Give way or not give way?

[Nearholmer]

We’re ordinary, and highly fallible, human beings, whether driving a car or riding a bike, barely trained, at least partly doing our best as we go along. To expect high competence or attentiveness to routine tasks from the broad mass of us is to court disillusionment.

Road and path layouts need to be designed and marked/signed to be intuitive to the vast majority, and many, like the OP’s aren’t.

[cycle tramp]

We’re ordinary, and highly fallible, human beings, whether driving a car or riding a bike, barely trained, at least partly doing our best as we go along. To expect high competence or attentiveness to routine tasks from the broad mass of us is to court disillusionment.

Road and path layouts need to be designed and marked/signed to be intuitive to the vast majority, and many, like the OP’s aren’t.

I'm still with Nearholmer on this one - for me it's alot like zebra crossings, in theory I might have the right of way to cross the road, but I'm going to make very sure any traffic stops before I step out - because much like the junction shown in the photograph its all too easy for a motorist to continue on their way, even if they have a legal obligation to stop.

[Stevek76]

This is why the drivers of motor vehicles have to pass driving tests.

Given the high potential to cause harm and the carnage that results suggests those test standards aren't even close to stringent enough. Also lack of regular retesting.

[Nearholmer]

Also lack of regular retesting.

This thread made me think about that too.

It does seem very odd when you step back and ponder that there isn’t re-testing every, say, five or ten years. Pilots, mariners, train drivers etc are re-tested on a regular basis, and for good reasons, but the rest of us …….

[mjr]

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

Well, that's an utter nonsense, substandard in several ways and should be ignored. People should ride straight ahead at the junction and they'll have priority over anything not already there.

Cycleways here often don't have give ways where they meet roads. Some do and it's now a legal grey area whether incorrect or outdated-at-best road markings can overrule the highway code.

[pwa]

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

Well, that's an utter nonsense, substandard in several ways and should be ignored. People should ride straight ahead at the junction and they'll have priority over anything not already there.

Cycleways here often don't have give ways where they meet roads. Some do and it's now a legal grey area whether incorrect or outdated-at-best road markings can overrule the highway code.

The white markings are, as you say, ill-conceived and possibly designed for a circus unicyclist looking for a challenge. But the "straight on" option is also problematical. Regardless of one's rights, the glance over the right shoulder will still be necessary to maintain a reasonable level of safety, and it only takes one small mistake when that is done for things to go wrong. It has often been said, but is worth saying again, that the points where cyclists re-join other traffic are the most dangerous. I'd be in the adjacent cycle lane, where you are alongside the other traffic and just maintain that position as you pass the junction.

[cycle tramp]

Well, that's an utter nonsense, substandard in several ways and should be ignored. People should ride straight ahead at the junction and they'll have priority over anything not already there.

But unless they check for other traffic, they may find themselves in a collision with another road user who was
(a) turning into that junction at a higher speed
(b) expected the cyclist on the footway/cycleway to stop when the pavement ended.
I wouldn't advise simply riding across a junction without checking in the same manner that I wouldn't advise stepping out onto a zebra crossing without checking the vehicles had stopped.

[Carlton green]

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

This was the first answer in the thread and I think it the right call - I admit to not having read the full thread.

Of the small number of ‘accidents’ that I’ve been involved in the things that really stick in my memory are what a massive nuisance they were and that being the innocent party doesn’t remove the hassle, etc. So, when you’re out and about, always try to think both about your own use of the ‘road’ and then add to that how to manage the foolish and unexpected acts of other users. If your leg’s broken in an accident then the accident not being your fault will be of relatively little consolidation value.

In this road layout - and indeed in many others too - take the view that some drivers will cut across you, judge each car driver separately and be prepared to take some charge of the situation and your safety by stopping. Other effective actions might be available too but as a general rule it’s far better to pragmatically give way than to be an injured pedant.

[Nearholmer]

Another way to think about this junction is to imagine that you are programming a robot road vehicle to negotiate it. Said vehicle has visual sensors (eyes), and speed sensors.

What instructions do you give it?

And, if it follows the instructions you’ve given it, what will happen to traffic (cars, people on bikes, people on foot etc) when it arrives at the junction on a busy day?

The second question is prompted by watching the robot delivery vehicles that we have hereabouts when they try to do this sort of thing (they travel
On the shared-use paths, rather than the roads). They often cause “Mexican stand-offs” by being too hesitant, having no programmed assertiveness, and a road vehicle exhibiting the same characteristics could, I think, bring this junction to a honking, frustrated stand ……. And so could a very literalistic driver who reads all the “should” in the HC as “MUST”, and ditto a cyclist who havers on the brink with no clear intention.

In short, the junction needs judgement, as well as a knowledge of the rules and an ability to process a stack of “fuzzy data”.

[Stevek76]

This thread made me think about that too.

It does seem very odd when you step back and ponder that there isn’t re-testing every, say, five or ten years. Pilots, mariners, train drivers etc are re-tested on a regular basis, and for good reasons, but the rest of us …….

Ian Walker of cycling silly distances and occasional studies related to the ghetto fame recently released a pre-print looking at this:

https://etsc.eu/motonormativity-risks-a ... searchers/

The basis perhaps unsurprising to some. We've essentially culturally and psychologically conditioned ourselves to accept greater harm from car use than we would for most other things.

[mattheus]

Another way to think about this junction is to imagine that you are programming a robot road vehicle to negotiate it. Said vehicle has visual sensors (eyes), and speed sensors.

What instructions do you give it?

And, if it follows the instructions you’ve given it, what will happen to traffic (cars, people on bikes, people on foot etc) when it arrives at the junction on a busy day?

The second question is prompted by watching the robot delivery vehicles that we have hereabouts when they try to do this sort of thing (they travel
On the shared-use paths, rather than the roads). They often cause “Mexican stand-offs” by being too hesitant, having no programmed assertiveness, and a road vehicle exhibiting the same characteristics could, I think, bring this junction to a honking, frustrated stand ……. And so could a very literalistic driver who reads all the “should” in the HC as “MUST”, and ditto a cyclist who havers on the brink with no clear intention.

In short, the junction needs judgement, as well as a knowledge of the rules and an ability to process a stack of “fuzzy data”.

I don't think that's a good test of a layout (although I love the idea of testing them with an army of delivery robots!)

Every real-world jiunction requires a bit of discretion by users from time-to-time. Reckless behaviour will eventually cause collisions. Excess caution causes problems too.

The world isn't a model railway, circumstances have infinite variations.

[Nearholmer]

It wasn’t really meant to be a test of the layout, it was meant to make the point that intersections like this don’t work on the basis of simple, literalistic readings of the HC, which I think is what you are saying too.

But, the harder it is to programme a robot to navigate a junction effectively, the more likely people are to make a pig’s ear of it one way or another, we suffer sensory deficit, cognitive overload, and buggy programming too, so it does form some sort of test.

[mjr]

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

Well, that's an utter nonsense, substandard in several ways and should be ignored. People should ride straight ahead at the junction and they'll have priority over anything not already there.

Cycleways here often don't have give ways where they meet roads. Some do and it's now a legal grey area whether incorrect or outdated-at-best road markings can overrule the highway code.

The white markings are, as you say, ill-conceived and possibly designed for a circus unicyclist looking for a challenge. But the "straight on" option is also problematical. Regardless of one's rights, the glance over the right shoulder will still be necessary to maintain a reasonable level of safety, and it only takes one small mistake when that is done for things to go wrong. It has often been said, but is worth saying again, that the points where cyclists re-join other traffic are the most dangerous. I'd be in the adjacent cycle lane, where you are alongside the other traffic and just maintain that position as you pass the junction.

I agree that it's good to look over one's right shoulder on the approach to such old-fashioned junctions. I don't think being a metre or two to the right would make much difference. If it's a known problem junction and I was unwilling to give way to scofflaw drivers (in a hurry or whatever), I'd favour merging into the carriageway lane past it... but that's OK for me on a good day. It's not a general solution. That junction should be fixed, but there's probably many worse ahead of it in the priorities.

[mjr]

Well, that's an utter nonsense, substandard in several ways and should be ignored. People should ride straight ahead at the junction and they'll have priority over anything not already there.

But unless they check for other traffic, they may find themselves in a collision with another road user who was
(a) turning into that junction at a higher speed
(b) expected the cyclist on the footway/cycleway to stop when the pavement ended.
I wouldn't advise simply riding across a junction without checking in the same manner that I wouldn't advise stepping out onto a zebra crossing without checking the vehicles had stopped.

Yes, I have not advised that either. In my first post on this topic, I acknowledged that it's better to give way to an incompetent motorist than collide with them, but I feel that we must be clear: both of (a) and (b) there are sheer incompetence and ignorance of the current highway code which should be tackled (through engineering, education and enforcement), not meekly accepted as how it must be.

[mjr]

It wasn’t really meant to be a test of the layout, it was meant to make the point that intersections like this don’t work on the basis of simple, literalistic readings of the HC, which I think is what you are saying too.

But, the harder it is to programme a robot to navigate a junction effectively, the more likely people are to make a pig’s ear of it one way or another, we suffer sensory deficit, cognitive overload, and buggy programming too, so it does form some sort of test.

I favour sending robots across these junctions programmed on the basis of simple, literal readings of the Highway Code.

And loading them with contact-triggered explosives. That'll remove some of the incompetent motorists and focus the minds of the remainder.

(For the avoidance of doubt, the above is not totally serious.)