Near Miss of the Day 681: “I live to fight another day”

bikeman01 wrote:

Right of way is granted by the signage when two vehicles arrive at the intersection at the same time. But the car arrived before the cyclist and therefore had right to pass through. In fact he had already completely passed through before the cyclist had arrived. Had he been part way through you cant just plough into him claiming that you had right of way.

Turning across the cyclist's path is obviously wrong though.

Just to be precise, right of way exists in this case because it is a public highway, over which the public has the right to pass and repass as of right.

What you are talking about is priority, and you are right, the signage atttirutes that priority.  However, the priority exists through the section.  The oncoming car has not somehow earned priority by getting in there first, otherwise it would not be a priority to the pov direction.

You are right, you cannot plough into the car claiming right of way priority:  that would be driving without due care (or even dangerous driving).  But, suppose the cyclist (or another vehicle) come head-to-head with the oncoming car and the car had not been able to dive off to his right (our left). The impasse would be entirely the result of the failure of the oncoming car to give way.  At no point did that car have priority just because he got there first.

But he hadn't passed through the narrowing at the point the cyclist had arrived.

Roads may be reduced in width by the use of build-outs on one or both sides. When placed on both sides, they may be opposite each other or staggered. Priority through the narrowing may be controlled by signs and "give way" markings. It is essential that you obey signs indicating priority to vehicles comingfrom the opposite direction.

So I don't think simply being there first is enough.

If the driver had bothered to indicate, then in all likelihood, the cyclist would have slowed a little and everyone would have been on their way happily.

no two vehicles ever get there at the same time, one is always first. if your entrance to a junction has give way lines, then you should not enter if doing so will cause another road user to have to apply brakes. WE do not play a high stakes game a chicken were reaching the junction first gives you priority.

However, timing and priority is not really the issue here, the issue is that having cleared the pinch point the oncoming driver stays on the wrong side of the road, because it's more convenient for them turning right.

If the traffic calming chicane were not there we would expect the oncomng car to wait on their side of the road until the cyclist had passed before turning right.

The problem s compounded because this audist hasn't found the secret stalks that operate the flashing orange lights, so the cyclists doesn't know whether the driver is staying on the right because of the parked car ahead (in which case he probably needs to ride as close to the kerb as possible) or because they are turning right (in which case he needs to move to the middle of the road.)

Pretty shocking driving.

The chicane is badly placed bewteeen two side roads, and likely to cause many interactions like this, and speed humps should be employed instead.

bikeman01 wrote:

Right of way is granted <snip> by being in a bigger and heavier vehicle.

Turning across the cyclist's path is obviously wrong though.

Fixed it, I think... 

Does seem based in a crap design if you look the other way of direction as well. if two or more cars are waiting at the giveway for two or more cars to come through on priority direction and then first of the priority ones wants to turn right, instant traffic jam. I know there is a Keep Clear but then we know those are rarely respected. Also they seem to have something against proper giveway markings on any of the side roads. 

Yep that's what should happen. He should move back to the left and then make the turn when it is clear. Its not difficult, thats what that big round thing in front of the driver is for.

mdavidford wrote:

What is the expected path for the driver of the car here? 

To return to their side of the road

mdavidford wrote:

They've got a choice of doing what they did

Yes they chose to endanger someone elses life

mdavidford wrote:

 or following the arrow to the left and then in pretty much the same movement turning back to the right to make the junction, which is probably just as bad.

 

It doesn't have to be in the same movement, they can return to the left, indicate right, slow or even stop and then perform that movement. How would that be as bad as driving directly at a cyclist and cutting a corner that you've not full visibility around?

Yep, driver coming though initially I would have had no issues with as plenty of time for him to move to correct side of road. The rest of his driving does leave a lot to be desired and not just for the wellbeing of the cyclist but any cars or pedestrians who happened to be on the side road at the time. Still I suspect some person will blame cyclist for this even though I have seen alot worse from approaching car drivers in these circustances. 

Not you again. How have you not been banned from these pages?

Not comfortable with people who have different opinions to you?

Want to ban such people?

Interesting. How old are you?

He learnt that from learning what GBNews viewers asked for when watching someone do an Anti-Racism protest on their news program. 

As previously explained to you there is a difference between having an opinion and trolling/baiting.

As ever, you refuse to reply or discuss which prompts the following:

"Interesting. How old are you?"

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Interesting. How old are you?

I'm 178 and my older brother will utterly batter you. Was that the playground response you expected?

Reading some of your posts you do not seem to understand or 'get' what the law states or guidance such as the highway code. This may be mis-understanding but one suspects complete ignorance or wilful dis-respect of anyone who wishes to live in a civil and lawful manner. I generally cycle at a much slower speed and try to avoid danger but still find people acting in a unlawful and dangerous manner when driving a motor vehicle. Your comments are not clever but very disrepectful to the number of people who are killed and harmed by people who drive in an irresponsible, aggressive and dangerous manner and those people who are left behind with a sense of loss, common sense does not enter into any equation. 

Garage at Large wrote:

I honestly don't get videos like this. It wouldn't matter if I was riding a bike or driving a car, I'd slow down regardless of whether I saw someone driving through one of those road obstacles or if I had "right of way"... there must be a gigantic swathe of the British cycling population who simply aren't adorned with an ounce of common sense.

The fact remains that you would be forced, obliged or otherwise encouraged to take evasive action to correct somebody else's selfish and careless use of the road and failure to comply with road signs and markings.

Stop shifting the blame to the person who actually had priority at that point, especially when the driver compounded his faliure to give priority with sluggish progress and an unsignalled turn onto the wrong side of the side road.

Garage at Large wrote:

Copyright

 That's not true, it was due to a processing issue. 

I think he was correcting the first posters Copywrite. 

Oh dear, back in my box! 

Still not working...l