Who has right of way

[Silk]

FF[/quote]

The scenario that I am setting is that the driver in lane 1 has enough space before the lorry to get out and pull into lane 2 into the path of the vehicle coming in from lane 3, so martine isn't changing the scenario.

I think your response was a bit strong. Bear in mind that everyone was a learner at some point, including you.[/quote]

I believe all the diagram is only trying to illustrate is how an advanced driver should be thinking. Most drivers don't look this far ahead and rely on other drivers sharing their own interpretation of "right of way" - if it's someone else's "fault" then that makes it ok.

Advanced drivers don't rely on having "right of way" for their safety. They predict likely scenarios and use anticipation to avoid conflict.

The fact that you're reading the book and asking the questions should be applauded as, if you were driving one of the vehicles in the picture, you'd most likely be the only one giving it much thought.

I'd also add that I think the picture is too simplistic as things are changing all the time. Some drivers are going to be more alert/decisive/skilled, some may have a better view or their car may have better performance.

[FlyingFin]

Quote ''I think your response was a bit strong. Bear in mind that everyone was a learner at some point, including you.'' Unquote.

Well, do I take it from your post that you may have given up learning? ''Everyone WAS a learner at some point''


I am, and I hope you are still learning. Maybe that's what makes a true Advanced driver, having the ability to continually learn by your mistakes and, that of others.


Back to the ever changing scenario...

An advanced Driver wouldn't have got himself in that position in the first place! What does Roadcraft say about observation and anticipation? What does it say about avoiding traveling three abreast and why?

Take a look at Roadcraft and see how YOU would apply the System on approach to this hazard. (and to that of any other changes you want to make, and that's not a dig before anyone gets a little precious) You will find the answer there. Or as my Adv Inst use to say, 'Use the Force' (Points for a PM with the Instructors name/Driving School!)

I do question the value of publications with silly scenarios such as this. They create a problem an A/D would not get themselves into if they were driving to a high standard in the first place. AND they assist to cause confusion such as this.
I would prefer to read posts informing us of an observed 'situation building' and how you were able to avoid a problem due to using your advanced skills, rather than debate something which hasn't and shouldn't happen in the first place.

I don't think my response was strong at all. Come on guys and girls, lets look further ahead than the end of your bonnets!!

[kwaka jack]

Quote ''I think your response was a bit strong. Bear in mind that everyone was a learner at some point, including you.'' Unquote.

Well, do I take it from your post that you may have given up learning? ''Everyone WAS a learner at some point''


I am, and I hope you are still learning. Maybe that's what makes a true Advanced driver, having the ability to continually learn by your mistakes and, that of others.


Back to the ever changing scenario...

An advanced Driver wouldn't have got himself in that position in the first place! What does Roadcraft say about observation and anticipation? What does it say about avoiding traveling three abreast and why?

Take a look at Roadcraft and see how YOU would apply the System on approach to this hazard. (and to that of any other changes you want to make, and that's not a dig before anyone gets a little precious) You will find the answer there. Or as my Adv Inst use to say, 'Use the Force' (Points for a PM with the Instructors name/Driving School!)

I do question the value of publications with silly scenarios such as this. They create a problem an A/D would not get themselves into if they were driving to a high standard in the first place. AND they assist to cause confusion such as this.
I would prefer to read posts informing us of an observed 'situation building' and how you were able to avoid a problem due to using your advanced skills, rather than debate something which hasn't and shouldn't happen in the first place.

I don't think my response was strong at all. Come on guys and girls, lets look further ahead than the end of your bonnets!!

Actually I have only just begun my journey into the world of advanced driving so I have not given up on learning as you put it as I haven't learnt much yet. I have read the road craft book already and I'm aware of the system of control.

I wanted this question to be answered outside of the advanced drivers mind. I'm well aware that this situation should never arise. However, there are many drivers on the road who only look as far as their bonnets and are not terribly concerned about anything else. But this seems to have gone a bit of miss. I have received the answers I was looking for in that there is no "right of way".

Although I am going throw a quick spanner in the works to see if this is relevant. Doesn't the highway code state that vehicles must give way to vehicles from the right? Doesn't that apply in this situation?

[ScoobyChris]

Although I am going throw a quick spanner in the works to see if this is relevant. Doesn't the highway code state that vehicles must give way to vehicles from the right? Doesn't that apply in this situation?

Which rule are you thinking of in the HC that says that (is changing lanes a give-way scenario)?

Chris

[kwaka jack]

Although I am going throw a quick spanner in the works to see if this is relevant. Doesn't the highway code state that vehicles must give way to vehicles from the right? Doesn't that apply in this situation?

Which rule are you thinking of in the HC that says that (is changing lanes a give-way scenario)?

Chris

I'm not, but technically in this situation the car would be crossing your intended path from the right

[bbllr87]

In shipping the nearside vehicle is constrained more than the offside vehicle so the offside vehicle would be required to stay clear. The Rules sadly don't fully extend to the road. One short blast of the horn: I am turning to starboard?

That's true to a point, but if the give-way vessel does not appear to be taking sufficient action to avoid a collision, it becomes the responsibility of the (skippers of) both vessels to avoid the collision!

Five short blasts? I do not fully understand your intentions! aka wtf are you doing?

[martine]

Five short blasts? I do not fully understand your intentions! aka wtf are you doing?

Love it.

Bit of research pulled up this - which I'm sure you are aware of but I wasn't...
http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/bigships/communications.html

Their definition is a hoot (forgive the pun) and perhaps should be employed in motoring as well

[MGF]

The book doesn't appear to me to be showing a scenario. The author is illustrating three things to avoid when using lane 3 to overtake.

a) try to avoid overtaking V2 if V2 is alongside a vehicle in lane 1.

b) try to use a greater speed differential so as not to sit in the blind spot of V2.

c) delay your return to lane 2 if there is a risk of V1 moving into it.

There is a fourth point, d), which appears to be a mini-rant about driving too slowly, which isn't particularly helpful.

Equally unhelpfully, FF points out that the relative speeds and distances in the diagram mean that c) is unlikely to occur.

The simple answer to the OP''s question, already given, is that neither V1 or V2 have priority whilst changing lane.

It has also been noted that priority is not the problem. The problem is avoiding conflict. I agree with FF that the approach should be how to avoid a), b) and c) but disagree with him that the illustration serves no purpose to help readers understand the potential conflicts.

Indeed without an appreciation of the potential conflicts - (the hazards) - how can you plan your approach?

[fungus]

The book doesn't appear to me to be showing a scenario. The author is illustrating three things to avoid when using lane 3 to overtake.

Basically what I said in my earlier post.

The illustration is simply highlighting the dangers of a situation like this, which is probably all too common with many drivers who have not progressed beyond the basic L test, and in all fairness to learners, they are not going to experience such situations unless there is a three laned D/C near by, as they are not permitted to drive on a motorway. Whilst the theory can be taught, is a learner going to remember it after passing their test? My guess is that, as many forget the basics, they probably won't remember anything more advanced. An advanced driver would strive to avoid driving three abreast if at all possible, (which in todays heavy motorway traffic is often not possible), and should be aware of such a situation, leaving a safety gap to the side.

[7db]

Five short blasts? I do not fully understand your intentions! aka wtf are you doing?

I've taken five from a 20kt moving cliff that was masquerading as a container vessel. It's safe to say that I scurried.

[bbllr87]

Think I would have done too.

[kfae8959]

a 20kt moving cliff

Is that 20 knots, or 20 kilotonnes? Or both? Eek!

David

[7db]

20 knots. The weight of those vessels is more like 200 kilotonnes.

I was in a 2 tonne sailing vessel doing about 2kts. He was carrying about 2 million times my momentum -- which is similar to swatting a fly with a truck. Like I said: I scurried. Smart flies do.

[TripleS]

Post deleted.

[martine]

..I can't keep these guys right all on my own.

No comment