Safety & Rules
Right of Way Is a Legal Idea, Not a Physical One
Priority rules allocate responsibility after a collision but do nothing to prevent one, which is why riding on priority alone is a recurring source of avoidable conflict.
Traffic rules assign priority so that road users can predict each other. Priority is a legal allocation, and a rider who treats it as protection is relying on the wrong thing.
Rules coordinate expectations rather than control vehicles
The function of priority is to make behaviour predictable, so that two users approaching the same space do not both proceed or both stop.
That coordination works only when both parties have perceived each other and agree on which rule applies. Neither is guaranteed.
Where perception fails, the rule has no effect at all. Nothing about having priority changes what a vehicle that has not seen you will do.
Being in the right is settled afterwards
Liability, insurance and any legal consequence are determined once the event is over. That process matters and it operates on a different timescale from the event itself.
For the rider, the outcome of a collision is physical and immediate regardless of who is later found responsible. The asymmetry between a bicycle and a car is not adjusted by a finding of fault.
This is not an argument that rules do not matter. It is an argument for treating priority as an expectation to be verified rather than a guarantee to be relied on.
Ambiguous layouts produce genuine disagreement
Many junctions are unclear about who has priority, particularly where a cycle path crosses a side road. Different users read the same layout differently and both believe they are correct.
Markings vary between countries and between schemes within one city. A driver's expectation is shaped by the layouts they encounter most often.
Where a rider can identify these points on their regular route, the useful adaptation is specific. Approach expecting to yield even where the rule says otherwise.
Eye contact is a weak signal that people over-trust
Riders often report making eye contact and proceeding. Looking toward someone is not the same as perceiving and processing them as a vehicle in motion.
Drivers scanning for a gap are searching for car-shaped objects and may look directly at a bicycle without registering it. This is a known feature of visual search.
A more reliable signal is movement of the vehicle itself. Wheels beginning to turn, or a car settling back on its suspension, indicate an intention that a glance does not.
The rules still deserve to be followed
Predictability is a shared resource. A rider who ignores priority when convenient makes themselves harder to anticipate, which is the underlying cause of most conflict.
Consistency also matters for how riders are treated collectively. Behaviour that appears arbitrary shapes the expectations drivers bring to the next encounter.
The workable position is to follow the rules and ride as though nobody else will. These are not in tension, and specific rules vary by jurisdiction and change over time.
Questions readers ask
Is it worth reporting a near miss if nobody was hurt?
Where a scheme exists, yes, because clusters of reports at one location are what supports a case for changing it. Where none exists, reporting the location to the road authority is still the mechanism that gets a design looked at.
What should I write down after a near miss?
Location, time, direction of travel, what the road looked like and what restricted anyone's view. Photographs of the location taken later are more useful than a description. Skip the part about whose fault it was.
