Priority Arrow Right Of Way

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:52:10 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"Jack Ouzzi" wrote in message
news:1100180934.FhmfV61tt/rTq6sNMyy56Q@teranews...
Narrow bridge, room for vehicle and cyclist to pass two ways, but not
two vehicles (cars) signed priority system in place.

Cyclist has large white arrow (priority) 4x4 driver has small red
arrow (give way) WHO LEGALLY has the right to proceed, and WHO LEGALLY
is required to wait (or give way) ?

Is a bicycle a 'vehicle' ??

The bicycle is a vehicle as you can deduce by looking at "no motor vehicles"
and "no vehicles" signs and therefore you have right of way. In theory at
least, if not in might!
--
Simon M.


Surely the bike, as the cheaper and less powerful vehicle, should gove
way?

At least that't the version of the HC that seems to be applied by
motorists round here. Hence a few interesting "standoffs".

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
Narrow bridge, room for vehicle and cyclist to pass two ways, but not
two vehicles (cars) signed priority system in place.

Cyclist has large white arrow (priority) 4x4 driver has small red
arrow (give way) WHO LEGALLY has the right to proceed, and WHO LEGALLY
is required to wait (or give way) ?

Is a bicycle a 'vehicle' ??



The priority system depends for it's functionality on who is nearer to
the point in question. If both vehicles are equidistant from the signed
point and will reach that point together then the vehicle with priority
should proceed whilst the other must give way.
If however the vehicle with priority would reach the signed point
significantly later than the opposing vehicle, i.e. the opposing vehicle
has time to clear the signed point safely, then the opposing vehicle has
no obligation to stop.
Assuming that vision is not a factor it is unlikely that a cyclist could
arrive at a bridge at the same time as an opposing vehicle if both were
visible and equidistant before reaching the bridge. Therefore the
cyclist in this situation must have right of way as he or she is
significantly closer to the signed point. A motorist continuing to
cross may be liable to a charge of careless or even dangerous driving.

Sniper8052

My caveat is that it is no good being right when your six feet under or
worse.

"Simon Mason" typed



"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...


Yes but you'll be more likely to see a flying pig than get conceded your
rightful right of way by an 'important' motorist.

Especially in Barnet ;-)

Actually, I think it's worse in Brent ;-)

The generation that never cycled seems more in evidence and the chicanes
around Roe Green Primary and Kingsbury High Schools a mile away are
bones of contention for my partner...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

" [Not Responding] " typed


Surely the bike, as the cheaper and less powerful vehicle, should gove
way?

At least that't the version of the HC that seems to be applied by
motorists round here. Hence a few interesting "standoffs".

Of course the bicycle should give way. Cyclists don't pay Road Tax ;-)

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

The generation that never cycled

Which generation is this?

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:

Therefore the cyclist in this situation must have right of way as he
or she is significantly closer to the signed point.

Unless there's a *really important car snake* that must get through intact.
In which case, cars about 100m from the pinch point when you arrive can
still get through first on the back of the important car snake.

Simonb wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

The generation that never cycled

Which generation is this?

Any that died prior to about 1820, I guess.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

in message 1100180934.FhmfV61tt/rTq6sNMyy56Q@teranews, Jack Ouzzi
') wrote:

Narrow bridge, room for vehicle and cyclist to pass two ways, but not
two vehicles (cars) signed priority system in place.

Cyclist has large white arrow (priority) 4x4 driver has small red
arrow (give way) WHO LEGALLY has the right to proceed,

the cyclist

and WHO LEGALLY
is required to wait (or give way) ?

the 4x4

Is a bicycle a 'vehicle' ??

yes.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

[Not Responding] wrote:

Surely the bike, as the cheaper and less powerful vehicle, should gove
way?

What Not said. How else could one explain how I narrowly avoided a
collision with a motorcar entering a roundabout - on which I was already
present, correct, fully lit and in a motorcar of my own. Said motorcar then
going on to ignore, and thus miss by inches, a couple using a pedestrian
crossing, and then driiving across the pavement in order to gain, no seconds
advantage in the use of a slip road. Of course, because it was a 911 Turbo,
its driver is perfectly entitled to drive like a tossblanket, because he is
Rich[1] and thus is a net contributor to Her Majesty's Exchequer[2] while I,
as a lower-rate taxpayer, should be grateful that my lowly diseasel-engined
estate car and Several of bicycles are permitted to be on the road at all.

Bah!

/rant

1 - unless he's a cyclist who has stolen the car as it is a more effective
means of terrorising old ladies
2 - unless he's a drug dealer

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Danny Colyer wrote in message ...

You *really* need an Air Zound (unless you're riding drops, in which
case you may not be able to mount it in a useable position).

I've got one on my Dawes Galaxy, on the tops close to the stem. No prombles.

--
Dave...