Who has right of way?

[totallyfixed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Drago]

Beautifully put Mr Lad.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.