Who has right of way when doing a U turn?

[Bobbynonuts]

Hi,

A couple of days ago I was travelling northbound on the A32 just north of Fareham and needed to perform a U turn to head back south. There is a dedicated right hand lane for the U turn. Opposite the right hand lanes stopping point is a side road joining the southbound carriageway. Both my lane and the side road have the give way road markings. However just after I had pulled out on to southbound carriage way a car decided to pull out of the side road and proceeded to cut me up.

He then slammed on his brakes blocking my path and as a result my car was straddled across lanes 2 and 3. Luckily my speed was still low enough to enable me to execute a low speed stop with plenty of room left before any possible contact. He did this and proceeded to give me rude gesticulations. I didn't react as I was more concerned about being stopped in the middle of two lanes on a road with a speed limit of 50 mph.

But it's got me thinking who had right of way in this situation. Is it the car doing the U turn on the grounds that they are on the main road or the car pulling out of the side road?

I would love to hear you thoughts on this.

[Pumpkinz]

Consider ALL broken lines on the road to be give way lines, even lane dividers and centre lines. Cross them if it is safe to do so and you will not affect another road user by doing so. So to enter the lane for the slip road onto the M27 you both have to cross give way lines (for you both as you enter the A32 southbound and again as you enter lane 1 for the M27.

So neither of you have priority over the other. It is a question of negotiation and who establishes first in lane 1. It sounds like he did, albeit perhaps a little pushily. In this situation expect conflict and plan accordingly. I suspect neither of you really planned for the person opposite or the situation wouldn't have developed as it did (even if only one of you had taken it into account properly).

[heebeegeetee]

Given that both have give way markings, wouldn't it be similar rules to a crossroad, where going straight on or turning left would have priority over turning right?

[Pumpkinz]

heebeegeetee said:

Given that both have give way markings, wouldn't it be similar rules to a crossroad, where going straight on or turning left would have priority over turning right?

That guidance is based on who establishes first. Where two cars can move at exactly the same moment across their give way lines, you will establish first on LHS of the new road if you are going left or ahead, hence will gain priority. Until you are established on the new piece of road, you must cede to those already established. In practice at close quarters such as these it is a question either of negotiation or who can move first (based on what vehicles are being given way to, and where they are on the road)

[heebeegeetee]

Pumpkinz said:

That guidance is based on who establishes first. Where two cars can move at exactly the same moment across their give way lines, you will establish first on LHS of the new road if you are going left or ahead, hence will gain priority. Until you are established on the new piece of road, you must cede to those already established. In practice at close quarters such as these it is a question either of negotiation or who can move first (based on what vehicles are being given way to, and where they are on the road)

I don't think that's correct if one is intending to cross the path of the other. I think if you're intending to cross the path of an oncoming vehicle, you have to cede priority to it.

[Pica-Pica]

I think correct attitude and caution is needed. It does not help with ‘he proceeded to cut me up’ commentary. In my view, a U-turn is more dangerous and less expected, so the person doing the U turn should exercise the greater caution. You imply the lane is dedicated to a U turn. Is that correct?, or is it just that it does not forbid one. A big difference.

[Bobbynonuts]

The images above show the area in question. There is no sign prohibiting a U-Turn.

Edited by Bobbynonuts on Saturday 22 September 13:54

Edited by Bobbynonuts on Saturday 22 September 13:55

[Pica-Pica]

So this then? Hmmm

[jamei303]

The give way markings for the U-turner mean they have to give way to vehicles on the side of the carriageway they are entering. The give way markings on the side road mean anyone emerging has to give way to vehicles on the main road. Therefore the U-turner has priority over anyone emerging from the side road, because the U-turner is already on the main road.

[Bobbynonuts]

jamei303 said:

The give way markings for the U-turner mean they have to give way to vehicles on the side of the carriageway they are entering. The give way markings on the side road mean anyone emerging has to give way to vehicles on the main road. Therefore the U-turner has priority over anyone emerging from the side road, because the U-turner is already on the main road.

That's how I would see it. The give line on the U-turn is saying 'Give way to southbound traffic'. But as this U-turn lane is part of the main road does it have priority over a side road. (Rule 172). The side road also has a give way sign.

[PaoloMey]

Having rights in traffic rarely prevents accidents.
No one has ever died by letting people pass, renouncing the right to be first.

[jamei303]

What I don't get is that there were apparently two empty lanes, enough for one lane each yet you both managed to come to a stop.

[Pica-Pica]

The thing is, you are both looking for traffic moving along the main carriageway. Whether you are indicating right or have stopped indicating, I would strongly suspect the other driver thinks you are going across, rather than a U-turn. You, however, know he can only turn left out of the side road. When there is a gap on the main road, you both move, and unexpectedly you cross his path. You on the other hand, know which way he will move.

Looking at the map of that area, I think that is a poor road layout. U-turners are presumably trying to access the M27 Eastbound. Is it not better to go to the next roundabout and come back? I think there should be a no-U-turn sign, and a road sign showing the next roundabout as access to the M27 Eastbound by going all the way round.

[Pumpkinz]

jamei303 said:

The give way markings for the U-turner mean they have to give way to vehicles on the side of the carriageway they are entering. The give way markings on the side road mean anyone emerging has to give way to vehicles on the main road. Therefore the U-turner has priority over anyone emerging from the side road, because the U-turner is already on the main road.

And such misunderstandings are why accidents (or near misses in this case) occur. Can't say it strongly enough. All broken lines on the road are give way lines. That includes lane dividers - what matters is who enters the M27 slip first (or possibly lane 1 southbound - isn't totally clear from OP if the third party was heading into Fareham or onto M27), not who enters the A32 first (after all the TP has no way of knowing what the OP is doing as they cross onto the A32 - perhaps u-turning to return southbound into Fareham).

Think about it as a normal lane change on a 3 lane motorway. Would you think the OP had priority if they moved from lane 2 to lane 1 just after the TP moved a slip road into lane 1? In such a case the first to establish has effective priority, but both should be aware of each others positions and potential actions, especially if signals are correctly deployed. Hell, the road designers have even gone to the trouble of more frequent dashes and shorter gaps between lane 1 southbound and the M27 slip to highlight the increased hazard of the situation (more paint == more danger!)

I would suggest that on the basis of the OPs description the third party entered ahead of him, although it appears neither had anticipated what the other would do, so either a lack of observation, or a lack of effective observation (may have seen each other, but didn't think about what they were doing adequately). If I were doing as the OP was (and I have at this location on a number of occasions), I would be extremely cautious of any vehicles in Pook Lane - if ever there was a situation which should be screaming danger, this is it.

Edited by Pumpkinz on Saturday 22 September 23:10

[Pumpkinz]

heebeegeetee said:

Pumpkinz said:

That guidance is based on who establishes first. Where two cars can move at exactly the same moment across their give way lines, you will establish first on LHS of the new road if you are going left or ahead, hence will gain priority. Until you are established on the new piece of road, you must cede to those already established. In practice at close quarters such as these it is a question either of negotiation or who can move first (based on what vehicles are being given way to, and where they are on the road)

I don't think that's correct if one is intending to cross the path of the other. I think if you're intending to cross the path of an oncoming vehicle, you have to cede priority to it.

Not sure we disagree. If you are crossing a give way line, you shouldn't cause another vehicle to slow down or change course as a result. In general that would mean a vehicle already established on that piece of road, but in some circumstances could mean someone not yet established, but approaching at a speed where conflict is inevitable if you enter (mini-roundabouts are a good example).

Crossroads can illustrate the concept nicely. Normally someone crossing minor to minor would get priority over someone turning right minor to major from opposite as they will establish onto the destination lane of the right turner first if both move together. But if the last obstructing vehicle is moving right to left across the crossing vehicle, it may be possible for the right turner to establish behind it before the crossing vehicle can move, thereby gaining priority.

In this case, we can't be certain of speeds etc., but given that the third party is ahead of the OP, it seems to me like they have entered the 'conflict area' ahead of the OP. I have a little suspicion that one or both was perhaps deliberately carrying a little more speed than would be ideal as a means to try and stop the other entering, but that is just my natural distrust of many drivers based on years observing on-road antics...

[Mave]

Pica-Pica said:

So this then? Hmmm

Based on that image, I would be turning right and then turning around on the minor road unless I was absolutely sure no one else was around. I wouldn't do a u-turn if I could see someone else was waiting to turn and may not have spotted me.

[DocSteve]

Mave said:

Pica-Pica said:

So this then? Hmmm

Based on that image, I would be turning right and then turning around on the minor road unless I was absolutely sure no one else was around. I wouldn't do a u-turn if I could see someone else was waiting to turn and may not have spotted me.

Exactly right - also for the reasons Pica-pica has pointed out.

Although the priorities have already been mentioned, it doesn't matter who has priority if you have an accident or an incident as described - the aim is to avoid these things. The average motorist turning left out of that side road will not consider much other than what is on the main carriageway when they look to their right (rather like those who don't consider possible overtaking vehicles when turning left onto a main road).Road design aside, if I was looking to get back onto the opposing carriageway I would either wait until a sole motorist who is bound to turn left go, or if there were more vehicles waiting I'd turn right and then turn around where safe to do so as pointed out above.

If I was the other motorist in this situation I would watch the OP's vehicle and if there were any signs of it moving I would not pull out i.e. not assume it was turning right. Otherwise, I'd be established on the main road well in advance to avoid any conflict,

[jamei303]

It's really not so hard, there are three lanes to turn into. Even if you tun at the same time as someone from the side road you will both have to have your eyes closed in order to collide.