Near Miss of the Day 612: Driver pulling out of hospital almost sends cyclist into it (includes swearing)

Traffic continuing straight on have priority at junctions, and you're only supposed to pull out when it is safe to do so - if you force another road user to slow/steer to avoid a collision then it's clearly not safe.

GMBasix wrote:

The driver is clearly a campanafinis, ....

love it!

So it's unmarked, and? Why didn't the driver pull out in front of the other SUV?

The format of the junction is irrelevant, the driver is either blind or just thought there was no point in waiting for the cyclist

lukei1 wrote:

...just thought there was no point in waiting for the cyclist

MGIF! Why wait?

GMBasix wrote:

....

However, it is worth noting that the junction appears to be unmarked, and therefore nobody had priority, including the cyclist.

.....

Not sure that that is right - my drive has no markings on to the main road, but it wouldn't be fair I think to suggest that there is no overall priority

Unmarked cross roads are definitely subject to your point, according to HWC, but I'm not sure T-junctions are, even if this is classified as a Tjunction.

Edit: yes, apols, it is quite right - rule 146 unmarked junctions no one has priority. I'm going to remember this next time I leave my drive.

Rule 146 comes under 'general advice' in the Highway Code, so I wouldn't be relying on it being actual road law.. the no road markings meaning no priority is a nonsense rule, which thankfully doesn't apply in my jurisdiction of Australian states.

Thank you for all the incorrections.

Rule 146 says, "... in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority"

There isn't a qualification on that.  If that road to the side had no give way markings, there is no greater duty to give way than on the road with which it connects.  Neither is the major or minor road, and no party has priority.

That does not mean that the driver should have emerged.  His driving was poor.  The circumstances clearly indicated greater caution than the driver was giving.  However, the cyclist should not presume priority he doesn't have, and should have been prepared for the possibility.

Captain Badger wrote:

Not sure that that is right - my drive has no markings on to the main road, but it wouldn't be fair I think to suggest that there is no overall priority

Unmarked cross roads are definitely subject to your point, according to HWC, but I'm not sure T-junctions are, even if this is classified as a Tjunction.

There is no qualification in the Highway Code that excludes T-junctions from this consideration, in fact they are specifically included when considering "... in side roads..." 

Your driveway is different in that it is unlikely to be a road in any applicable definition, not being open to the public in the normal scheme of things.  I am happy to confirm that you should give way when emerging from your driveway.

To be clear, I am not speaking in support of the driver.  I am urging greater caution and less presumption from the cyclist.

GMBasix wrote:

Thank you for all the incorrections.

...

Whelks - see my edit - looks like I got there a smidge before you....

Captain Badger wrote:

Whelks - see my edit - looks like I got there a smidge before you....

I missed that edit.

GMBasix wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Whelks - see my edit - looks like I got there a smidge before you....

I missed that edit.

No probs, we posted at pretty much the same time

GMBasix wrote:

There is no qualification in the Highway Code that excludes T-junctions from this consideration, in fact they are specifically included when considering "... in side roads..." 

Your driveway is different in that it is unlikely to be a road in any applicable definition, not being open to the public in the normal scheme of things.  I am happy to confirm that you should give way when emerging from your driveway.

To be clear, I am not speaking in support of the driver.  I am urging greater caution and less presumption from the cyclist.

Isn't that a driveway?

The narrative does say "pulling out of a hospital" rather than pulling out of a side road...  so that does rather suggest this might be more a drive way situation - but does raise the question as to when a driveway becomes a side road? and how is one supposed to apply that definition whilst driving down "road X" at 30-60 mph.

The fundamental point is that, regardless of what is in the HWC, that motorist would almost certainly not have pulled out if it were a car and not a cyclist (indeed, they didn't pull out in front of the car). I also think that regardless of what Rule 146 says, Rule 170 states that motorists "SHOULD look around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely." So regardless of whether or not the cyclist had priority - that is potentially ambiguous - the motorist appears to have broken rule 170 in that he joined in a gap which required the cyclist to slam on the brakes and therefore, imho, joined when it was not safe for them to do so.

It looks like a road.  I don't just mean that its appearance is that of a road, but it functions as one.  It may be part of a hospital, but if it's open to the public, the Road Traffic Act (which underpins the Highway Code) applies, in that a road is "any highway and any other road to which the public has access...".  That includes roads in such places such as supermarket and hospital estates:

Quote:

It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks)

(https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/the-road-user-and-the-law.html)

Guernsey has its own Highway Code, unimaginatively but helpfully called, "The Highway Code for Guernsey".  This augments the UK Highway Code and prevails in the even of any conflicting rules.  At a quick glance, it does not appear to contradict the rule for unmarked junctions.

GMBasix wrote:

It looks like a road.  I don't just mean that its appearance is that of a road, but it functions as one.  It may be part of a hospital, but if it's open to the public, the Road Traffic Act (which underpins the Highway Code) applies, in that a road is "any highway and any other road to which the public has access...".  That includes roads in such places such as supermarket and hospital estates:

Quote:

It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks)

(https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/the-road-user-and-the-law.html)

Guernsey has its own Highway Code, unimaginatively but helpfully called, "The Highway Code for Guernsey".  This augments the UK Highway Code and prevails in the even of any conflicting rules.  At a quick glance, it does not appear to contradict the rule for unmarked junctions.

From  https://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=101157&p=0 

Rule 1 includes "You must not ... Cause danger to other persons using the highway" which is arguably pretty clear cut.

There is also Rule 15: "You must give way to traffic proceeding along a public highway when entering or about to enter the highway from a public highway of lesser importance, a private road, way or place. If in doubt give way." That would appear to apply even in the abscence of road markings. There is ambiguity over what is meant by which road is of "lesser importance".

Good spot!

Rule 15 refers to the From The Road Traffic (Guernsey) Ordinance, 2019 ("RTO"), Part II:

Quote:

9. The driver of a vehicle entering or about to enter any public highway from a public highway of lesser importance or from a private road, way or place shall give way to traffic proceeding along the highway entered or about to be entered.

This takes precedence over the UK Highway Code (which still applies but cedes precedence).

On Guernsey, the car appears firmly to be in the wrong.  On the big island, though, previous comments apply.

As I pointed out in my posts yesterday with the Guernsey rules, apart from the one above, they also have filter junctions where traffic has no priority and should filter in turn (the one above is very close to the junction the incident took place in). This is the equivalent of the unmarked junction over here but at least they make it obvious. 

If the cyclist had crashed and died as a result of the driver pulling out like that, I suggest the driver would have fallen foul of this part of the Road Safety Act..

"Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving

A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/section/20

Carior wrote:

The fundamental point is that, regardless of what is in the HWC...

...Dodgy territory right there...

Carior wrote:

...that motorist would almost certainly not have pulled out if it were a car and not a cyclist (indeed, they didn't pull out in front of the car).

Quite.  And proceeding when it was quite clear the cyclist was right behind the car doesn't look like a very clever or safe thing to do.

Carior wrote:

I also think that regardless of what Rule 146 says,

...Dodgy territory right there...

Carior wrote:

... Rule 170 states that motorists "SHOULD look around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely." So regardless of whether or not the cyclist had priority - that is potentially ambiguous - the motorist appears to have broken rule 170 in that he joined in a gap which required the cyclist to slam on the brakes and therefore, imho, joined when it was not safe for them to do so.

Yes, but the Highway Code, like any policy, should be read as a whole, not singling out rules that apply to one's own argument.  If there had been a collision or crash, I think both parties would have been liable to answer for their assumptions, assuming either a prosecutor or the driver's defence was alert to the unmarked nature of the junction.

Moreover, I would suggest that "emerging" implicitly cannot apply to one party but not the other if there is equal priority to certain space - in other words, both parties were "emerging" or neither was.  In which case, Rule 170 cannot apply in the sense that this would require.

Incidentally, I'm only saying it is unmarked because it looks like it to me in the video.  On the ground, there may be evidence of some markings or a give way sign, which may tilt the argument firmly in favour of the cyclist.

Rule 146 is only general advice.. Rule 144 however is 'must not' and would be applicable to the vehicle driver in this situation;

Rule 144

You MUST NOT

drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.