Merging

[solmanic]

OK, here's a question for those who think they know their QLD road rules...

In the following scenario we have two lanes turning into one - no linemarking, no "left lane ends" or "form 1 lane" sign. The QLD road rules say that if the lanes are "merging" then the car in front has right of way, but they also state that a driver is to "keep as close as practical to the left" in which case car "A" should continue to remain adjacent to the kerb whilst car "B" moves across to the left as well. (Of course this hardly ever happens and car "A" usually pulls right and car "B" remains next to the adjacent lane marking.)

SO... which car (if any) is required to indicate?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

This is a common situation in many places and could be either laziness on the part of the road makers, or just that they don't understand what a problem this can create when people don't know if a lane is ending, or merging. What is double-ly confusing is when we see painted linemarking indicating that the left lane ends, but a "form 1 lane" sign or conversely no painted lines and a "left lane ends" sign - but that's a whole other gripe.

[weeds]

i find victoria to be worse than queensland with un-marked merging lanes

i always use the rule whoever is in front has right of way.......its seems silly if you are half a car infront to slow down so that the other car either overtakes you on the left or right, this is regardless of line marking and signage

keep in mind that i'm not a big fan of using indicaters either :cool::cool:

[CJT]

The QLD rules are, I think;


If there is a dashed merging line at the end of the lane to end the driver has to indicate right and give way to all traffic in the right hand lane.
I believe that if there are no merge / dashed lines whichever vehicle is in front has right of way and I dont think you are required to indicate either as you are not passing over any linemarking etc.

[V8Ian]

OK, here's a question for those who think they know their QLD road rules...

In the following scenario we have two lanes turning into one - no linemarking, no "left lane ends" or "form 1 lane" sign. The QLD road rules say that if the lanes are "merging" then the car in front has right of way, but they also state that a driver is to "keep as close as practical to the left" in which case car "A" should continue to remain adjacent to the kerb whilst car "B" moves across to the left as well. (Of course this hardly ever happens and car "A" usually pulls right and car "B" remains next to the adjacent lane marking.)

SO... which car (if any) is required to indicate?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

This is a common situation in many places and could be either laziness on the part of the road makers, or just that they don't understand what a problem this can create when people don't know if a lane is ending, or merging. What is double-ly confusing is when we see painted linemarking indicating that the left lane ends, but a "form 1 lane" sign or conversely no painted lines and a "left lane ends" sign - but that's a whole other gripe.
Car A has right of way but does not need to indicate as it is not changing lanes (ie not crossing a line).

[rangie ute on 38'']

ever since i have done my licence it has always been
NO Lines mean the vehicle in front has right of way

Lines with broken lines at ending lane, vehicle in the left lane must give way. it is clear when you have broken lines it means giveway for exactly the same reason that broken lines are at intersections and merges.

maybe this will clear it up for all the idiots that come flying
up the inside lanes and cut in,pretending every thing is normal. i never let them in because I have right of way.
also for the idiots that just float onto highways and road ways in their own time with no regard to the fact that they must giveway and merge at correct speed.

can I add KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING
and a person at a stop line going straight must give way to a vehicle that is turning across them when at a give way on the other side
Qld has the worst drivers in australia imo.
thats my rant anyway:D

[Hoges]

1.
in a 60kmh zone " If you are driving in a lane that comes to an end and there are line markings to the end of the lane and you have to merge to another lane, you must give way to traffic in the lane you are moving to. Vehicle A must give way because the lane it is in comes to an end."


2. You are driving Vehicle A in a 60km/h zone on a multi-lane road. The road changes from multi-lane to single lane and you need to merge with other traffic. There are no line markings.

Options:

(i) You have to give way to Vehicle B because it is on your right

(ii) Vehicle B should give way to you because you are travelling ahead of it

the correct answer is (ii)

[zulu Delta 534]

If you mount a "P" plate to your vehicle, none of the above is at all relevant!
Regards
Glen

[pop058]

The QLD rules are, I think;


If there is a dashed merging line at the end of the lane to end the driver has to indicate right and give way to all traffic in the right hand lane.
I believe that if there are no merge / dashed lines whichever vehicle is in front has right of way and I dont think you are required to indicate either as you are not passing over any linemarking etc.



Car A has right of way but does not need to indicate as it is not changing lanes (ie not crossing a line).

Concur



ever since i have done my licence it has always been
NO Lines mean the vehicle in front has right of way

Lines with broken lines at ending lane, vehicle in the left lane must give way. it is clear when you have broken lines it means giveway for exactly the same reason that broken lines are at intersections and merges.

maybe this will clear it up for all the idiots that come flying
up the inside lanes and cut in,pretending every thing is normal. i never let them in because I have right of way.
also for the idiots that just float onto highways and road ways in their own time with no regard to the fact that they must giveway and merge at correct speed.

can I add KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING
and a person at a stop line going straight must give way to a vehicle that is turning across them when at a give way on the other side
Qld has the worst drivers in australia imo.
thats my rant anyway:D


not necessarily so. One has to stop and the other doesn't, The stop and give way signs do not change the basic rule that a car turning across traffic must give way to straight through traffic.

most of them are southerners though :D

[V8Ian]

Concur





not necessarily so. One has to stop and the other doesn't, The stop and give way signs do not change the basic rule that a car turning across traffic must give way to straight through traffic.

most of them are southerners though :D
I also concur. Are we the only two who know the rules Paul? ;)

[dfendr]

not necessarily so. One has to stop and the other doesn't, The stop and give way signs do not change the basic rule that a car turning across traffic must give way to straight through traffic.

most of them are southerners though
__________________



Probably because under Victorian rules the vehicle at the stop sign has to give way to the turning vehicle unless they were also at a stop sign
:):):)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Car A has right of way but does not need to indicate as it is not changing lanes (ie not crossing a line).In NSW car A has right of way BUT DOES NEED TO INDICATE!

Road Rule 149 Giving way when lines of traffic merge into a single line of traffic

A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with one or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

Note 1. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.

Note 2. For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see the definition in the Dictionary.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/image/inforce/((Type%3Dsubordleg)%20AND%20(No%3D179)%20AND%20(Ye ar%3D2008))%20AND%20(%22Historical%20Document%22%3 D%220%22)%20AND%20(Repealed%3DN)/oLRoEPLGPIYijXjAVtkw2g%3D%3D_g177.gif

It becomes confusing if someone paints broken lines on the road.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/image/inforce/((Type%3Dsubordleg)%20AND%20(No%3D179)%20AND%20(Ye ar%3D2008))%20AND%20(%22Historical%20Document%22%3 D%220%22)%20AND%20(Repealed%3DN)/oLRoEPLGPIYijXjAVtkw2g%3D%3D_g174.gif

[solmanic]

In NSW car A has right of way BUT DOES NEED TO INDICATE!

Road Rule 149 Giving way when lines of traffic merge into a single line of traffic

A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with one or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

Note 1. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.

Note 2. For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see the definition in the Dictionary.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

It becomes confusing if someone paints broken lines on the road.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/image/inforce/%28%28Type%3Dsubordleg%29%20AND%20%28No%3D179%29%2 0AND%20%28Year%3D2008%29%29%20AND%20%28%22Historic al%20Document%22%3D%220%22%29%20AND%20%28Repealed% 3DN%29/oLRoEPLGPIYijXjAVtkw2g%3D%3D_g174.gif

These diagrams are the same in the Qld road rules too. My question related more to the need to indicate, not who has right of way - that is clearly spelled out.

Whilst the first diagram (merging) shows car "A" indicating, there is no actual text in the road rules that says this is required. It is more of an assumption that even though two lanes might be merging into one, the left lane is still the one that is ending. Therefore we all assume that the car in the left lane should still indicate despite being in the correct position on the road (ie left), and not actually changing lanes.

My problem today was that the two lefthand lanes continued for some distance after the linemarking stopped meaning that I didn't have to pull right so I just kept on going on the lefthand side of the new single lane.

Numnuts in the righthand lane (a Hilux by the way) took exception to that fact that I was ahead of him, and that I didn't indicate despite not actually cutting in front of him. As usually happens, he decided that me being in front was not the right order for the universe so he sped up and tried to re-overtake me in the double width lane. By this stage the kerb was narrowing so I just followed it and that's when all hell broke loose. ****-for-brains had a hissy fit and tore around me in the righthand lane (there were still two lanes). This wasn't enough so he decided to slow down so I had to go around him again and that gave him the opportunity he wanted to yell at me a bit.

Now when a small minded Hi-lux driver who probably didn't get enough hugs as a child is yelling abuse and "where did I get my license - a cornflakes packet?", there is not really much use trying to explain that I actually had right-of-way. And yes, he actually used that line. I managed not to laugh as this would have probably inflamed the situation.

[bushrover]

Hhhhmmmmm............................now everything is clearer........Hilux driver. He hasn't actually made it to the big league yet and still needs to use the car as an extension to his penis.

[Celtoid]

It's not law in QLD but it's inferred that common sense should prevail when merging....unfortunately that does apply to a lot of Australian drivers...:wasntme:

Left lanes starting at traffic lights and intersections are next to useless in this country because clowns won't let cars that use them merge.

The whole point of having the ****ing things (extra lanes) is to get more traffic through intersections, etc. The lights, lanes, etc are all supposed to pulse traffic.

As Australian roads get more traffic on them, it's time we all grew up and encourage a culture of change......

We have four lane highways in places that are constantly gridlocked due to the same sort of pig headed people cluttering the roads..

Simple stuff really....let people merge....what is the cost of that?

Move to the left if you're not overtaking....

No rocket science required.

Rant over.

[mudmouse]

There's no QLD, NSW, VIC etc law. It's all under Road Rules 2008 which is a National set of rules. The signage from State to State varies, which is insane, but it's one set of rules.

Matt.

[Landy Smurf]

they have this in canberra it was the first time i saw it confused the poop out of me but both lanes inicate seemed to be the go

[PhilipA]

Why don't we discuss roundabout rules where the big truck entering at 60Kmh has right of way over everything else.
From what I see every day NOBODY knows roundabout rules , even the cops.
Regards Philip A

[V8Ian]

There's no QLD, NSW, VIC etc law. It's all under Road Rules 2008 which is a National set of rules. The signage from State to State varies, which is insane, but it's one set of rules.

Matt.
We may all play by the same rules, but each umpire interprets them differently. :mad:

[dullbird]

Why don't we discuss roundabout rules where the
big truck entering at 60Kmh has right of way over everything else.From what I see every day NOBODY knows roundabout rules , even the cops.
Regards Philip A


I dont see how that is possible as you must give way to any traffic already on a round about??? so if there is traffic on the round about and he is entering he must give way.

or did i miss the sarcastic under tones in that post?:eek::D

[Mick_Marsh]

Why don't we discuss roundabout rules where the big truck entering at 60Kmh has right of way over everything else.
From what I see every day NOBODY knows roundabout rules , even the cops.
Regards Philip A
Strangely, some people do.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/139624-how-use-roundabout-3.html#post1582492
and
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/139624-how-use-roundabout-3.html#post1582509
(http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/139624-how-use-roundabout-3.html#post1582509)Consider yourself told.

Oh, and having just attained my heavy rigid non synchromesh endorsement on my licence, It has given me a different perspective and a new found respect for heavy vehicle drivers who try to do the right thing.
Have you any idea how hard it is to guide one of these leviathans safely amongst selfish, uncaring traffic. I do now.

[jerryd]

It's not law in QLD but it's inferred that common sense should prevail when merging....unfortunately that does apply to a lot of Australian drivers...:wasntme:

Left lanes starting at traffic lights and intersections are next to useless in this country because clowns won't let cars that use them merge.

The whole point of having the ****ing things (extra lanes) is to get more traffic through intersections, etc. The lights, lanes, etc are all supposed to pulse traffic.

As Australian roads get more traffic on them, it's time we all grew up and encourage a culture of change......

We have four lane highways in places that are constantly gridlocked due to the same sort of pig headed people cluttering the roads..

Simple stuff really....let people merge....what is the cost of that?

Move to the left if you're not overtaking....

No rocket science required.

Rant over.


I'll second that ;)

[superquag]

"...Have you any idea how hard it is to guide one of these leviathans safely amongst selfish, uncaring traffic. I do now."


Yes Mick, I understand...

To be fair, I don't seem to have a problem with not being noticed...
- Maybe its the orange paint on the School bus and the bull-bar out front.
-Or the twin 130dB air-horns for the odd motorist who looks like having a lapse in judgement. :twisted:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

There's no QLD, NSW, VIC etc law. It's all under Road Rules 2008 which is a National set of rules. The signage from State to State varies, which is insane, but it's one set of rules.

Matt.Actually that is not correct, NSW dropped the "Australian" from the "Road Rules" somewhere about 2005.

For example: Australian Road Rule 7; 9; 10; 185; 215; 217; 220; 221; 222; 225; 244A; 244B; 244C; 295; 313B are not included (reproduced) in NSW Road Rules

AND

(NSW) Road Rule 24-1; 24-2; 24-3; 25-1; 79-1; 79-2; 167-1; 167-2; 179-1; 207-1; 207-2; 207-3; 207-4; 207-5; 207-6; 207-7; 207-8; 207-9; 213-1; 214-1; 215-1; 218-1; 220-1; 221-1; 221-2; 222-1; 222-2; 229-1; 245-1; 250-1; 267-1; 267-2; 268-1; 268-2; 268-3; 271-1; 271-2; 291-1; 291-2; 291-3; 294-1; 294-2; 294-3; 294-4; 298-1; 300-1; 300-2; 300-3; 300-4; 300-5; 307-1; 313-1; 316-1; 316-2; 352-1; 352-2. are NSW Road Rules that don't exist in the Australian Road Rules.

See http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.12-div.2-nt.1+0+N?

[Ivan]

From my experience of QLD Drivers it's whoever has the fastest car has the right of way. If there are two lanes and the inside lane is going slowly then you must drive in the outside lane at the same speed as the inside lane and prevent any traffic getting past.
I must admit QLD drivers are the worst I have ever come across.

:p

Ivan

[Lotz-A-Landies]

From my experience of QLD Drivers it's whoever has the fastest car has the right of way. If there are two lanes and the inside lane is going slowly then you must drive in the outside lane at the same speed as the inside lane and prevent any traffic getting past.
I must admit QLD drivers are the worst I have ever come across.

:p

IvanIvan

Don't agree, Sydney drivers and the most selfish drivers on the planet, they have no concept that the "keep Left unless Overtaking" rule applies to them even on 110KPH motorways, even if they are only going 90KPH, but they insist on keeping pace with a another 90KPH car in the LH lane.

IMHO Qld drivers are pretty much the same as regional NSW drivers.

[ScottW]

If in doubt, give way to the County :)

[incisor]

under 80kph in qld you dont have to keep to the left unless signed that you need to

the vehicle in front has the right of way unless the mass of the old land rover beside them exceeds their intestinal fortitude ;)

drive my wife's sirion and every man and his dog tries to force you off the round

drive a 1959 swb and they turn into the most patient people on earth.

experienced it this week as i drive madge into work daily whilst getting the exhaust etc done.

is marvelous ;)

[Saitch]

As i've mentioned elsewhere, I have a brother just over the border in NSW & whenever we visit I've found the left lane of the 4 lane highway to be the quickest as very few people use it. I was very apprehensive about driving in Spain when we visited but soon realised they know a lot more about driving than the majority of Qlders (I'm a born & raised canetoad too). I've driven in a few countries & rate the Brissie to Goldie trip the most frustrating (& scary)for a 4 lane h/way.

[weeds]

i reckon if you are doing the speed limit than staying in the right lane is OK in my view.....

plus when i'm driving to work at 5am in the emorning when traffic is building, traffic enters the freeway at nearly every on ramp which means either adjusting your speed or changing lanes, i reckon its common sense to stick to the right lane as it saves either hitting the brakes or speeding up to accommodate the merging traffic

at least i have an uninterupted cruise to work @ 100km/hr gps speed.......if other cars are on my arse than they are exceeding the speed limit so i am doing them a favour:angel:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

running a moving roadblock with cars both travelling 20KPH less than than the 110 limit on a two lane road is just baiting road rage.

It happens all day every day everyday on Sydney's 2 lane M5, and why I think Sydney drivers rude and inconsiderate. I thought the 4 lane carriageways in SEQ worked well and it didn't really matter who was doing what speed in which lane as there were always other lanes to move past slow drivers and let speeding drivers past.

[Celtoid]

In the UK I believe it's illegal (generally speaking) to overtake in the left lane. It's created a culture of drivers that gravitate to the LH lanes, allowing traffic to flow freely.

Merging also doesn't seem to be an issue for them....they get it...mergers accelerate to speed and find a hole....peeps on the main road watch them and make it easy for them, create a hole if required.

I found even their truckers were pretty good too. They are pretty curteous drivers on the whole.

It's a breath of fresh air driving over there....well with the exception of London and surrounds....the traffic seriously sux and a lot of folks drive like Australians....LOL!!!!

I was there 20 years ago and then again last month....there has been a noticeable deterioration in the Brit's driving style. But on the whole...and I mean 85-90% of the time, it's a very refreshing place to drive.

Most of the crap drivers that I came across had the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car....:wasntme:

[solmanic]

Hhhhmmmmm............................now everything is clearer........Hilux driver. He hasn't actually made it to the big league yet and still needs to use the car as an extension to his penis.

Well I suspect that part of my problem was that I wasn't in the Defender.

[Redback]

i reckon if you are doing the speed limit than staying in the right lane is OK in my view.....

plus when i'm driving to work at 5am in the emorning when traffic is building, traffic enters the freeway at nearly every on ramp which means either adjusting your speed or changing lanes, i reckon its common sense to stick to the right lane as it saves either hitting the brakes or speeding up to accommodate the merging traffic

at least i have an uninterupted cruise to work @ 100km/hr gps speed.......if other cars are on my arse than they are exceeding the speed limit so i am doing them a favour:angel:

Only if your speedo is dead accurate Kelvin;)

I move over regardless, even if I'm doing the speed limit, just common courtesy IMO.

[ScrubPleb]

......
Probably because under Victorian rules the vehicle at the stop sign has to give way to the turning vehicle unless they were also at a stop sign
:):):)
or a give way sign.
Rule 67, "Stopping and giving way at a stop sign", says in part :
The driver must give way to a vehicle in, entering
or approaching the intersection except⎯
(a) an oncoming vehicle turning right at the
intersection, if a stop sign, stop line, give
way sign, or give way line applies to the
driver of the oncoming vehicle

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt7.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/3EEE9D7CA314642BCA257A4C001F1E08/$FILE/09-94sra007%20authorised.pdf

Regards
Peter.

[Sleepy]

It's quite simple in Vic.

I have right of way :angel:




unless, of course, I am in NSW.....or QLD.....or SA....:cool:

[Slunnie]

OK, here's a question for those who think they know their QLD road rules...

In the following scenario we have two lanes turning into one - no linemarking, no "left lane ends" or "form 1 lane" sign. The QLD road rules say that if the lanes are "merging" then the car in front has right of way, but they also state that a driver is to "keep as close as practical to the left" in which case car "A" should continue to remain adjacent to the kerb whilst car "B" moves across to the left as well. (Of course this hardly ever happens and car "A" usually pulls right and car "B" remains next to the adjacent lane marking.)

SO... which car (if any) is required to indicate?

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh191/solmanic42/Merging.jpg

This is a common situation in many places and could be either laziness on the part of the road makers, or just that they don't understand what a problem this can create when people don't know if a lane is ending, or merging. What is double-ly confusing is when we see painted linemarking indicating that the left lane ends, but a "form 1 lane" sign or conversely no painted lines and a "left lane ends" sign - but that's a whole other gripe.
Around here a few different scenarios occur depending.

1. Car B accelerates to ensure it has right of way and forces car A onto the gravel. Neither drivers note anything unusual.

2. Car A moves over to the right claiming right of way. Car B is unaware of the changed conditions and is forced into oncoming traffic.

3. Car A moves across and Car B gives room for Car A to do this safely. Driver of Car A then gives Car B the finger for tailgating, Car B accepts the friendly gesture.

4. Car B accelerates violently to gain right of way over Car A. Once in single lane, Car B returns to normal highway speed of 80km/h.

5. Car B sneaks up on Car A. Car A accelerates to maintain position.

6. Car B accelerates. Car A accelerates more. Lane closes, both cars return to 80km/h.

7. Car A slows down to give way to Car B.

8. Both Car A and Car B both cant decide who has right of way, so they both slam on the brakes.




Other than that, the car with the bullbar has right of way, or if there is a draw, then the cheapest car has right of way.

[460cixy]

they have this in canberra it was the first time i saw it confused the poop out of me but both lanes inicate seemed to be the go


Have you had any one hit you or try and push you off the road yet? I have had both from cars coming from behind where I have the right of way when merging one Sheila smashed her door mirror off on the side of my patrol coming from behind. She never even stopped after the hit and another time in the defender we took a detour over the median strip to avoid a similar thing. These are both form one lane marked stretch of roads not the others with the dashes where the car on the left has to give way

[boofdtl]

Car B slows down and lets car A in....

[scottvdw]

When I was taught to drive, I was told that the is no such thing as "Right of way" !
Every rule quoted here talks about one driver having to "Give way"
There is a big attitude difference between the two.

Scott

[solmanic]

When I was taught to drive, I was told that the is no such thing as "Right of way" !
Every rule quoted here talks about one driver having to "Give way"
There is a big attitude difference between the two.


Surely one is just the converse of the other. If one vehicle is required under driving regulations to "give way" then the other vehicle has the "right of way".

To-mah-to, to-may-to.

As for the attitude difference, a driver may forcefully exercise their "right of way" whilst another driver may arrogantly fail to "give way". The driver with "right of way" however will still be backed up by law in the event of a collision. In a Defender it is very tempting to let the numpty who won't let you merge run up the back of you deliberately. That way they will discover the error of their ways when they try to make an insurance claim.

[THE BOOGER]

Surely one is just the converse of the other. If one vehicle is required under driving regulations to "give way" then the other vehicle has the "right of way".

To-mah-to, to-may-to.

As for the attitude difference, a driver may forcefully exercise their "right of way" whilst another driver may arrogantly fail to "give way". The driver with "right of way" however will still be backed up by law in the event of a collision. In a Defender it is very tempting to let the numpty who won't let you merge run up the back of you deliberately. That way they will discover the error of their ways when they try to make an insurance claim.

Dont know about other states but NSW it is illegal to enforce your right of way if there is an accident you both get booked:( Only the police can enforce the rules:(

[Mick_Marsh]

Dont know about other states but NSW it is illegal to enforce your right of way if there is an accident you both get booked:( Only the police can enforce the rules:(
How would they know?

[pop058]

It's quite simple in Vic.

I have right of way :angel:




unless, of course, I am in NSW.....or QLD.....or SA....:cool:

That would be Victorian rule 101, and NSW and QLD and SA. :D

[V8Ian]

Surely one is just the converse of the other. If one vehicle is required under driving regulations to "give way" then the other vehicle has the "right of way".

To-mah-to, to-may-to.

As for the attitude difference, a driver may forcefully exercise their "right of way" whilst another driver may arrogantly fail to "give way". The driver with "right of way" however will still be backed up by law in the event of a collision. In a Defender it is very tempting to let the numpty who won't let you merge run up the back of you deliberately. That way they will discover the error of their ways when they try to make an insurance claim.
That's inviting a charge of 'Fail to avoid a collision' o r'Driving with undue care and attention'.

[rangie ute on 38'']

I also concur. Are we the only two who know the rules Paul? ;)



50539

Example 5
Stopping and giving way at a stop sign to an oncoming vehicle that is not at a stop sign or give way sign
- check out page 68
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf

[rangie ute on 38'']

Concur





not necessarily so. One has to stop and the other doesn't, The stop and give way signs do not change the basic rule that a car turning across traffic must give way to straight through traffic.

most of them are southerners though :D

this proves you dont know your road rules;)

[ScrubPleb]

50539

Example 5
Stopping and giving way at a stop sign to an oncoming vehicle that is not at a stop sign or give way sign
- check out page 68
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf


Example 5 is not relevant to the original contention, " ... a person at a stop line going straight must give way to a vehicle that is turning across them when at a give way on the other side", because the turning vehicle in the example is not facing a give way sign. The situation is covered by 69A:
Two or more drivers facing various signs or lines at an
intersection
If 2 or more drivers at an intersection are each facing a stop
sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line, each driver
must give way to the other or others, as required under
division 2, as if none of the drivers were facing a stop sign,
stop line, give way sign or give way line.
So once the driver facing the Stop sign has complied by stopping, all bets are off and normal give way rules apply. The vehicle traveling straight through does not have to give way to the turning vehicle.
Regards
Peter.

[DiscoMick]

On the OP, this may be relevant:


Merging

There are two different give way rules for merging.
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/%7E/media/846b33f4-b480-4cbb-9b03-6f3c69aac1a5/merging_with_lines.ashx?w=200&h=156&as=1 1. On roads where there are lanes marked on the road, if your lane comes to an end, you must give way to traffic already in the lane you are moving to. In the image to the right, Vehicle A (blue) must give way to Vehicle B (green).

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ 2. On roads where there are no lanes marked on the road, when lines of traffic merge, you must give way to any vehicle that is ahead of you. In the image to the right, Vehicle B (green) must give way to Vehicle A (blue). Lines of traffic refers to adjacent rows of vehicles that do not have a lane separation line between them.


Merging (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-Road-Rules/Road-rules-refresher/Merging.aspx)

So, if there are no lanes marked on the road the vehicle ahead has right of way, but if there are lanes that end, the vehicle changing lanes has to give way (I think).

[DDdisco]

The easiest way to remember it is if you have to cross a line, you have to give way. Same as changing lanes - you have to give way. If the other vehicle has to change its speed or direction to avoid you, you have failed to give way and have committed an offence.

As Scottvdw said earlier, there is no such thing as "right of way", only "give way", and they really aren't just the converse of each other. Regardless of whether another driver appears to have failed to give way, there is an over-riding legal requirement to avoid a collision.

[Celtoid]

The easiest way to remember it is if you have to cross a line, you have to give way. Same as changing lanes - you have to give way. If the other vehicle has to change its speed or direction to avoid you, you have failed to give way and have committed an offence.

As Scottvdw said earlier, there is no such thing as "right of way", only "give way", and they really aren't just the converse of each other. Regardless of whether another driver appears to have failed to give way, there is an over-riding legal requirement to avoid a collision.

I stated this quite a few posts ago....I can't remember where I read it...possible the RACQ mag.

It may not be law (yet maybe?) but there is a very strong inferrences by the authorities that common sense should prevail when merging, regardless of whether there are lines or otherwise.

It reminds me a bit of how the RH Overtaking law in QLD (as in keep left unless overtaking) has progressed over the years from not being there, to being inferred, to be being suggested on signs to becoming law (over 80KPH). Shame they never seem to enforce it :wasntme:

There is no logic whatsover if you are in the LH lane and are ahead of the RH lane car and then have to brake to allow him to pass the complete length of your vehicle. You then have no momentum and will find it more difficult (less safe) to merge. And if there are cars behind you...it's an accident waiting to happen...at the very least it just screws up the traffic behind you.

If you've been involved in contractual work or other legal matters you'll understand what I mean....there is no law until you hit the courtroom! At the end of the day, the traffic laws are there for instances when there is a collision/incident and a baseline has to exist for a decision to be made. However, if you went to court and made it clear that the RH lane vehicle purposely prohibited you from merging...or accelerated to block you...then it isn't a baseline decision. Accepting a ticket is accepting guilt, doesn't always go down that way if you go to court. I'm not old enough to remember myself but I remember my Dad telling me that in the UK, and I assume it was the case in Australia, that once apon a time there were no tickets, you had to go court. But it plugged up the court system so they introduced tickets. Most people cop it on the chin (no pun intended :)) if they do the wrong thing and accept the ticket. But there would be many borderline cases that folks just take the ticket cause they don't understand the law or do not want the hassle of going to court.

Not everybody can afford to go to court either but it's a fools security to think that the 'law' will stand on your side if the circumstances can be proven as unreasonable. If you have acted unreasonably (regardless of the lane you are in) you may find yourself in more trouble than just getting a ticket.

Obviously, if some dill zooms up the LH lane and collects the RH car as he tries to merge at disparate speed, then that's a different story....and there would be many, many variables.

However, the authorities would not be 'inferring' if it was always black and white.

So simple stuff again....if you are all playing sensible, driving safely at similar speeds....use your noggin and not the lane markings....

Kev.

[solmanic]

Most of the discussion here has centred on the right-of-way during different merging, lane ending scenarios... however my original question was more about the need to indicate.

The diagram in most state road rules publications shows the car to the left during a merging maneouvre indicating to the car to the right and behind which has to give way.
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/%7E/media/8b602d17-308a-4983-ab1d-3d02aa8e600d/merging_without_lines.ashx?w=200&h=156&as=1
These diagrams also show the left lane still appearing to end but there are many instances when you are confronted by a "form 1 lane" sign and a double width lane extends for some distance beyond where the linemarking ends. This is the scenario I am querying.

If two lanes merge but space for two lanes continues beyond where the linemarking ends, according to the national road rules the car in the lefthand lane should continue to drive as close as practicable to the left. Who should indicate?

Since starting this thread I have come across another ambiguous situation where two lanes merge into on on a local freeway on-ramp...

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Should either car indicate here?

[Treads]

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh191/solmanic42/Merging2.jpg

Should either car indicate here?

Yep, both: 'A' to the right, and 'B' to the left. I bet 9 out of 10 times nobody does though ;)

[bee utey]

It may be helpful to think of the road having unmarked lanes, see here for example:

TEACH YOURSELF DRIVING IN AUSTRALIA (http://cardriving.com.au/30.htm)

TEACH YOURSELF DRIVING IN AUSTRALIA (http://cardriving.com.au/31.htm)


IN GENERAL
See lanes even in an unmarked road.
Where possible, maintain 1 metre safety margin from parked vehicles when passing.

See lanes where the road is wide enough for two lines of traffic but there are no lane dividers marked on the road (synonym for unmarked lanes is “lines of traffic”):
when you move close to the left side of the road – you are in the leftmost lane (or 1st lane);
when you move close to the centre of the road – you are in the rightmost lane.

Despite no dividing lines, you should use turn signal to change lanes in the same safe manner as described in CHANGING LANES section.

[bee utey]

But not as difficult as this:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1315.jpg

The dangerous roundabout with 9 unmarked lanes circling the arc de triomphe. travel photo from Contiki European Encounter travel blog by patience - photo 121 of 124 (http://www.bugbitten.com/photos/Europe/patience/Contiki_European_Encounter/26443-5873-874878.html)

[DiscoMick]

Once the marked lanes end, both vehicles are in the same lane, which is temporarily wider than normal, so why should either indicate as they're not changing lanes? The one in front just goes first - isn't that right?

[superquag]

Have to indicate over here...
- Anyway, I see it as an extension of the philosophy that indicators should foretell the future, not record the past.

Or, Prophets, not Historians...

In the case of the two 'equal' lanes merging down to one, still indicate as it also tells others that you're awake...:D