White van driver knocks cyclist off, blames cyclist

[Andy_R]

[QUOTE 4874594, member: 45"]See my sig. line.....[/QUOTE]
In law the "right of way" is "the legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another." Everyone who uses a public highway has the right of way. No one has the right of way over someone else

Perhaps it's time to change your sig line and talk about "priority" instead, as that is the more accurate description. "Right of way" is a totally different kettle of penguins.

 

[User6179]

Ermmm...if it's a public highway, then everyone has the right of way. Perhaps you're confusing it with priority?

No I am responding to drivers/posters who mean to say they had priority but they say they had right of way.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4874594, member: 45"]See my sig. line.....[/QUOTE]
...which doesn't show on small screens.

 

[User16625]

Er. No. That was bullying by the motorists, might is right, not give and take. I hope I would've stopped but I would probably have at them because the obstruction was on their side, so they really ought to have given way, especially the WVM.

Right of way is nice to have, but physics trumps rights. And a van has more physics than a cyclist.

 

[atalanta]

Right of way is nice to have, but physics trumps rights. And a van has more physics than a cyclist.

Yeah, the moral high ground is pretty cold comfort if you're dead.

 

[keithmac]

I can see why the cyclist stood his ground and the WVM was deffinitely in the wrong but for me I'd have either slowed down or bailed onto the footpath.

Life's too short and I wouldn't want to leave my children fatherless just to prove a point. When you have family you have a duty to them to do your best not to get run over..