Priority going uphill while passing cars on left ?

[richs2891]

OK open to the people of pistonheads

You are on a normal road with white lines on, going up (fairly steep) hill and have to pass cars parked on your left,
you have to cross the white lines to pass the parked cars, so you are straddling the other side of the road.
A car is descending down the hill - who has priority ?

If it was a single track road I would say the person coming up has priority as can be hard to restart on a hill etc.

But on a normal non single track road with a white dividing line, I say as you are passing cars on your left and effectively overtaking you should give way ?

[calibrax]

If the other car has no need to move away from the kerb to avoid anything, but you do, then clearly he has priority. Having said that, if I was coming down a hill in that situation I would yield so that the driver coming up the hill would not lose momentum.

Legally it's clear-cut, but courteous driving should apply to make it a nicer world

[herewego]

richs2891 said:

OK open to the people of pistonheads

You are on a normal road with white lines on, going up (fairly steep) hill and have to pass cars parked on your left,
you have to cross the white lines to pass the parked cars, so you are straddling the centreline.
A car is descending the hill - who has priority ?

If it was a single track road I would say the person coming up has priority as can be hard to restart on a hill etc.

But on a normal non single track road with a white dividing line, I say as you are passing cars on your left and effectively overtaking you should give way ?

Same priority and courtesy as a level road.

[gruffalo]

calibrax said:

If the other car has no need to move away from the kerb to avoid anything, but you do, then clearly he has priority. Having said that, if I was coming down a hill in that situation I would yield so that the driver coming up the hill would not lose momentum.

Legally it's clear-cut, but courteous driving should apply to make it a nicer world

Not sure about this.

I thought if you are already committed to passing a line of parked cars with no spaces to pull into then you have priority and oncoming cars should wait for you to clear the obstacle.

If wrong I am happy to be put right.

[Kateg28]

gruffalo said:

Not sure about this.

I thought if you are already committed to passing a line of parked cars with no spaces to pull into then you have priority and oncoming cars should wait for you to clear the obstacle.

If wrong I am happy to be put right.

I thought this was the case too.

I have to do this manoeuvre and pass about 20 cars parked on the road. The amount of times I get near the end and a (usually a very young)driver starts coming as they are thinking it is their right of way (which I don't think even exists as a concept) and then we both have to stop and inch past each other whereas if they had waited at the end, I would come up and be away much quicker.

Courteous driving can pay dividends

[richs2891]

I'm not 100% sure either - hence why I'm asking, as I see this scenario every day - seem to be a bit of a grey area.

But common courtesy and common sense would be good but don't seem to see much of that these days

[AA999]

Isn't it the case that if the obstruction is on your side of the road then its for you to give way?
I can't remember anything in the highway code to state that just because there is a hill that one should give way to traffic on the way up.

[Slidingpillar]

When I was a learner driver, I was always taught uphill traffic has priority, and thought there was something in the highway code to back it up. However, anyone who is fool enough to get into a position where my vintage car needs to reverse is in for a long wait - there is no reverse gear on it.

[SK425]

richs2891 said:

But on a normal non single track road with a white dividing line, I say as you are passing cars on your left and effectively overtaking you should give way ?

Of course. Think about it - if the formal rule was that the driver going uphill had priority then first of all it would need to be defined somewhere how steep the hill had to be for this rule to be in effect: 1 in 4? Probably yes. 1 in 5? 1 in 10? 1 in 20? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? There's probably barely a road in the land that doesn't have any gradient. Obviously nobody would suggst the rule should apply for a 1 in 1000 gradient, but the rule couldn't work if the cutoff wasn't defined as part of the rule. And secondly we'd have signs on every hill (or at least every hill that was steeper than the threshold) telling us what the gradient was so we could know who had priority if this scenario arose.

We don't have either of those things - the defined threshold or the ubiquity of gradient information signs. It certainly could be helpful and courteous for the downhill driver to help, but the priority is theirs to give, not the uphill driver's to take. In that sense it's analogous to joining a motorway. If you are on the motorway you have priority over someone on the slip road joining and it is wrong for them to do something that makes you move over or change speed. Having said that, there are times when it might be courteous for you to move over or change speed to help them join.

[TooMany2cvs]

SK425 said:

Of course. Think about it - if the formal rule was that the driver going uphill had priority then first of all it would need to be defined somewhere how steep the hill had to be for this rule to be in effect: 1 in 4? Probably yes. 1 in 5? 1 in 10? 1 in 20? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? There's probably barely a road in the land that doesn't have any gradient. Obviously nobody would suggst the rule should apply for a 1 in 1000 gradient, but the rule couldn't work if the cutoff wasn't defined as part of the rule. And secondly we'd have signs on every hill (or at least every hill that was steeper than the threshold) telling us what the gradient was so we could know who had priority if this scenario arose.

We don't have either of those things - the defined threshold or the ubiquity of gradient information signs. It certainly could be helpful and courteous for the downhill driver to help, but the priority is theirs to give, not the uphill driver's to take. In that sense it's analogous to joining a motorway. If you are on the motorway you have priority over someone on the slip road joining and it is wrong for them to do something that makes you move over or change speed. Having said that, there are times when it might be courteous for you to move over or change speed to help them join.

Well said.

Basically, it comes down to "don't be a tt". If it'll help traffic flow to let the uphill traffic through, then do it. If it looks like they're barging through anyway, then let 'em. Look, think.

[richs2891]

This is the assumption I have, if the obstruction is on your side, have to give way, the rule in the highway code overtaking stuff on your side of the road - dont upset the flow of traffic / force someone to slow or have to move road position etc. (though see lots on a daily basis that seem to ignore this - but that another moan)
I can see in the highway code about driving on single track roads and going uphill then the person coming up has priority.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Slidingpillar said:

When I was a learner driver, I was always taught uphill traffic has priority, and thought there was something in the highway code to back it up. However, anyone who is fool enough to get into a position where my vintage car needs to reverse is in for a long wait - there is no reverse gear on it.

but you're travelling up hill, so you should be ok to roll back

[TooMany2cvs]

Hugo a Gogo said:

but you're travelling up hill, so you should be ok to roll back

<crunch> "But your reversing lights weren't on..."

[EU_Foreigner]

Even if you ignore the hill bit, it is still an interesting point about the parked cars which is a common occurrence. If there is a row of 20 cars to overtake on a narrow road, during the time of the overtake it is very possible that a car appears from the other side.

[Vipers]

gruffalo said:

calibrax said:

If the other car has no need to move away from the kerb to avoid anything, but you do, then clearly he has priority. Having said that, if I was coming down a hill in that situation I would yield so that the driver coming up the hill would not lose momentum.

Legally it's clear-cut, but courteous driving should apply to make it a nicer world

Not sure about this.

I thought if you are already committed to passing a line of parked cars with no spaces to pull into then you have priority and oncoming cars should wait for you to clear the obstacle.

If wrong I am happy to be put right.

What about the bit about not carrying out a manouevour which causes someone else to swerve or slow down. My thoughts!, car coming down hill has priority, but common sense tells me to allow the car coming up room to finish the pass.

[Slidingpillar]

TooMany2cvs said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

but you're travelling up hill, so you should be ok to roll back

<crunch> "But your reversing lights weren't on..."

Unless someone was a right unpredictable tool, I'd never get in that position with it. However, said vintage car is actually a three wheeler and surprisingly difficult, though not imposible, to reverse.

No reversing lights, no indicators and until I added them, no brake lights either (not compulsory on a pre 34 car).

[Chrisgr31]

SK425 said:

In that sense it's analogous to joining a motorway. If you are on the motorway you have priority over someone on the slip road joining and it is wrong for them to do something that makes you move over or change speed. Having said that, there are times when it might be courteous for you to move over or change speed to help them join.

An interesting one. My brother was involved in an accident caused by someone else joining the motorway from the sliproad. There was a claim from 3rd parties who were injured in accident. My brothers insurers accepted responsibility for 20% of the liability on the grounds that he should have moved out of the inside lane to give room for the car coming down the slip road. It may be they only accepted that to avoid a costly court hearing as this was agreed on the steps of the court, where the person on the slip road was denying all liability.

[SK425]

Chrisgr31 said:

SK425 said:

In that sense it's analogous to joining a motorway. If you are on the motorway you have priority over someone on the slip road joining and it is wrong for them to do something that makes you move over or change speed. Having said that, there are times when it might be courteous for you to move over or change speed to help them join.

An interesting one. My brother was involved in an accident caused by someone else joining the motorway from the sliproad. There was a claim from 3rd parties who were injured in accident. My brothers insurers accepted responsibility for 20% of the liability on the grounds that he should have moved out of the inside lane to give room for the car coming down the slip road. It may be they only accepted that to avoid a costly court hearing as this was agreed on the steps of the court, where the person on the slip road was denying all liability.

I'm not sure that says anything about priority. If you are on the motorway and someone on the slip roads chooses to ignore the priority rules and barge on in front of you, the fact that you have priority doesn't entitle you to carry on regardless. You've always got a responsibility to avoid driving into people, even stupid people who violate the rules of priority. Perhaps the insurer accepted some liability because they felt that, notwithstanding that he had priority, your brother could have done more than he did to avoid the collision.

[SK425]

EU_Foreigner said:

Even if you ignore the hill bit, it is still an interesting point about the parked cars which is a common occurrence. If there is a row of 20 cars to overtake on a narrow road, during the time of the overtake it is very possible that a car appears from the other side.

Different to the OP's example, where there was an oncoming downhill car. But yes, what you describe can happen. Also, it can be just one or two parked cars, but close to a bend where during the time you are across the white line, a previously unseen oncomer could come round the bend. In that case you can look for things like reflections round the bend from strategically placed windows, or, at night, the splash of headlights from a car you can't see yet, or maybe wind the window down to listen as well as see, but ultimately you end up having to choose between going anyway because there isn't anyone coming right now, or waiting there for the rest of your life.

[V8forweekends]

It doesn't really matter what the rules may or may not say, because there will always be a significant number of people who don't know, don't care, or are working to a different set of rules.