Road Rules - Who is in the wrong? - Page 4

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 05:28 PM

NUMBER 1 QUESTION REMAINS.

CAR A Diagram 2:

Surely you cant nail it from a stopped position without caution?

Is this not the same as me starting my car from a parked position and then Nailing it without warning through a busy intersection?

Fireblade · 29-12-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

As Bent 8 said, (I was writing this and he beat me to it) Car A is not in a slip lane going by the OP diagram, but changing into a lane thats going straight ahead, going by the lane on the other side of the intersection. If Car A was turning left and had to give way, there would be an island there, and he would be on the other side of that island.

I can't believe some of the interpretations here in this thread. Goes to show how many dont know the simple road rules like giving way to all oncoming traffic when turning right.

Morally or not, road rules are there to be observed, otherwise there would be chaos on the roads.

Guess you have no common courtesy, if we all were courteous to our fellow road users there would be less road rage and/or accidents, but no, all any body really gives a about is who is right or wrong. Everybody is in such a rush to get somewhere these days that no body cares about there fellow road users.

If car A waited for maybe 2-3 seconds more there wouldnt have been an impact in the first place. But on the other hand if Car B waited for 5 mins for the traffic to clear then it wouldnt have happened either.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM0KED

NUMBER 1 QUESTION REMAINS.

CAR A Diagram 2:

Surely you cant nail it from a stopped position without caution?

Is this not the same as me starting my car from a parked position and then Nailing it without warning through a busy intersection?

Lol...where in your first post does it say, show or otherwise that car A was stationary.
From the information given, Car A is travelling along behind another car, a new lane begins and he indicates left and moves into it. Fact
Driver B cant know that Car A had any intention of making a left turn and so must assume he is continuing forward in the new left lane and must therefore give way until the intersection is clear.
If you've left something out of your drawing or failed to describe the situation as cars stationary then thats your problem not ours.
You asked a question, gave an example, we judged it based on exactly what you provided and now your trying to word it to suit yourself.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

If car A waited for maybe 2-3 seconds more there wouldnt have been an impact in the first place. But on the other hand if Car B waited for 5 mins for the traffic to clear then it wouldnt have happened either.

As you've said, both drivers could have been courteous, neither were so courtesy goes out the window leaving road rules and as i read it car B MUST give way to oncomming traffic in this situation.

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Lol...where in your first post does it say, show or otherwise that car A was stationary.
From the information given, Car A is travelling along behind another car....

All other cars were stopped except Car B. which is why Car A pulled out in the first place.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM0KED

All other cars were stopped except Car B. which is why Car A pulled out in the first place.

Yes, in your mind, but as others have said where was it shown through written word or use of a signal ie. solid line, traffic light etc. etc. that the cars had stopped.
Furthermore, why would cars stop at an intersection when there is no reason too.

Your offering this now, but we can only judge the original post on the information supplied...

:

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 06:32 PM

If I did what CAR A did (but instead pulled out from a Kerb) during which time someone else had taken a turn, I would assume I'd be in the wrong.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 06:34 PM

But car A wasn't pulling out from the kerb was he?

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 06:36 PM

Q. Why would cars stop at an intersection when there is no reason too.
A. Simply because you are not allowed to block an intersection.

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 06:39 PM

Lol... why would the intersection become blocked, there is no signal infront of the vehicles already through the intersection so we must assume they are still moving too.
If they're moving so can the cars entering the intersection.

Perhaps you can change the drawings in your original post to suit your argument...

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 06:44 PM

The reason you can't see why is becuase i couldnt draw every car through to the next suburb. It was peak hour bumper to bumper traffic and cars had stopped to avoid that intersection becoming blocked.

Trendseeker · 29-12-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM0KED

The reason you can't see why is becuase i couldnt draw every car through to the next suburb. It was peak hour bumper to bumper traffic and cars had stopped to avoid that intersection becoming blocked.

Still LOL'ing Bent8? It was a basic set of questions about who was at fault at an intersection and a reasonable diagram was provided. The rules are straightforward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

no one has right of way - some have to give way
the law states that you must drive in a way to avoid an accident
therefore no one has right of way, because even if someone has not given way - you do not have the right to drive into them. you must give way to avoid an accident.

I'm all for doing all you can to avoid an accident, but there are road rules that help keep traffic moving.

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 06:58 PM

The Spanner in the works is:

Car A made his decision to leave the stopped traffic lane ONLY after Car B was already in the intersection and committed to the turn.

BA-Fan · 29-12-2009, 07:12 PM

Double Post....

jason71 · 29-12-2009, 07:45 PM

In scenario 2 was there a sign like this:

I think this may have been the only legal way for car B to cross in front of the standing traffic.

Other than that, as already said, it would have been common courtesy for the other traffic to let car B through.

NC1183 · 29-12-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason71

In scenario 2 was there a sign like this:

I think this may have been the only legal way for car B to cross in front of the standing traffic.

Other than that, as already said, it would have been common courtesy for the other traffic to let car B through.

Thats a basic road rule, not to block an intersection, just like not stopping on pedestrian crossings or round-abouts if you can't get through

BENT_8 · 29-12-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SM0KED

The reason you can't see why is becuase i couldnt draw every car through to the next suburb. It was peak hour bumper to bumper traffic and cars had stopped to avoid that intersection becoming blocked.

Oh, and we were supposed to know this from your half finished drawing.
Perhaps if you'd mentioned that 5 pages ago we wouldnt be upto page 5

**Silver Ghia** · 29-12-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

Guess you have no common courtesy, if we all were courteous to our fellow road users there would be less road rage and/or accidents, but no, all any body really gives a about is who is right or wrong. Everybody is in such a rush to get somewhere these days that no body cares about there fellow road users.

If car A waited for maybe 2-3 seconds more there wouldnt have been an impact in the first place. But on the other hand if Car B waited for 5 mins for the traffic to clear then it wouldnt have happened either.

Just rechecked the original question in the heading of this thread "Road Rules - Who is in the wrong?" I think that's been answered several times but some seem to have mixed up road rules with common courtesy.

And we really dont know whether Car A had a chance to see Car B turning, coming out from behind the car that was in front of him. And he probably didnt expect someone to do a right turn just as he was legally crossing the intersection. In this situation common courtesy doesnt come into it. And why did Car B speed across the oncoming traffic without caution?

GT290 · 30-12-2009, 03:43 AM

Hahaha, yes you are quite right it does refer to taking out dead bodies.
and yes wether you pass on the left or the right you eventually achieve the ultimate goal of over taking.
Now if the law says that this is legal then I have no argument. Now I know it was a rule in New Zealand, but its not enforced and people dont really adhere it either and I know its a rule in the UK and it is enforced at all times as speeding is here. Now here I thought it was a rule too, need to check it out but thats cool.
I will however proceed to question the safety of passing if you will, a vehicle on the left. Say for example I am in the middle of a three lane moter way, I now want to over take some one by moving around to their right. I do this and now proceed to move back into the middle lane, as I do this some persistant traffic weaving lane hopping freak manouvers from the far left behind me and into the middle lane and now aproaching the rear quarter of my vehicle as I am trying to move back. To me this is a crazy move and totally unsafe. I have seen it happen to so many on the free way. I drive with my mirrors in the correct position and have no blind spots but you check to ensure it is safe to pull back once you have overtaken and some goose hurdles in from the other side, where is the common sense in that and why would you allow such an unsafe rule. I would say it is there and its like keeping a safe distance from the car in from, its never enforced either and every one drives so far up the **** of the one in front its impossible to merge in from an on ramp, they speed up so you can't get in, atleast not in front of them and the traffic is moving at 10 k, wow that should get him home a load quicker.
come on attitudes stink and no one gives a except for number one.

Tell me, how does it make you feel when you actually let some one in from a side road when traffic is slow and you see fifty cars pass him bumper to bumper, you let him in or some one lets you in, you give em a wave they say thanks and its a good deed done. SHOULD HAPPEN BLOODY MORE OFTEN.

err sorry got carried away, but its bloody true
Happy new year and I hope the roads have a better attitude in 2010, I won't hold my breath though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

isn't that to do with taking out dead bodies??

i hear this term bandied about quite a lot and it makes little sense on the road.

overtaking refers to passing another car, be it on the left or right. if its a multilane road, both are perfectly legal. if there are no lines marked, then you can't overtake on the left. if there are no lines you are meant to drive 'as near as is practicle to the left side!'

burnz - geez you love clutching at straws on this forum.

LTDHO · 30-12-2009, 07:40 AM

After reading this thread and showing it to my collegues, we are not amazed that there are so many accidents on our roads.

The road rules are online and free to read. Do so, oh and encourage your family and friends to do so also.

prydey · 30-12-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT290

Hahaha, yes you are quite right it does refer to taking out dead bodies.
and yes wether you pass on the left or the right you eventually achieve the ultimate goal of over taking.
Now if the law says that this is legal then I have no argument. Now I know it was a rule in New Zealand, but its not enforced and people dont really adhere it either and I know its a rule in the UK and it is enforced at all times as speeding is here. Now here I thought it was a rule too, need to check it out but thats cool.
I will however proceed to question the safety of passing if you will, a vehicle on the left. Say for example I am in the middle of a three lane moter way, I now want to over take some one by moving around to their right. I do this and now proceed to move back into the middle lane, as I do this some persistant traffic weaving lane hopping freak manouvers from the far left behind me and into the middle lane and now aproaching the rear quarter of my vehicle as I am trying to move back. To me this is a crazy move and totally unsafe. I have seen it happen to so many on the free way. I drive with my mirrors in the correct position and have no blind spots but you check to ensure it is safe to pull back once you have overtaken and some goose hurdles in from the other side, where is the common sense in that and why would you allow such an unsafe rule.

Quote:

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 141

141—No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:

(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle; or

(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle; or

(c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.

i don't see where the issue is. maybe people make it an issue when they assume once they have passed the vehicle they are overtaking they are free to automatically resume there position in the original lane they were in. anytime you change lanes you must make all the standard checks!!

maybe this is why so many people tailgate, as they think they can't pass to the left!