# Who has right of way?



## totallyfixed (28 Sep 2015)

Following on from the cycle path question, who has right of way where a cycle path runs alongside a main road and is intersected by minor roads / driveways, logically it ought to be the cyclist who is continuing straight on, whereas a vehicle approaching the main road from one of the minor roads or leaving a driveway has to be slowing down / stopping anyway.
If there are no give way markings on either the road or the cycle path and there is no law written down describing this situation, then surely the vehicle gives way to the bike as this is the more vulnerable road user. Not to mention it ought to be common sense too.
How I wish we would adopt the Dutch system of painted white "sharks teeth" that clearly denote who has to give way, in the situation described above it would always be the vehicle.
I have a feeling that cyclists defer to cars just because it has always been thus, that plus a certain amount of intimidation. Might be it is time to test / change the law if one exists.


----------



## Drago (28 Sep 2015)

There is no such thing as "right of way".

There is only "priority", and that's a commodity that one should give to others, not risk their own safety to take.

And the practical reality is that the person with the deadliest vehicle has priority


----------



## PeteXXX (28 Sep 2015)

Yes and no, Drago... (Hey! that rhymes)
Today, I gave way to a squirrel because:-
It was in my path..
It wouldn't know what a bike is..
It was furry, and I'm not..
If I'd have hit it, I'd have likely exited my bicycle 'stage left'.


----------



## winjim (28 Sep 2015)

On the newly remodelled Penistone Road, they've put little advance give ways at all the junctions which cross the shared use path, to try and give cyclists the priority all the way through. I wouldn't trust drivers to use them properly though, I'll keep on using the road thanks.


----------



## mjr (28 Sep 2015)

It depends on markings, else pedestrians walking over the cycle path have priority over motorists but cyclists and motorists have equal priority: in theory, first come first served, but in practice, deadliest wins  This anomaly really ought to be fixed if the government is serious about promoting cycling.

Local culture may influence it: most West Norfolk motorists will give way to cycles on a cycle path, including reversing back if emerging and there's no gap on the major road.


----------



## mjr (28 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> I wouldn't trust drivers to use them properly though, I'll keep on using the road thanks.


No, don't trust them, but I'd usually trust myself to spot and avoid the few conflicting nobbers rather than trust all the motorists on the road to overtake properly although we're comparing two rather improbable events.


----------



## totallyfixed (28 Sep 2015)

So there is no written law regarding this? If there is a collision [assuming no markings] who is liable. Calling @CopperCyclist and @Vikeonabike.


----------



## winjim (28 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> No, don't trust them, but I'd usually trust myself to spot and avoid the few conflicting nobbers rather than trust all the motorists on the road to overtake properly although we're comparing two rather improbable events.


I just find it easier on the road. With all the junctions on the path it's like you need to be constantly looking in three directions at once. I think the road's safer. Mind you, I ride at a fair pace and I'm pretty confident in traffic so it's nice to have the path there for people who are less so. Except the bit where the car showroom park their cars all over it. And the bit where it disappears behind some workshops so you have to go on the road past the sex shop. And the bit by Wickes where there's no crossing phase on the traffic lights so you just have to chance it. And the bit by Kelham Island where it's contraflow round a blind bend off the main carriageway. And the bits where the tactile paving runs parallel to the direction of travel so it becomes a hazard. Et cetera.


----------



## mjr (28 Sep 2015)

There may be case law, which you might find by fishing around on www.bailii.org but all civil disputes may have been settled out of court and I don't think the Motor Insurance Bureau publishes many details.


----------



## totallyfixed (28 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> I just find it easier on the road. With all the junctions on the path it's like you need to be constantly looking in three directions at once. I think the road's safer. Mind you, I ride at a fair pace and I'm pretty confident in traffic so it's nice to have the path there for people who are less so. Except the bit where the car showroom park their cars all over it. And the bit where it disappears behind some workshops so you have to go on the road past the sex shop. And the bit by Wickes where there's no crossing phase on the traffic lights so you just have to chance it. And the bit by Kelham Island where it's contraflow round a blind bend off the main carriageway. And the bits where the tactile paving runs parallel to the direction of travel so it becomes a hazard. Et cetera.


Yes, most of the time we use the road except when busy and loaded up with shopping. I was really thinking about the leisure cyclist and young children. Surely there have been incidents before now that have been investigated.


----------



## mjr (28 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> I just find it easier on the road. With all the junctions on the path it's like you need to be constantly looking in three directions at once. I think the road's safer.


Well, yes, if they've used the lethal Richmond-style junction layout where you need to look three ways at once (left, right and behind) and made all the other screwups you've mentioned, I can understand remaining on the road... but again, it SHOULDN'T be that way. When will government (various levels) stop micturating money up the wall and build stuff right most times, like they do for motorists?



> Mind you, I ride at a fair pace and I'm pretty confident in traffic so it's nice to have the path there for people who are less so.


Not really. Less confident cyclists don't like obstacle courses either, but their alternative is probably motoring, rather than cycling on the carriageway. Help them by flaming the councils for the construction errors


----------



## winjim (28 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> Well, yes, if they've used the lethal Richmond-style junction layout where you need to look three ways at once (left, right and behind) and made all the other screwups you've mentioned, I can understand remaining on the road... but again, it SHOULDN'T be that way. When will government (various levels) stop micturating money up the wall and build stuff right most times, like they do for motorists?
> 
> 
> Not really. Less confident cyclists don't like obstacle courses either, but their alternative is probably motoring, rather than cycling on the carriageway. Help them by flaming the councils for the construction errors


At least they got rid of this abomination!






I think the latest remodelling was actually funded by Sainsbury as part of the planning permission for their new store. They have put in additional shared use path on the other side of the road, and a bus lane which is good, although some of the cycle path does want to put you on the nearside of left turning traffic.


----------



## mjr (28 Sep 2015)

winjim said:


> ... although some of the cycle path does want to put you on the nearside of left turning traffic.


 but at least they can't easily make cycle paths compulsary while they're building such absurdities!


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Sep 2015)

For interest from the Highway Code:



> *8*
> *At a junction.* When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way





> *170*
> Take extra care at junctions. You should
> 
> watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way



The document does not mention cyclists in the same way, but logically the same priority should exist


----------



## summerdays (29 Sep 2015)

One cycle path I use has a raised table and sharks teeth where it crosses the road, and I have to say I think the cars have always given way to me there. To me that shows if it's done properly then motorists can learn and do respect it.

Other than that cycle path, the ones I use I generally have to give way at junctions (I don't use any with lots of drives), though they have recently installed new lights on one junction which means if it can it turns on the green cycle light as it detects you approaching, which is nice knowing if a car comes around the corner they will get a red light (whereas in the past I just took my chances rather than stopping and pressing a button). I like this idea and hope they extend it to other junctions.


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Sep 2015)

It's a mess and given the increase in cycling, no wonder beginners are intimidated, a classic case of I am bigger than you, I am in a car therefore more important. This is what I am talking about, close to where I live. The markings on the cycle path at the junction are bikes.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6...lDEm9_2p9W99Fc-oWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Sep 2015)

This is my local National Cycle Route - no wonder it is not used much.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x487734b3ecd8089b:0xc480a12fee3b01d4


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2015)

User said:


> For example on shared paths created from an existing footway, pedestrians legally have priority over cyclists - even in an area marked specifically for cyclists.


This is not limited to conversions: pedestrians legally have priority on cycle tracks and even on the carriageway unless specifically prohibited (motorways, traffic orders and so on), but good luck asserting it over uncooperative motorists!

Other than that, I broadly agree with @User's comment.


----------



## Drago (29 Sep 2015)

The legal priority pedestrians may enjoy is at odds with the one conferred on them by physics. Ditto cyclists and cars. 

In really wouldn't expend too much thought on who is entitled to pull out first and where, when the same energy could be expended on considering who stands to end up in Hospital when it all goes wrong. If the answer is "me", and as cyclists it usually will be, then consider he laws of physics and not the laws of man.


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> The legal priority pedestrians may enjoy is at odds with the one conferred on them by physics. Ditto cyclists and cars.
> 
> In really wouldn't expend too much thought on who is entitled to pull out first and where, when the same energy could be expended on considering who stands to end up in Hospital when it all goes wrong. If the answer is "me", and as cyclists it usually will be, then consider he laws of physics and not the laws of man.


What you are implying, if I understand this correctly, is essentially the survival of the fittest and by extension if a car mows down a cyclist at a junction where for instance a car and a cyclist arrive simultaneously and where currently no statutory law exists then that is ok and the driver cannot be held liable.
Interesting, but par for the course in the UK where statutory law quite often dates back to a time that has no relevance in society today. It is not acceptable that the law is unclear in regard to the interaction between motor vehicles and cyclists at junctions like these.


----------



## Drago (29 Sep 2015)

I'm not implying anything.

I'm stating, clear and simple, that if someone in a bigger vehicle than you insists on going right this bloody second then if you want to stay alive you should obey the law of physics, and if you want to be righteous but in a coffin you should follow the laws of man.

I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying it's the reality.

Pretty simple?


----------



## LocalLad (29 Sep 2015)

I think he means that being legally in the right is little compensation for being dead


----------



## Drago (29 Sep 2015)

Beautifully put Mr Lad.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Sep 2015)

LocalLad said:


> I think he means that being legally in the right is little compensation for being dead


"Might is right"?

Always surprises me when that is "promoted" in here. Almost makes you wonder why society chooses to pass laws that are at odds with it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Sep 2015)

User said:


> The version that Drago frequently promotes is that the world is a nasty and dangerous place where we shouldn't stand up for ourselves because we might anger mad people.
> Whilst this is undoubtedly true on one level, the probability is pretty low while the cost of not challenging poor behaviours is more and more poor behaviour.


It's a plod thing I think. One of the many b-I-l's is a sergeant of police. On the rugby pitch, even now when he is so old he should know better he won't take a backwards step and will run 50 m's (yes you Mike Brown) to get involved in a stramash. Off the park, de-escalates or walks away from everything. He says it is because professionally he has to pick up the pieces. But he accepts it only ends up in pieces in a tiny % of instances; a case of low probability of occurrence but catastrophic impact if it does?

But must we really live our lives as if every other driver is a Kenneth Noye? 

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.” 
― Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations _


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> I'm not implying anything.
> 
> I'm stating, clear and simple, that if someone in a bigger vehicle than you insists on going right this bloody second then if you want to stay alive you should obey the law of physics, and if you want to be righteous but in a coffin you should follow the laws of man.
> 
> ...


No actually, I don't believe it is the reality, my experience is that the vast majority [around here] of motorists are not out to kill cyclists, indeed were that the case many more of us would not be around to discuss this now. Vehicles that are exiting the minor roads are hardly likely to be travelling at any great speed, a much more common scenario would be that the vehicle will brake and /or the cyclist will swerve to avoid any possible collision. If there was a coming together and it was me, there would be a frank discussion, regardless of who was driving, bad drivers get away with it because they know they can.
In the case of a vehicle turning into the minor road they ought to see the cyclist before the cyclist sees them, particularly if travelling in the same direction. The law may not state who has priority but I doubt the majority of motorists would deliberately drive into a cyclist.


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> In the case of a vehicle turning into the minor road they ought to see the cyclist before the cyclist sees them, particularly if travelling in the same direction. The law may not state who has priority but I doubt the majority of motorists would deliberately drive into a cyclist.


Probably not deliberately, but in most places, motorists expect cyclists to give way when there's any doubt at all because most cyclists do, for the practical self-preservation reasons that @Drago outlines... and that's without considering the frighting number of SMIDSY motorists with eyesight so bad that they shouldn't be driving (over 20% by some estimates), those who've never passed a test and so on.

Personally, my preference is for some combination of tight junction corners to force motorists to slow right down when turning in and/or the cycleway crossing set back and angled so that cyclists and motorists can see each other coming and time their arrivals to interleave. Just putting a drop kerb in a wide sweeping bend is rubbish, no matter what the road markings.


----------



## Drago (29 Sep 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> No actually, I don't believe it is the reality, my experience is that the vast majority [around here] of motorists are not out to kill cyclists, indeed were that the case many more of us would not be around to discuss this now.



I never suggested that most motorists were slavering loons intent on murdering everyone. The bulk are simply selfish or careless, and usually - but not always - stop short of killing people.


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Sep 2015)

We are straying from the original question, who has right of way, or if you like, priority. After a bit of research I found this fascinating site. I would like to say it answers the question, but after ploughing through it my impression is that it depends where you are in the UK, secondly most of this stuff is not in the highway code, unsurprisingly as it is so complicated, which begs the question, how is anyone supposed to know what the rules are?
We have cycled through Assen [featured on this site] and it is a pleasure. We really are in the dark ages over here.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/priority-of-cycle-tracks-across-side-roads/


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Sep 2015)

I start a lot of these traffic answers by saying "I am not a traffic officer, it's not my speciality, I stand to be corrected". 

That said... The road is hedgerow to hedgerow. Not curb to curb. So traffic travelling along the main road has priority over those who wish to turn off it into a minor road, or come out from that minor road.

If you are cycling legally on a cycle path then you should under that frame of reference have priority - however the number of drivers who would realise, accept or acknowledge this is likely to be very low. 

The issue would be further complicated by the cycle paths that have those "give way" markings before every junction. Logic (which doesn't always necessarily apply well to the costs) would suggest these give way markings mean two things :

1. Clearly my earlier assumption of priority is true - otherwise why would these markings be needed at all? 
2. When they exist, the cyclist no longer has priority and should give way. 

I would imagine if taken to the nth degree or would need some sort of stated case to give a definitive answer, and it's one we are unlikely to get. 

Personally... I would use the road precisely because I don't wish to keep stopping and giving way, because regardless of whether I 'need' to our not, I would give way at these junctions for my own safety. 

That's my take on it anyway.


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Sep 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> I start a lot of these traffic answers by saying "I am not a traffic officer, it's not my speciality, I stand to be corrected".
> 
> That said... The road is hedgerow to hedgerow. Not curb to curb. So traffic travelling along the main road has priority over those who wish to turn off it into a minor road, or come out from that minor road.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I think this illustrates what a mess these junctions are, further I suspect should an incident go to court it would entirely depend on how the judge saw it. I like your logic though regarding cycle paths that have give way signs on them, thereby implying those without support the cyclist having priority.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Sep 2015)

totallyfixed said:


> It's a mess and given the increase in cycling, no wonder beginners are intimidated, a classic case of I am bigger than you, I am in a car therefore more important. This is what I am talking about, close to where I live. The markings on the cycle path at the junction are bikes.
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6...lDEm9_2p9W99Fc-oWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1


Looks like a very dangerous junction for a cyclist, needs some crossing lights, maybe further up round the corner.
For some reason when I clicked on the image it took me to a snap shot of February 2009, the path was snowed under, while the road was cleared.


----------



## mjr (29 Sep 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Personally... I would use the road precisely because I don't wish to keep stopping and giving way, because regardless of whether I 'need' to our not, I would give way at these junctions for my own safety.


This is another one of those reasons given for ignoring paths which doesn't stack up IMO because if a nobber motorist starts to turn across me, I'm probably going to give way even if I'm on the carriageway, for self-preservation reasons like @Drago.



Pat "5mph" said:


> Looks like a very dangerous junction for a cyclist, needs some crossing lights, maybe further up round the corner.


+1 That's exactly the Richmond-style lethal layout which should be prevented by government. It has no place on safe roads.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> This is another one of those reasons given for ignoring paths which doesn't stack up IMO because if a nobber motorist starts to turn across me, I'm probably going to give way even if I'm on the carriageway, for self-preservation reasons like @Drago.


My (anecdotal, unscientific) experience is that motorists are somewhat less likely to turn across me if i am in the same lane as they are to start with, and more likely if I am somewhere off to the left on what they perceive to be a pavement. So, in that situation I'd do the same as you for the same reason, but the situation is less likely to arise


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> This is another one of those reasons given for ignoring paths which doesn't stack up IMO because if a nobber motorist starts to turn across me, I'm probably going to give way even if I'm on the carriageway, for self-preservation reasons like @Drago.



As would I. The difference is (for me) on the cycle path I'd stop and give way every time - I. E. If a car is sat indicating, I'm stopping to let them go, as I assume they would expect me to give way to them. On the road, I'd carry on and only stop in an emergency situation as I would presume they will give way to me. Hence, I would rather use the road where I am more comfortable in safely using my priority.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (29 Sep 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> I start a lot of these traffic answers by saying "I am not a traffic officer, it's not my speciality, I stand to be corrected".
> 
> That said... The road is hedgerow to hedgerow. Not curb to curb. So traffic travelling along the main road has priority over those who wish to turn off it into a minor road, or come out from that minor road.
> 
> ...


Excellent answer.  I've always had a problem with the corresponding laws in Australia, because they're every bit as murky as yours. I just spent a few minutes reading (for the nth time) the relevant Australian road rules about giving way to users of foot/shared paths when turning off a road, and I wish I could say they were unambiguous and unarguable, but unfortunately they're not.


----------



## Vikeonabike (1 Oct 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> I start a lot of these traffic answers by saying "I am not a traffic officer, it's not my speciality, I stand to be corrected".
> 
> That said... The road is hedgerow to hedgerow. Not curb to curb. So traffic travelling along the main road has priority over those who wish to turn off it into a minor road, or come out from that minor road.
> 
> ...


Beat me to it....


----------

