They Just Keep On coming…
Janet Denzel
Under normal circumstances, it is my responsibility to go only when it is safe to do so, considering the distance of incoming cars and their speed. When it is safe, it is also my responsibility to actually go, to avoid blocking traffic behind me.
My question: should I turn or not when the incoming traffic comes close to me and stops (or dramatically slows down enough for me to go), even though they have right of way? This scenario actually happens to me, either because the other driver is confused or just being nice.
One possibility: by stopping, are they relinquishing right-of-way and I should go, to avoid blocking traffic behind me. However I have never learned of such a rule where right-of-way is given up by stopping or slowing down.
The other possibility: they maintain right-of-way regardless. In this case, if I decide to go and then they suddenly accelerate and crash into me (e.g., for insurance fraud), am I at fault for being in the way? Even if they shouldn't have accelerated into me, realistically speaking, in the absence of dashcams, is a traffic officer likely to believe my story that they "let me go," versus the more common scenario of me going when it isn't safe? Of course this depends on the officer and situation, but the possibility of being "framed" bothers me.
A car making a left turn is almost always liable for a collision with a car coming straight in the other direction. Exceptions to this near-automatic rule are rare and difficult to prove, but they can occur if:
Generally traffic laws require you to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic when making a left turn on a two-way street. So that means that you must wait until it's safe to turn left. If you turn left and an oncoming car hits you, then it will appear as if you did not yield as required and caused the accident. You're liable.
Now the situation may be more complicated if an oncoming vehicle appears to yield to you. You can choose to proceed or you can choose to wait. In your case you choose to proceed and if there is no incident, life goes on.
So legally speaking the oncoming driver is at fault because intentionally causing an accident, nearly everywhere, is illegal. But how do YOU prove that happened. It's going to be your word against his unless there are bystanders who witnessed it. It's going to be an uphill battle to win in this case because it appears that you are at fault. Say you had a dashcam that shows the whole thing. Would that necessarily be convincing? What if the oncoming driver says he wasn't yielding but rather just slowing down because he thought you might cut in front of him? See the problems?
However, there are no rules. In 2006 British Waterways, concerned at the popularity and over-crowding problems on tow-paths did a consultation to work out if they needed a 'keep left' policy. It was deemed that such a move would be unpopular and not adhered to (and certainly not policed). Therefore, if there is no keep left idea then overtaking on the right cannot be deemed to be against any code.
Most cyclists over the age of five seem to appreciate the 'keep left/overtake on the right' idea, however there are some scenarios where this goes out the window in deference to safety. Going over Kingston Upon Thames Bridge the cycle lane is two-way, but you would be a brave cyclist to stick to 'keep left' when joining the bridge to go south - cyclists heading north are wanting to join the main highway and are crossing past your path. Going on the right is the expected norm at that particular point and, with it, overtaking on the left...
In almost all situations, it is easiest to apply the British road standard (keep left: A), overtaking to the right of the slower user. However the following reasons change this in situations other than two cyclists passing in opposite directions:
Therefore, it is easy and always best practice to slow down and signal (or call out 'passing on your left/right') to avoid collisions, crashes and dirty looks. This also works even on the rare cyclepaths with lane and direction markings.
Remember, just as cyclists come off worst in a road collision because everything else is bigger, everything else on a cyclepath (pedestrians, buggies, prams, fishermen, jakeys, cats) come off worse as they are smaller. Don't become the arse you're trying to avoid on the roadway.
I've checked the Highway Code, and Rule 160 seems to apply universally (I can't see anything in the Bicyclists section): "Once moving you shouldkeep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise."I have experienced a lot of dangerous situations recently on our local mixed-use cycle path, with oncoming cyclists on the wrong side (their right) who leave it dangerously late to move out of the way. Today a male cyclist ahead of me was riding on the wrong side (his right) and the young boy behind him was weaving around. Despite repeated tings and requests of "Can you move to the left, please?" from me, the adult refused to budge until the very last minute. His bad example was putting that boy in danger.
In the US most "aware" cyclists treat a path as a road, more or less -- moving to the right to allow traffic (opposing or same direction) to pass, moving to the left (and call out "On your left!") when passing traffic in the same direction. (Of course, you do everything backwards in the UK)
When on a relatively narrow path, however, with light traffic, there's a tendency to "cruise" more or less in the middle of the lane, though of course being aware of traffic approaching from either direction & being prepared to move over.
When on a wide path, one rider finds himself nearer to the "wrong" side as he encounters an opposing rider similarly on the "wrong" side, it wouldn't be too unusual to pass without switching sides. It can be confusing, though, so I generally try to stay to the "proper" side to at least a little degree to remove ambiguity.
Common sense dictates that you should use a dedicated cycle path the same way you use a road: Why would you do things differently?On a shared use path alongside a road the 'face oncoming traffic' idea makes perfect sense, but since there are no actual rules it is unwise to expect other people on the path to behave rationally whether they are on a bike or on foot. A good rule of thumb when encountering people going in the opposite direction is to assume that the other person is either stupid or selfish or both and go slow enough to stop if you have to.
I think the "On your right" call is a bad idea because you can't assume the other person knows what you mean. He may think you're asking him to move to his right. If I'm about to go past someone I ring my bell and look for some indication that they have heard me then pass on whichever side has more room. If they ignore the bell you'll just have to get close enough to speak to them and ask them to let you by.
I don't think cycle paths are one-way in the UK unless explicitly stated (but I've never seen a direction sign). There are sometimes cycle paths on both sides of a road and I tend to choose the side with the best surface.
(Warning, contains several sweeping generalisations.) The thing to bear in mind, though, is that, cycle paths tend to have a higher proportion of cyclists who perhaps have less roadcraft than on those on the roads, so perhaps are just dawdling and ambling and being less concerned with getting from A to B as fast as possible. (The cyclists who want to get somewhere quickly are probably on the roads as in most situations that is the more direct option, cycle paths tend to be circuitous diversions.)
One common protocol one overtaking is to call forward "passing on your right" (or left) to warn, making it clear your intention. Are the dirty looks as much because you hadn't been seen as that you were on the left?
I keep to the left, as do the majority of other cyclists that I come across on cycle paths, with no problem. However, I have also come across a few "frosty" pedestrians using the paths, coming at me from the opposite direction, sticking to their right, grumbling that I should be cycling on the right. Can't win!
I have been cycling on the most convenient side till I get to a safe crossing point...there are separated paths on both sides of the main road. I ride on the left of the path. I was shouted at by other cyclist saying you should be on the left meaning the other side of the road. I just yelled back I am on the left. There are no signs anywhere to say what you should do
I am surprised that a civilised country has such ambiguity as to which side to pass. The Government has surely been asleep. We keep left when walking on the pavement because UK Highway Code para 1 says "...avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the (adjacent) traffic....". Surely walking and cycling anywhere should follow the "keep left" convention in the UK, or "walk as you drive" in any other country.
Edit To Criggie 17 - Each pavement is for walking in both directions with the pedestrians nearest to the kerb facing adjacent traffic, so they can see what is coming (e.g. a car about to mount the pavement). Cyclists would follow the same convention where they share a pavement with pedestrians.
Ok so, to start with, I'm generally someone who will stay over and help if needed with no qualms and no complaints... that being said, I experienced what I feel is an extreme reaction by an oncoming nurse to a pretty small thing and he was downright rude and unprofessional...
So to set the stage, I had a crazy night... very busy with a transfer out, a new admit that was somewhat unstable, a post op with pain management issues, heparin drip and PCA pump, as well as an external fixation to right tibia with a freshly dc'd Foley, as well as a behavioral problem patient in restraints...
In my last 2 hours I was running ragged trying to get everything settled for next shift when unstable patient has a BP of 85/55, and post op patient retaining urine... by the time day shift arrives, BP is under control in the one room and I've done all I can for the lady retaining urine because the night intern finally said (at 630) "well we can let the team decide when they get here in a half hour"
bcf7231420