Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[Deleted member 26715]

Sorry @Drago, I was nitpicking unnecessarily - I am the original uber pedant

No I think you were correct, the use of 'Right of Way' is often misused by the average member of the public when they actually mean 'Priority' it's use within the common vernacular I suspect is extensive

 

[Dave Davenport]

RR; Having read the nine pages of replies to this thread it's obvious that the junction is, to say the least, confusing, even after studying it at leisure. Can you not at least acknowledge that it wasn't really a case of poor driving and that the driver couldn't really be blamed for getting it wrong even if you're completely correct about priorities etc,?

 

[Milzy]

It was smooth driving. I might phone them up and praise the driver.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

RR; Having read the nine pages of replies to this thread it's obvious that the junction is, to say the least, confusing, even after studying it at leisure. Can you not at least acknowledge that it wasn't really a case of poor driving and that the driver couldn't really be blamed for getting it wrong even if you're completely correct about priorities etc,?

Green = It's not
Red = He/she didn't
Blue = He isn't

 

[Dave Davenport]

Green = It's not
Red = He/she didn't
Blue = He isn't

Yep, I know. I was just interested to see whether RR would acknowledge that maybe he wasn't 100% right, but I'm probably on his ignore list anyway.

 

[monkers]

No I think you were correct, the use of 'Right of Way' is often misused by the average member of the public when they actually mean 'Priority' it's use within the common vernacular I suspect is extensive

To be fair, I'm someone who uses 'right of way' incorrectly from time to time despite knowing the legal difference.

I wasn't going to go into this, because for one thing I'm not a qualified lawyer, and there's a risk that I don't know what I'm talking about, but as you've raised it, I'll touch on this thought ...

Priorities are relevant when two or more road users are using the same road system. In this particular situation that does not seem to be the case, it's an intersect between two systems with differing 'rights of way' for each - one being the highway, the other a dedicated cycleway (and footpath I think), where rights of way are different. It's one reason I felt the elephants' footprints' might be useful at this intersection.

Any lawyers in the house?

Addendum: no takers? I'm going to do a Sir Humphrey here and suggest that, 'in this particualr circumstance, the intersection in question places the right of way of those users upon the cyclepath in competition with the right of way with those users upon the Queen's highway. However the planners have resolved this competition of rights of way by sensible use of the currently available techniques, primary legislation, case law, planning protocols, and all other precedents in careful consulation with, and consideration of all interested parties including local road user groups, specilialists and consultants in the fields of urban planning, road traffic engineering, and road safety campaign groups in order to establish which of the rights of way of are to be exercised as priority over the right of way over the other. Therefore the duality of the aspects of the rights of way of one group of users and the other, and the priority of them has been sensibly established and designed into a system of compexity with elegant simplicity.'

 

[Origamist]

It looks like the plans were originally for a parallel crossing, but that has not been implemented. It also looks like there was not originally a give way marking in the cycle lane. That said, it would be helpful to see the final design schematics for this junction treatment as it all seems rather inchoate to me.

 

[Archie_tect]

Thanks Origamist, excellent ferreting!

Temporary and permanent diversions of Rights of Way under the Planning Act and Highways Act take time and expense to get approval and are often delayed or prevented by objections during the consultation period. Highway engineers have complex and contradictory requirements to balance when designing junctions and sometimes have to compromise on best practice. `The Right of Way priority for users of the green corridor crossing should have been perpendicular to the road it crosses but the presence of the existing tree and the adjacent existing junction to the west made it difficult, but not impossible, to do that, so it makes the green crossing point less user friendly but, regardless, the Highway Code does not allow someone on the road to turn right using the green crossing to cut across oncoming traffic.

 

[Tail End Charlie]

@Origamist and top use of inchoate aswell! I only knew the legal sense.

 

[monkers]

Thanks Origamist, excellent ferreting!

Temporary and permanent diversions of Rights of Way under the Planning Act and Highways Act take time and expense to get approval and are often delayed or prevented by objections during the consultation period. Highway engineers have complex and contradictory requirements to balance when designing junctions and sometimes have to compromise on best practice. `The Right of Way priority for users of the green corridor crossing should have been perpendicular to the road it crosses but the presence of the existing tree and the adjacent existing junction to the west made it difficult, but not impossible, to do that, so it makes the green crossing point less user friendly but, regardless, the Highway Code does not allow someone on the road to turn right using the green crossing to cut across oncoming traffic.

You obviously know your stuff, nice to see something coherent as opposed to my waffling. I have a question if I may; your opinion please, with reference to this diagram, there seems to be a row of black dots alongside the edges of the green zone, do these denote the intention of using elephants' footprints? If so, do you think this shows the intersection as a work in progress, a rethink, or an omission?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Sorry, don't know how to shorten the clip! But the quote is at 2.40....

If you right click on the timeline while on youtube you get a number of options to copy the link, one of which is 'copy video URL at current time'. You do that at a point where you want the scene to begin, such as
View: https://youtu.be/9gX2pK1mioU?t=145
.

 

[Tenacious Sloth]

The good news is, it could still have many pages still to go!

Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.

 

[swee'pea99]

If you right click on the timeline while on youtube you get a number of options to copy the link, one of which is 'copy video URL at current time'. You do that at a point where you want the scene to begin, such as
View: https://youtu.be/9gX2pK1mioU?t=145
.

Well, I never knew that. Excellent. Thanks for the tip.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Well, I never knew that. Excellent. Thanks for the tip.

Or you can copy the original URL and suffix it with t=x where x= number of seconds into the clip you want it to begin playing. 👍

Edit to add: You can also suffix it with t=2m35s if you don't want to bother working out how many seconds that is.

 

[Origamist]

You obviously know your stuff, nice to see something coherent as opposed to my waffling. I have a question if I may; your opinion please, with reference to this diagram, there seems to be a row of black dots alongside the edges of the green zone, do these denote the intention of using elephants' footprints? If so, do you think this shows the intersection as a work in progress, a rethink, or an omission?

I think SCN 1 is still a work in progress: https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/ There is a confusing mixture of existing cycle lane signage and markings still in situ and new infrastructure. The schedule of works listed suggest that further work is planned. This will hopefully make things a bit clearer and less dangerous to navigate. If it's finished, it's decidedly underwhelming.

To try and answer your first question, if a parallel crossing is still planned, I'd expect elephant footprints to delineate the crossing. If it's just a cycle crossing, I'd still expect them to be employed. It used to be the case that DfT authorisation was required for their implementation. To be honest, as they don't relate to priority they are really the equivalent of a highlight marker on an essay...