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.
Was I in the wrong?
-
- Posts: 792
- Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
-
- Posts: 792
- Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Mike Sales wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 8:53pm 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.
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
If climate change continues as predicted, will these marine regulations eventually apply to road traffic in Nottingham?
Re: Was I in the wrong?
thirdcrank wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:08am 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??)
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Could you explain this please?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:28am ...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
True, and passing distances at sea are not measured in inches and feet.Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:35amMike Sales wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 8:53pm 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.
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.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Avoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of waymattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:30amCould you explain this please?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:28am ...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
And for this reason instructors and others prefer to use the term priority rather than right of way.Chris56 wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:59amAvoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of waymattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:30amCould you explain this please?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:28am ...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Why?Chris56 wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:59amAvoiding a collision is a greater priority than asserting your right of waymattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:30amCould you explain this please?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:28am ...
“its my right of way”. He pointed out that saying that would be of little value in the ambulance on the way to hospital
-
- Posts: 792
- Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Gladly - I just didn’t want to bore folk with the full story:mattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 8:30amCould you explain this please?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 7:28am ...
“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 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.
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Yes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 9:14am 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’.
-
- Posts: 792
- Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
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.mattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 9:49amYes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 9:14am 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’.
Last edited by Airsporter1st on 24 Jun 2022, 10:38am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Was I in the wrong?
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.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
-
- Posts: 36780
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Was I in the wrong?
@ chris56
Older readers may remember my old motto
Older readers may remember my old motto
You may find it useful on curate's egg farcilities.Gang warily
Re: Was I in the wrong?
Please use simpler words. I'm still not getting it, sorry!Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 10:36amI 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.mattheus wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 9:49amYes, many have said this - but I still don't get it. Can you help?Airsporter1st wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 9:14am 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’.