Right of way.

On 8 Sep, 13:52, Adrian wrote:

It sounds as if this cyclist was treating a pedestrian-only pavement as a
shared-use path, so would not have had priority in any case.

That's exactly my reading of the situation.

Rudi

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:43:37 +0100, Paul Rudin
wrote:

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk writes:

"Paul Rudin" wrote in message
...
"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk writes:


If the give way signs on the cycle path are behind those on the road that
means that the road has priority over the cycle path...

Behind? The road and the path are typically perpendicular.

A car approaching a give way line along the minor road is behind the line.
If the car reaches the point where the cycle path crosses the minor road
before it reaches the line...

That's not what I'm talking about. There are instances here (in
Cambridge) where the give way markings on the road are painted so that
you reach them before you cross the on-pavement path.


Is there a photograph somewhere - or a street view or similar?

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:51:59 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:26:39 +0100, Judith M Smith wrote:


Hes always' making that mistake.

He lack's an education.

(However, he may be thick also - he cannot comprehend complex scenarios)

Hagfish are parasitic on live fish, attaching themselves to the side
and slowly eating their way through the fish.

Peter, what do you think that the consequence of your repeated use of
this sort of inflammatory and provocative reply will be?


I assumed that he wanted to show that he was a ****wit - and he
doesn't realise that it's mission accomplished.

--
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On 8 Sep, 08:37, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:
"Paul Rudin" wrote in message

...

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk writes:

If the give way signs on the cycle path are behind those on the road that
means that the road has priority over the cycle path...

Behind? The road and the path are typically perpendicular.

A car approaching a give way line along the minor road is behind the line.
If the car reaches the point where the cycle path crosses the minor road
before it reaches the line, then the path is behind the line. In that
situation, give way markings on the cycle path mean that the traffic on the
road has priority over cycle traffic, but the give way markings on the road
mean it does not have priority over traffic on the main road. If the car
reaches the line before the point at which the cycle path crosses the minor
road, then the cycle path should be marked as a continuous path in front of
the line and cycle traffic has priority over traffic emerging from the side
road.

Colin Bignell

Except in this case there was no cycle track, the joining road was
perpendicular to the main road there were no give way or halt
markings of any kind but there was a dropped kerb on both sides of the
joining road just before the actual junction, I assume to assist women
with prams and the like.

In article ,
Jeremy Parker wrote:

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Footway traffic would be considered to be traffic, but you don't
have to give way to pedal cycles even when they are on the
carriageway, and you only have to give way at the give way lines.

Well, if you are entering from a side road, which presumably is
equipped with "give way" signs, and which is what I think NM said he
was doing, you would have to give way to a bicycle on the
carriageway, just as you would to any other vehicle.

If there is a cycle track - which is really just one more carriageway
of the main highway - the situation gets less clear. Where I used to
live, just outside Washington DC, in Maryland, there was a rather
similar situation. A cycle track led across the side road leading
into our neighbourhood, and no signs for either track or road
indicated right of way where they crossed. After a bike/car
accident, I raised the point with the county department of transport.
They refused to put up signs for some time afterwards, because they
couldn't work out who, legally, ought to have right of way.

Maryland law, of course, is not that different, at least in concept,
from English law

To the best of my knowledge, there is no concept of "right of way"
in English law, the concept of "priority" is only where there are
specific regulations and signage, there is no difference in this
matter between classes of traffic, and there is essentially no
distinction between traffic proceeding along the highway on the
footpath and on the carriageway (in statute, at least).

When I learnt to drive, I was taught that a pedestrian proceeding
along the footpath was proceeding along the highway, and should
be treated as such. I.e. that someone entering or leaving a
side road should give priority to the pedestrian. There were some
court cases that support this, too, which I believe are the basis
of the Highway Code rules 8 and 170.

Now, the rights of pedestrians and cyclists have been considerably
reduced since then by successive Highway Codes, but not all that
much by statute or binding precedent.

Lastly, I know of no real difference between the rights of a
pedestrian proceeding along a footway that is interrupted by a side
road and a cyclist proceeding along a mandatory cycle lane that
is interrupted by a side road (as almost all are). The other
relevant rule is 63, incidentally.

And, remember, there ain't no Sanity Clause :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:11:35 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:08:01 +0100, Marc
wrote:

lorry moron's

Not all lorry driver's are greengrocer's.

Guy


Hes always' making that mistake.

He lack's an education.

(However, he may be thick also - he cannot comprehend complex
scenarios)

Since you obviously did not understand Guy's reference to greengrocers you
could have just stayed quiet. However, as always, you had to reply to
something you don't understand and prove yourself to be less than
intelligent.

Colin

On 7 Sep, 14:07, Peter Clinch wrote:
NM wrote:
This morning I was pootling along the service road from the
supermarket car park to the T junction where it joined the main road,
I was on my motorcycle. As I approached the junction *there was no
traffic in either direction so I proceeded to turn left, as I did a
cyclist who was riding quite quickly along the pavement started
yelling at me to get out of his way, I ignored him because I assumed
that his right of way did not exist, had he been on the road I should
have correctly given way to him.
Was I correct or is pavement traffic to be considered when joining at
a junction?

Do you have to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the road at a
junction if there isn't a light-controlled crossing there?

Yes. "Give way" means to everyone.

Robin Johnson

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 05:50:56 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

On 8 Sep, 12:51, Matt B wrote:


Peter, what do you think that the consequence of your repeated use of
this sort of inflammatory and provocative reply will be?


Entertaining the rest of us?

Rudi

You find that entertainment?

Most odd.


Remind me - why did urc turn to rat-**** - and why did people think
it was necessary to have a moderated group?

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

"PeterG" wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 8:43 pm, "Ian" wrote:
"francis" wrote in message

...
On 7 Sep, 13:44, NM wrote:

This morning I was pootling along the service road from the
supermarket car park to the T junction where it joined the main
road,
I was on my motorcycle. As I approached the junction there was no
traffic in either direction so I proceeded to turn left, as I did
a
cyclist who was riding quite quickly along the pavement started
yelling at me to get out of his way, I ignored him because I
assumed
that his right of way did not exist, had he been on the road I
should
have correctly given way to him.
Was I correct or is pavement traffic to be considered when joining
at
a junction?

You should give way to pedestrians crossing the side road when you
turn left.
1/ He was not a pedestrian
2/ He was not on the side road
3/ Even if the pavement was shared use he should stop when he
reached
a road
4/ You had right of way

Cite?

OK he had right of way over the cyclist because the cyclist was not
using the road.

Where in the HC (or law) does it actually indicate that he had "right
of way"?


5/ He sounds like an idiot who should thank you for observing your
suroundings.

Francis

"NM" wrote in message
...
....
Except in this case there was no cycle track, the joining road was
perpendicular to the main road there were no give way or halt
markings of any kind but there was a dropped kerb on both sides of the
joining road just before the actual junction, I assume to assist women
with prams and the like.

I am aware of that. However, there was a follow-up question as to whether
there was a cycle track and I pointed out that, had there been, I would
expect the priorities to be clearly marked.

Colin Bignell