Common road rule misunderstandings

[myforwik]

Well there you go, I wasn't fully aware of the road shoulder thing. So does that include an on-road "bike lane" - the brisbane style ones which just involve yellow bicycles painted on the edge lines?

I have seen cyclists at an intersection pass a row of queued cars on the left, but then stop on a section of tarmac with painted cross hatches (kind of like a painted island) and then wait there for the lights to go green. To me this means they have to give way to the cars so there's no point in doing what they do. As you normally get through on the first change of lights I just end up queuing with the cars and take the middle of the lane. Personally I still haven't quite figured out the exact rules that apply to passing queued cars on the left - in particular rejoining the traffic up the front. The rules say something about "when safe" and I hardly ever feel safe doing it - usually only when its a single lane each way and the lanes are very wide.

The yellow bikes mean absolutely nothing. They are merely suggestions/warning simple that bikes may be present. Originally they were meant to be painted to indicate where bikes may be and the width they will need to pass. However the government watered it down to the point where they are just abused, painted little yellow bikes in the middle of the shoulder line. IMO its a deliberate ploy by the government to encourage the misconception that cyclists should be off in the shoulder somewhere.

A bike lane is part of the road proper. A bike lane has a white bike and/or a sign saying bike lane. You don't have to give way at an intersection.

Rejoining is simple: If you are on the road (ie. right of the shoulder line - which includes a painted island) then you have the right the lane. If you are over the lane in the shoulder or on the painted island you are not technically on the road and have to give way to anyone on the road.

[Aushiker]

A bike lane is part of the road proper. A bike lane has a white bike and/or a sign saying bike lane.

At least in WA a bike lane is a only a bike lane when it is signed. Road markings are not signs. You might want to clarify the veractiy of your statment with respect to your state's road rules.

Andrew

[find_bruce]

In regards to the 'right of way' comments, I use that term when referring to the position where the other vehicle(s) involved must give way to the subject.

Probably 'precedence' would be a more appropriate term to use.

I don't get the point you are trying to make. I look at the Oxford dictionary which says

right of way, n.
3. a. The right or ability to travel along a given thoroughfare in the face of the claims of other road users; spec. the legal right of a pedestrian, rider, or driver to proceed with precedence over other road users at a specific point or in a particular situation.

If you are saying that there may be other vehicles that a driver has to give way to, eg police vehicles with lights or sirens on, then we are in furious agreement.

I am not being deliberately argumentative, but I genuinely don't understand & am hoping you can explain your pov.

[il padrone]

You are stopped at an intersection. The lights turn green. You think you have right of way. A pedestrian/cyclist/other vehicle moves out crossing the intersection from your left. You see them, but proceed anyway because you think "I have right of way". A collision ensues.

Who's at fault? The other person? Ba Baaa!!

No, you are equally at fault for not stopping when you could, to avoid a collision ie. you do not have automatic 'right of way' (I am told only trains have this). The other person may have had an obligation to give way; both of you had an obligation to avoid causing a collision - that's the whole principle behind having road rules.

[tallywhacker]

in the WA regs it has

39. Effect of a circular green signal or green arrow
(1) If a traffic-control signal facing a driver displays a circular green signal the driver may —
(a) proceed straight ahead; or
(b) turn right or turn left, if the driver —
(i) does not conflict or interfere with pedestrians crossing the roadway;
(ii) does not turn the vehicle contrary to an instruction on a traffic sign at the intersection;
and
(iii) gives way to any vehicle on the right and, if turning right, gives way to any vehicle that has
entered or is approaching the intersection from the opposite direction

I read it as you have a "right of way" going straight ahead and only need to give way to people crossing the intersection if you are turning.

[David_G]

You are stopped at an intersection. The lights turn green. You think you have right of way. A pedestrian/cyclist/other vehicle moves out crossing the intersection from your left. You see them, but proceed anyway because you think "I have right of way". A collision ensues.

Who's at fault? The other person? Ba Baaa!!

No, you are equally at fault for not stopping when you could, to avoid a collision ie. you do not have automatic 'right of way' (I am told only trains have this). The other person may have had an obligation to give way; both of you had an obligation to avoid causing a collision - that's the whole principle behind having road
rules.

Too true, reading back through this thread there are several posts stating "There is no such thing as right of way" yet within one or two replies the old RoW phrase jumps right back in again.
At the start of the thread the post about a Stop and giveway to the right or left of each other sounds completely confusing.
My understanding of the difference between a stop and giveway is only that at the stop sign the vehicle has to come to a complete stop, after which the exact same rules apply as to a giveway. How that intersection can work safely is beyond me.
Maybe it's been set up by the local tow truck/panel beating businesses.

Another misconception of road rules is the "Keep left unless overtaking"
I'm sure it only applies on dual lane carriageways with a speed limit of 70km/h or more, so that doesn't include widish single lanes with 60, 50 or 40 speed limits.
But even when on the freeways it seems to imply that tailgating is OK! I've seen it all over the world too. You haven't lived till you are pootling along an Autobahn in a kombi at about 95 and umpteen screaming Beemers or Benzs, Porsches etc and others hammer past in the left lane at 200+ separated by a metre.
They have a thing where the tailgater leaves their outside indicator on to encourage the car in front to get out of the way.
Of course there's no speed limits on the Autobahns so I don't know who's in the wrong, but I can't see the tailgater explaining away their actions in court as safe in any way.

[David_G]

I know this is Melbourne specific but, as a former Tram driver, there is a lot of misunderstanding about the passing trams rules.

Clearly you can pass a tram at any time if there is a safety zone, that one works ok.

If a tram is stopped at a tram stop you cannot pass the tram if the doors are open. Doesn't matter if no-one is getting on or off, if the doors are open it is a stop sign. If the doors are closed you can pass at a slow speed (8 or 10 KMh if memory serves) if no-one is attempting to get on or off. In other words a tram, at a tram stop, with the doors closed, is like a give way sign: any person attempts to get to the tram to try and get on and you have to stop.

The number of people cycling along Swanston St who don't have any idea, or who just don't care, is astounding.

DS

I've always thought you were only allowed to pass a stationary tram other than at a safety zone when waved past or something similar by a Uniformed Tramways employee and then at no faster than 8km/h. (it was 5mph when I got my licence)

I don't remember anything about the doors being open or closed.
That may have come in since then of course.

[find_bruce]

You are stopped at an intersection. The lights turn green. You think you have right of way. A pedestrian/cyclist/other vehicle moves out crossing the intersection from your left. You see them, but proceed anyway because you think "I have right of way". A collision ensues.

Who's at fault? The other person? Ba Baaa!!

No, you are equally at fault for not stopping when you could, to avoid a collision ie. you do not have automatic 'right of way' (I am told only trains have this). The other person may have had an obligation to give way; both of you had an obligation to avoid causing a collision - that's the whole principle behind having road rules.

If you think that someone might confuse the short hand expression "right of way" as giving them a right to commit various criminal offences, including assault and dangerous driving, then I can understand why you prefer to use another expression.

For me I will continue to use the expression in the dictionary meaning set out above, but I accept that you are entitled to have a different opinion.

You might want to avoid travelling in West Australia though as as both regulation 45 and 95 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) are headed "right of way"

David_G, under the national road rules you are correct in relation to stop and give way signs - rule 67(1) "A driver at an intersection with a stop sign or stop line, but without traffic lights, must stop and give way in accordance with this rule. " Similarly give way is defined in the dictionary as follows

"give way", for a driver or pedestrian, means:
(a) if the driver or pedestrian is stopped-remain stationary until it is safe to proceed, or
(b) in any other case-slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision."

[David_G]

If you think that someone might confuse the short hand expression "right of way" as giving them a right to commit various criminal offences, including assault and dangerous driving, then I can understand why you prefer to use another expression.

For me I will continue to use the expression in the dictionary meaning set out above, but I accept that you are entitled to have a different opinion.

It's all a matter of increments I think, if you keep repeating it, more people will think it's true. So I think you are doing the wrong thing if we're looking at the big picture.

You might as well say 'I've got the right to ram you" as that's what a lot of road users act like.

I agree with what you say, we are all entitled to have our opinions on it, and maybe discussing things like this we may make a difference, however small.

[wombatK]

*Lots* of intersections have more than 1 stop or give way sign.

The section of the road rules (qld) is:

69A Two or more drivers facing various signs or lines at an
intersection...]

That's a Queensland specific inclusion - any rule with an A suffix in its number is typically a
state-specific rule. It's not in the Australian Road Rules, nor in NSW's. If most other states
can get away without it, you've got to wonder what's so different in Qld that it's needed.

[il padrone]

You might want to avoid travelling in West Australia though as as both regulation 45 and 95 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) are headed "right of way"

The term 'right of way' is not even listed in the dictionary for the Victorian Road Rules. It simply is not used. Plenty of references to 'give way' though.

[David_G]

You might want to avoid travelling in West Australia though as as both regulation 45 and 95 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) are headed "right of way"

It's headed right of way but the text states who has to give way, so I reckon we are back at the beginning.
You can't claim the right of way, you can only accept it when offered, otherwise you've driven into a dangerous situation.


ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 95

95 . Right of way in roundabout

A driver entering a roundabout shall give way to a vehicle that is within the roundabout.

Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU


I went in there and had a look at the laws for roundabouts hoping to find that you could only proceed into them when it was safe to do so, but that's not mentioned anywhere.
In Victoria it is added onto the end of every law regarding intersections and by doing that it means that all parties involved in a crash can be held partially liable and also means that no one has any "right" of way, only obligations who to give way to and obligations to only proceed when it's safe.

[DavidS]

I know this is Melbourne specific but, as a former Tram driver, there is a lot of misunderstanding about the passing trams rules.

Clearly you can pass a tram at any time if there is a safety zone, that one works ok.

If a tram is stopped at a tram stop you cannot pass the tram if the doors are open. Doesn't matter if no-one is getting on or off, if the doors are open it is a stop sign. If the doors are closed you can pass at a slow speed (8 or 10 KMh if memory serves) if no-one is attempting to get on or off. In other words a tram, at a tram stop, with the doors closed, is like a give way sign: any person attempts to get to the tram to try and get on and you have to stop.

The number of people cycling along Swanston St who don't have any idea, or who just don't care, is astounding.

DS

I've always thought you were only allowed to pass a stationary tram other than at a safety zone when waved past or something similar by a Uniformed Tramways employee and then at no faster than 8km/h. (it was 5mph when I got my licence)

I don't remember anything about the doors being open or closed.
That may have come in since then of course.

You are correct, or to be more precise: you were correct. The law changed in November 2009 as far as I recall. Prior to that the law was that you could not pass a stationary tram at a tram stop (safety zone excepted) unless waved through or if the stop was a terminus, and the speed limit was 8KPH as you say.

DS

[David_G]

Thanks for the update, I'm catching up, as now I'm only two years behind the times

[find_bruce]

My current pet peeves is people entering an intersection, even though they can't drive through because the road is blocked by traffic congestion - they don't make their own journey any quicker but add to the congestion as cross traffic cannot pass.

Like most of the issues, It's probably not so much a misunderstanding as a "don't give a rats". I suspect that the misunderstanding part is just how high the Court imposed fine can be. In NSW the officer can give you a penalty notice for breaching road rule 128 of $206 or the officer can take you to Court, who can issue a fine of up to $2,200, but that will be different in other States.

I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone being booked for it though.

[il padrone]

My current pet peeves is people entering an intersection, even though they can't drive through because the road is blocked by traffic congestion - they don't make their own journey any quicker but add to the congestion as cross traffic cannot pass.

In some parts of the world they have developed this to an art form

[Xplora]

And thus the Lord spake, and he granted them the "roundabout". That's the perfect solution to that ridiculousness.

[il padrone]

In some places even that does not work

[KenGS]

What's the problem? They seem to be getting by just fine using their senses and brains.

[Mulger bill]

In some places even that does not work

Looks like Riddell/Racecourse Rd at school drop off time

[DavidS]

My current pet peeves is people entering an intersection, even though they can't drive through because the road is blocked by traffic congestion - they don't make their own journey any quicker but add to the congestion as cross traffic cannot pass.

Like most of the issues, It's probably not so much a misunderstanding as a "don't give a rats". I suspect that the misunderstanding part is just how high the Court imposed fine can be. In NSW the officer can give you a penalty notice for breaching road rule 128 of $206 or the officer can take you to Court, who can issue a fine of up to $2,200, but that will be different in other States.

I can't remember the last time I heard of anyone being booked for it though.

I have seen someone booked for this, the reason they were booked is because they did it right in front of a cop on a bicycle and blocked the bike! The cop leaned over and said something to the effect of "that wasn't wise" and pulled him over to book him.

This is a huge problem in Melbourne where the intersection blocked micght have trams which can't steer around the idiotic car drivers who block intersections. I've seen hunderds of people on a few trams held up by one idiot in a car. The worst one is Swanston and Flinders Sts in the city, cars constantly block that intersection.

DS

[ColinOldnCranky]

My current pet peeves is people entering an intersection, even though they can't drive through because the road is blocked by traffic congestion - they don't make their own journey any quicker but add to the congestion as cross traffic cannot pass....

Even at gridlock mostly the intersection will clear early enough for one or two to get through legally. But while it should not be so, I dispute that those who get part way throuhg don't "make their own journey any quicker". They will have got throuhg on the current light when otherwise they would be waiting for the next cycle. And in extreme cases you could be waiting for quite a few light changes by virtue of others feeding on from ether side of you doing the dirty deed. Much as I would like it to be otherwise, from a purely selfish view they do get an advantage.

I infer that the same habits are shared by more than just WA drivers.

Like you, I can't recall seeing anyone ever get ticketed, or even chatted to or pulled aside. As in many things, a high chance of being booked would make the difference.

[Wal42]

To the guy riding through Bardon on the red & white Merida roadie around 7.15-7.20 this morning, mate you are the kind of idiot that makes car drivers want to run us cyclists over, I watched you for 4 kms & you didn't bother to obey 1 road rule, when I come along & find you run over at an intersection because you choose to ignore red lights & basic principles of courtesy, I won't help you, I'll just lay the boot into you. Why? Because you deserve all the pain you get.

[ft_critical]

I did a search for this in the rta.nsw website and didn't get the definative answer I expected.

Do I have to by law dismount to ride across a Pedestrian Crossing?


I do this at Milson's Point ocasionally, and have done it in front of Police Targetting cyclists running red lights who didn't bat an eyelid at me. Customarily, I unclip and use my feet to propel me sitting on the top tube, but I don't think that matters.

With the lawyers on the forum I expect this to be quickly resolved. Thanks

[wellington_street]

Yes, see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... /s248.html