Was I in the wrong?

[Airsporter1st]

In the absense of any give-way signs, am I right in thinking that I still had right of way or should I have given way?

Absolutely! It's called defensive riding and you should have expected the bus to turn in front of you no matter who had the 'Right' of way.

Arguably* ... but he almost certainly was not "in the wrong".

*we need a few more facts. Or we did when Tiggertoo posted ...

When I took my driving test in 1969, the examiner, before awarding me a pass, gave me a severe bollicking for answering one of his questions with “its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital. I must say I never forgot his tirade and I’m eternally grateful to him.

[Airsporter1st]

The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are interesting.

A stand on vessel does not have any right of way over any give way vessel, and is not free to maneuver however it wishes, but is obliged to keep a constant course and speed (so as to help the give way vessel in determining a safe course). So standing on is an obligation, not a right, and is not a privilege. Furthermore, a stand on vessel may still be obliged (under Rule 2 and Rule 17) to give way itself, in particular when a situation has arisen where a collision can no longer be avoided by actions of the give way vessel alone.[

The big difference being the time factor in which a situation develops and the time taken to actually manouevre, which makes it imperative to establish a clear set of rules. On the roads we are talking seconds and even split-seconds, whereas at sea it can be hours or even days.

[thirdcrank]

If climate change continues as predicted, will these marine regulations eventually apply to road traffic in Nottingham?

[mattheus]

If climate change continues as predicted, will these marine regulations eventually apply to road traffic in Nottingham?

(and will the people of Nottingham all know what "stand on" means??)

[mattheus]

...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital

Could you explain this please?

[Mike Sales]

The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are interesting.

A stand on vessel does not have any right of way over any give way vessel, and is not free to maneuver however it wishes, but is obliged to keep a constant course and speed (so as to help the give way vessel in determining a safe course). So standing on is an obligation, not a right, and is not a privilege. Furthermore, a stand on vessel may still be obliged (under Rule 2 and Rule 17) to give way itself, in particular when a situation has arisen where a collision can no longer be avoided by actions of the give way vessel alone.[

The big difference being the time factor in which a situation develops and the time taken to actually manouevre, which makes it imperative to establish a clear set of rules. On the roads we are talking seconds and even split-seconds, whereas at sea it can be hours or even days.

True, and passing distances at sea are not measured in inches and feet.
These rules though also apply to vessels of all sizes and in much more confined waters.
I have much more often been in circumstances where the decision time is measured in seconds, and passing distances measured in feet (or fathoms). Boats of all sizes are brakeless, which makes manoeuvres a little trickier, and turning is often slower.
I once got myself into a situation where all I could do was to shout at the other yacht, which fortunately worked. The passing distance was large only by road standards..
I quoted the Colregs because they make it explicit that you should not cede your priority until it is imperative to do so to avoid collision. I often see cyclists making illicit manoeuvres to avoid claiming their priority because to do so might oblige a motor to slow or wait.
Quite apart from the confusion at the time I also worry that drivers are coming to expect cyclists to keep out of their way, irrespective of actual priority, and that I could be hit by a vehicle for this reason when behaving correctly on the road.

[Chris56]

...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital

Could you explain this please?

Avoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of way

[Mike Sales]

...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital

Could you explain this please?

Avoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of way

And for this reason instructors and others prefer to use the term priority rather than right of way.

[mattheus]

...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital

Could you explain this please?

Avoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of way

Why?

[Airsporter1st]

...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital

Could you explain this please?

Gladly - I just didn’t want to bore folk with the full story:

I believe he had noticed that, on the main roads, I just breezed past junctions without showing any obvious signs of taking any precautions such as easing off, covering brakes, etc. He, fortunately, didn’t want to fail me so he asked me what I thought the dotted lines at junctions meant. I replied that they meant that traffic on the side roads should give way. He then asked what they meant if I was on the main road, to which I replied “its my right of way”, at which point he exploded.

His point was obviously emphasising the need to be more vigilant in areas of higher risk, such as when passing junctions. He was pointing this out by saying, as have many in this thread, that its better to be alive/un-injured than ‘in the right’.

Bear in mind, this happened many years ago, when common sense was still considered an asset. I have since driven extensively all over the world and never forgot that guy’s lesson. I don’t think I am exaggerating when I say it has potentially saved my life on more than one occasion.

[mattheus]

He was pointing this out by saying, as have many in this thread, that its better to be alive/un-injured than ‘in the right’.

Yes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?

[Airsporter1st]

He was pointing this out by saying, as have many in this thread, that its better to be alive/un-injured than ‘in the right’.

Yes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?

I truly believe it to be self-evident. In any situation, simply proceeding because it's your right, heedless of any possible adverse outcome, is unlikely to increase one's longevity.

[Stevek76]

The word you are looking for here is "motorists"

Yes, that's why nottingham has banned most motor vehicles from this road and dropped from 4 lanes to two. Clearly that's been done in favour of 'motorists'.

The only reason this design was a safety issue is because the works were unfinished and signals covered.

I don't think the final design is a particularly appropriate use of space, really could use a top down plan to determine better but given there were 4 lanes here previously I'd hazard a guess that rather too much has been reallocated to footway/public realm. It's a bus route so unless you're proposing to close the road to those as well, the prospect of sharing space with buses is not an attractive one to most prospective and a fairly large number of existing cyclists, however only 3m of bi-direction for cyclists is rather paltry

If you want to carry on cycling on main roads in a motor traffic free for all, you're more than welcome to carry on; despite CTCs century old conspiracy theory on the matter, cyclists are not going to get banned from general traffic lanes.

However, for anyone who wants to see dutch levels of 40-50% of trips cycled, dutch levels of infrastructure is the only proven way to get there, and yes that involves use of segregation on main roads where some sort of access for motor vehicles is useful. Motor vehicles remain very much bottom of the hierarchy even then.

[thirdcrank]

@ chris56

Older readers may remember my old motto

Gang warily

You may find it useful on curate's egg farcilities.

[mattheus]

He was pointing this out by saying, as have many in this thread, that its better to be alive/un-injured than ‘in the right’.

Yes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?

I truly believe it to be self-evident. In any situation, simply proceeding because it's your right, heedless of any possible adverse outcome, is unlikely to increase one's longevity.

Please use simpler words. I'm still not getting it, sorry!