Slip Road Priority
Discussion
Ok, question for you highway code bods out there :
Leaving Slow moving motorway (40mph) this am onto 2 lane motorway sliproad, which is clear of traffic.
I pull onto slip road as it forms, keep it steady to pass other traffic and speed up to about 65. Someone then decides to pull out in front of me, across the beginnings of the hatching into the sliproad, they see me (long after I see them!) and an accident is avoided.
Thing is, who has priority here? Does the car already on the sliproad have priority, or the car joining the sliproad from the motorway?
Just wondered.
Leaving Slow moving motorway (40mph) this am onto 2 lane motorway sliproad, which is clear of traffic.
I pull onto slip road as it forms, keep it steady to pass other traffic and speed up to about 65. Someone then decides to pull out in front of me, across the beginnings of the hatching into the sliproad, they see me (long after I see them!) and an accident is avoided.
Thing is, who has priority here? Does the car already on the sliproad have priority, or the car joining the sliproad from the motorway?
Just wondered.
ooh tough one - I'd say that priority lies in theory with the car already on the road (you), but then you have to exercise due care and attention as you are now travelling (undertaking/overtaking on the left) all those still on the Mway.
In the event of an accident, I'd think that the car on the Mway pulling into your path would be deemed to be at fault, as it could be demonstrated that he had not checked that his intended path was clear. Same as if he pulled out into you when he was in lane 2 and you in lane 3 (as long as you're not SPEEDING
of course)
In the event of an accident, I'd think that the car on the Mway pulling into your path would be deemed to be at fault, as it could be demonstrated that he had not checked that his intended path was clear. Same as if he pulled out into you when he was in lane 2 and you in lane 3 (as long as you're not SPEEDING
of course)
Certainly the nupty that decided (in his lovely kia lexus lookalike ) to cross the hatching was in the wrong. Amusing thing was that said numpty (after 1 mile of signs etc) missed his exit. Hope he took the next exit, it goes south instead of north....
I figure you're all right (it's what I naturally assumed).
However is the sliproad a seperate road in it's own right? If so the you obviously have to give way while turning, so I'm ok - he's an idiot for not giving way.
However if it's still part of the motorway, and there are dotted lines seperating us, do I have to give way to him if he pulls across in front of me? I'd reasonably expect this to be the case (i.e. responsibility for a shunt lies with the rear driver as should be keeping distance etc?) However when the road is very busy it is difficult to see that this is reasonable.
And no I wan't speeding.
I figure you're all right (it's what I naturally assumed).
However is the sliproad a seperate road in it's own right? If so the you obviously have to give way while turning, so I'm ok - he's an idiot for not giving way.
However if it's still part of the motorway, and there are dotted lines seperating us, do I have to give way to him if he pulls across in front of me? I'd reasonably expect this to be the case (i.e. responsibility for a shunt lies with the rear driver as should be keeping distance etc?) However when the road is very busy it is difficult to see that this is reasonable.
And no I wan't speeding.
I believe that in the case of the long dotted lines separating the lanes actually on the motorway eg. the M3 exit from the M25, the last xxx meters are long dotted white lines, the section of the road after the start of the long dotted lines is technically two different roads. The exit lane is therefore a separate lane and you may proceed 'within the speed limit' at a speed in excess of those drivers in the 'other' road. In this instance if another driver changed lanes, pulling in front of you (say 10 meters away) at a much slower speed the other driver is still at fault if an accident is so caused.
Of course, one of the professionals will tell me I am completely wrong (as I often am, not being a computer).
Of course, one of the professionals will tell me I am completely wrong (as I often am, not being a computer
).Sounds entirely reasonable to me that the guy crossing in front of you would be at fault, even if he was in front you, as he wouldn't have checked to see his way was clear.
You don't drive out of a T junction with out looking both left and right, so why should it be any different when changing lanes. After all your progress can effect others both in front and behind you.
I'm glad to note though from your first post that becsause YOU were aware what was going on, an accident was avoided. Not least because you remained safe but because it's a good example of how a little courtesy potentially saved alot of people alot of trouble, even if it annoyed you a little...
...hats off to you, Sir
Mouse.
You don't drive out of a T junction with out looking both left and right, so why should it be any different when changing lanes. After all your progress can effect others both in front and behind you.
I'm glad to note though from your first post that becsause YOU were aware what was going on, an accident was avoided. Not least because you remained safe but because it's a good example of how a little courtesy potentially saved alot of people alot of trouble, even if it annoyed you a little...
...hats off to you, Sir
Mouse.
Yep, your right about it becoming a 'seperate road.' If the other driver actually crossed a solid white line to reach the slip road, he is risking being stopped & prosecuted for 'driving accross the verge.' 3 points and a fine would result. If you had collided this alone should be enough to prove liability.
Rule 233 of the Highway Code: you should not cross solid white lines that separate lanes.
It also says that you should only enter an area of diagonal stripes bounded by a broken line if it is safe to do so, and if it is on a motorway and bounded by solid white lines then only in an emergency.
So I think that leaves you holding the moral high ground.
Here's another one that I can't find anything in the Highway Code on:
At a crossroads, you are stationary, at a stop line waiting to turn right. There is another car opposite you, again stationary, not indicating and therefore intending to go straight on. Who has right of way?
I think it is you, as one must give way to the right and therefore from his position, you will be approaching from his right.
This is not the way a gentleman saw it with me the other day and we narrowly avoided a coming together, albeit at low speed. I had been at the junction waiting for traffic to clear for some time before he arrived and I thought at the time that gave me right of way. As I drove off I thought about it more and realised that I didn't actually know the correct answer. When I got home I looked through the Highway Code but I can't say it helped.
Anyone - partic Madcop or colleagues- able to shed some light on this one?
Practical advice would be to always let the other guy go first and hence always avoid an accident. But it would be nice to know who is legally in the right?
It also says that you should only enter an area of diagonal stripes bounded by a broken line if it is safe to do so, and if it is on a motorway and bounded by solid white lines then only in an emergency.
So I think that leaves you holding the moral high ground.
Here's another one that I can't find anything in the Highway Code on:
At a crossroads, you are stationary, at a stop line waiting to turn right. There is another car opposite you, again stationary, not indicating and therefore intending to go straight on. Who has right of way?
I think it is you, as one must give way to the right and therefore from his position, you will be approaching from his right.
This is not the way a gentleman saw it with me the other day and we narrowly avoided a coming together, albeit at low speed. I had been at the junction waiting for traffic to clear for some time before he arrived and I thought at the time that gave me right of way. As I drove off I thought about it more and realised that I didn't actually know the correct answer. When I got home I looked through the Highway Code but I can't say it helped.
Anyone - partic Madcop or colleagues- able to shed some light on this one?
Practical advice would be to always let the other guy go first and hence always avoid an accident. But it would be nice to know who is legally in the right?
Couple of points to think about.
Highway code isn't binding, just presumptive. i.e. you disobey it, the onus is on you to explain why. E.g. don't go through red light - explanation, I was clearing the junction for an ambulance, etc
In the case here, both cars are on the same road, just different lanes. Whilst not clear cut undertaking on left. still ill advised. Person cutting across should have made sure it was safe, but could you have anticipated somebody might do this ? If yes, what precautions did you take ? Answer looks to be you sped up considerable to overtake him on the left. Such action leaves you open to being a contributory factor in any ensuing accident, and found partially at fault.
If it happens again and you hit them, ALWAYS say that he did so at such short notice, 50-60 feer in front of you, that you could take no evasive action. That usually covers you. Also handy to put dipped headlights on when undertaking - it shows you did what you could to try to be seen.
Highway code isn't binding, just presumptive. i.e. you disobey it, the onus is on you to explain why. E.g. don't go through red light - explanation, I was clearing the junction for an ambulance, etc
In the case here, both cars are on the same road, just different lanes. Whilst not clear cut undertaking on left. still ill advised. Person cutting across should have made sure it was safe, but could you have anticipated somebody might do this ? If yes, what precautions did you take ? Answer looks to be you sped up considerable to overtake him on the left. Such action leaves you open to being a contributory factor in any ensuing accident, and found partially at fault.
If it happens again and you hit them, ALWAYS say that he did so at such short notice, 50-60 feer in front of you, that you could take no evasive action. That usually covers you. Also handy to put dipped headlights on when undertaking - it shows you did what you could to try to be seen.
quote:
Here's another one that I can't find anything in the Highway Code on:
At a crossroads, you are stationary, at a stop line waiting to turn right. There is another car opposite you, again stationary, not indicating and therefore intending to go straight on. Who has right of way?
I think it is you, as one must give way to the right and therefore from his position, you will be approaching from his right.
Anyone - partic Madcop or colleagues- able to shed some light on this one?
As far as I am aware, you should give way because you are turning across the face of the traffic. He should give way to his right, which means the road to his right, not the road opposite. In your interpretation you also should give way to him because he is also to your right. In all events you should give way when crossing in front of traffic, unless you specifically have the signed right of way.
quote:I would suggest that he has right of way, so that in turning right you pass offside-offside (as if he were also turning right).
Here's another one that I can't find anything in the Highway Code on:
At a crossroads, you are stationary, at a stop line waiting to turn right. There is another car opposite you, again stationary, not indicating and therefore intending to go straight on. Who has right of way?
If not the legal right of way, this mechanism seems to me to be the safest i.e. you let him go straight on before you turn across his path.
Hi,
This is my first posting on this forum but have been on the TVR ones for a while. Here's by two pence worth though. I am not a lawyer or policeman so this is as definate as any other lay-persons advice (ie not at all
).
As explained to my Traffic Policeman advanced driving examinor. "It is the same road until there is physical seperation between the lanes. IE the armco". So the rules of over/under taking slow moving lines of traffix apply.
If you are in slow moving lines of traffic it is perfectly valid to be travelling at a greater speed than the traffic on your right (undertaking) however, if you were involved in a collision with a car pulling into your lane then you would have to prove they didn't give you room to avoid them.
As to anyone crossing solid white lines then they are automatically at fault, but you would still have to prove that's what they did.
As for the turning right issue. Treat it the same way you would at traffic lights. IE straight ahead has priorty over turning right.
This is my first posting on this forum but have been on the TVR ones for a while. Here's by two pence worth though. I am not a lawyer or policeman so this is as definate as any other lay-persons advice (ie not at all
). As explained to my Traffic Policeman advanced driving examinor. "It is the same road until there is physical seperation between the lanes. IE the armco". So the rules of over/under taking slow moving lines of traffix apply.
If you are in slow moving lines of traffic it is perfectly valid to be travelling at a greater speed than the traffic on your right (undertaking) however, if you were involved in a collision with a car pulling into your lane then you would have to prove they didn't give you room to avoid them.
As to anyone crossing solid white lines then they are automatically at fault, but you would still have to prove that's what they did.
As for the turning right issue. Treat it the same way you would at traffic lights. IE straight ahead has priorty over turning right.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff