# Right of Way?



## Sham69 (12 Jul 2013)

Apologies if this isn't the correct section of the forum to post this issue...

I'd appreciate opinions/views on this right of way issue. I regularly cycle along a single track country road that has numerous passing places on either side of the road. Sometimes, a car will pull into a passing point and let me pass but almost all the time, it's me who gives way to on-coming motorised traffic by pulling in as there's barely space for a car and bicycle to pass each other. Earlier this week though, both I and the on-coming car driver chose not to give way. Both the car driver and I had opportunity to pull into a passing place to allow the other to pass but neither of us did so. Apart from a bit of fruity language from the car driver (presumably because he was forced to almost stop in the road) we passed without incident.

Got me thinking though. As a cyclist, I am always wholely in the left hand lane of the single track road - the road isn't centre-marked though. The car isn't wholely in it's lane (not by a long way) because the vehicle is too wide. Legally speaking, do I have right of way against on-coming trafic that is partly on the 'wrong' side of the road?

PS I've been cycling regularly for decades and have no itention of 'playing chicken' with on-coming motorised vehicles - right of way or not!.


----------



## ushills (12 Jul 2013)

I would also be interested to know this as well purely from a technical viewpoint. On country lanes I always choose or are forced to stop by the same motorists that stop for horses and walkers but drive straight at me or past me as if I didn't exist.

Taking a strong position is okay for a while until the beeping and flashing starts which is usually a good 50m before a suitable place to pull in like a farm entrance.


----------



## Cush (12 Jul 2013)

Common sense and good manners should dictate what to do. If it is a massive tractor I give way. If it is a Micra I slow down. If I am near a passing place I stop in it but that's just me. Every case is different. What I have noticed on single track roads is that women in Volvo's on the school run never seem to give way The same apply s to fishermen with their rods over the front of the bonnet. (I do drive a Volvo). I always slow down or stop and let horses pass.


----------



## martint235 (12 Jul 2013)

Must resist. Must resist. Nope, can't help it. Neither of you have "right of way" as it doesn't exist in this situation. 

As for who has priority, no idea. For me it all depends on the situation and how aggressive I'm feeling that particular day.


----------



## PK99 (12 Jul 2013)

Sham69 said:


> Got me thinking though. As a cyclist, I am always wholely in the left hand lane of the single track road - the road isn't centre-marked though. The car isn't wholely in it's lane (not by a long way) because the vehicle is too wide. Legally speaking,* do I have right of way* against on-coming trafic that is partly on the 'wrong' side of the road?
> 
> PS I've been cycling regularly for decades and have no itention of 'playing chicken' with on-coming motorised vehicles - right of way or not!.


 
I'll beat Gaz to this one!

No one has "right of way": 

HC preamble:
*1. Overview*

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.


----------



## martint235 (12 Jul 2013)

martint235 said:


> Must resist. Must resist. Nope, can't help it. Neither of you have "right of way" as it doesn't exist in this situation.
> 
> As for who has priority, no idea. For me it all depends on the situation and how aggressive I'm feeling that particular day.


 


PK99 said:


> I'll beat Gaz to this one!
> 
> No one has "right of way":


 Too slow.


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2013)

Like wot martin235 says. I suspect there's no legal or technical answer, it's something to be negotiated as and when both sensibly and with good grace. Or as cush summarised....




> Common sense and good manners should dictate what to do.


----------



## numbnuts (12 Jul 2013)

The law of the jungle – small gives way to big


----------



## snorri (12 Jul 2013)

Good manners and negotiation.
Motor vehicles should not be expected to drive on the verge to avoid cyclists as this damages drainage culverts and causes erosion resulting in broken road surfaces. Likewise cyclists should not be expected to dismount between passing places or cycle off road.
Edit to say, exercise common sense with agricultural and other large vehicles.


----------



## Sham69 (12 Jul 2013)

I take the point that 'right of way' doesn't exist in the Highway Code. I can see I should have used the term 'priority'. And as the Highway Code states that everyone should give way, then I guess no-one has priority either.

Interesting to me that the fact that the cyclist is wholely within their 'lane' yet the on-coming motorist isn't (and cannot be due to width of vehicle) counts for nothing. Imagine the legal position on a road where there is sufficient width for on-coming cars to pass each other at speed and an on-coming car ploughs into a cyclist who is wholely in the left hand lane and the car, at least parlty, in the incorrect lane. I suspect the car driver would be guilty of some form of careless/dangerous driving and the cyclist (possibly deceased!) would be wholely innocent? Different rules for different road widths?

On water, powered craft give way to sail (with a few specialist exceptions).


----------



## martint235 (12 Jul 2013)

Sham69 said:


> I take the point that 'right of way' doesn't exist in the Highway Code. I can see I should have used the term 'priority'. And as the Highway Code states that everyone should give way, then I guess no-one has priority either.
> 
> Interesting to me that the fact that the cyclist is wholely within their 'lane' yet the on-coming motorist isn't (and cannot be due to width of vehicle) counts for nothing. Imagine the legal position on a road where there is sufficient width for on-coming cars to pass each other at speed and an on-coming car ploughs into a cyclist who is wholely in the left hand lane and the car, at least parlty, in the incorrect lane. I suspect the car driver would be guilty of some form of careless/dangerous driving and the cyclist (possibly deceased!) would be wholely innocent? Different rules for different road widths?
> 
> On water, powered craft give way to sail (with a few specialist exceptions).


 The cyclist isn't wholly within "their" lane though are they? There isn't a lane at all other than a bi-directional one so I think it's misleading to compare it with a scenario whereby a car traverses the central line of a two lane road to hit a cyclist. And to be honest, if I'm on a two lane road and wholly in the left hand lane and a car is coming towards me down the centre (for example to pass a parked car) in most instances I will carry on going and expect them to stop. In the same way if I need to overtake a bus on a similar road that means me crossing into the right hand lane, I'll give way to anything coming the other way.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jul 2013)

As a motorist I follow two basic rules:

1st - the sail before steam principle - I always give peds, cyclists, and horsey folk priority.
2nd - in meeting an equal, I'd give priority if I was the one closer to the passing place (and would expect priority if the position was reversed.)

GC


----------



## Bman (12 Jul 2013)

Yes, that's how I read it too. These country lanes (I feel) are intentionally left without a lane marking, essentially showing that there are not two lanes but one lane that has to be shared by traffic from both directions.

I've thought about this regularly when travelling one particular stretch of 30mph residential road. I can pass parked cars, out of the door zone, without crossing the centre line. Cars cannot. I still find myself pulling in between parked cars to give way to oncoming traffic (half) on my side of the road. Better that than win the "i'm in the right" argument as you bounce off their bonnet.

Part of the problem might be the motorist, not respecting (or understanding) the door zone and bullying their way past because they think there is enough room for both of us, but I think mostly the culprits are cockwombles using their car as a weapon to make up for some personal issue they have.


----------



## Sham69 (12 Jul 2013)

> There isn't a lane at all other than a bi-directional one so I think it's misleading to compare it with a scenario whereby a car traverses the central line of a two lane road to hit a cyclist. And to be honest, if I'm on a two lane road and wholly in the left hand lane and a car is coming towards me down the centre (for example to pass a parked car) in most instances I will carry on going and expect them to stop.


 
I understand your point about a single, bi-directional lane. Perhaps I shouldn't think of a narrow road as being two-way even if it can be for cyclists and other narrow vehicles. Had a look at some recent OS maps and there's no mention of 'single lane/track' roads, merely 'narrow' roads. Does 'narrow' infer single track or perhaps it's up to users to decide wether a road is single track or not?

There are roads near me - no centre line - where two on-coming cars easily pass yet not two on-coming large vehicles or a car and a very large on-coming vehicle so the road is two-way for some road users but not for others. In this instance, the larger vehicle would normaly be expected to give way because it doesn't fit on it's half of the road. So if the wider vehicle gives way to the smaller, shouldn't that apply in all such situations? Especially as I'm not aware of roads being officially classified as single track. Or maybe it only applies in cases where the council have got round to marking the road centre line?



> Part of the problem might be the motorist, not respecting (or understanding) the door zone and bullying their way past because they think there is enough room for both of us.


 
I have to say that the vast majority of motorists I encounter are at least adequately good drivers but there is an appaling lack of understanding from a few. Clearly, some are unable or unwilling to comprehend a situation from any other road user's viewpoint. I call this the Mother-in-Law syndrome.

I've ranted on a bit, haven't I? And I thought abuse from motorists didn't affect me much!

I'd better call a halt now and get back to work - those aeroplanes don't land themselves (kidding).


----------



## youngoldbloke (16 Jul 2013)

re 'steam gives way to sail' - in principle that's a nice idea, but have you ever crossed the shipping lanes in the Channel under sail?


----------



## Amanda P (16 Jul 2013)

I don't mind giving way, but I do mind when a driver thinks he can pass me with inches to spare while still doing 40 or 50 mph. That's nasty and careless.

To try to counteract this, I will sometimes claim my space in the road and hold it until the oncoming car has slowed to a speed at which I'll feel comfortable to have it pass by, bearing in mind the space available. If there are inches, it'll be a crawl; if there's a metre to spare, 20 mph might be OK.

Some drivers don't like this, but tough!


----------



## summerdays (16 Jul 2013)

I struck up a conversation with a cyclist once in the past discussion "rights of way" (his words) and passing parked cars. His opinion on it was that on parked up city roads with cars on both sides, he could still cycle along without crossing onto the other side so that the on-coming car should always be the one to wait. I've always wondered if he had a point but as I would be more likely to be in the middle of the road then some negotiation with drivers will always be necessary and it is easier for a bike to maneuver into a small space.


----------



## Siegfried (16 Jul 2013)

I'm not sure if anyone has right of way on a single track road, and common sense and courtesy must therefore be employed. I don't know how well this system works in other parts of the country as these qualities may not be evenly geographically distributed but it usually works around here, perhaps with a hiccup in the summer time which may be due to the effect of the heat on otherwise perfectly reasonable dales drivers or it may be a function of the influx of folks from places where they are used to being able to rely on a sign or road marking to decide who has precedence, and where it assumed somebody always has precedence.

Traditionally the general etiquette is that the party with the passing place/gateway/turn-off/slighly wider section of road nearest to them or on their side of the road uses it to let the other party pass and it also makes sense that the road user who can most easily facilitate the passage of both parties does so. Usually a little bit of give and take on both sides is required.

In the case of two cars meeting head on this entails stopping, scratching heads, and then some general shuffling and reversing by one or both vehicles. In the case of a bike meeting a car , even in my local area with many miles of single track lanes and no purpose made passing places that I can think off, pretty much the only time I am unable to negotiate my way past an oncoming vehicle by ducking into a gateway or slowing down at a wider bit or road or just squeezing past, or allow a following vehicle to overtake, without both feet still on the pedals is when I meet something agricultural or military which is brushing the verges on both sides and I need to vacate the road entirely.

I don't keep count but I would guess I receive as many courtesies; people waiting at a road widening for me to pass or waiting the other side of a cattle grid or bridge for me to cross, as I extend to others so in answer to the original question therefore, I suppose statistically you would expect to be pulling in only 50% of the time, and rarely having to come to a stop, but if you are doing so more than this I wouldn't worry too much as you are just adapting to the local conditions.


----------



## Tanis8472 (18 Jul 2013)

Sham69 said:


> I understand your point about a single, bi-directional lane. Perhaps I shouldn't think of a narrow road as being two-way even if it can be for cyclists and other narrow vehicles. Had a look at some recent OS maps and there's no mention of 'single lane/track' roads, merely 'narrow' roads. Does 'narrow' infer single track or perhaps it's up to users to decide wether a road is single track or not?
> 
> There are roads near me - no centre line - where two on-coming cars easily pass yet not two on-coming large vehicles or a car and a very large on-coming vehicle so the road is two-way for some road users but not for others._* In this instance, the larger vehicle would normaly be expected to give way because it doesn't fit on it's half of the road*_. So if the wider vehicle gives way to the smaller, shouldn't that apply in all such situations? Especially as I'm not aware of roads being officially classified as single track. Or maybe it only applies in cases where the council have got round to marking the road centre line?
> 
> ...


 
But its MUCH easier for the smaller vehicle to manoeuvre* allowing the bigger one through. Both win 

(Damn, that's an awkward word to spell  )


----------



## Frood42 (19 Jul 2013)

TL;DR

Highway Code:
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/overview


----------



## snorri (19 Jul 2013)

Tanis8472 said:


> (Damn, that's an awkward word to spell  )


 Thank you for taking the trouble to get it right and save us from some pedant taking the thread off topic.


----------



## Tanis8472 (19 Jul 2013)

You're welcome


----------



## morrisman (21 Jul 2013)

User said:


> One reason to introduce a presumption of liability...
> 
> In my view, the most vulnerable should have priority at all times.


 

So pedestrians can launch themselves in front of traffic and it will always be the traffics fault, I think not!


----------



## morrisman (21 Jul 2013)

User said:


> Our European cousins in Belgium, the Netherlands, etc don't seem to have a problem with people launching themselves in front of cars.
> 
> You clearly don't understand the concept of the presumption of liability. I suggest you find out a bit more about it before making a tit of yourself again...


 

Fully understand 'presumption of liability' but you said 'he most vulnerable should have priority at all times' which I read as a different thing?


----------



## morrisman (21 Jul 2013)

morrisman said:


> Fully understand 'presumption of liability' but you said 'he most vulnerable should have priority at all times' which I read as a different thing?


 
Oh! and I'm not a tit


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jul 2013)

Yesterday we went up to Watendlath which is a narrow road with passing places at one point we had negotiated a couple of blind bends and came face to face with an elderly couple in a BMW, who were "shooing" us back

Now common sense would think that their reversing 10 feet into a passing place would be simpler than us reversing round the blind corners, but they were having none of it

So I politely got out and asked if they wished to be guided back, to which he replied he didn't like reversing which was why we would have to g back the 100 yards round the corners

Fortunately a another couple of vehicles came up behind us and persuaded the elderly driver to let one of us reverse their car.

Otherwise it would have quickly become impossible


----------



## Spinney (21 Jul 2013)

If he didn't like reversing, he should not have been on a single track road.

Simples.


----------



## Cush (21 Jul 2013)

From past experience on that road it should only be used by those that need to use it (or cyclists and walkers) I see no point in taking a car up it, it is a dead end.


----------



## Sham69 (24 Jul 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> I don't mind giving way, but I do mind when a driver thinks he can pass me with inches to spare while still doing 40 or 50 mph. That's nasty and careless.
> 
> To try to counteract this, I will sometimes claim my space in the road and hold it until the oncoming car has slowed to a speed at which I'll feel comfortable to have it pass by, bearing in mind the space available. If there are inches, it'll be a crawl; if there's a metre to spare, 20 mph might be OK.
> 
> Some drivers don't like this, but tough!


 
That's exactly my approach in those rare instances when I don't/can't pull into a passing place beforehand and it was the approach I took in this particular instance. I see it as trying to manage the situation for a safe outcome. The driver sees it as me being obstructive. These folk who can't visualise things from others perspectives must find life very confusing/frustrating.



Siegfried said:


> I don't keep count but I would guess I receive as many courtesies; people waiting at a road widening for me to pass or waiting the other side of a cattle grid or bridge for me to cross, as I extend to others so in answer to the original question therefore, I suppose statistically you would expect to be pulling in only 50% of the time, and rarely having to come to a stop, but if you are doing so more than this I wouldn't worry too much as you are just adapting to the local conditions.


 
In South East England, when we're talking about a cyclist (me) and an on-coming motorist, I give way over 80% of the time (I'm anal enough to keep a mental note). My main concern on narrow roads is to avoid holding up faster moving vehicles behind me so I keep an eye over my shoulder and will always pull in as necessary.


----------



## marknotgeorge (27 Jul 2013)

Spinney said:


> If he didn't like reversing, he should not have been on a single track road.
> 
> Simples.



Fixed it for you...


----------



## Svendo (27 Jul 2013)

My recollection of the 'who gives way' thing is that the vehicle encroaching into the other vehicles lane gives way, and where there's no centre line the centre of the road serves that purpose. On single-track roads whilst the old cyclist mentioned above is correct, the preamble bit means that as often as not the cyclist ends up giving way. Rule 155 of the H.C. specifically refers to single-track roads, I only tend to assert the other drivers obligation to give way when I'm going up hill and stopping would be a P.I.T.A.


----------



## format (27 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Yesterday we went up to Watendlath which is a narrow road with passing places at one point we had negotiated a couple of blind bends and came face to face with an elderly couple in a BMW, who were "shooing" us back
> 
> Now common sense would think that their reversing 10 feet into a passing place would be simpler than us reversing round the blind corners, but they were having none of it
> 
> ...


 


If a driver cannot control their vehicle, they should not be on the road.


----------



## snailracer (31 Jul 2013)

[QUOTE 2558719, member: 30090"]The above, it is not cast in stone but in the OP's scenario the cyclist should have priority (order of):

Ped > Cyclist > Mbike > Car > Bus > HGV.[/quote]
The funny thing is, accident stats show that cyclists are more actually more vulnerable when they collide with pedestrians.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Jul 2013)

Svendo said:


> My recollection of the 'who gives way' thing is that the vehicle encroaching into the other vehicles lane gives way, and where there's no centre line the centre of the road serves that purpose. On single-track roads whilst the old cyclist mentioned above is correct, the preamble bit means that as often as not the cyclist ends up giving way. Rule 155 of the H.C. specifically refers to single-track roads, I only tend to assert the other drivers obligation to give way when I'm going up hill and stopping would be a P.I.T.A.


 
the vehicle gong up hill has the right of way


----------



## Svendo (31 Jul 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> the vehicle gong up hill has the right of way


 

In a convoluted way, that's what I was getting at, except I phrased it in terms of the downhill vehicle's obligation to give way. That's how the H.C. is framed nowadays. If you were just clarifying what I was saying my apologies.


----------



## gaz (1 Aug 2013)

PK99 said:


> I'll beat Gaz to this one!
> 
> No one has "right of way":
> 
> ...


oh my. I have arrived so late to this


----------



## Milo (11 Aug 2013)

I tend to always give way to car drivers in country lane scenarios. I will also pull over if it is tricky for them to pass tbh just seems the courteous thing to do being the slower vehicle.


----------



## Milzy (11 Aug 2013)

Write to Emma Way, she thinks she knows.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Aug 2013)

Nipped down with the Christiania to the Post Office depot to collect some parcels yesterday

I was leaving the car park and actually in the entrance when a 4x4 came straight up to to the front of the box and sat there blocking the way out

Shame the trike is so difficult to turn round!

Took me about 12 or 13 attempts before I could get far enough back for him to get in to the car park!


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2013)

I thought the side of the road on which the passing point is was used to indicate who should give way on a singltrack road.
Thats how I've worked it & its how I know a number of agricultural drivers treat them.


----------

