Give way or not give way?

[peetee]

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.

[peetee]

Yes. Give way Because, regardless of the legalities some drivers are going to assume they have right of way.

And unfortunately this will reinforce their ‘assumed right’ and, common to so many other instances of ‘Driving While Ignorant’ nothing will change.

[slowster]

Can everyone please have a read of Rule H2, and Rule 170.

I honestly think they conflict, or at least create between them ambiguity. Views?

My reading is that rule H2 clarifies and expands on rule 170. I don't see that the two conflict.

Incidentally, do those yellow bollards you mention have legal status? On their own they do not sound like they are legally valid and enforceable traffic signs (as shown in the HC).

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.

* I cannot recall seeing a 'Cyclists Give Way' sign instead at such junctions. That might just be my poor memory, but as I said above it would now result in an anomalous situation with pedestrians on a shared use path having priority over turning motor traffic but cyclists having to give way to the same traffic.

[cycle tramp]

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.

[peetee]

Cycle tramp, I can see what you are trying to convey but how is that different to riding with the traffic? If we are to assume that any driver approaching from behind may be partially sighted and want to turn left directly after passing us we would be stopping and looking for a suitable gap to proceed before every side road, lay-by and driveway.

[Nearholmer]

At last, I’ve found what I think might be the unambiguous passage in the HC, within 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, which may be used by cyclists travelling in both directions.

This is a “should”, rather than a “MUST”, and I wouldn’t for a second trust drivers to be aware of it, let alone take any notice of it, but I have learned two things from this discussion:

- that a shared use path is a “cycle track”, which I previously doubted; and,

- that the above words exist.

[irc]

Yes. Give way Because, regardless of the legalities some drivers are going to assume they have right of way.

And unfortunately this will reinforce their ‘assumed right’ and, common to so many other instances of ‘Driving While Ignorant’ nothing will change.

True. But I would rather cede priority than try and teach drivers the Highway Code and be in A+E.

[cycle tramp]

Cycle tramp, I can see what you are trying to convey but how is that different to riding with the traffic? If we are to assume that any driver approaching from behind may be partially sighted and want to turn left directly after passing us we would be stopping and looking for a suitable gap to proceed before every side road, lay-by and driveway.

Good point. I suppose it is because when I cycle I tend to occupy the same road position as that of a scooter or small motorcycle. As a result I feature less in the driver's peripheral vision and more in their actual line of sight. The driver then has a choice of driving around me or over me. I am delighted to say that most take the former choice

[peetee]

Cycle tramp, I can see what you are trying to convey but how is that different to riding with the traffic? If we are to assume that any driver approaching from behind may be partially sighted and want to turn left directly after passing us we would be stopping and looking for a suitable gap to proceed before every side road, lay-by and driveway.

Good point. I suppose it is because when I cycle I tend to occupy the same road position as that of a scooter or small motorcycle. As a result I feature less in the driver's peripheral vision and more in their actual line of sight. The driver then has a choice of driving around me or over me. I am delighted to say that most take the former choice

I remember being fit enough to do this without being a rage-inducing road-block. Now, alas, I tend to yield to the queue behind rather than risk retaliation by a ‘delayed’ motorist.
And that’s exactly what happened today at the junction pictured. I was aware from the outset that the car behind was likely to turn. I could hear it approaching and then slowing and a quick glance over my shoulder allowed me to see the indicator. Despite this I made no attempt to vary my speed just to see if the driver would register my intention. My guess is that he did because I hit the brakes a fraction of a second before he leaned on the car horn and we both stopped, he just in the cycle lane and me with my front wheel on the dropped kerb. He sounded the horn for a good few seconds mouthing abuse as he did so and I held my position, staring at him before shouting “come on through then”. I had thought the time was right to educate him as to his error but, well, when it came down to it I knew I couldn’t have done it in a civil tone of voice so I didn’t bother. Hopefully he will recount the event to a learned friend and they will do the official correction speech on my behalf....but I doubt it!

[gaz]

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.

You are describing a mandatory cycle lane. Any driver crossng such a lane would be commiting an offence.

Should they give way to a vehicle turning in to the side road or do they have priority?

A driver cannot legally turn into the side road, which resolves the question of priority.

[drossall]

As others have said, there is what the rules say, and there is anticipating that others may not obey them. So always anticipate the possibility that others may not do as they should. For one thing, we all make mistakes occasionally, and then we all rely on the margin of error that others have allowed for us.

That said, it seems to me that a number of contributors here are in error through assuming that being in a cycle lane somehow, in and of itself, changes the rules of the road. It doesn't. There are relatively few rules that are different depending the type of vehicle that you are using. Arguably, even most of the new rules introduced last year are not special rules for different vehicles, but clearer statements contradicting the belief that such special rules exist. Which is why I'm not aware that the law had to be changed to make the new Code possible. After all, it only states and advises on the law; it doesn't define it.

The basic principle, as some have pointed out, is that you don't cross white lines into a lane or whatever that is already occupied. It doesn't matter whether that's a cycle lane or a lane on a motorway, nor whether either or both of you is in a car or on a bike. It doesn't even matter if it's a separate cycle path, or arguably even if it's on the pavement, because those are (typically) still part of the highway. That's why councils wanting to move all those pesky cyclists off the road and onto inferior facilities have always had to keep painting give way lines at every side road - because otherwise the cyclists would retain the priority that they shared alongside any other road user moving forwards.

It's not even evident to me why pedestrians proceeding along the main highway (on that part of it reserved for them, i.e. the pavement) haven't always shared that priority, because the right to the road belongs to the human being, and the vehicle (or not) in use is pretty secondary. Those turning into side roads have always been expected to give way to pedestrians already crossing. On that perspective, the new rules about drivers and cyclists giving way to pedestrians when turning are just stating what the law has always been (priority to those going straight ahead), but everyone has forgotten applies even when those going straight ahead aren't taking internal combusion engines ahead with them.

So, in the original picture, priority lies 100% with the cyclist proceeding straight ahead (but watch out for any driver who might ignore that, because being right and in hospital isn't the aim). The reason, by the way, that the lane markings change is because solid lines mark a mandatory cycle lane; if the lane didn't become advisory at the junction, cars couldn't enter it at all in order to turn!

@Nearholmer, it's not really jumping out at me why you think rules H2 and 170 are in conflict, but do explain. If, for some mad reason, the traffic were slow on a road with no pavement, and a pedestrian were to run up the outside of the cars and want to turn into a side road, that runner should give way to the cars too. The vehicle that you are (or are not) using is simply not the point.

[slowster]

I don't think anyone would advocate blithely riding across a side road next to a junction without paying good attention to whether there is a vehicle which is possibly going to turn into the side road. The big difficulty for a cyclist is being aware of vehicles behind. A mirror helps, but if you wish to ride assertively in this sort of situation I think ideally you want to be able to make a prolonged shoulder check to make eye contact with any driver behind, while also maintaining speed/not slowing so much that the driver will think that you are going to stop and give way.

That is all easier said than done: if in front of you there are other cyclists and/or pedestrians on a cycle lane or shared use path, it may not be safe to make a prolonged shoulder check, especially on a typical narrow path/lane.

Another issue is that many shared use paths on what was originally just a pedestrian pavement have an offset dropped kerb where the path is interrupted by a side road. In other words instead of being able to ride in a straight line, it is necessary to turn left or right at the corner for a metre to reach the dropped kerb. That manoeuvre forces a cyclist to slow almost to walking pace and concentrate on the manoeuvre. Consequently the cyclist cannot pay sufficient attention to traffic in the main road which might be about to turn into the side road, and that lack of situational awareness is likely to give the cyclist no safe choice but to stop at the dropped kerb and give way to any vehicle turning into the side road (unless the driver knows their HC and stops, making it clear that they are going to wait for the cyclist to cross the side road).

He sounded the horn for a good few seconds mouthing abuse as he did so and I held my position, staring at him before shouting “come on through then”. I had thought the time was right to educate him as to his error but, well, when it came down to it I knew I couldn’t have done it in a civil tone of voice so I didn’t bother. Hopefully he will recount the event to a learned friend and they will do the official correction speech on my behalf....but I doubt it!

A few months ago I rode assertively on a shared use path approaching a side road junction and 'forced' a white van ahead of me that was indicating to turn left into the side road to stop while I crossed the side road. He too sounded his horn and doubtless cursed me. Individually these incidents will have no positive effect, but if a sufficient number of us continue (very carefully) to assert our priority in such circumstances, more and more drivers will become aware of the rules, either because they complain about the cyclist to another driver only to be told they were in the wrong, or because it will become increasingly normal to see other drivers giving way in such circumstances and copying that practice.

[Stevek76]

'cyclists dismount' signs have never been anything other than advisory nonsense and do not (and did not) change yield priorities.

This is a “should”, rather than a “MUST”, and I wouldn’t for a second trust drivers to be aware of it, let alone take any notice of it, but I have learned two things from this discussion:

- that a shared use path is a “cycle track”, which I previously doubted; and,

- that the above words exist.

The should and must thing is a little misunderstood. Must is used when there is an explicit bit of law behind something, and there are then citations of the law(s) in question (usually worth looking up to see what the actual wording is).

That does not mean contravening a 'should' isn't committing an offence however. The shoulds range from victim blaming nonsense about high vis and the other h word that have no legal consequences whatsoever, through shoulds that can be used to argue civil liabilities in the event of a collision to shoulds that could land someone with a careless/inconsiderate driving charge. These latter cases are not MUSTs because what actually constitutes careless/inconsiderate driving is a bit of a fuzzy mess of case law with no hard rules.

The 1.5m passing distance section is all 'should'/'guide' etc but a large number of convictions for careless driving have resulted from people breaking that one. Failure to yield is similar and I've seen examples of people receiving FPNs and/or court convictions from 3rd party video submissions in areas where police forces are proactive on such things.

[slowster]

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.

You are describing a mandatory cycle lane. Any driver crossng such a lane would be commiting an offence.

Should they give way to a vehicle turning in to the side road or do they have priority?

A driver cannot legally turn into the side road, which resolves the question of priority.

The reason, by the way, that the lane markings change is because solid lines mark a mandatory cycle lane; if the lane didn't become advisory at the junction, cars couldn't enter it at all in order to turn!

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

[drossall]

So why are the dashed lines necessary then?

I know you can't drive on the pavement, but you can drive over the pavement to get onto your driveway. Although actually that's denoted by a dropped kerb and you can't just drive over the pavement onto any piece of land, I believe? So isn't there always something to denote an exceptional place?