Cycling UK Forum

If priority was provided to cyclists on cycle tracks at crossing side roads, as is normal in the Netherlands, motorist will usually be at fault if an acccident occurs.

Driving habits may change as the markings mean give way to the cycle track if turning into the side road or leaving the side road. Probably most accidents at T junctions are due to the motorist being at fault, therefore making the motorist fully aware that they have to give way to cyclists is a good safety measure.

It's normal when driving in the Netherlands to have to wait for a long stream of cyclists (coming up behind you on a parallel cycle path) to get past before you're able to turn right (ie our left) into a side-street.They confidently assume you'll wait for them and well, you do...

It takes quite some getting used at first but it's possible to learn...

Record-Ace wrote:I cannot find anything about this in the Highway code.

As a young man (some 40 years ago), I believed it was the case that a pedestrian on a footway parallel and adjacent to the road had precedence over a vehicle crossing the line of the footway (i.e. making a left or right turn) and that the vehicle was obliged to give way. With the advent of cycle tracks/paths, many of which are shared with pedestrians, I would have thought that the same provision should apply.

TBH I think this is the problem with the UK we're so prescriptive with our laws and anal about what our "rights" are, we probably create more accidents than we avoid by convincing some people they don't have to slow down because they have the "right of way". I'm sure many accidents are caused by people deliberately hitting other vehicles because they believe they could do that and it would be the other guys fault.

e.g I find it incredibly ironic for all the rhetoric talked about riding on pavements, as you note, large numbers of cycle paths in many towns and cities are shared with pedestrians. Somehow magically the incredible danger cycling on the pavement near pedestrians causes is not an issue on a narrow canal tow path or dual use path because it's now cool for the council to embrace cycling and they realise they've designed roads that are death traps for anything but motor vehicles.

Most of the time I'm cycling I'm on tracks or paths that are shared with anglers, pedestrians, other cyclists, barge owners and their families sitting in the sun eating their tea and so on and the buffoons trying to walk 3 dogs, I've never once considered who has the right of way or whether it's legal to use a fishing net with a long handle within 5 yards of a cycle path. I just ring the bell, smile, slow down and figure out the safest route, just as I would if I was walking past or across someone else's path. If they wait for me, I say thanks, if they don't, I wait for them. Do we really need a law to tell us what to do here? The numbers are relatively speaking small enough to say "no we don't" imo - and if the numbers ever get to the stage where that's not the case, these paths will not be adequate anyway - this is a fundamental problem that roads have had since day dot - if they get busy you have to introduce ways to manage the traffic, add extra lanes and so on. If everyone goes to live in the countryside, the countryside has to become the city.

I don't think that will be an issue for cycling or walking in Britain though. The population is too fat and lazy for the numbers to grow that high.

As for roads, I'm never going to cycle or walk as though I have the "right of way" and hope that will somehow offer some kind of protection against death or worse.

michael42 wrote:TBH I think the problem with the UK is we're so prescriptive with our laws and anal about what our "rights" are, we probably create more accidents than we avoid by convincing some people they don't have to slow down because they have the "right of way". I'm sure many accidents are caused by people deliberately hitting other vehicles because they believe they could do that and it would be the other guys fault.

I think you're onto something there and the writers of the Highway Code seem keen to correct that mistake where they empahsis that having priority does not mean you have the right of way.

"Right of way" is wrong terminology. Priority is the thing we should be talking about. Priority means who ought to go first, but as the Highway Code says: this comes second to the imperative to do everything you can to avoid collision. But I don't think cyclists need reminding of that, our motivation to avoid collisions is already most strong.

And your description of how to ride on shared paths is correct. Which is why those paths are no use for other than leisure cycling. Cycling is already a slow means of transport. Make it any slower and it loses what little advantage over other means it may have.

michael42 wrote:As for roads, I'm never going to cycle or walk as though I have the "right of way" and hope that will somehow offer some kind of protection against death or worse.

Neither am I, but I am going to cycle with priority where I have it, accompanied by due caution.

So long as one is on the main carriageway, one does have priority and it would only cause confusion if a cyclist were to attempt to yeild to side road traffic. Caution is nevetheless required, especially in Britain, since more than a few British drivers have found they can get away with bullying any vehicle perceived as weaker into yeilding its priority. So on a bike, one should drift nearer to the middle of the road on the approach to a side turning, to discourage late-overtaking left hookers and be in a better position to go around the front of emerging bullies. This can be done without loss of hard-won momentum.

On a British cyclepath one loses that priority and momentun in having virtually to stop at every turning.

Giving the cyclepath priority would be a start, but not enough in my opinion. On a sidepath there are no manouvers one can make to help assert that priority or anticipate evasive action should it be disrespected. Drivers need stronger motivation than they have in Britain to excercise caution around vulnerable road users, before even the best-designed segregation can work safely and efficiently here.

I've experienced good segregation in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. In all those countries cyclepath priority is taken for granted and respected by drivers. Try to give way to a turning car at a side road and you create just the same state of confusion on a Dutch cyclepath as you would on a British main road. The turning driver will still insist you go first and following vehicles (at least they'll only be bikes in this case) are quite likely to run into the back of you!

Priority may not matter for loafing around but is important for the smooth functioning of transport systems, even amongst pedestrians. Anyone who disagrees should go stand on the left of a London tube escalator.