Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,361
That ones a bit more gray imo, I know sometimes it's quite clear cut but sometimes it's not as obvious (like a few driving rules).
Your bad driving encounters
- Thread starter Stu999
- Start date
That is not an enforceable law. It simply best practice to give way if the blockage is in your lane. But if you are technically there first you have right of way, even if it’s your lane that is blocked. So if you approach with a scenario developing such as you being 50m back and someone in the blocked lane being 10 back, they actually have right of way, not you. At 10m they will have already committed and have right of way.
I’m not trying to prove anything, just saying you need to be mindful that in the event of a collision, your right of way does not always absolve you of all responsibility.
I'm sure it has been mentioned before in this thread, but there is no such thing as right of way.
The highway code says when people should give way and when they have priority, but it gives nobody right of way.
Priority is given not taken
Drive like you expect no-one to give you priority, even when they should.
The highway code says when people should give way and when they have priority, but it gives nobody right of way.
Priority is given not taken
Drive like you expect no-one to give you priority, even when they should.
Last edited:
I'm talking more about when I'm 10m or less from the situation, in 13ton, 9ft wide, 40ft long, 14ft high vehicle and they think getting their nose past the back of the first car on their side.
If I'm 50m back I'm already assessing the need to slow or even stop.
There are a number of rules in the highway code regarding giving priority to large vehicles, of which you can be charged with an offence (due care and attention/careless and inconsiderate) if you wilfully ignore them.
It's not an enforceable law as such, given the "You should" wording, but the Highway code is very clear on who has priority, and it's not "if you are technically there first":
Rule 163:
Basically, it should be treated in exactly the same way as one of these traffic calming measures:
If the obstruction is on your side of the road and there is oncoming traffic, you should only proceed if you are able to clear the obstruction before the oncoming traffic reaches it, even if you happen to be closer.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,361
Thats sort of why it can be a bit grey (bare with me), someone could set-off thinking they will clear it, but misjudge the speed of the car coming towards them, they might think both can get by at the same time, of course they could just be a bell end (or all of the above). I tend to give way well in advance, especially if it's a wagon/bus as they usually have to swing pretty wide, and I don't want to be the test subject for how good their brakes areIt's not an enforceable law as such, given the "You should" wording, but the Highway code is very clear on who has priority, and it's not "if you are technically there first":
Rule 163:
Basically, it should be treated in exactly the same way as one of these traffic calming measures:
If the obstruction is on your side of the road and there is oncoming traffic, you should only proceed if you are able to clear the obstruction before the oncoming traffic reaches it, even if you happen to be closer.
. As with the vast majority of driving though, it's case by case and hard to judge unless somebodies there (explaining on the internet is difficult without witnessing it).Like I said my post was just to give note that there are exceptions such as the distances I used in my reference. If you are 50m from the obstruction on the oncoming lane (your lane is clear) and someone on the side of the obstruction is about 10m from the obstruction and already committed, then obviously you will have trouble claiming you had right of way should a collision occur. This is known as the commitment rule.
The Highway Code mentions that if other vehicles may have committed well before you, then they have right of way. In other words right of way is given, not taken and never to be assumed.
The number of times people speed up to get there first and “claim” right of way, is astounding. Not just in this scenario but especially roundabouts. Ooh it’s always give way from the right they moan. Not if you are 100ft from the thing and someone coming from your left is already on the roundabout.
I have seen people crash in those scenarios and then wonder why the dashcam footage, or their own written statement they submitted was actually used to prove the opposite of what they claimed. If you could have reasonably taken action to avoid a collision but didn’t, you will be held either full or partially liable.
www.passmefast.co.uk
The Highway Code mentions that if other vehicles may have committed well before you, then they have right of way. In other words right of way is given, not taken and never to be assumed.
The number of times people speed up to get there first and “claim” right of way, is astounding. Not just in this scenario but especially roundabouts. Ooh it’s always give way from the right they moan. Not if you are 100ft from the thing and someone coming from your left is already on the roundabout.
I have seen people crash in those scenarios and then wonder why the dashcam footage, or their own written statement they submitted was actually used to prove the opposite of what they claimed. If you could have reasonably taken action to avoid a collision but didn’t, you will be held either full or partially liable.
Passing Parked Cars: Who Has Priority? | Resources | PassMeFast
Who has priority when passing parked cars or other obstacles? We break down the rules and give you practical tips in our comprehensive guide.
www.passmefast.co.uk
Last edited:
I don't think that makes what you're supposed to do ambiguous, it just means people sometimes make mistakes. No different to someone pulling out of a side road in front of you because they misjudge your speed, or manage to stall or whatever. It doesn't change who should have priority at the junction, but it also obviously doesn't give you free reign to just drive into them because you "had right of way"
If they've actually committed (i.e. they would have to reverse, brake sharply or take other evasive action to abort the manoeuvre) then yes of course they should be given priority. If they've just moved out in anticipation, and could easily move back in to give oncoming traffic priority then technically speaking they should do so. Otherwise, what's stopping someone "committing" to the manoeuvre as soon as they see an oncoming vehicle, or even just permanently driving on the wrong side of the road just so they have priority?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,361
I'm going to have to change my driving style nowI don't think that makes what you're supposed to do ambiguous, it just means people sometimes make mistakes. No different to someone pulling out of a side road in front of you because they misjudge your speed, or manage to stall or whatever. It doesn't change who should have priority at the junction, but it also obviously doesn't give you free reign to just drive into them because you "had right of way"
.That’s my point and it’s worth remembering right of way is given, not taken. What you are describing is someone taking right of way by being a complete *******. If you are confronted with that ******* and you stubbornly and deliberately refuse to yield then you will not have a leg to stand on with your insurer and especially the courts. “Yes your honour I saw the other car driving on my side of the road but I had right of way so why should I be expected to stop”. Good luck with that defence.
Apologies but it’s not aimed at you but so many drivers instantly assume right of way = not my fault.
From the Highway Code as a general rule:
The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
Last edited:
Absolutely agree, like I said, just because someone ignores the highway code, doesn't give you free reign to drive into them - the responsibility to avoid a collision obviously overrides anything else, but it would still be taken into account when determining liability if any collision were to take place.
I’ve been convalescing this week and am not allowed to drive. I did watch far too many UK Bad drivers dashcam videos though. The number of morons who did exactly what you said is astounding.
You can see our dashcamer approaching a roundabout/side junction/parked cars on the oncoming lane, but they are still about 5 or 6 car lengths from it. Inevitably a vehicle is clearly not giving them their “right of way” and already committed. The dashcamer just refuses to slow down, leans on the horn and gets all aggressive about “I have right of way you idiot”. Yeah but you did absolutely nothing to mitigate for the clearly obvious risk and would be partially liable in the event of a collision.
Last edited:
You seem to have forgotten that ultimate priority in any and all situations is afforded to those with dashcams.
Doubly whammy for me. DashCam AND I drive a BMW!
Haha, yeah, some of them are so obvious, almost find myself shouting at the screen "wtf are you doing!” it's concerning that so many of them think they are in the right as well, to the point they send in the clips
Been watching Ashley Neal more recently though, it's refreshing to have videos focusing on "what could I do better" rather than "what did everyone else do wrong"
Lol yeah, “you’re on camera” seems to be a very common phrase. Especially the ones who are on the wrong.
Haha, yeah, some of them are so obvious, almost find myself shouting at the screen "wtf are you doing!” it's concerning that so many of them think they are in the right as well, to the point they send in the clips
Been watching Ashley Neal more recently though, it's refreshing to have videos focusing on "what could I do better" rather than "what did everyone else do wrong"
Yep, his are a breath of fresh air. Strangely I have become more aware and less aggressive after watching all the “but I had right of way” videos. My personal favourites are the ones who are totally oblivious to the fact they are in another vehicles blind spot. Vans and trucks have notoriously poor blind spot visibility, so when people see one coming up a slip road, or along side them in the adjacent lane, they think think “I have right of way” and not, “I bet they can’t see me”. Yet they have plenty of time to shout “look at this numpty”, or “woah woah woah woah can’t you see me you muppet”.
Also why so many of those dashcams videos have their GPS speed data turned off but not the coordinates? Do they think they are fooling anyone if they say “I was innocently driving along at the speed limit minding my own business, when BAM!”
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,591
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
About people crossing the road into a road of constant traffic without looking first. If a driver hits them, would they get done by the police? If the driver had dash cam footage or if the incident was recorded on CCTV either on the street or a business' camera, what would happen?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,591
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
Turning left on a mini roundabout, pillock on my right wanting to straight ahead almost collided with me. I was even indicating left too.
How hard did you hit them and had anyone called the police before you drove off?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2021
- Posts
- 4,591
- Location
- Land of Gin (I wish)
I didn't hit them - Did an emergency stop. Though someone who doesn't have good reaction times or drove a few more MPH than I did would have hit them. It was 4 teens crossing the road to the side road which on the other end of road is the academy.