 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Parked cars partially on the pavement on either side of the street, a cyclist and a car arrive at exactly the same time from opposite directions. There's enough space for the cyclist to pass the parked cars without having to enter the opposite lane, but the car would have to straddle both lanes to pass.
Who has right of way? I'd assume the cyclist, as they don't have to cross into the opposite lane to pass the parked cars, so technically it's not an obstruction for them.
Of course the cyclist would probably end up deferring in the real world as there would be only one loser if the car driver decides they're going!
Bridleways, footpaths etc. are rights of way. My driving instructor taught me to never assume priority.
I would, however, expect the cyclist in this scenario to have priority.
It comes down to courtesy, I guess.
"No, after [i]you[/i]".
Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. [b]Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear[/b] and wish to overtake or turn off.
The cyclist can proceed without crossing the line, so should go ahead. The driver doesn't have a clear road to cross the line, so should wait.
As ever though, the sensible thing is to do whatever keeps you safe.
While noting there isn't such a thing as right of way, in that case i'd assume the cyclist for reasons given. However, i'd also assume they wouldn't be given it in most cases because I'M IN A MASSIVE STEEL BOX!!!
There was a similar one near me a couple of days ago. Parking spaces on one side leaving space so that cars driving on the side of the parked cars have to cross the white line to proceed. However, oncoming traffic has enough space so you can get past anyway (road is easily 3 cars wide), so it's not an issue. Normally.
Except on this occasion, oncoming traffic is a bike followed by a car. If the car waits behind the bike, no issue. However if it overtakes into my path, I now have to stop so it can complete its manoeuvre. In doing so, he didn't cross the white line.
Arguments aside over whether squeezing past the cyclist without crossing the white line is too close a pass (actually, it isn't really on this road) - who's in the wrong here, her or me. Because while I'm not a lipreader i can identify a fricative F well enough and that's what she thought of the situation.
Bike should have priority, very unlikely the driver would think so though so in reality I'd always assume they were expecting to just barrel through and ride accordingly.
Who is going to be seriously injured if both parties go for the gap and collide?
I'd let the car through, regardless of priority.
Nobody has priority in this instance. So its either manners or a mexican stand off.
The question indicates that there are lanes and a centre-line i.e. dia. 1008 or 1004 as prescribed in the TSRGD which is a statutory instrument giving these linemarkings the legal direction that the line should not be crossed unless it is safe to do so. So if the driver causes his vehicle to cross the line when not safe to do so then they are commiting an offence.
[quote=theotherjonv ]Except on this occasion, oncoming traffic is a bike followed by a car. If the car waits behind the bike, no issue. However if it overtakes into my path, I now have to stop so it can complete its manoeuvre. In doing so, he didn't cross the white line.
Arguments aside over whether squeezing past the cyclist without crossing the white line is too close a pass (actually, it isn't really on this road) - who's in the wrong here, her or me. Because while I'm not a lipreader i can identify a fricative F well enough and that's what she thought of the situation.
I'm confused here as the car passing the cyclist appears to be overtaking into your path, driven by a he, yet the other driver is a she. Which one are you?
According to the same rules as with the other situation, if it's safe to overtake the cyclist without crossing the white line, then it's legal to do so regardless of oncoming traffic. If the traffic going the other way has to cross the white line to proceed, then it's required to give way to oncoming traffic whatever the oncoming traffic is doing.
I'll happily assert myself in that top situation right up until the point when it looks like I might get crushed. Then I'll be more interested in waking up intact the next morning than making a point.
Most people are fine but you can see the odd computation going on where the driver's thinking 'how can this be? Car beats bike ALWAYS' 🙂
So if the driver causes his vehicle to cross the line when not safe to do so then they are commiting an offence.
OK. But in the case i mentioned - it was safe to do so until the other driver decided to overtake a cyclist and create an unsafe situation.
You can argue i should have anticipated what i still think was an act of stupidity by the other driver, but 'I should wait here in case that driver overtakes directly into oncoming traffic' wasn't high on my list of expectations.
@ aracer - it was a she fwiw, the he/she is a mix up that i agree causes confusion.
Depends who's behind the wheel: Some (most, IME) drivers will let the cyclist through, some won't.
It's "a bit" like this shonky video I put up a few years back. Although there were only cars on the other side of the road -
[quote=theotherjonv ]OK. But in the case i mentioned - it was safe to do so until the other driver decided to overtake a cyclist and create an unsafe situation.
You can argue i should have anticipated what i still think was an act of stupidity by the other driver, but 'I should wait here in case that driver overtakes directly into oncoming traffic' wasn't high on my list of expectations.
So if there was a parked vehicle on her side of the road, which she could pass without crossing the white line, we're back to exactly the same situation as in the OP. In that situation would you have expected her to wait because you wanted to proceed by crossing the white line?
If there had been a parked vehicle on her side, would you have seen that and anticipated her wanting to overtake it? Did you not see the cyclist and anticipate she'd want to overtake it?
There wasn't, there was a cyclist moving at maybe 15mph. No I didn't anticipate she'd overtake it into oncoming traffic, because irrespective of whether she was technically in the right or not, it was a stupid thing to do.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.2571414,-0.587343,3a,75y,7.94h,68.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sObW3X_hvnpxS4uWcTiHIKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Hope that give the streetview but in case not go to
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Grange+Rd,+Guildford+GU2+9QZ/ @51.257223,-0.5883432,17.72z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4875d0cadb4bfdbf:0xd402a682c81c182!8m2!3d51.2660716!4d-0.5884056 and look north from opposite the entrance to The Gables
and then go to opposite the entrance to Waltham Avenue and look south - would you overtake a cyclist into that section and into oncoming traffic.
[quote=theotherjonv ]There wasn't
But what if there had been? Would it have been a stupid thing to do to overtake a parked vehicle "into oncoming traffic" whilst staying on her side of the white line?
Who has right of way?
Is the cyclist wearing a helmut cam?