Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[I like Skol]

It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

Where the green cycle path is the main road.

In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black.

View attachment 525071
It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.

My interpretation too, two opposing give-ways so the user going straight on should be given priority.

 

[winjim]

It is funny that people see things so differently - I see that the van had nobody to give way to as there was nobody crossing left to right or right to left on the green hatched cycle path. So simply

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

Where the green cycle path is the main road.

In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black.

View attachment 525071
It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.

Exactly so. I was going to look that diagram up later myself.

 

[matticus]

Rule 172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

Where the green cycle path is the main road.

But here the cyclist had no " ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).

p.s. if you don't agree that there is ambiguity, I am right, and YOU are wrong!

 

[matticus]

In addition, I would treat this as a crossroads like the diagram below. The van driver is white car and the cyclist the black.

View attachment 525071
It is clear that the black car (cyclist) is in the wrong.

p.s. where did you find that drawing? I can't see it at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

[Drago]

At the point the van driver was duty bound to give way, there was no one to give way to. You crossed your give way markings after he had already stared to do so, and as a 'new' user of that stretch it is you who has to give way to any vehicle already established upon it.

As a general aside, the general manner of riding is not entirely conducive to safe passage. No slowing or defensive positioning as you passed side roads and entry/access points, no moderation of speed when close passing pedestrians (yet wed scream blue murder if a motorist did that to us) and while we cant see for ourselves I'd warrant that observation skills are similarly lacking - certainly the cadence and behaviour of the bike does not suggest a rider taking the time to ensure good obs drills are executed prior to manoeuvring. Indeed, we can be sure they weren't, else you'd have accounted for the presence of that vehicle long before you actually encountered it.

If you're going to criticise a road user for their poor roadcraft one ought to ensure their own is above criticism, else it undermines the entire effort.

 

[Twilkes]

[

But here the cyclist had no " ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).

Those double dashed lines on the ground mean exactly the same as the white triangle, there doesn't need to be a sign or a triangle.

 

[steveindenmark]

My interpretation too, two opposing give-ways so the user going straight on should be given priority.

Plus the fact he is in a bloody great van. Common sense should come into play as well

 

[Milkfloat]

But here the cyclist had no " ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " to obey ! Hence the ambiguity, and hence our poster felt he didn't need to give way (except for self-preservation, which is he what he did in this case).

As I wrote in Rule 172, "You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road. " I don't think a give way sign and/or triangle is necessary to make it a give way.

As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from a big driving instructors site.

 

[matticus]

In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
How could this be prevented?

ONE approach in this case would be a "Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " on the cycle-path.
(better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)

I'll leave to you guys to assign blame , assuming you think that is useful ...

 

[matticus]

As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from a big driving instructors site.

(Thanks.)
In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.

 

[Milkfloat]

In my day-job we routinely analyse farkups "incidents" and ask ourselves:
How could this be prevented?

ONE approach in this case would be a "Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road " on the cycle-path.
(better still, the layout needs a complete overhaul!)

I'll leave to you guys to assign blame , assuming you think that is useful ...

You won't find me disagreeing with that, although I would like to add the infrastructure seen here is a million times better than what I have locally. Not that I would be likely to use either.

 

[I like Skol]

(Thanks.)
In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.

Which is why my previous reply was very carefully worded thus...

...so the user going straight on should be given priority.

I am sure the highway code points out that priority cannot be assumed or taken, and can only be given by other road users.

 

[newts]

I used to have a dashcam in my van when i was regularly working in London a few years back.
I'd regularly review 'incidents' that caused me to rage. Bad driving, cycling & pedestrians, many deliberate & some just misreading signs/lines on the road. My initial rage was usually diminished after reviewing, there's often ambiguity in every situation (apart from chelsea tractor drivers trying to cut you up at every oppurtunity). It soon became apparent that i had to anticipate the situations better & do all i could to prevent any accident regardless of other road users actions. If you're previosuly aware of a very poor/dangerous junction layout, should you not take extra care as you approach?

 

[matticus]

As for the image of the crossroads, I did not look long enough in the highway code to find one, I just ripped of of a driving instructors website after search for "crossroads priority" on google images, it is from a big driving instructors site.

So ... how big are these instructors? Are we talking just large, or ... you know, "well-built"?

 

[Milkfloat]

(Thanks.)
In which case my suspicion is that "priority" is not legally defined here - so both road-users should act to avoid a collision.

I assume that is covered by rule 180 which discusses when turning right

"Rule 180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle."

I agree that at all times that all road users should act to avoid a collision, but that does not mean one user can decide to make up their own rules and conventions and not be expected to get criticised.