Double Near Miss of the Day 587: Two drivers pull out on cyclist – from opposite sides of junction (includes swearing)

People take arrivals at junctions as an order but yes, does straight over the main road take precedence over turning right onto it? I can see arguments for both. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

People take arrivals at junctions as an order but yes, does straight over the main road take precedence over turning right onto it? I can see arguments for both. 

Strictly speaking, the instruction to any person - where it exists - is to give way.  There is no instruction to take precedence.  There is an inferred priority, not an implied priority.  So somebody going straight ahead on the major road (into which people may turn from roads marked with give way signs/markings) has priority.  Anybody on the major road who is turning would give way to an oncoming road user whose path they may cross.

After that, those on the roads marked with give way must give way to those already established on the major road.  In its simplest form, if somebody is turning right and happens to do so before the opposing vehicle crosses their give way, the latter should give way.  Prove that, though!  The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.

The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.

But that is one of those "courtesy" rules isn't it? The only thing I can find in the HC which specifically concerns crossroads is how to turn off the main road if both approaching vehicles are turning right. Like I said in some cases it is courtesy order on arriving at the junction. However if no decision is made there, I could argue that the vehicle turning right should have priority because it is entering a route that has priority and would be harder to join with other approaching vehicles speeds but is also joining the priority traffic road over the vehicle going straight on. 

If you see the video again, it was this also indecision between those two drivers which made it more dangerous for the cyclist as they both clear the giveway markings together before the Van stops for a second and this sends the red car to turn more head on for the cyclist. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.

But that is one of those "courtesy" rules isn't it?  

No.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

.. I could argue that the vehicle turning right should have priority because it is entering a route that has priority and would be harder to join with other approaching vehicles speeds but is also joining the priority traffic road over the vehicle going straight on. 

No, both drivers need a gap in both directions to pass through the junction.

Drivers turning right are causing the conflict, they should wait. if both were going straight ahead neither would have to wait.

Although often what happens in practice is the driver whose side clears first emerges first and the other is then forced to wait.

GMBasix wrote:

...... There is no instruction to take precedence.  There is an inferred priority, not an implied priority....... 

It is more than implied in the Highway Code, it is plainly stated in Rule 181.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

...... does straight over the main road take precedence over turning right onto it? I can see arguments for both. 

Rule 181 of the Highway Code states that, if turning right at a crossroads, you should give way to oncoming traffic following the road ahead.  The clearest diagrams I have found are those in Advice for the Theory Test.

The word "should" is key here.  It is not an inviolable order and, as the book says, there may be circumstances that dictate a different course of action.

My daughter, riding her horse, fell foul of a right-turning driver who crashed into her as she attempted to go straight ahead.  Local police were not amused and it cost him a hefty fine, three points and the best part of a thousand quid in vets' fees.

Quote:

 Rule 181 of the Highway Code states that, if turning right at a crossroads, you should give way to oncoming traffic following the road ahead.  The clearest diagrams I have found are those in Advice for the Theory Test.

The online version only has 

Quote:

181
When turning right at crossroads where an oncoming vehicle is also turning right, there is a choice of two methods

turn right side to right side; keep the other vehicle on your right and turn behind it. This is generally the safer method as you have a clear view of any approaching traffic when completing your turn

left side to left side, turning in front of each other. This can block your view of oncoming vehicles, so take extra care. Cyclists and motorcyclists in particular may be hidden from your view. Road layout, markings or how the other vehicle is positioned can determine which course should be taken.

So nothing about giving way and the diagrams only show the vehicles turning right from the main road onto the side roads. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Quote:

 Rule 181 of the Highway Code states that, if turning right at a crossroads, you should give way to oncoming traffic following the road ahead.  The clearest diagrams I have found are those in Advice for the Theory Test.

The online version only has 

Quote:

181
When turning right at crossroads where an oncoming vehicle is also turning right, there is a choice of two methods

turn right side to right side; keep the other vehicle on your right and turn behind it. This is generally the safer method as you have a clear view of any approaching traffic when completing your turn

left side to left side, turning in front of each other. This can block your view of oncoming vehicles, so take extra care. Cyclists and motorcyclists in particular may be hidden from your view. Road layout, markings or how the other vehicle is positioned can determine which course should be taken.

So nothing about giving way and the diagrams only show the vehicles turning right from the main road onto the side roads. 

 

 Sorry, sorry, sorry.  That will teach me not to post my ill-found opinions after a 56 hour shift down the pit and a ninety mile cycle commute home for tea.

Try Rule 180 which tells traffic turning right to wait for a safe gap between oncoming vehicles.

I suspect that the van driver was being courteous and had flashed the red car to allow them to turn right first.

Tha's my point Joeinpoole, being courteous to override an established hierarchcy seems to be nice but should actively be discouraged because it has to many unintended consequences

Velophaart_95 wrote:

A complete lack of awareness from all 3 motorists - and one should never rely on other motorists signaling/flashing you through - but loads of people do it. Just don't!!

That's how I got taken off my  bike in '04. I was cycling along at about 15 to 20ish - old dawes steel-framed MTB, so pretty much flat out I guess - on a very wide road. A driver decided to overtake me. Ok, but why are you not completing your overtake? I wondered. Oh right, it's cos you've just flashed your lights at the oncoming who is signalling right. Who decides to jab his throttle to accept the kind invitation....

I hit the side of this car without actually having time to even touch the brakes (although I have a distinct memory of a series of thoughts, basically checking and discarding options, between realisation and impact. which was strange.)

The frame of my bike (dawes MTB, 501 tubes) literally crease bent on the down and cross tubes just behind the head tube - the front wheel was overlapping the seat tube.

Police attended "driving without due care yadda yadda" but surprise didn't actually follow up.... The initial o'take car of course didn't stop, even to see if everyone was ok.

The driver I hit then argued (a few days later by phone) that it was my fault, cos he had right of way as he'd been flashed, and I obs o'took on the inside. 

I asked him to please sum that up and state it in his account, but we should let his insurance company make the decision. 

In fairness the Insurance company were all over it and ensured that hlemet bike were replaced, injuries compensated, clothes contributed to considering depreciation. The only quibble I had was that gloves were considered clothes not safety equipt, so weren't replaced outright, but really that was minor.

In later years I spent some time as driver trainer for a delivery company (not DPD! or Yodel!, or Alliance Health Care.....) and that story was brought out on numerous occasions as to why you don't take someone flashing lights as you're free to go - flashing lights means "I am here" and nothing else. 

But, I was asked once (only once) "But what were you wearing?"......

Some years ago now I ended up being a witness to a nasty road crash. I was on my motorbike, waiting at a side road to cross a main road. The main road was backed up with traffic. There was a gap between the cars so another driver flashed his lights to let a woman cut across in her car. But another motorbike was coming up the outside, which the guy who had flashed his lights hadn't seen. 

The motorbike hit the side of the woman's car. She was very apologetic, but the guy on the motorbike was rather unhappy about it as he had a broken leg. I helped shift his bike to the side of the road. The guy who'd flashed his lights thought it was the biker's fault and didn't believe me when I said filtering on  a motorbike (or bicycle) was legal in the UK. 

The cops took my statement. The guy who flashed his lights had caused the crash but legally, it was her fault and not his. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

 The guy who'd flashed his lights thought it was the biker's fault and didn't believe me when I said filtering on  a motorbike (or bicycle) was legal in the UK. 

Why am I not surprised at this? The lack of knowledge from lots of motorists is quite worrying. They obviously haven't read their Highway Code. There's plenty of info in there, as regards what is/isn't allowed on the roads.

As a cyclist, I don't filter, as I don't trust motorists; hoping they've seen me is no good - I want to be 100% sure they have seen me.

IIRC there have been lots of videos on this very site, over the years, showing near misses where a cyclist coming down the cycle lane next to a queue of traffic has very nearly been hit by someone turning right into a side road, and where members of this community (myself included) have proposed that someone in the queue had flashed the turning car, the driver of which had thought that meant it was safe to proceed rather than that the flasher was simply saying they wouldn't move forward quite yet...

(sorry - that sentence got away from me a bit, there!)

brooksby wrote:

IIRC there have been lots of videos on this very site, over the years, showing near misses where a cyclist coming down the cycle lane next to a queue of traffic has very nearly been hit by someone turning right into a side road, and where members of this community (myself included) have proposed that someone in the queue had flashed the turning car, the driver of which had thought that meant it was safe to proceed rather than that the flasher was simply saying they wouldn't move forward quite yet...

(sorry - that sentence got away from me a bit, there!)

Hardy and Austen would have been proud...

OldRidgeback wrote:

Some years ago now I ended up being a witness to a nasty road crash. I was on my motorbike, waiting at a side road to cross a main road. The main road was backed up with traffic. There was a gap between the cars so another driver flashed his lights to let a woman cut across in her car. But another motorbike was coming up the outside, which the guy who had flashed his lights hadn't seen. 

The motorbike hit the side of the woman's car. She was very apologetic, but the guy on the motorbike was rather unhappy about it as he had a broken leg. I helped shift his bike to the side of the road. The guy who'd flashed his lights thought it was the biker's fault and didn't believe me when I said filtering on  a motorbike (or bicycle) was legal in the UK. 

The cops took my statement. The guy who flashed his lights had caused the crash but legally, it was her fault and not his. 

I narrowly missed having a simlar incident filtering on a motorbike, where van 1 from local landscape firm was wanting to pull into their premesis flashed van 2 of same firm to exit, and van 2 driver of course didn't consider the possibility of anyone filtering.

Luckily I passed in front of the van, but If I had been 1 second later it would have hit me and 3 seconds later I would have been into the side of the van.

We probably all have the stories of cars flashing cross traffic through courtesy.

Mine happened here,  single carriageway four laner. Traffic was held up at the lights and I was filtering down the left as middle filtering is tougher  due to cars avoiding the central refuge a few metres behind. As I approached that bit the cars had started to move ahead so I thought the gap that had opened up was just a slow responding driver. as I hit the gap the turning car had just started moving but he didn't respond at all to me coming across as too concerned to speed into the turn to avoid holding up the nice drivers who had let him through. So in the flash I saw the car and cleared the gap, he had also covered the gap between the central reservation and the marking the start of the bus stop side of the road. He missed my rear tire with his bumper by mm's and I was in the road extensions side as an additional avoidance. If I didn't have that he would have clipped me. I admit I was filtering too fast for my own safety and I'm more cautious there now but still. 

Weirdly I thought it looked Wall crossroads just from the preview image. Thought "nah, can't be" but clicked on it just to see and it was.

I rarely see any cars there, can't believe this guy came across vehicles coming from all directions.

Yup.  Wall heading to Shenstone - know it well and recognised it instantly.

And as you say, it's unusual enough to see a single motor vehicle at that crossroads - I don't think I've seen two there at the same time, let alone three.

Hence it's not ths sort of junction that anyone needs to flash anyone else out at.  Although isn't the Trooper pub just down the road that the van on the right emerged from?  I wonder if a visit there had affected someone's judgement.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

One of those where if the "last" van had decided to exercise it's "right of way" 

ITYM 'priority'.

They all had right of way.

Yep, thanks for clearing up my poor expanation there. fixed.