Should I report this?

[caveman87]

You should wait your a bike not a car which is bigger than you i wait for lorrys etc as would you risk them hitting you?

[1ians]

Might as well have a go reporting it. You've got it on camera and nothing to loose. Especially as he didn't stop.

I get similar all the time, it's rare for someone to give way when I'm on the the bike regardless of priority. Although it's happening increasingly in the car.

I've had standoffs in the car, and an argument where we both got out recently. Have decided it's not worth the hassle and just let it go before I end up in hospital or in trouble for putting someone else in hospital. Either way, you loose.

Edited by 1ians on Saturday 25th March 18:59

Edited by 1ians on Saturday 25th March 19:02

[Markbarry1977]

Looking at the images (3rd image) it appears the Audi was on the bridge before you so therefore you were in the wrong. Sorry just how I see it.

[Getragdogleg]

Please don't jump on me for the following question...

The sign says "priority over oncoming vehicles" is a bicycle a included in the granting of priority and therefore covered by the law/sign ?

Or to put another way, I know a bicycle is a perfectly entitled road user but technically so are pedestrians, does the car have to wait for a man and his dog to cross the bridge or is it a vehicle to vehicle rule.

FWIW If I was on the bicycle I would be expecting the car to wait for me but I want to clarify the actual legal position here to see if my belief is correct or not.

[TooMany2cvs]

Getragdogleg said:

The sign says "priority over oncoming vehicles" is a bicycle a included in the granting of priority and therefore covered by the law/sign ?

Yes.

Getragdogleg said:

Or to put another way, I know a bicycle is a perfectly entitled road user but technically so are pedestrians, does the car have to wait for a man and his dog to cross the bridge or is it a vehicle to vehicle rule.

There's a clue in the word "vehicles" on the sign.

Getragdogleg said:

FWIW If I was on the bicycle I would be expecting the car to wait for me

And so he should have. Nobody's saying otherwise.

BUT... given that the Audi was not only seemingly moving slower than the OP, but at least half-way over when the OP reached the narrowed section...

[anonymous-user]

1ians said:

Might as well have a go reporting it. You've got it on camera and nothing to loose. Especially as he didn't stop.

I get similar all the time, it's rare for someone to give way when I'm on the the bike regardless of priority. Although it's happening increasingly in the car.

I've had standoffs in the car, and an argument where we both got out recently. Have decided it's not worth the hassle and just let it go before I end up in hospital or in trouble for putting someone else in hospital. Either way, you loose.

Edited by 1ians on Saturday 25th March 18:59

Edited by 1ians on Saturday 25th March 19:02

I love how you edited that twice to make out you're hard

[Dizeee]

What people need to realise and piece together is the fact that 1) The priority begins from the give way line which is set way back from the priority sign and 2) the relative speeds of each vehicle and good visibility by all.

I would appear looking beyond the images and video posted that the OP crossed his give way line before the Audi driver and therefore is in the right.

However, that gap is big enough to get through, despite whatever the OP did next.

[Getragdogleg]

TooMany2cvs said:

Getragdogleg said:

Or to put another way, I know a bicycle is a perfectly entitled road user but technically so are pedestrians, does the car have to wait for a man and his dog to cross the bridge or is it a vehicle to vehicle rule.

There's a clue in the word "vehicles" on the sign.

You could argue that simply reading the sign from the side with priority grants the priority as that sign does not mention that you need to be a vehicle...

I am being silly and playing devils advocate but you can see why I asked if the bicycle is a vehicle.

And I agree, the speeds might need looking at, if the car passed the sign on his side before the rider was even near his then perhaps the rider should have waited. The car behind the Audi though, that's a different matter.

[SteveSteveson]

Dizeee said:

What people need to realise and piece together is the fact that 1) The priority begins from the give way line which is set way back from the priority sign and 2) the relative speeds of each vehicle and good visibility by all.

I would appear looking beyond the images and video posted that the OP crossed his give way line before the Audi driver and therefore is in the right.

However, that gap is big enough to get through, despite whatever the OP did next.

Woupd you feel the same if you were driving though there and a motorbike came through against priority?

[Dizeee]

I have not said he was in the wrong, but that he could have fitted through. Or stopped. The choice was his to make at the time. The same applies to a motorbike. You make you choice and you go through with it.

Plus, a motorbike would also fit through that gap, provided it wasn't something like an RT1200 with twin panniers - which would probably fit but at a squeeze.

[1ians]

bmw535i said:

I love how you edited that twice to make out you're hard

You got anything useful to contribute to this thread?

I was advocating letting things go rather than getting into conflicts. As for the edits my one year old was sat on my lap drinking her milk and hit submit a few times as I was typing.

[anonymous-user]

1ians said:

bmw535i said:

I love how you edited that twice to make out you're hard

You got anything useful to contribute to this thread?

I was advocating letting things go rather than getting into conflicts. As for the edits my one year old was sat on my lap drinking her milk and hit submit a few times as I was typing.

Woah, let's not let this escalate to a hospital visit for me

[Andy JB]

Well i'm a keen cyclist but also a petrolhead - personally i see he may have been already progressing over the bridge or even didn't see you over the ridge before you met.

I think you have to be sensible and use your common sense in these situations, there appears to be enough room for both of you to pass anyway, i might have made the same judgement in the car if its wide enough, slowed down sufficiently and showed you some respect it doesn't appear to be a major issue to pass. Not clear how he's hit your elbow from the images but i guess you were there to make that judgement!

I love the way the brand and age of the car is pertinent to this scenario

[s3fella]

Surely hooik up an 11th gear minger and give him the finger as you wheelie past him, through the gap, in front of his bird?

As for who is right and who is wrong, as a motorcyclist I am well aware of the old adage "there is no point being in the right, and dead". This stuff happens all the time, crap driving, wkers, or just a simple honest misjudgement. But there is time for you to check your speed a bit, yield to him and the incident passes as a mild annoyance, rather than a potential injury.

I'd hope you see it as a lesson learned not an injustice.

[JuniorD]

If I were the driver approaching this situation and spotted a cyclist I'd happily give way no matter what on the simple assumption that the cyclist is likely to bog on through and I don't want a crash with them.

[james0]

Or give way because the cyclist having to stop means having to propel themselves from a standing start, rather than moving your right foot slightly, which is a bit easier.

On balance lots more drivers give way correctly these days and two drivers actually let me out to turn right on my first road ride for 3 months the other day. Made me nearly want to take the road bike out more.

[Antony Moxey]

Priority isn't about who got to the bridge first, it's about whether the oncoming vehicle got to the give way line before the OP got to where the bridge narrowed. In the OP's case would the Audi have crossed the give way line if he'd spotted a motorbike in exactly the same spot as he saw the OP?

Mind you, had the OP been in a car when spotted there are dheads on the roads who'd still try to get through first.

[Piersman2]

I can only imagine the joy of a police desk sergeant as the OP arrives with his photos and video clip. I mean it's not like they've got nothing better to worry about.

I can't find the video clip, but based on the pictures it looks like the Audi has kept left to give the cyclist approaching room to pass, probably didn't think he needed to stop.

Hard to tell how 'scarey' it is without some idea of the speeds involved though.

[SteveSteveson]

Antony Moxey said:

Priority isn't about who got to the bridge first, it's about whether the oncoming vehicle got to the give way line before the OP got to where the bridge narrowed.

No it's not. It's about whether the oncoming vehicle is going to impede anyone coming the other way. If they are they should stop and "give way". The certainly did not give the 1.5m that is considered adequate for overtaking, which seems a reasonable minimum distance. The car coming the other way was in the wrong.

[Antony Moxey]

SteveSteveson said:

Antony Moxey said:

Priority isn't about who got to the bridge first, it's about whether the oncoming vehicle got to the give way line before the OP got to where the bridge narrowed.

No it's not. It's about whether the oncoming vehicle is going to impede anyone coming the other way. If they are they should stop and "give way". The certainly did not give the 1.5m that is considered adequate for overtaking, which seems a reasonable minimum distance. The car coming the other way was in the wrong.

That's what I'm saying. The approaching vehicle should have waited as the OP - from the photos - was clearly close enough to the bridge pinch point. That the Audi was there too is irrelevent as it isn't about getting there first it's about not going past the give way line if someone coming the other way would be impacted by you continuing over the give way line.