2 right of way questions

dave1982

OK i know an amount of common decency come's into play here,I usually allow other people right of way.Just wondering if this is right

First is a cross of four roads.I know car on the main road have the right to drive straight through it,but the cars that have to stop and you are stopped facing the other car.I am going right and he is going right
So we are crossing each others paths

Second one is a hill with cars parked on both sides of the road because of the cars parked there is only enough room for one car to pass through.
Twice in the last this has happened i was on my way down the hill passed 10-12 cars parked when another car came up against me and passed 4 cars and i was the one that had reverse back up the hill to allow the other car to pass through.Now if i was the other car and only had to reverse back down the hill i would have no issue but trying to reverse a big van back up a hill between 10 cars on each side is more awkward that reversing a car down a hill between 4 cars on each side.
(Road is only like this when parents are collecting their kids from school)

corktina

first one to arrive at the junction in the first case should have precedence (Not law, just courtesy) and in the second case, the vehicle coming down the hill should give way to the vehicle coming up the hill ,all other factors being equal (again just courtesy, particulary if its a large or heavy vehicle)

Alanstrainor

dave1982 wrote: »

OK i know an amount of common decency come's into play here,I usually allow other people right of way.Just wondering if this is right

First is a cross of four roads.I know car on the main road have the right to drive straight through it,but the cars that have to stop and you are stopped facing the other car.I am going right and he is going right
So we are crossing each others paths

You should both be able to turn right without issue, you don't have to cross paths is what i'd be thinking.

dave1982

Alanstrainor wrote: »

You should both be able to turn right without issue, you don't have to cross paths is what i'd be thinking.

I thought both of us going left would not be a issue?

tatli_lokma

as for the hill - when I was learning I was taught that it was whomever had completed the most of their journey on that road who gets the right of way - so since you had travelled futher along the road than the other, you would have ROW.

for the junction - it would only be a problem when you are doing a wrap around cross over each other. otherwise it wouldn't be a problem unless you were going right and they were going left, in which case they would have ROW, they turn, then you.

thats what I would reckon anyway

Alanstrainor

Excuse my crude drawing, but this is how i would go about it.

The image is a bit on the big side, so i wont embed it.

CiniO

1. There isn't any right of way needed here. You can usually easily pass each other without being on other's one way. So no right's of way necessery here.

Like this:


Otherwise you can turn like below. Here's again no right of way involved - as whenever you pass each other you turn.


2. There's no rules of right of way on narrow roads. In the first place cars shouldn't be parked like that, so traffic is obstructed. But if they do, its all the matter of courtasy of yours or the other driver. There isn't any rules like someone said before that one going down has right of way, or one that's gone through most of narrow way. It's all up to courtasy

AugustusMinimus

CiniO wrote: »

1. There isn't any right of way needed here. You can usually easily pass each other without being on other's one way. So no right's of way necessery here.

Like this:


Otherwise you can turn like below. Here's again no right of way involved - as whenever you pass each other you turn.


2. There's no rules of right of way on narrow roads. In the first place cars shouldn't be parked like that, so traffic is obstructed. But if they do, its all the matter of courtasy of yours or the other driver. There isn't any rules like someone said before that one going down has right of way, or one that's gone through most of narrow way. It's all up to courtasy

I believe that picture 2 is the favoured way to make this manouver, your view of the road you are leaving is not blocked by using method 2.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

1. There isn't any right of way needed here. You can usually easily pass each other without being on other's one way. So no right's of way necessery here.

Like this:


Otherwise you can turn like below. Here's again no right of way involved - as whenever you pass each other you turn.


2. There's no rules of right of way on narrow roads. In the first place cars shouldn't be parked like that, so traffic is obstructed. But if they do, its all the matter of courtasy of yours or the other driver. There isn't any rules like someone said before that one going down has right of way, or one that's gone through most of narrow way. It's all up to courtasy

The second method is the one which is thought and is the correct method as far as Im concerned. Both cars drive straight until at the far side of the road, then turn right; they will not obstruct each other.

The first method just encourages drivers to cut the middle of the road they are turning into.

tatli_lokma

djimi wrote: »

The second method is the one which is thought and is the correct method as far as Im concerned. Both cars drive straight until at the far side of the road, then turn right; they will not obstruct each other.

depends on whether there are other cars approaching or behind you. if you try to do no 2 an there are more than one car approaching you, you will not be able to turn around the back of the first car as your way will be obstructed by the first car.

cornbb

djimi wrote: »

The second method is the one which is thought and is the correct method as far as Im concerned. Both cars drive straight until at the far side of the road, then turn right; they will not obstruct each other.

The first method just encourages drivers to cut the middle of the road they are turning into.

Agreed. The first method involves crossing the other lane with a long diagonal, which is bad practice.

Hissing Sid

Little Ted wrote: »

depends on whether there are other cars approaching or behind you. if you try to do no 2 an there are more than one car approaching you, you will not be able to turn around the back of the first car as your way will be obstructed by the first car.

Then you wait until the road is clear. If you do method 1, and there are other cars approaching you, there would be a great risk of collision.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

The second method is the one which is thought and is the correct method as far as Im concerned. Both cars drive straight until at the far side of the road, then turn right; they will not obstruct each other.

The first method just encourages drivers to cut the middle of the road they are turning into.

I was really surpriced when I read Irish ROTR when I saw it, that option 2 is prefered one.
As almost all over Europe method 1 would be prefered, and method 2 would be forbidden in most countries.

tatli_lokma

its not always possible - if the road you are turning into is not as wide as the main road, then you need to wait for the other driver to turn so that you can make the turn, likewise they need you to turn so they can make the turn. It takes kind of a mutual agreement when to move, and unfortunately, not everyone is aware of how this works!

It has happened to me before, so its a case of deciding on which method is the best for the given situation. the problem is, those of us driving more than 15yrs would have been taught the second method, but most new drivers don't seem aware of it so if you drive parallel to them, they literally don't know what to do!

corktina

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Excuse my crude drawing, but this is how i would go about it.

The image is a bit on the big side, so i wont embed it.

this is bad practise as you are both obstructing each others view. In circumstances such as this you should always pass drivers side to drivers side...ie if there is room you should both pull to the centre of the junction and then turn.

Bazzo

Maybe I'm wrong but I was under the impression that he was asking about one car coming off each of the lesser roads turning right onto the main road? I don't think there's any hard and fast rule, in that case, but I'd expect that whoever reached the junction first would have the right to go first.

As for the second scenario, I'd expect the person who could reverse back more easily to do so, as I do in any case where someone has to reverse back to let another vehicle by.

djimi

Bazzo wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but I was under the impression that he was asking about one car coming off each of the lesser roads turning right onto the main road? I don't think there's any hard and fast rule, in that case, but I'd expect that whoever reached the junction first would have the right to go first.

As for the second scenario, I'd expect the person who could reverse back more easily to do so, as I do in any case where someone has to reverse back to let another vehicle by.

That was the impression that I got and that being the case the method of straight until door to door and then around the back of the other car is the one which is thought (or at least used to be; it was called something like "hooking" when I was learning).

Honestly, if in doubt I usually just let the other guy out first. Maybe Im giving up right of way but at least it is causes the least confusion.

dave1982

Thanks for all the replies lads