Who Has Right of Way - Work Colleague in Collision.

sc999cs

A colleague was riding home yesterday along the cycle path shown in the picture here in the distance.


View from the roundabout

A car came off the roundabout to enter the driving range (road opposite) crossing the lay-bye and the cycle path. My colleague hit the front wing of the car (He -the cyclist- was moving at between 15 and 20 mph). The cycle lane has no give way markings, but it's edges are marked by a broken white line. The car apparently had a sizeable dent and the front forks, handlebars, gear shifter/brakes are damaged on the bike. My colleague went over the bonnet but luckily suffered only minor bruising.

Looking at the junction I can not work out who would be considered responsible for the collision? The car is effectively crossing into a drive way after leaving the roundabout to enter a parking area, so in my mind they should have been driving slowly enough to look out for cyclists (and pedestrians). My colleague should also have been slowing down as he was about to cross a physical junction. Where is the right of way at this junction?

Interested to know what you all think?

The Rookie

If the car had to cross the dotted white lines to hit the bike, he had to give way, however the fact the lines are not compliant with the parliamentary directive (there should be two lines parallel each side to denote a giveway) may give the motorist soe leeway to wriggle to a lesser liability (say 80%), but I think most inurers will just cough up.

Simon

thel33ter

Sounds like the driver crossed the lines and turned across him, while your mate was going straight along. so he had right of way.

A kind of similiar thing happened to me, I was going up to the left on this picture and a car turned across me into the road on the left going downwards, got the money no questions asked.

downfader

One of the things that strikes me about the cyclepath is how visible it is from the road. Should a car turn into that area they have quite a view left and right imo so should, if reading the road properly, be able to anticipate hazards and see a cyclist coming.

I'm also not sure that road marking continuing the cyclepath is legal, but even so it should also add forewarning that you're about to encroach upon possible hazards.

I think part of blame can be established that the driver did indeed fail to assess what might happen and didnt take action to limit or stop that. Its also possible that the cyclist did the same imo. The greater onus is on the driver however due to the increase danger the car they drive poses.

asquithea

I took the time to look at your Google StreetView link, and also at a junction a little further down the road, marked in the same way.

I think the dashed lines only indicate the presence of a place to cross, and do not require the driver to give way. They are similar to the lines you'd see to outline the edge of a pedestrian crossing, and (as far as I know) don't have any legal significance.

Given the narrowness of the junction, the speed at which you say the cyclist was travelling, and the impact on the car's wing, I'd say the cyclist is at fault. The driver might have noticed the cyclist coming, but 20 mph is nearly 9 metres per second -- not much time to react.

Though the highway code admonishes drivers to watch out for pedestrians crossing the road, and reminds drivers that pedestrians have priority once they have started to cross, a driver would not be at fault if the pedestrian were to run (or walk) out into the road as the vehicle passed.

For example, I was a passenger in a car when an elderly lady stepped out towards a traffic island without looking, and bounced off the side of the vehicle (she cut her head on the kerb, but was otherwise OK). Once the police had interviewed the witnesses, there was no question of charges being brought.

As far as I can make out from the facts presented, the driver of the car had right of way, though both driver and cyclist could have avoided the incident if they'd paid a little more attention.

nwallace

The lines probably have no meaning under TRSGD, however there also appears to be a contrasting surface at the end of the pavement where it merges with the road, so I suspect your colleague was crossing a roadway and therefore didn't have right of way rather than the road crossing the pavement in order to access property.

Edit:

I posted this on SABRE which is populated by people who should know their road markings
see http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/vie ... =1&t=25792

sc999cs

nwallace wrote:

I posted this on SABRE which is populated by people who should know their road markings
see http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/vie ... =1&t=25792

I'll take a look at that link and see what's posted.

It is a tricky one this. I really do not know myself who would have the right of way there. My colleague and the driver didn't exchange details so there is going to be no follow up to this in terms of insurance claims etc, but I dislike the ambiguity of the road layout where he had his accident. Also if my colleague had been a fraction of a second further along the car might have hit him (instead of the other way) resulting in a far more serious collision.

Edit: Nwallace could you also post my thanks on SABRE as well because already there is a very interesting reply from M4Mark.

Tom Butcher

Possibly similar situation to a pedestrian crossing a junction - doesn't that depend on who reached the junction first.

The fact the bike hit the wing suggests the car was there first but I'm tempted to say it's 50:50 - both should have looked first and seen the other.

Those markings are confusing though and I can see them leading some cyclists into thinking they can just carry on regardless.

nb : all that could be total bullshit.

tenmantaylor

If anything I would say the bikes have to give way to the cars there. The pavement edge is dropped with blind friendly raised dot slabs which usually indicate the edge of a pavement before the road. The dotted white lines across the road aren't give way markings IMO.

Cyclists view ( assuming he approached from this side)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 01584&z=20

Cycling, I'd be prepared to stop even I if I did have right of way here. To fly across a blind road exit is just asking for an accident.

blott9b

The other question is, if he was going that fast why was he using the cycle path at all, at those speeds you are safer on the road.

beverick

First of all, in road traffic law no-one has right of way; you either have priority or you don't - and that's important in this case.

With that in mind, two road features are relevant to deciding who had priority: 1) the broken white line marking the edge of the roundabout and 2) the kerb marking the end of the cycle/footway and the edge of the road. The road user crossing either of these features first had, technically at least, gained priority over the other and the other road-user MUST give way (re Road Traffic Act).

BTW, in the absence of markings to the contrary the 'parking area' is irrelevant, it merely forms part of the road leaving the roundabout.

Basically, if the motorist had entered the road (ie crossed the the broken white line) before the cyclist crossed the kerb then the motorist had priority and the cyclist was obliged to give way.

Conversely, if the cyclist had crossed the kerb before the motorist entered the road then the motorist was obliged to give way to the cyclist.

From the photo it's difficult to say with any accuracy but, given that you say the cyclist hit the front wing of the car, it's difficult to see circumstances where the cyclist had crossed the kerb before the car entered the road. On that basis I'd say the cyclist was primarily, if not wholly, to blame for the incident.

Finally, in my view, and in any event, the cyclist should really have obeyed what I always refer to as being 'French Law' ie give way to anything that is likley to run into you.....

Bob

RufusA

beverick wrote:

Finally, in my view, and in any event, the cyclist should really have obeyed what I always refer to as being 'French Law' ie give way to anything that is likley to run into you.....Bob

... or you're likely to run in to.

Entirely agree. However I think the sudden introduction of cycle lanes on the landscape require a bit of "public information" style education for both cyclists and motorised vehicles.

TBH if I saw a fully marked cycle-lane cross the mouth of a t-juction; I'd assume I had a right-of-way, subject to giveway signs, a sprinkling of "French Law" and a spidey-sense of impending doom.

Rufus.

beverick

RufusA wrote:

.....
TBH if I saw a fully marked cycle-lane cross the mouth of a t-juction; I'd assume I had a right-of-way....

Rufus.

You are required to "give way" at the kerb unless there are signs, paintwork or other legally placed indications to the contrary.

Looking at "tenmantaylor's" post (above) there can be little doubt where the kerb is in this case.

Bob

sc999cs

Once again, many thanks for every one's input. I'm coming to the conclusion that the cyclist should give way - if it had been a pedestrian (instead of a cyclist) then they would have stopped for the car as the road effectively crosses the lane

blott9b wrote:

The other question is, if he was going that fast why was he using the cycle path at all, at those speeds you are safer on the road.

I was wondering that myself. He's quite new to cycling and had just bought his bike on the Cycle 2 Work scheme. I don't really want to question him too much as it might rub salt into the wounds (metaphorically speaking that is).

ericonabike

I think this goes to the heart of why cycle paths are for the benefit of motorists, rather than cyclists. If they are not cycle lanes [marked on carriageway in the same way as bus lanes] then they are effectively pavements with blue signs on them. Cyclists have to give way at each road, bridleway, farm track or carpark entrance in the same way that a pedestrian would be required to do. Which is why, unless we get a change to motoring law and culture I think they are actually more dangerous than riding on the road. Sadly the acccident in which your friend was involved seems to bear that out.

jds_1981

In my cycle in there are several short cycle paths which appear to be there for 'safety' - e.g. one takes you off the main road under a bridge. However, they invariably merge at a disadvantage so I never take them.

snailracer

ericonabike wrote:

I think this goes to the heart of why cycle paths are for the benefit of motorists, rather than cyclists. If they are not cycle lanes [marked on carriageway in the same way as bus lanes] then they are effectively pavements with blue signs on them. Cyclists have to give way at each road, bridleway, farm track or carpark entrance in the same way that a pedestrian would be required to do. Which is why, unless we get a change to motoring law and culture I think they are actually more dangerous than riding on the road. Sadly the acccident in which your friend was involved seems to bear that out.

Not sure I agree with you, according to the Highway Code:

Rule 170:
"Take extra care at junctions. You should
...
* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

Moreover:

Rule 183:
"Turning left
When turning
...
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction"

IMO, the motorist has clearly contravened rule 183 and so is at fault.

fossyant

TBH, if you aren't riding on the road as part of the traffic, then you have to give way on these paths........I don't use these shared or separated paths at all - if I ever do, it's at a snails pace....on the road it's 20mph plus.........

Drivers or pedestrians aren't geared up. TBH there are the knobbly bits to help blind folk cross...on a bike if there I'd stop....... cyclist should look... it's not a mandatory stop for cars......... it is a confusing design that should say give way to motor traffic though......

ericonabike

Rule 170:
"Take extra care at junctions. You should
...
* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

The alternative would be to give drivers licence to run them over! But it doesn't mean that pedestrians have right of ay as they approach the kerb.
Moreover:

Rule 183:
"Turning left When turning ...
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction"

IMO, the motorist has clearly contravened rule 183 and so is at fault.

This was my point re 'cycle lane v cycle path'. The three egs in Rule 183 are on the carriageway itself. You're not allowed to turn across them, But a cycle path is not on the carriageway. And so you have no more rights on them than on a footpath.

snailracer

ericonabike wrote:

Rule 170:
"Take extra care at junctions. You should
...
* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

The alternative would be to give drivers licence to run them over! But it doesn't mean that pedestrians have right of ay as they approach the kerb.
Moreover:

Rule 183:
"Turning left When turning ...
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction"

IMO, the motorist has clearly contravened rule 183 and so is at fault.

This was my point re 'cycle lane v cycle path'. The three egs in Rule 183 are on the carriageway itself. You're not allowed to turn across them, But a cycle path is not on the carriageway. And so you have no more rights on them than on a footpath.

I would have thought cars would have lesser rights on a footpath. So here is Rule 206:
"Drive carefully and slowly when
* needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"
On the pavement, there is no requirement that the motorist gives way only if "they have started to cross" - it is an unconditional "give way", which means the motorist has to anticipate the speed of the cyclist on the cycle path, not the other way round. Just like a motorist giving way to another motorist at a junction - it is not a case of "the first to get there" having priority.

ericonabike

Drive carefully and slowly when
* needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

We may have to agree to differ, but in the incident cited by the OP the cycle path ended [as they all do] when it came to a road. And so the motorist wasn't crossing it. I have never seen an instance of a sign on a road directing motorists to Give Way because it is crossed by a cycle path.

The Rookie

Which does not explain the white lines across the road, which while non compliant with TSRGD have to indicate something, and would normally indidate a give way for those crossing them, the whilte lines should have been across the cycle way if it were intended for cycles to give way. Perhaps you can point out where else a road user crossing white lines doesn't have to give way? (I'm thinking, lane change, overtaking, turning right, all where the road user crossing the lines has to give way to those on the other side).

In Leamington spa there is a give way for cars where its crosses a cycle lane that is fully compliant with TSRGD including give way triangle, double row of lines etc.

Simon

sc999cs

Brain wave :P

I've emailed the council to ask them. I'll post the reply if appropriate.

snailracer

The Beginner wrote:

Which does not explain the white lines across the road, which while non compliant with TSRGD have to indicate something, and would normally indidate a give way for those crossing them, the whilte lines should have been across the cycle way if it were intended for cycles to give way. Perhaps you can point out where else a road user crossing white lines doesn't have to give way? (I'm thinking, lane change, overtaking, turning right, all where the road user crossing the lines has to give way to those on the other side).

In Leamington spa there is a give way for cars where its crosses a cycle lane that is fully compliant with TSRGD including give way triangle, double row of lines etc.

Simon

IMO the white lines indicate a short segment of cycle lane bridging the cycle path as it crosses the side road. A cycle lane is marked as follows:

Rule 63:
"Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway"

As a properly marked cycle lane, no additional double-row lines or triangles are needed to indicate to motorists that they must give way to cyclists using it.

beverick

snailracer wrote:

ericonabike wrote:

.......

Not sure I agree with you, according to the Highway Code:

Rule 170:
"Take extra care at junctions. You should
...
* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

Please see my posting above. If the vehicle had crossed the exit lines from the roundabout before the cyclist had crossed the kerb then the cyclist was obliged to give way. if the cyclist had crossed the kerb first, then the motorist was obliged to give way.

snailracer wrote:

Moreover:

Rule 183:
"Turning left
When turning
...
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction"

IMO, the motorist has clearly contravened rule 183 and so is at fault.

wrote:

Rule 183 does not apply in this case as it refers to a cycle lane running along the carriageway.

snailracer wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

...........
Simon

IMO the white lines indicate a short segment of cycle lane bridging the cycle path as it crosses the side road. A cycle lane is marked as follows:

Rule 63:
"Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway"

As a properly marked cycle lane, no additional double-row lines or triangles are needed to indicate to motorists that they must give way to cyclists using it.

If you read Rule 63 again, the key requirement for a cycle lane is that it runs 'along the carriageway'.

Where a cycle lane runs across a carriageway (at a junction for example) it would be bounded by either a give way or stop line.

The white lines represent a crossing point (roughly) in line with TSRGD requirements and is purely indicative. As such, bears no relevance for determining priorities.

Bob

snailracer

beverick wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Rule 63:
"Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway"

As a properly marked cycle lane, no additional double-row lines or triangles are needed to indicate to motorists that they must give way to cyclists using it.

If you read Rule 63 again, the key requirement for a cycle lane is that it runs 'along the carriageway'.

Where a cycle lane runs across a carriageway (at a junction for example) it would be bounded by either a give way or stop line.

The white lines represent a crossing point (roughly) in line with TSRGD requirements and is purely indicative. As such, bears no relevance for determining priorities.

Bob

It does run 'along the carriageway'. It is parallel to the main carriageway, just like a proper bike lane. The fact that it's only a few metres long and alternates between bike lane and bike path is not exceptional, either.

ericonabike

Am becoming unhealthily interested [obsessed?] by this as cycle paths are one of my many hobby horses. OP, it's difficult to tell from your picture, but legally your colleague may have a case. Commonsensically, I'd sooner eat my own head than do what he did but that's another matter!

He was, in law, a vehicle, travelling along a carriageway. He cam to an intersection with another carriageway, where he needs to be advised what to do - give way or carry on. The business park where I work is covered in pavement-style cycle paths - at each intersection with a road [or other right of way, including bridle way] the Highjways dept has painted the uiniversal 'give way' motif - an inverted triangle leading to a set of double broken lines.

Did any such markings exist at your colleagu's intersection? If not, then I submit, m'lud, that he was legally entitled to continue without stopping. I also think, as Beverick suggests, that the white lines in the road are indicative, rather than in any way prescriptive.

I'd be very interested to see a picture of the junction from the cyclist's perspective, and the reply from the council

PBo

Surely all this debate, disagreement, intense analysis just shows one thing we can probably all agree on:

Whoever was right or wrong, the road markings were not clear or unambiguous enough to help either party......

edit:
In a way both were at fault for not recognising the lack of clarity and taking the defensive option of slowing and assessing...

snailracer

This junction reminds me of when they started painting zebra crossings on the exits of roundabouts. Dangerous on the face of it, but motorists eventually got used to them as they were everywhere.

beverick

ericonabike wrote:

.....

He was, in law, a vehicle, travelling along a carriageway. He cam to an intersection with another carriageway, where he needs to be advised what to do - give way or carry on.
....

That's incorrect. The cyclist was quite clearly riding along a section of shared use 'footpath' (if it were at the side of the road it would be a footway in the eyes of the law in England at least - it's clissification is irrelevant in this case anyway).

Under the Road Traffic Act he was obliged to give way at the kerb to any vehicle alreaady on the carriageway. the kerb is clearly marked and conveniently reinforced with a tactile surface.

PBo wrote:

......

Whoever was right or wrong, the road markings were not clear or unambiguous enough to help either party......

edit:
In a way both were at fault for not recognising the lack of clarity and taking the defensive option of slowing and assessing...

Unusually in the case of road traffic collissions, there's no ambiguity - it's straight black and white.

In the absence of either a stop or give way sign on approach to the crossing point, and with the assumption that no other law was broken, it simply comes down to who was on the road first - cyclist or motorist - and, as I said before, given the distance between the entry to carriageway and the crossing point, and the fact that the cyclist hit the side of the car, it's difficult to see circumstances where the driver was at fault.

Bob

Bob

kingmho

beverick wrote:

Where a cycle lane runs across a carriageway (at a junction for example) it would be bounded by either a give way or stop line.

The white lines represent a crossing point (roughly) in line with TSRGD requirements and is purely indicative. ...

There are no give way or stop lines, as far as I can tell from the photo, so by your own definition it can't be a crossing. There are dotted cycle lane lines. The markings are therefore consistent with it being a cycle lane on the main carriageway and not a crossing.