Near Miss of the Day 612: Driver pulling out of hospital almost sends cyclist into it (includes swearing)

I don't know. But Guernsey does have a sexual health hospital, and perhaps the driver had visited the Autofacilitation Department and can now go and **** himself!

eburtthebike wrote:

Was it an eye hospital?

And for all you people implying or saying that the cyclist was in the wrong, just try and picture the situation if the roles were reversed and the cyclist had pulled out in front of the car.  They would have been condemned.

Brain surgery clinic it seems...

As per usual you're such an attention whore you feel compelled to make up some bullshit to try to elicit a reaction. I hope you're satisfied with this one.

See, you just proved what I mean by bullshit - first stating the driver had priority because they reached the junction first, then as supposed proof you quote the section of the HWC which says nobody has priority.  Really, you're going to need to do better than that.

And it certainly doesn't override the Road Traffic Act, which offers this on careless or inconsiderate driving:

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

Philh68 wrote:

As per usual you're such an attention whore you feel compelled to make up some bullshit to try to elicit a reaction. I hope you're satisfied with this one.

I believe you have correctly identified the motive.

I can't speak for the locality here but certainly in Australia, a road has priority over driveway entrances and even if that entrance is considered a roadway, it's a T intersection where road users on the continuing road have right of way over road users on the ending roadway.

Yet again your perverse interpretation of the HC is at odds with both its intent and with the underlying legislation in favour of a motorist commiting an appallingly shite piece of driving.

Scalped from a injury lawyer website in reference to HC segments regarding junctions and S36 of the road traffic act 1988 so make of that provenance what you will.

"The main message is clear – if a vehicle is proceeding correctly and is established on the main road and a car pulls out from a side road, it is more than likely the latter that has failed to pay due care and attention and therefore they will most likely be found liable."

Nigel Garrage wrote:

... as per highway code rule 146 it looks as if the car had priority here as they entered first

As per Highway Code rule 146 it looks as if nobody had priority.

Although why use the UK Main Island Highway code and not the Guernsey specific one which states.

Entering the Public Highway You must:-  Give way to traffic proceeding along a public highway when entering or about to enter the highway from a public highway of lesser importance, a private road, way or place. If in doubt give way

They specifically have Filter In Turn road markings and signs which donates no priority road junctions. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

The point is that - when there are no road markings at the junction and therefore no priority, this means the car isn't "entering the public highway" as in example 1.

And as the car enters first, example 1 is the correct interpretation of the highway code:

 

Your point is probably not the same thing as the point. HWC 146 does nothing to support your conclusion.

Plus his point is totally invalidated with it being on Guernesy where they have these markings for the junctions he is adamant he is right on, and state everywhere else it is actually give way to traffic on the more important public highway. They actually had the yellow stop line on that junction whenever this overhead was taken which shows which road they believed was more important.

Google Earth 3D gives a better perspective

giff77 wrote:

Google Earth 3D gives a better perspective

Another angle

This may or may not be the same junction.  It is also not clear from the video that those lines exist now, whatever Google says about a point in time.

If they do exist and just aren't clear on the video, then the case is clear-cut in favour of the cyclist. If they don't, then it is an unmarked junction and the cyclist's position is less robust.

As for joining the public highway, if the hospital grounds are open to the public, then the access is a public road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act and therefore the Highway Code.  There does not even have to be a right of way over the road - it may be permissive, eg when Tesco is open.  If it is open to the public at the time, the RTA applies.  If it's an unmarked junction, Rule 146 applies and neither party had priority.

The question for both the driver and the cyclist, then, is 'was it safe to proceed?'

It wasn't safe for the driver - there was clearly continuity of traffic and no sense of negotiation into the flow by the driver.  It became unsafe for the cyclist but, I would argue, more as a result of the driver.  However the cyclist should learn from this to exercise greater caution at such a junction.

If anybody is arguing that the cyclist had an unarguable priority when approaching the junction, they are mistaken.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

The point is that - when there are no road markings at the junction and therefore no priority, this means the car isn't "entering the public highway" as in example 1.

And as the car enters first, example 1 is the correct interpretation of the highway code:

 

talks about the highway code, and not the Jersey driving rules

denies the side road should yield, when proven but satelitle imagery this is not the case

makes a riduclous point about get their firtst = win. Chicken not being part of any highway code on the planet.

triple fail. 

wycombewheeler wrote:

makes a riduclous point about get their firtst = win. Chicken not being part of any highway code on the planet.

Utterly agree with your principle, although I understand it is a feature of 4-way junctions in the USA that it is first come, first served.  Slightly more civilised than whoever boots it into the junction, but nevertheless it depends on every driver agreeing on the order of arrival at the junction.  And obviously, unarmed cyclists got there last(!)

That code comes under 'general advice'.. I'd be checking actual road law.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

At the risk of getting absolutely slated yet again, as per highway code rule 146 it looks as if the car had priority here as they entered first, and if the cyclist had collided with the back of it would have been liable for any damage incurred.

Very poor language too.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

At the risk of getting absolutely slated yet again, as per highway code rule 146 it looks as if the car had priority here as they entered first, and if the cyclist had collided with the back of it would have been liable for any damage incurred.

Very poor language too.

Got there first is a terrible rule for determining priority, even might makes right is better as at least we all know where we stand.

suggesting vehicles arriving at a junction first gain priority results in a race to the junction which only increases the consequences of failing to yield priority. Every interaction is now a game of chicken. If I just accelerate I will "enter first" and the other driver must yield to me.

Absolutely correct.. that U.S. 4-way rule is a joke but then that is a country without universal health care and allows gun toting citizenry; Australia has a similar rule with roundabouts, where first vehicle into the roundabout has priority but 99% of drivers follow the common sense principle of give way to the right, however I fell victim to a driver on my left that tried to race me into the roundabout, resulting in a collision - police attended and measured how far each vehicle was into the roundabout and concluded I reached the roundabout first, so the other driver was fined.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

At the risk of getting absolutely slated yet again, as per highway code rule 146 it looks as if the car had priority here as they entered first, and if the cyclist had collided with the back of it would have been liable for any damage incurred.

Very poor language too.

Well, there's a yellow line visible from space... 

I agree with you completely. On such lanes, cars and anything with wheels doing more than 20mph means you cannot see obstacles ahead. The driver obviously had a restricted vision on exit and had to floor it. Arriving at a hospital exit should always be approached with caution as you never know what has happened to drivers leaving who may not have 100% attention.

You need to use an emoticon as with 2 posts, readers will not be familiar enough to realise at first glance that there is heavy use of irony here.

It's obvious that the cyclist was in clear view but the driver failed to see the cyclist until after they had pulled out and then gave their crappy diesel vehicle full beans, thus resulting in that cloud of particulate pollution.

kudoa to them for the black smoke, having realised they had f'ed up, they accelerated very hard (the black smoke) which was by that time the most appropiate course of action to avoid a collision. A panicky slamming on the brakes would have just made things worse

EK Spinner wrote:

kudoa to them for the black smoke, having realised they had f'ed up, they accelerated very hard (the black smoke) which was by that time the most appropiate course of action to avoid a collision. A panicky slamming on the brakes would have just made things worse

Absolutely right about slamming brakes

Black sooty smoke though is not the sign of a well cared for engine, however hard the acceleration.

It's only if the diesel continually gives off black smoke that shows problems with injectors, etc., but a brief over fuel black smoke with full acceleration is normal with a diesel engine.