't true for any class of vehicle.

Making a signal does not give the signalling vehicle priority over
anyone or anything else and especially not over faster traffic coming up
to overtake on the offside. All the signal is for is to let others know
in which direction the driver / rider wishes to go - eventually. It
doesn't work the brakes of other vehicles.

> What happened in the published case is not relevant. The court has ruled after due process and we must accept the verdict since none of us was there.

I still don't believe that the boy deliberately turned into the path of
the approaching van. For whatever reason, he simply didn't take note of
it.

[JNugent]

On 25/11/2018 05:18, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> That depends. I could not do a U-turn in the road in which I live. Even
>>> though it's a main road and bus-route, there just isn't enough space
>>> between kerbs for anything with four wheels other than an Austin cab or
>>> a Reliant Kitten (remember them? they both had 24" turning circles) to
>>> make a single-move U-turn.

Erratum:

A 24" turning circle would indeed be impressive. It should have been a
reference to a 24' turning circle, of course.

[Simon Jester]

If you are in a stationary car with your right indicator on waiting for oncoming traffic to clear before turning right who is at fault if another road user crashes into the back of you?

>
> > What happened in the published case is not relevant. The court has ruled after due process and we must accept the verdict since none of us was there.
>
> I still don't believe that the boy deliberately turned into the path of
> the approaching van. For whatever reason, he simply didn't take note of
> it.

I agree, that is why it was judged a tragic accident.
Humans are flawed, they make mistakes. Some of those have fatal consequences.

[Peter Keller]

On 11/24/18 11:10 PM, MrCheerful wrote:
> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122
>
Arm out straight (like making a right turn.)
Look and listen first before making turn.
Signal at least three seconds before attempting to make turn.
I have been saved many times by actually glancing behind *before* making
the turn.
If in doubt, pull left and stop, then make turn when safe. I have also
done this many times.
All this (except perhaps the hand signal; blinkers will also do)
applies to any traffi.

[Simon Jester]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 11:05:34 AM UTC, Peter Keller wrote:
> On 11/24/18 11:10 PM, MrCheerful wrote:
> > https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122
> >
> Arm out straight (like making a right turn.)
> Look and listen first before making turn.
> Signal at least three seconds before attempting to make turn.
> I have been saved many times by actually glancing behind *before* making
> the turn.

Known as the 'life saver'. At least that was what is was called when I took my motorcycle training in 1982.

[JNugent]

That depends on where you are.

But if you are stopped next to the kerb (eg, in a layby) near a
junction, putting your indicator on does not give you priority over
three (say) three lanes of moviung traffic between you and the
right-turn lane. It doesn't give you priority over anyone.

[JNugent]

I've heard of that before. A lifelong friend is a big motor-bike
enthusiast (real bikes, not the things they make today) and he is at
least still with us.

[MrCheerful]

and there is the difference: training.

[Simon Jester]

So you agree that everyone should take a bicycle training course before they can apply for a driving licence and should have to renew their cycle training every 3 years.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:44:54 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

> So you agree that everyone should take a bicycle training course before they can apply for a driving licence and should have to renew their cycle training every 3 years.

I have passed TWO cycling proficiency tests and yet passed my motorcycle test in 1977 with NO training at all. Same with my car test which I took in my dad's car, also with NO training. Lots of us did in the 1970's as we could not afford lessons with a school.

[Simon Jester]

What is your point?
Things have changed since 1977. Back then bicycles were just for poor council house parasites like Pounder, now they are the primary mode of transport for intelligent, educated, professionals.

[JNugent]

> Things have changed since 1977. Back then bicycles were just for poor council house parasites like Pounder, now they are the primary mode of transport for intelligent, educated, professionals...

...plus you and (the other) Simon, don't forget.

[Simon Jester]

I don't understand that, please explain.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 5:59:47 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 4:34:40 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 1:44:54 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
> >
> > > So you agree that everyone should take a bicycle training course before they can apply for a driving licence and should have to renew their cycle training every 3 years.
> >
> > I have passed TWO cycling proficiency tests and yet passed my motorcycle test in 1977 with NO training at all. Same with my car test which I took in my dad's car, also with NO training. Lots of us did in the 1970's as we could not afford lessons with a school.
>
> What is your point?
> Things have changed since 1977.

Agreed - there is more training for motorcycling and driving now, which is why you never see drivers speeding, using phones or getting parking tickets as the level of training is so high these days.

[JNugent]

Don't understate your ability to comprehend English.

[Simon Jester]

I thought for a moment you were capable of having an adult discussion.
Clearly I was mistaken.

[JNugent]

Just have another look at your sentence to which I posted my response.

You had said:

"Things have changed since 1977. Back then bicycles were just for poor
council house parasites like Pounder, now they are the primary mode of
transport for intelligent, educated, professionals...".

Ask yourself whether that really satisfied your "adult discussion"
criteria, or whether you were leading with your chin a bit.

[Simon Jester]

Apology accepted.

[JNugent]

I didn't see the post in which Mr Pounder accepted your apology.

You are fibbing.