Actually, priority to the right is the rule in ALL on continental Europe. I was a bit surprised by Sarastro's comment that France is applying archaic and dangerous rules, since Europeans agree with them.

Amend to read "All continental Europe is applying archaic and dangerous rules" then.

I guess there must be some other reason that the traffic death rate in Western Europe is half the rate of the United States then.

Well my friend, if it is such a godsend, this old rule, why do the French invest all that time and money erecting signs and painting the majority of their intersections to show that the rule doesn't apply there, rather than simply abandoning it?

I think the French are good drivers, by the way, and even picked up a trick from them last time I was there (flashing hazard lights when approaching stopped traffic to warn the driver behind you).

Actually the hazard lights start flashing automatically on French cars when you hit the brakes hard.

That is something I would like to see here.

Or the gas hard.

It is not so much about archaism as about road and intersection density. In the US, the priority to the right rule exists too, it just hardly ever applies simply because nearly all interserctions are controlled by either a sign or a traffic light. In old Europe the road and street network is a lot denser than in the US, with a lot more small streets, so it would cost a fortune and look ugly to have signs everywhere. Even old-established Manhattan has 5 times fewer streets and avenues than Paris intra-muros for the same surface area.

More and more intersections are getting controlled in France by yield and stop signs but it will never be everywhere so a general priority rule makes sense in this context. There are areas, as in my town where it makes no sense with tiny side streets having priority over major arteries, and they should put signs there but I suppose with our huge municipal debt it is not a priority.

France also has one of the densest road networks in the world. If we had as few intersections as the US I am sure all intersections would be controlled too and the priority to the right rule would be as insignificant as in the US.

I'm pleased to say that the UK has never had any truck with this sort of nonsense - as a general rule, the minor road gives way to the major one.

There can of course be the odd occasion when it's difficult to work out who gives way to whom, but on the whole, we all know where we are.

Kerouac, apart from the fact that it's what the french do and therefore better than anything british could possibly be, why does it make any sense at all for vehicles on the major road to have to slow down for vehicles emerging from a minor road? which they may not even know is there?

<i>In the US, the priority to the right rule exists too, it just hardly ever applies simply because nearly all interserctions are controlled by either a sign or a traffic light.</i>

There is a similar rule in the US at well defined intersections. The danger, however, is not at intersections where everyone is aware of one another and where traffic slows, the danger is either on open stretches of roadway or in towns where cars can suddenly appear from alleyways, driveways, or other nondescript entrance points.

Otherwise, the US is just like the UK in this regard, the minor road gives way to the major one.

I have never encountered the situation you describe in France, Sarastro. Outside urban areas main roads always have priority over minor roads here too (those lozenge signs only confirm that). And in towns (or anywhere else), people coming out of driveways or any private alleyway NEVER have priority over a public way, even if they come from the right.

But yes, as is the case in my town, some tiny streets may have priority over a larger one, and that is a pain indeed. And I use the word "intersection" for those as in any situation where a street meets another.

I confirm what FrenchMystique says -- there is absolutely no priority for driveways or alleyways. This of course does not mean that certain drivers don't behave as though it were the case.

Still: check the accident statistics and please inform me what is wrong with French driving methods compared to dying.

I absolutely did not criticise British driving rules. Great Britain does a bit better than France in traffic fatalities, but of course it is also true that driving speeds are a bit lower.

I absolutely did not criticise British driving rules. Great Britain does a bit better than France in traffic fatalities, but of course it is also true that driving speeds are a bit lower.>>

point taken, kerouac.

the curiosity about fatality rates is that in general, US speed limits are much lower than european ones - I got a speeding ticket doing 60 mph on a "freeway", when the limit was 50 mph. yet, as you say above, they manage to kill twice as many people on the roads as we do.

<i> they manage to kill twice as many people on the roads as we do</i>

Aggregate numbers are themselves meaningless. Numbers based upon number of cars on the road or number of drivers vs total accidents or deaths are far more meaningful.

The 55 mph limit in the USA is long gone. Top speeds now approach 80 mph, just about the same as in Europe.

Just look at the wiki with the statistics, sarastro. It clearly shows fatalities everywhere in the world per capita and also other criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

the UK's figures are roughly 100% better than France's and 2-3x better than the US figures - wonder why that is?

The best figures to use for comparison are traffic deaths per 100 000 vehicles. On that basis, the UK is at 6.2, France is at 8.5, and the USA is at 13.6.

The differences are best explained by three factors: Minimum driving age, alcohol, and public transit. As a general rule, traffic deaths increase as age decreases. In the US, you can drive at 16 years old. It is 18 in France, and 17 in the UK, I believe. Not surprisingly, The second factor, alcohol, seems to be a question of culture, and is likely also directly related to the prevalence of public transit systems (i.e., alternatives to driving when drunk). In the USA, 39% of traffic deaths are alcohol related; in France it is 29%, and in the UK 17%. Clearly, the US has a drunk driving problem, and France, too, for that matter. Curiously, the UK has a *much* higher prevalence of binge drinking than either the US or France. It must be that the British simply don't drive when drunk -- or they get so drunk that they can't drive!

Looking further into the public transit question, it seems clear that it must play an important role in the drunk driving rates. In the UK, 51% of people use public transit at least once a month; in France, it is 33%, and in the USA only 11%. Speaking as an American, I can attest to the fact that drunks usually have no option but to drive to get home. Moreover, everyone else has no choice but cars to get home, too, so more passengers are also victims of drunk drivers.

So, the fact that the US has the worst overall number (13.6) is then probably due to the compounding of the lower age limit, the alcohol problem, and the far less developed public transit systems. The fact that the UK has the lowest number is probably best explained by a cultural acceptance of, and dependence on, public transit.

ALL THAT SAID, back to the main topic: As an American living in France for many years, I can tell you that dependence on the priority-to-the-right rule is ridiculous! It *is* a problem here, and varying opinions on the matter relates to the fact that it is more prevalent in some regions and cities than in others. How much it contributes to accidents is hard to know because other factors (such as alcohol) swamp the statistics. Yet, I am quite sure it DOES contribute, because I have seen it happen! And let's not forget the question of expecting foreigners to just "get it" -- in this, the most visited country in the world.

IMO, having driven many years in a country where it is never the primary determinant of priority (the USA), it is an old, bad idea that should be phased out through the use of explicit "Yield" signs. The implicit system -- asking the driver to pay attention to signs for drivers on other roads (!) such as the line on the pavement -- is untenable. For one thing, the white line on the road wears out over time!! I disagree that priority-right is necessary because road density is higher. Come on, a yield sign is always possible. Moreover, they could also simply add the rule for "T" intersections that through traffic has priority.

quokka,

If you come to our town in California you will quickly learn that it's the cyclists who feel car drivers have no rights!

Ruecharlot, as I said up post the Netherlands has priority to the right in built up areas and occasionally outside, but then always clearly indicated. Cyclists from the right also have priority over cars in 30km zones.
Annoying as it is to those who are new to the concept it does not contribute to the number of road deaths or accidents in any significant way. Accidents involving the rule are generally caused by drivers from elsewhere who haven't taken the time to familiarise themselves with the law of the land in which they are driving.

I rarely spend any time in France without what I would describe as some lunatic driving straight at me from a side-street. I know all about "when in Rome" but I would have thought that a sense of self-preservation would deter drivers from doing this - how are they to know that the vehicle over which they are claiming priority isn't some huge lorry that simply can't stop.

Anyway, thanks for the stats, ruecharlot. I would tend to think that the difference in deaths due to drunk driving is that there has arisen a culture here in the UK that finds driving whilst under the influence of alcohol socially unacceptable. Especially among the young there is a "designated driver" who simply doesn't drink.

This is a case where the law has definitely influenced public opinion.