Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum
road.cc bike forum

traffic rules... cyclist vs car

by S.E.
Fri, Aug 23, 2024 08:49
9

In a narrow two-ways street, if there is an obstacle on your lane, the vehicle coming the opposite way has priority before you can use the other lane - with the exception of quick response vehicles with sirens and lights on, I'd say.

Now if there is only one way for general circulation, with only a bike lane the other way - which is quite common in the city where I live - and there is a car stopped on the main traffic lane, my guess is that a car (and even a small electric vehicle working for the city) trying to overtake this obstacle, should give priority to the cyclists coming in the opposite direction on the (free) bike lane, before encroaching on their lane?

It happened the other day, the driver of the city vehicle used the bike lane (opposite way), and was arguing with 2 cyclists in front of him "blocking" him (and blocking them). I was riding behind him, and managed to find just enough space between him and the car blocking his way, but I told him in passing that he didn't have priority, which he vehemently contested, at this point I was happy I could just ride on, thinking he might not even have a full driving licence for this small, slow electric vehicle. Is this correct?

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
Cayo | 5 months ago
4 likes

I also wish the term 'mandatory' was changed to something that didn't suggest such a lane's use was mandatory by the mode of transport it's designated for because it sounds, to poorly educated motorists, that it means that mode of transport must use it rather than that other road users (i.e. car drivers etc) mustn't.

But that's a different discussion.

Avatar
Cayo | 5 months ago
5 likes

As I see it, there are no absolutely specific rules here, though I stand to be corrected.

However, if there is a solid white line separating the cycle lane from the opposite carriageway, the motorist should not be crossing it. By definition, the cyclist should have priority. If it's a broken line, I would say the following Highway Code sections apply (edited out irrelevant lines for brevity):

Quote:

162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road

165
You MUST NOT overtake
if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down

In short, a responsible and considerate driver would wait till the cycle lane is clear before attempting an overtake, especially due to the lines I put in bold.

Avatar
S.E. replied to Cayo | 5 months ago
2 likes

Thanks for the exact text. I was surprised by his reaction, so assured. I mean you are supposed to pass the code even to drive a low speed vehicle...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Cayo | 5 months ago
2 likes

Just to be pedantic for mandatory cycle lanes I think it's similar for "Mandatory contraflow pedal cycle lanes" as for "Mandatory with-flow pedal cycle lanes".  I don't think I've seen this but I believe they can have "hours of operation" (if this is signed).  In general vehicles "must not be driven or parked in this lane during its times of operation" BUT there are some dodges here (not that many drives seem to worry...) - see the Cycling UK post linked from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain's entry on these.

Avatar
Cayo replied to chrisonabike | 5 months ago
1 like
chrisonabike wrote:

Just to be pedantic for mandatory cycle lanes I think it's similar for "Mandatory contraflow pedal cycle lanes" as for "Mandatory with-flow pedal cycle lanes".

I didn't intend to imply otherwise. If it came across that way, pedantry welcomed.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Cayo | 5 months ago
0 likes

I can't say exactly which trumps what here though - I am not a lawyer / traffic engineer...!

Avatar
WiznaeMe replied to Cayo | 5 months ago
1 like

Overtaking and passing are two different things.  Overtaking a moving vehicle and crossing a solid line is illegal.  Passing a parked car and crossing a solid white line could well be regarded as necessary; therefore legal, otherwise all cars would be unable to get past obstructions.  
In this particular case the cyclist appears to have priority regardless of whether the lines are broken or solid.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to WiznaeMe | 5 months ago
3 likes

WiznaeMe wrote:

Overtaking and passing are two different things.  Overtaking a moving vehicle and crossing a solid line is illegal.  Passing a parked car and crossing a solid white line could well be regarded as necessary; therefore legal, otherwise all cars would be unable to get past obstructions.  
In this particular case the cyclist appears to have priority regardless of whether the lines are broken or solid.

I like to apply a simple rule to determine who has priority - the person performing a maneouvre should give way to the person travelling in their lane.

Avatar
Cayo replied to hawkinspeter | 5 months ago
4 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I like to apply a simple rule to determine who has priority - the person performing a maneouvre should give way to the person travelling in their lane.

I only wish all drivers used the same logical and considerate approach as you and I. Do not proceed to pass an obsracle if it means coming into the lane I'm approaching in. So simple yet so hard for some people to accept.

Latest Comments