Straight ahead on minor road junction

[creampuff]

My understanding is that where traffic travelling on a minor road where there is a junction with a major road that the priority order is:

1. All traffic on major road has priority
2. Traffic going straight on on one branch of the minor road, crossing the major road and continuing on has priority over traffic on the opposite branch of the minor road turning right into the major road.

The above assumes that nobody has started their manoeuveur at this point. It is just an indication of who should go first.

However I cannot find somewhere in the Highway Code which explicitly states this. Any ideas?

[7db]

It's not in there because it's not that simple.

You will find rule 172 giving advice to give way to traffic on the main road if there's a giveway marked on the road.

[catman]

Generally speaking, traffic following the road ahead would have priority over traffic attempting to turn right.

The problem is establishing who was where on the road when the accident occurred. The car turning right may try to say that their position was already established.

The position of the damage to each vehicle would be of some help here, if there are no witnesses.

Tim

[scorcher]

catman said:

Generally speaking, traffic following the road ahead would have priority over traffic attempting to turn right.

The problem is establishing who was where on the road when the accident occurred. The car turning right may try to say that their position was already established.

The position of the damage to each vehicle would be of some help here, if there are no witnesses.

Tim

who mentioned an accident?

[SK425]

catman said:

Generally speaking, traffic following the road ahead would have priority over traffic attempting to turn right.

What makes you say that?

[catman]

I read a similar post on here recently, where an accident occurred. I was guessing that was the reason for the question.

If I'm wrong, nobody died.

Tim

[creampuff]

Yes this follows on from the crash post a few days ago.

I've established from the post crash photos that my vehicle was well within the junction, infact almost at the other side, when the collision occurred.

[yellowjack]

When I was taught, the priorities were fairly simple...

1. Straight ahead traffic
2. Left turning traffic
3. Right turning traffic

...although this eminently sensible, logical system seems to be a difficult concept for the current crop of drivers to grasp, judging by the black looks I get for not letting right turning traffic cross my path when I'm going straight over at junctions

[Liquid Tuna]

yellowjack said:

When I was taught, the priorities were fairly simple...

1. Straight ahead traffic
2. Left turning traffic
3. Right turning traffic

...although this eminently sensible, logical system seems to be a difficult concept for the current crop of drivers to grasp, judging by the black looks I get for not letting right turning traffic cross my path when I'm going straight over at junctions

I was taught the same. What happens quite often though is that "local knowledge", or at least what the locals do at that junction / island / intersection, becomes "law" and locals seem to take a dim view of anyone trying to do anything different, regardless of what the law actually says or the highway code advises.

[barker22]

yellowjack said:

When I was taught, the priorities were fairly simple...

1. Straight ahead traffic
2. Left turning traffic
3. Right turning traffic

...although this eminently sensible, logical system seems to be a difficult concept for the current crop of drivers to grasp, judging by the black looks I get for not letting right turning traffic cross my path when I'm going straight over at junctions

What do you mean by this, do you mean you pull out on a car that has started their manoeuvre just because they are turning right. If so you are in the wrong.

[yellowjack]

barker22 said:

What do you mean by this, do you mean you pull out on a car that has started their manoeuvre just because they are turning right. If so you are in the wrong.

No. I mean there is a particular local 'crossroads' where it is unusual for cars to proceed straight over. Most turn left, a small number turn right. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.282626,-0.840738... I seem to be unusual in wanting to proceed straight over, and often will find myself waiting opposite a car signalling right, as we both wait for the traffic on the 'main' road to pass. I'll then move across the junction, and sometimes, as I'm just beyond the crown of the road, the cretin opposite will turn out, then brake because I am already established in the spot where they want to be. It should be simple. Simultaneous movement? Give way to cars going straight ahead. They moved first? Obviously I wouldn't deliberately construct a conflict where there wasn't one. Two opposing right turning cars have no problem, provided that both drivers go 'nearside to nearside' but I've witnessed that going wrong too.

I put it down partly to presumption that I cannot possibly be going ahead, and therefore must be turning but have failed to signal, partly I think because idiots do not consider stationary traffic opposite them in their driving plan, focusing only on the moving traffic across their path, and partly because they are dumb fks who do not consider it necessary to know the basic rules of the road. I also have a sneaking suspicion that an increasing number of s believe that the priority goes in the order 'most expensive car to least expensive car' no matter which direction they are approaching from. I've even been 'tooted' at, at this junction, usually be a right turner opposite who hasn't even started to move by the time I'm level with them, having fully crossed the junction.

[SK425]

yellowjack said:

and partly because they are dumb fks who do not consider it necessary to know the basic rules of the road.

But what is the basic rule of the road in this case? The OP couldn't find an answer in the Highway Code and nobody's found it for him yet.

By a remarkable coincidence, the same question is being discussed here.

[catman]

SK425 said:

catman said:

Generally speaking, traffic following the road ahead would have priority over traffic attempting to turn right.

What makes you say that?

ASk yourself the same question. If you were following the road ahead, say at traffic lights, would you stop and wait for traffic turning right, or would you expect them to wait for you?

Tim

[yellowjack]

SK425 said:

yellowjack said:

and partly because they are dumb fks who do not consider it necessary to know the basic rules of the road.

But what is the basic rule of the road in this case? The OP couldn't find an answer in the Highway Code and nobody's found it for him yet.

By a remarkable coincidence, the same question is being discussed here.

Q. Would any reasonable, qualified driver consider it to be good practice to turn right off a 'main' road into a side road across the face of oncoming vehicles?
A. Almost certainly not. (although many arrogant twunts will, it's a symptom of the disease known as modern life)

Q. So why is this SIMPLE RULE any different when faced with a vehicle on the opposite side of a crossroads which intends to proceed straight ahead?
A. The simple rule is, in fact, not different at all, simply for adding in a few extra painted lines. If you are turning right, and are faced with traffic from the opposite direction going straight ahead, give them the priority. Simple enough, as it avoids any potential conflict, and thus everyone (should) know who gets to go first.

[7db]

Because there are little lines across the road that mean give way.

[yellowjack]

7db said:

Because there are little lines across the road that mean give way.

If that is in response to my last, have a little think about that, and get back to me

The little lines instruct you to give way to traffic on the 'priority' route, left to right, and right to left. For the purposes of opposing traffic on the minor road, either side of the 'crossroads', you may treat the situation as though there were no 'main road' to cross. Which leaves a simple situation were two cars approach one another upon the same road. One wishes to turn right, the other to proceed straight ahead. The car wishing to turn right MUST wait for a safe gap to avoid conflict with traffic from the opposite direction. Go ahead. Think it through, and if you have even a modicum of intelligence, you will find my statement follows logic, is simple to understand, and follows a set of rules that drivers of all kinds of vehicles have been using for quite literally HUNDREDS of years

To interpret the situation in any other way seems, to me at least, to be deliberately obtuse, and to unnecessarily complicates things.



From: "Your Driving Test" booklet DL68 (revised Dec 1983) page 12...

Department of Transport said:

"Cross the path of other vehicles safely"
When turning right, do not cross the path of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction unless you can do so safely. Other vehicles should not have to stop, reduce speed, or swerve to allow you to cross.

...and this is from a booklet published by the DoT to give guidance on how to pass the driving test. It would therefore constitute written evidence of a system of priorities known to have been in use at the time. I should imagine if these rules had changed in the intervening period, there might be a publication to which one could refer, which clearly laid out the changes to said rules. I've never come across any publication which has suggested such a wholesale change to the traditional system of priorities at junctions, so I will continue to apply the rules as they have been taught to me. You feel free to interpret things your own way, but keep us updated on how you, and your NCD, are getting on in the face of all the evidence to the contrary

[SK425]

catman said:

SK425 said:

catman said:

Generally speaking, traffic following the road ahead would have priority over traffic attempting to turn right.

What makes you say that?

ASk yourself the same question. If you were following the road ahead, say at traffic lights, would you stop and wait for traffic turning right, or would you expect them to wait for you?

Tim

I would not stop and wait, any more than I would if it were just a road with no traffic lights and someone coming the other way wanted to turn right. That said, when you're the one waiting to turn right at the lights you can sometimes turn ahead of the oncomer without interfering with them, e.g. if the layout sets them back a bit from the turning and they're slow off the mark. Much more common to have to wait for them in my experience though.

This isn't the same question as the OP's though.

[SK425]

yellowjack said:

7db said:

Because there are little lines across the road that mean give way.

If that is in response to my last, have a little think about that, and get back to me

The little lines instruct you to give way to traffic on the 'priority' route, left to right, and right to left. For the purposes of opposing traffic on the minor road, either side of the 'crossroads', you may treat the situation as though there were no 'main road' to cross.

May I? Are you sure, or is that just how you think it ought to work? You seem to be suggesting that the give way lines have no significance in the OP's scenario. I'd be quite surprised if that were the case.

yellowjack said:

Which leaves a simple situation were two cars approach one another upon the same road. One wishes to turn right, the other to proceed straight ahead. The car wishing to turn right MUST wait for a safe gap to avoid conflict with traffic from the opposite direction.

Must? That's a powerful word in the world of the Highway Code. Notwithstanding how sensible your system might be, the OP (who believes the same as you) was asking for some official validation of his belief as he couldn't find any in the Highway Code.

yellowjack said:

From: "Your Driving Test" booklet DL68 (revised Dec 1983) page 12...

Department of Transport said:

"Cross the path of other vehicles safely"
When turning right, do not cross the path of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction unless you can do so safely. Other vehicles should not have to stop, reduce speed, or swerve to allow you to cross.

I haven't got that booklet. Is that quote from a section talking about the scenario in question (when two minor roads cross a major road)? I ask because if that quote were, for example, in the context of turning right from a major road with oncoming traffic, it might not be relevant to the OP's question.

[yellowjack]

SK425 said:

yellowjack said:

Which leaves a simple situation were two cars approach one another upon the same road. One wishes to turn right, the other to proceed straight ahead. The car wishing to turn right MUST wait for a safe gap to avoid conflict with traffic from the opposite direction.

Must? That's a powerful word in the world of the Highway Code. Notwithstanding how sensible your system might be, the OP (who believes the same as you) was asking for some official validation of his belief as he couldn't find any in the Highway Code.

I was using 'Must' not in the highway code "it's the law" sense, and more in the scientific sense. You know, that inconvenient law of physics that prevents two objects formed of matter from occupying the same space at the same time. Read my statement again, and I think it's clear enough. You Must wait when turning right if you wish to avoid conflict. If, as many drivers seem happy to do, you decide not to wait, you can expect to conflict with traffic going ahead in the opposite direction. Conflict, I would suggest, is anything from causing the other driver to lift off the throttle briefly, via a full-on emergency stop, to, possibly, a heavy collision. Which is why we have always been taught to give way to all other traffic when we turn right, unless traffic signals or road markings indicate that we should do otherwise.

[SK425]

yellowjack said:

I was using 'Must' not in the highway code "it's the law" sense, and more in the scientific sense. You know, that inconvenient law of physics that prevents two objects formed of matter from occupying the same space at the same time. Read my statement again, and I think it's clear enough. You Must wait when turning right if you wish to avoid conflict. If, as many drivers seem happy to do, you decide not to wait, you can expect to conflict with traffic going ahead in the opposite direction. Conflict, I would suggest, is anything from causing the other driver to lift off the throttle briefly, via a full-on emergency stop, to, possibly, a heavy collision. Which is why we have always been taught to give way to all other traffic when we turn right, unless traffic signals or road markings indicate that we should do otherwise.

Fair enough. I'm all for waiting for a safe gap before turning right, and all for avoiding conflict. It's just that I don't think it's inconceivable that the safe gap might be ahead of the vehicle waiting at the other side of the crossroads (whose driver also must wait for a safe gap before crossing their give way line).

I think we can take it as read that the OP and everybody else in the thread is a fan of avoiding conflict and collisions, but I think the OP was specifically looking for official validation of what he thought the priority rules are in this situation - he'd looked in the Highway Code and not found it. I think he'd not found it because it's not that simple.