Almost Killed Again - Giving Way On Narrowed Street

[trailgumby]

Simple solution? Vicroads should just change them all into one way!! Single middle lane for moving through, parking left & right lanes both pointing in same direction if that's what the residents need.

Which will increase traffic speeds and make the streets LESS cycling friendly.

Precisely. And thoroughly supported by the evidence.

[ColinOldnCranky]

In technical terms what you have is a "superior right of way", i.e. the other vehicle must give way to you in the particular circumstance, though other road users might not have to give way.

A motorist, for example, must always give way to a pedestrian, regardless of what else should give way to that motorist. This applies regardless of whether the pedestrian is doing something unlawful, like crossing against the red man.

Not really, it's just sensible and more defensible legally and morally when things go wrong to have demonstrated extra care for the more vulnerable and according to your own propensity to cause harm.

For example, while a driver should be extra careful around a cyclist, if I am stuck across the intersection, even if due to my own stupidity or poor driving, a cyclist coming from my side is still required to NOT exercise this fictional "right of way". If he chose to crash into me out of spite, or he was grossly inattentive, he would still be subject to a tort of negligence and, likely, something somewhere in the traffic statutes. Realistically of course, I'd struggle to prove the actions and intentions of the cyclist.

No one gets a right of way, superior, or otherwise. However we are ALL required to give due attention to the damage we can cause, more so with a tonne of metal box than with 6kg of bike frame or 70kgs of flesh and bone. the cyclist does not have an y right of way but I have the onus's placed on me when driving is greater.

The law is, by and large, quite sensible.

[London Boy]

In technical terms what you have is a "superior right of way", i.e. the other vehicle must give way to you in the particular circumstance, though other road users might not have to give way.

A motorist, for example, must always give way to a pedestrian, regardless of what else should give way to that motorist. This applies regardless of whether the pedestrian is doing something unlawful, like crossing against the red man.

Not really, it's just sensible and more defensible legally and morally when things go wrong to have demonstrated extra care for the more vulnerable and according to your own propensity to cause harm.

Yes, really. That is the law. All vehicles must give way to all pedestrians at all times. The pedestrian might commit an offence by being in a particular place or doing a particular thing, but still has the superior right.

It is correct to say that there is no 'right of way' except, perhaps, for the Monarch or her representative. But there are superior rights, subject to circumstance.

[Scintilla]

And trains. Trains at crossings have an implicit right-of-way.

[human909]

And trains. Trains at crossings have an implicit right-of-way.

So do Rhinos.