UKH

Cross-roads.  Two cars on opposite sides on the minor roads.  One looking to turn left the other to turn right so they both end up going the same way on the major road.  Who has priority?  Lots of advice saying the one turning left has priority but without referencing the HWC, which as far as I can see doesn't explicitly say anything.  It's not obvious to me this is correct even though it is how things seem to work generally.  If the right-turner goes first they will be on the major road slightly "ahead" of the left turner, implying the left-turner should give way, and more so if the junction is slightly staggered in the left turner's favour.

If you are turning right you should give way to the other vehicle, which is turning left. Otherwise, you'd be cutting across their path. (I'm quoting from the useful Official DVSA Guide to Driving, which is available in most bookshops.)

I'm not seeing that - once you have emerged you are on the road with priority so how are.you "cutting across" them? As above, clearer if the junction is staggered.

Interesting, I'll take a look. Odd HWC says nothing though?

I always thought that left over straight ahead over right but no idea where that's from all those years ago.

It's the most sensible way because (I'm pretty sure) it declutters a junction the most efficiently and leaves the most dangerous manoeuvres until there's least traffic.

If it's a busy road and there's a gap in the traffic both ways, it would be better if the left turner would give way to the right turner. The next such opportunity for the right turner may be a while coming, whereas the left turner is more likely to have another opportunity quite soon.

Nothing to do with the highway code, just optimal non-selfish behaviour.

Yes if it looked like the right turner was on the ball I would give a hand signal to let them go first. If they were looking a bit dozey I would just get on with it and turn left. How is all this going to work with driverless cars?

The driver turning left has priority

"Priority over the opposite minor road

Unlike at a T-junction, you have to consider drivers emerging from the opposite minor road at a crossroads. Whose right of way it is depends on which way you’re each trying to go.

You want to turn left or head straight on: you have priority. Remain vigilant, because not all drivers abide by this rule, and may end up cutting across you."

Link - https://www.passmefast.co.uk/resources/driving-advice/right-of-way-junction

Dave

As above, I've seen similar statements. My question is on what authority? Is it just convention?

To make it more complicated - at the top of our hill is a crossroads where one minor road has a stop sign and the other is a give-way. Cars turning right from the give-way have priority over cars waiting at the stop sign. Surprisingly, even today quite a few people seem to actually know this. Who'd have thought it?

Neither has priority according to the highway code

Does it say that? Or just not say anything?

Joining this discussion late. I have two old copies of The Highway Code (1996, HMSO; and AA 2004). You are right that it says nothing about priority re. turning right. When turning right at a crossroads where an oncoming vehicle is also turning right, it shows the two methods: 1. turning right side to right side (preferred) and 2. left side to left side, where the need to take great care is emphasised. 

Regarding legal authority of the rules. The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 38, says ‘A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may … be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability …'

The 2004 edition goes to further lengths to emphasise that ‘Many of the rules of the code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence…. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT [in red].'

However, there are remarkably few such uses of 'MUST/MUST NOT' in the Code.

Doesn't say anything at all, which means neither is given priority 

The pedestrian walking down the major road has priority 

Just had a look in the Highway Code and while other situations about turning right and or left are mentioned there is nothing(unless I've missed it) about vehicles travelling in opposite directions where one wants to turn right and the other left.

This could suggest neither has priority but, to me, the one turning left should have priority -

If the vehicle turning left can do so safely(eg. there is no obstruction in the road to which it is turning) why should it have to wait for the vehicle turning right to complete its turn as this vehicle might have to wait for a gap in the opposing traffic?

Even if there is no traffic preventing the vehicle turning right completing is move, the vehicle turning right has to cross the opposite carriageway and join the carriageway of the one turning left, so should, IMO, give way to the one turning left.

Dave

Link - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

Rules 170 - 183 apply to road junctions.

The highway code doesn't state one car has right of way over another in any situation.

Every time someone states "it's my right if way" they are wrong.

It does state however when you should give way to other traffic. This does not give the other traffic permission to bulldoze through you if you don't give way as recommended.

In your example they need to give way to eachother and manage it in a sensible way. 

It seems so, although that is at odds with other guidance, including official guidance, as noted above in various links.

Can we use the correct term of priority? Right of way is about whether a person  has the right of passage along or over a highway using a particular mode of transport etc.

The question is who has priority in this situation. They both have right of way / passage.

The HWC doesn't even talk about that much (just 11 occurrences and none in the junction section).  It's actually rather limited in what it says.  Giving way in a few circumstances at junctions is about it.

That may be your interpretation of the phrase right of way, but this is not how the highway code uses it.

Here is a direct quote:

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance"

In this context "right of way" means the right to go first.

The definition is clear here under the transport definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/right-of-way

At a cross roads I regularly drive the main road is one way, as is the road the right turner is exiting. 

Most drivers seem to assume when giving way, that priority goes to whoever got to the junction first.

Look at the second definition and you will see what i referred to, not my interpretation but as per dictionary you linked.

I give priority to right unless I get to the junction so far in advance of them that my movement does not delay them. It's not just a matter of whose bumper reaches the junction first.

But as I said they are turning right from a single lane 1-way into a single lane 1-way, so like myself (turning left) they are just following the kerb and not crossing a lane of opposing traffic.

I understand what definition you were applying. But it's the wrong definition when discussing the highway code.

The Highway Code uses the word priority in many circumstances to avoid such ambiguity of meaning.

Seems logical to me the person turning left should go first. With them there it adds an extra lay of complication to the person on the other side of the junction looking to turn right. And the last thing you want is extra complication when crossing a live carriageway.

Someone suggested waving the person wanting to turn right through the junction. Personally I don't like people waving in most instances. Makes things dangerous very quickly. As the old maxim goes... "be predictable not polite". 

Non question. The ledt turner can be gone before the right turner has had time to look both ways. Or if super clear vis left turner has less diatance to go so will be clear in front, not a question of giving way or priority. 

I was in a three vehicle accident (including a lorry) on a busy road in which a car was written off, caused by someone "letting someone turn"  out of turn at a junction - signals seen and acted on by more than one party.

I hate people letting me out now - their judgement could be worng or either of us could not be seeing a hazard.

Never do it now - it adds risk to a situation.

The car turning left has no lane to cross, it just turns into the desired lane.

The car turning right has to cross a lane then turn into the desired lane.

Left has priority.

I agree with this, a clear left lane should allow the left turner to get clear without the right turner having to think too much about their involvement, as you say trying to wave somebody through or flashing them without knowing what their current visibility situational awareness is at that time brings dangers. 

Maybe it's easier to think of it as a 4 way traffic light scenario (a clear junction meaning theoretical green lights for both cars) , it's quite clear who has "priority" on those when there is no filter lanes. 

Round my way at rush hour you wouldn't reach your destination unless someone lets you out, or you inch/push your way out.

I usually let one car out at most junctions. But just one,  not the pushy second car. That car must wait.

If you're the one being let out you still need to observe other cars. It's not a green traffic light signal to go.

If the traffic is queuing or filtering at very slow flow speed I agree - I was referring to roads where vehicles are travelling considerably faster than slowly queuing traffic.   Where one of the carriageways has much faster traffic travelling in the opposite direction to the queue a considerable hazard still exists.

Yes, if bobbing along at a decent rate I wouldn't stop to let people join. The truth is they could probably join quicker if I don't slow down for them.

I guess where it gets tricky is the two scenarios we've described are black and white, but there's a lot of grey in-between where different people will think it is or isn't appropriate to let people in. I'm guessing the accident you mention is such an example.

I let a lot of people out when driving, either on 2 wheels or 4, but, apart from when I'm in a line of (effectively) stationary traffic, NEVER do so when there are vehicles from both sides attempting to cross over - just too dangerous, as there's no knowing whether they might both attempt to do so at the same time.

I really don't like it either.  Being "polite" is in fact attempting to make someone else disregard the rules of the road and is a recipe for misunderstanding and accidents. 

Letting people pull out into slow queuing traffic is perhaps an exception.

Absolutely!

Like 2 into 1 lanes, 1 at time from each lane, like a zip.