Oncoming drivers failing to give way.
Discussion
99% of the time, cars do eventually stop passing the obstruction if I keep proceeding forward at a reduced speed.
What's more annoying in my area, is that the road with the bus stop on is actually wide enough for 3 vehicles to fit side-by-side, so there's no real need for opposing traffic to cross the white line when overtaking the bus. But they always do, no spacial awareness at all.
I think it must've been years ago when I had a bumper to bumper with someone in a situation like the above. The guy didn't reverse though, he just stopped dead in the road and pulled in behind the bus when it eventually moved, giving me a 'my wrist is aching today' gesture.
What's more annoying in my area, is that the road with the bus stop on is actually wide enough for 3 vehicles to fit side-by-side, so there's no real need for opposing traffic to cross the white line when overtaking the bus. But they always do, no spacial awareness at all.
I think it must've been years ago when I had a bumper to bumper with someone in a situation like the above. The guy didn't reverse though, he just stopped dead in the road and pulled in behind the bus when it eventually moved, giving me a 'my wrist is aching today' gesture.
FreeLitres said:
Same story when you are approaching a traffic calming bottleneck and the oncoming cars have this sign
Has anyone ever just got frustrated and driven forward to make them reverse?
Has anyone ever just got frustrated and driven forward to make them reverse?
Happens a lot where I live as we have those ridiculous ' traffic calming' chicanes. drivers who are supposed to give way never stop and just follow eachother bumper-to-bumper. Does them good to practice synchronised reversing
Edited by Crush on Tuesday 4th August 08:40
p1esk said:
FreeLitres said:
Hypothetical situation;
You are on a long straight road only wide enough for one vehicle in each direction. Ahead, there is an obstruction on the other side of the road such as a bus picking up a long line of passengers. As you approach from some distance away, you can see a line of cars starting to overtake the bus as expected. However, as you get closer, the oncoming cars are still passing the bus and now you are almost level with the bus and they are still coming, blocking your side of the road so you have to stop.
If the oncoming cars just keep coming, what do you do?
Hold back until they stop coming through, and then I continue. It's not how it should work, but what else can one do?You are on a long straight road only wide enough for one vehicle in each direction. Ahead, there is an obstruction on the other side of the road such as a bus picking up a long line of passengers. As you approach from some distance away, you can see a line of cars starting to overtake the bus as expected. However, as you get closer, the oncoming cars are still passing the bus and now you are almost level with the bus and they are still coming, blocking your side of the road so you have to stop.
If the oncoming cars just keep coming, what do you do?
A lot of people confuse priority with giving way
At a roundabout priority is to the right but you give way to anyone on the roundabout. i.e. you dont drive onto it into the side of someone because you think you have right of way. You dont have right of way
This sign says give priority to approaching vehicles
It doesn't say one or the other has right of way
It's implicit that you need to give way to anyone else to avoid a collision, and an attached plate can reinforce that. Ideally theyd put the give way plate at both ends.
R0G said:
Take the situation for what it is and then do the safest thing possible no matter who has the right of way
[PH pedant]Nobody has the "right of way", so let's stop using that phrase. Nowhere in the highway code will you see any signs or rules which give anyone the "right of way"[/PH pedant] 
1. Buy metallic grey Peugeot 405 estate
2. Barge towards oncoming traffic in an aggressive manner
3. Swear out of window at passing drivers in an unintelligible Sarf Landan accent
4. Emerge from 405
5. Race down road after said drivers in a wobbly fashion
6. Execute spectacular somersault to amusement of other road users, cyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers etc
7. Amuse 4 million on social media, including both readers of the Daily Mail
8. Appear on The One Show, Good Morning Britain,This Morning and Jeremy Kyle Show
9. Receive OBE in New Year's Honours. Or a knighthood.
Basically eye test should be compulsory as I really believe that people cannot see anything unless it is under their nose.
I have a theory (mad it may be) that a lot of people only see, in focus, as far as their own TV's, the distance from their settee to their wide screen TV whilst driving or even walking
I have a theory (mad it may be) that a lot of people only see, in focus, as far as their own TV's, the distance from their settee to their wide screen TV whilst driving or even walking
Riley Blue said:
zebra said:
I just chill; there's no point in getting frustrated by people who are inconsiderate and ignorant.
^^^^^^^^ This. What's the point of getting frustrated, the bus will soon move on and you'll be able to proceed. Life's too short to retaliate at every little incident.mattdaniels said:
[PH pedant]Nobody has the "right of way", so let's stop using that phrase. Nowhere in the highway code will you see any signs or rules which give anyone the "right of way"[/PH pedant]
Which goes back to the opening postFreeLitres said:
Same story when you are approaching a traffic calming bottleneck and the oncoming cars have this sign
So its your right of way but one car comes through and makes you stop, then a second, then a third.
Are you sure that sign is used with a give way plate?So its your right of way but one car comes through and makes you stop, then a second, then a third.
All the ones around here have 'priority to oncoming' which is what the HC says.
If someone is already within the so called calming or already on the 'wrong side' due to parked cars etc in shipping terms ( which is where this was derived) they have established 'way' so anyone approaching should 'give way' to avoid a collision.
Priority is only used to say who uses the restriction first and often a tacit agreement about a bunch of cars one direction followed by a bunch the other direction
Back to the question - anyone seen those signs with 'give way' plates?
ETA plate 615.1
http://www.trafficsignsplus.co.uk/ec_products.php?...
Do they fit these both ends?
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 5th August 09:18
Basics?
'Right of Way' does exist. It is your 'Right' to pass and repass over the Public Highway. To earn that right in a motor vehicle you must pass a test, maintain a roadworthy vehicle and purchase insurance. Pedestrians (and cyclists too, I believe) have an absolute right of way,but a motor vehicle driver can have that portion of his/her 'right' taken away by withdrawal of their license to drive. Beyond that, "Right of Way" is a meaningless phrase.
'Priority'. This is what most people mean when they say 'right of way'. The most important rule I was taught on this subject was that "Priority can be given, but shouldn't be taken". As in, you negotiate with other road users all the time. Don't barge through when another is already in a bottleneck, for instance. Just because, according to a plate on a pole, another driver is "in the wrong", don't decide to cause conflict even if you are "in the right" because that instantly puts you both "in the wrong".
This "wrong side of the road" thing is claptrap too. Unless the carriageway is specifically marked to preclude it (solid lines etc) then any vehicle may use either side of the carriageway provided that it is safe to do so. Once an oncoming vehicle has committed to passing a row of cars parked on 'their' side, for instance, they can be said to be "established" on the road, and even drivers on their own (so-called 'correct' side) should cede priority to the established traffic.
The conflict arises when oncoming traffic which is not already "established" on the 'wrong' side of the road continues around the obstruction, despite the obvious presence of traffic coming the other way, who face no obstruction other than the already "established" driver. The correct, safe course to take is to allow them to pass, but blank their arrogant wave of thanks. This I tend to do, but in certain circumstances, oncoming drivers begin to get even more arrogant, and decide to drive nose-to-tail past the obstruction. Where idiots take the piss in such a fashion, I'd be tempted to push forward to force them to stop. In practice, though, I worry about damaging my car and blemishing my record, and so let them get away with their abysmal driving. Sadly, by allowing bullying drivers to have it their way, we create a greater problem, for the more times it works for them, the more often they do it, and the riskier their behaviour gets, making the roads a smidgin less safe for us all every time they "get away with it".
Honestly I don't know what the solution is, but when one driver exhibits risky behaviour by disobeying the instructions given by a road sign, displaying equally risky behaviour to cause unnecessary conflict won't do anything to eliminate the risk...
'Right of Way' does exist. It is your 'Right' to pass and repass over the Public Highway. To earn that right in a motor vehicle you must pass a test, maintain a roadworthy vehicle and purchase insurance. Pedestrians (and cyclists too, I believe) have an absolute right of way,but a motor vehicle driver can have that portion of his/her 'right' taken away by withdrawal of their license to drive. Beyond that, "Right of Way" is a meaningless phrase.
'Priority'. This is what most people mean when they say 'right of way'. The most important rule I was taught on this subject was that "Priority can be given, but shouldn't be taken". As in, you negotiate with other road users all the time. Don't barge through when another is already in a bottleneck, for instance. Just because, according to a plate on a pole, another driver is "in the wrong", don't decide to cause conflict even if you are "in the right" because that instantly puts you both "in the wrong".
This "wrong side of the road" thing is claptrap too. Unless the carriageway is specifically marked to preclude it (solid lines etc) then any vehicle may use either side of the carriageway provided that it is safe to do so. Once an oncoming vehicle has committed to passing a row of cars parked on 'their' side, for instance, they can be said to be "established" on the road, and even drivers on their own (so-called 'correct' side) should cede priority to the established traffic.
The conflict arises when oncoming traffic which is not already "established" on the 'wrong' side of the road continues around the obstruction, despite the obvious presence of traffic coming the other way, who face no obstruction other than the already "established" driver. The correct, safe course to take is to allow them to pass, but blank their arrogant wave of thanks. This I tend to do, but in certain circumstances, oncoming drivers begin to get even more arrogant, and decide to drive nose-to-tail past the obstruction. Where idiots take the piss in such a fashion, I'd be tempted to push forward to force them to stop. In practice, though, I worry about damaging my car and blemishing my record, and so let them get away with their abysmal driving. Sadly, by allowing bullying drivers to have it their way, we create a greater problem, for the more times it works for them, the more often they do it, and the riskier their behaviour gets, making the roads a smidgin less safe for us all every time they "get away with it".
Honestly I don't know what the solution is, but when one driver exhibits risky behaviour by disobeying the instructions given by a road sign, displaying equally risky behaviour to cause unnecessary conflict won't do anything to eliminate the risk...
t and I don't care, I just keep going. They'll cave in.yellowjack said:
Basics?
The conflict arises when oncoming traffic which is not already "established" on the 'wrong' side of the road continues around the obstruction, despite the obvious presence of traffic coming the other way, who face no obstruction other than the already "established" driver. The correct, safe course to take is to allow them to pass, but blank their arrogant wave of thanks. This I tend to do, but in certain circumstances, oncoming drivers begin to get even more arrogant, and decide to drive nose-to-tail past the obstruction. Where idiots take the piss in such a fashion, I'd be tempted to push forward to force them to stop. In practice, though, I worry about damaging my car and blemishing my record, and so let them get away with their abysmal driving. Sadly, by allowing bullying drivers to have it their way, we create a greater problem, for the more times it works for them, the more often they do it, and the riskier their behaviour gets, making the roads a smidgin less safe for us all every time they "get away with it".
Honestly I don't know what the solution is, but when one driver exhibits risky behaviour by disobeying the instructions given by a road sign, displaying equally risky behaviour to cause unnecessary conflict won't do anything to eliminate the risk...
I think youve got the nail on the head there.The conflict arises when oncoming traffic which is not already "established" on the 'wrong' side of the road continues around the obstruction, despite the obvious presence of traffic coming the other way, who face no obstruction other than the already "established" driver. The correct, safe course to take is to allow them to pass, but blank their arrogant wave of thanks. This I tend to do, but in certain circumstances, oncoming drivers begin to get even more arrogant, and decide to drive nose-to-tail past the obstruction. Where idiots take the piss in such a fashion, I'd be tempted to push forward to force them to stop. In practice, though, I worry about damaging my car and blemishing my record, and so let them get away with their abysmal driving. Sadly, by allowing bullying drivers to have it their way, we create a greater problem, for the more times it works for them, the more often they do it, and the riskier their behaviour gets, making the roads a smidgin less safe for us all every time they "get away with it".
Honestly I don't know what the solution is, but when one driver exhibits risky behaviour by disobeying the instructions given by a road sign, displaying equally risky behaviour to cause unnecessary conflict won't do anything to eliminate the risk...
These priority schemes are sold as being under the heading 'calming' but in reality theyre conflict generators, so it's no surprise that conflict occurs.
Originally the idea was not to give priority to one or the other but to let road users sort it out for themselves.
In busy streets if you strictly adhere to it, one direction but would never get a turn. Someone has to take the bull by the horns to keep traffic moving
The signs could better say 'play nicely, take turns'
Not too far off from the merge in turn thread
There is sometimes the added complication where you encounter a continuous obstruction (e.g. a line of parked cars) on 'your' side of the road, but can't see the end of it - perhaps due to a bend.
The temptation to play 'follow the leader' can be quite strong - particularly when the 'leader' is a bus
The temptation to play 'follow the leader' can be quite strong - particularly when the 'leader' is a bus
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff