Give way or not give way?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Pete Owens »

peetee wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 9:40pm
Pete Owens wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 8:54pm it is unwise to assume that a turning driver will notice you approaching from behind.
Agreed, but in this scenario the rider was ahead of the motorist.
If they were riding on the on carriageway cycle lane then a following driver is likely to notice their presence - though the cycle lane makes it more difficult for both the cyclist and the motorist to adopt sensible lane positions on the approach, forcing a late swerve.

If they were riding off carriageway, then it is likely that a driver will fail to notice them.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Pete Owens »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 9:55pm
peetee wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 9:40pm
Pete Owens wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 8:54pm it is unwise to assume that a turning driver will notice you approaching from behind.
Agreed, but in this scenario the rider was ahead of the motorist.
Yes absolutely, but even if I was using the pavement/ cycleway I feel that I couldn't be 100% that they had seen and acknowledged my presence.
The use of the pavement/cycleway places me further to the left of the driver than I would like (almost in their peripheral vision) and the current eyesight test means that it can be passed by a driver with tunnel vision or even blind in one eye- if its the left eye then the probability of me being noticed is much reduced.
It is not about poor eyesight it is about attention. If they can steer their car within the carriageway and round the junction then they are capable of seeing you - in that your image will register on their retina. It is just that most of their attention is on the carriageway ahead of them. They are looking where they are going, rather than admiring the surrounding scenery - so they tend not to notice things away from the carriageway.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Pete Owens »

slowster wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 9:55pm
Getting back to the example in the OP, it occurs to me that this may be why so many shared use paths have a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign installed at the road junction, i.e. effectively as a roundabout way of making cyclists give way to cars turning into the road by requiring them to stop and get off their bike*. However, requiring cyclists to dismount and turning them into pedestrians, no longer has the effect of making them give way to traffic turning into the road, because now the HC makes clear that traffic turning into the road should give way not only to pedestrians actually crossing the road, but also those pedestrians (including dismounted cylists) waiting to cross.
Installing cycle paths has always been about clearing cyclists out of the way in order to avoid slowing down motors at all costs.

It has long been recognised that this was dangerous at junctions, so the cyclist dismount signs were a safety measure. They require cyclists to stop at the junction so they can see and be seen by approaching traffic. It is not about priority - pedestrians have always had priority in this situation as did the dismounted cyclists. It is just that spotting and stopping for someone actually at the road side is very much easier than noticing a cyclist approaching at speed some distance away.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Pete Owens »

slowster wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 11:39pm
The function of the solid white line is to prohibit motor vehicles parking in the cycle lane or driving in it. Not to stop motor vehicles driving over it to turn into a side road (for which a suitable no left/right turn prohibition road sign would be used). https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 58#rule140
Not so - you are not allowed to cross solid white lines - period. This means that cycle lanes, bus lanes, double white centre lines and even edge of carriageway lines all must be broken at any place where vehicles may need to cross. If the cycle lane has continuous white lines across the mouth of a junction then those road markings are incorrect.
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by pwa »

peetee wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 7:16pm I would be interested in reading your opinions on the following road layout. It’s a somewhat curious location inasmuch as cyclist have the choice of using a shared path or a cycle lane on both sides of the road.
I enclose a photo but the road markings are now different: As the main carriageway passes the side road there is now a continuous solid white line on both sides of the (pale surfaced) cycle lane.
With that in mind, a cyclist is proceeding in the same direction of traffic and travelling on the shared pavement/cycle path (not the pale cycle lane). Should they give way to a vehicle turning in to the side road or do they have priority?7EABCDAF-47C2-4719-AC43-07C00F6224EC.png
The lack of a break in the white lines is curious and suggests that drivers are not meant to be crossing it at all. But assuming that is a mistake, my approach as the driver of a car, van or whatever would be to time my crossing of the cycle lane to coincide with a sufficient gap in the cycle traffic. It is the driver's job to sort that out. The cyclist would be best advised to maintain a constant and therefore easily predictable speed approaching and passing the junction. But of course, remain vigilant and ready to brake if it becomes necessary.

But users of shared use paths (the other option for cyclists here) normally have to give way as they cross a road. One reason I don't much like using them. The "shared use path" in the pic isn't identified by singage or road markings as being anything other than a footway with a dropped curb for wheel chairs etc. It lacks the usual "give way" lines where it meets the road. I wonder if it is just a footway. Nothing in that image suggests otherwise.

On further investigation, I locate the place, have a look around, and find that further up the path it does have a blue cycling sign. And look at what I think is the same junction from a different angle, a different approach to crossing for cyclists seems to be indicated:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.23188 ... 384!8i8192
It puts the crossing point a little further away from the main junction, and it has Give Way lines for cyclists joining or crossing the road.

I could make less than complimentary comments about the indicated angles cyclists are meant to approach their crossing / joining of a road, but that would leave Pete O with nothing to say :lol:
Nearholmer
Posts: 3898
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Nearholmer »

Nearholmer, it's not really jumping out at me why you think rules H2 and 170 are in conflict, but do explain
I would add Rule 140 to the mix too, having found it.

I read them to be if not contradictory then at least collectively ambiguous when it comes to whether a person turning into the side road should stop to allow people who haven’t yet started to cross the road to do so.

Rule H2: At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

Rule H3: (says similar to H2 about cyclists and adds) This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Rule 140: You should give way to cyclists approaching or using the cycle track when you are turning into or out of a junction (see Rule H3). Be prepared to stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists before crossing the cycle track.

Rule 170: give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way (see Rule H2)

Caption to photo illustrating Rule 170: Rule 170: Give way to pedestrians who have started to cross


It is the latter part of those words in 170, and the caption under the illustration, which create ambiguity.

As an aside, I think the language is messy in quite a few places, and doesn’t pass the “plain English” test. A better form of words than using “givecway” and/or “priority” might be something like:

- If any pedestrian or cyclist is already crossing the side-road, you MUST stop and wait until they have crossed.

- If any pedestrian or cyclist is waiting to cross the side-road, you should stop and wait until they have crossed.
drossall
Posts: 6106
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by drossall »

pwa wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 4:32amThe lack of a break in the white lines is curious and suggests that drivers are not meant to be crossing it at all.
No, that was my point. As @Pete Owens said, they can cross because the lines change from solid to broken. You can cross broken lines but not solid ones. Hence broken lines delineate advisory cycle lanes (which motorists may enter) and solid lines mandatory ones (which they may not).

@Slowster disagrees with me on this, and I'm not a trained expert - just an ordinary road user trying to interpret the principles behind the rules. But arguably this applies even with double white lines, because the only line that really matters is the one on your side. See rules 127-129 for details, because there are limited exceptions, but that seems to me to be the underlying point.

You might argue about stop lines, but you can't cross those either until certain conditions have been met. Think for example about the way that some ASLs have to have broken lines to let the bikes in.

Obviously road markings have to be simple, and situations can be complex. For example, a cyclist who had to go into the outside lane on that road to get round an obstacle could cross the solid white line freely. Solid white lines on mandatory cycle lanes only apply to motorists - they mean that "Cars can't come in", but not that "Bikes can't come out or in". So you have to understand what the white line is about. But the general underlying point seems to be to use solid white lines for "Do not cross" with very limited exceptions.
peetee
Posts: 4287
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Upon a lumpy, scarred granite massif.

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by peetee »

I have to admit the solid white lines may be a red herring. I am not completely certain they are solid now and don’t want this particular detail to distract from the main point of the post which was to discuss who had priority.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Jdsk »

Nearholmer wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 8:46am ...
As an aside, I think the language is messy in quite a few places, and doesn’t pass the “plain English” test. A better form of words than using “givecway” and/or “priority” might be something like:

- If any pedestrian or cyclist is already crossing the side-road, you MUST stop and wait until they have crossed.

- If any pedestrian or cyclist is waiting to cross the side-road, you should stop and wait until they have crossed.
I'm quite often surprised by the poor wording in the Highway Code. This came up recently with "overtaking" and passing".

But I don't think that it causes much harm.

Jonathan
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 1:09am
slowster wrote: 8 Feb 2023, 9:55pm
Getting back to the example in the OP, it occurs to me that this may be why so many shared use paths have a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign installed at the road junction, i.e. effectively as a roundabout way of making cyclists give way to cars turning into the road by requiring them to stop and get off their bike*. However, requiring cyclists to dismount and turning them into pedestrians, no longer has the effect of making them give way to traffic turning into the road, because now the HC makes clear that traffic turning into the road should give way not only to pedestrians actually crossing the road, but also those pedestrians (including dismounted cylists) waiting to cross.
Installing cycle paths has always been about clearing cyclists out of the way in order to avoid slowing down motors at all costs.

It has long been recognised that this was dangerous at junctions, so the cyclist dismount signs were a safety measure. They require cyclists to stop at the junction so they can see and be seen by approaching traffic. It is not about priority - pedestrians have always had priority in this situation as did the dismounted cyclists. It is just that spotting and stopping for someone actually at the road side is very much easier than noticing a cyclist approaching at speed some distance away.
Almost none of the above is true in general. A few car-brained politicians and engineers jumped on cycleways for that reason, but it wasn't the main motive. The cyclists dismount signs at junctions were a bad attempt to resolve the priorities at junctions by turning cyclists (priority not stated in the highway code) into walkers who had priority crossing side roads. Of course, this had many drawbacks including disability discrimination.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by mjr »

pwa wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 4:32am But users of shared use paths (the other option for cyclists here) normally have to give way as they cross a road.
Oh no they don't. The recent HC update clarified that. Of course, sometimes it is better to do so than allow a bad driver to collide with you. When cut up like that, I often raise my arms in a "what the hell?" pose, not as a confrontation but to signal to other drivers that a bad one is present, similar to why I signal phoney drivers to those following them (hand in phone gesture to ear, then point at the offender).
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3898
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by Nearholmer »

I would wager good money that only a very small proportion of drivers, and an equally small proportion of people who don’t drive but do either cycle, walk, or get about by wheelchair etc, which altogether means pretty well everyone, actually understands all the “MUST” and “should” rules applicable to a case like the one posted by the OP …… and I mean “don’t understand”, rather than “do understand, but ignore”.

And, where the signage and road markings are a bit flaky, things become even worse.

As I’ve said before, I honestly think that the signage and road marking conventions need to be revised so as to make it far easier to understand priorities intuitively, without needing to remember the contents of a badly written book that most people haven’t perused in donkeys years, if at all, during which time it has changed in emphasis without a decent publicity campaign.

A cheap and simple arrangement might be to coat the road surface yellow at each point where a footway or cycle-track crosses a side turning close to the main road, but I’m sure there must be other cheap and simple options.
peetee
Posts: 4287
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Upon a lumpy, scarred granite massif.

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by peetee »

One thing that is clear from this post is that on this forum we have a variety of cyclists, some with a great deal of experience and most with a high degree of understanding of their road presence and how highway traffic interacts. Nevertheless, there is a great disparity in our comprehension of the rules - not it seems through ignorance or truculence, rather the lack of consistent, logical, practical application of the infrastructure and the education of such for all road users.
In short, if we don’t know the answers, how can we expect motorist to?
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
pwa
Posts: 17357
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by pwa »

mjr wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 11:22am
pwa wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 4:32am But users of shared use paths (the other option for cyclists here) normally have to give way as they cross a road.
Oh no they don't. The recent HC update clarified that. Of course, sometimes it is better to do so than allow a bad driver to collide with you. When cut up like that, I often raise my arms in a "what the hell?" pose, not as a confrontation but to signal to other drivers that a bad one is present, similar to why I signal phoney drivers to those following them (hand in phone gesture to ear, then point at the offender).
I am referring to the crossing point (further round the corner) with the white road markings, one of which is what we normally call a "Give Way line". It is common for shared use paths to have these where they meet minor roads, indicating that the user of the shared use path should give way to traffic on the road they are crossing. One reason I dislike that sort of path, with all the implied stop/start.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.23188 ... 384!8i8192
Last edited by pwa on 9 Feb 2023, 8:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Give way or not give way?

Post by thirdcrank »

peetee wrote: 9 Feb 2023, 4:03pm One thing that is clear from this post is that on this forum we have a variety of cyclists, some with a great deal of experience and most with a high degree of understanding of their road presence and how highway traffic interacts. Nevertheless, there is a great disparity in our comprehension of the rules - not it seems through ignorance or truculence, rather the lack of consistent, logical, practical application of the infrastructure and the education of such for all road users.
In short, if we don’t know the answers, how can we expect motorist to?
In much the same way as I'd expect eg the captain of a ship or airliner to be a more proficient seafarer or flyer than I am. Everybody has a part to play, of course, but the idea that vulnerable road users need better knowledge/training/ understanding than the drivers of motor vehicles seems bizarre. This is why the drivers of motor vehicles have to pass driving tests.
Post Reply