Road Rule Question - Right of Way (VIC)

Lxenobium on 29/06/2018 - 18:47
Last edited 30/06/2018 - 09:47

Hi Ozbargainers,

I was riding my bicycle on the way home today and stopped at an intersection (Albion street is the main road and I am riding across it). There were no stop signs on either side, just dotted lines, indicating we have to give way to traffic on Albion road, which of course I did.

As traffic on Albion street cleared, I started my line (blue), going straight. At this point, a car started to turn right (red). I had a reflective vest on and 2 sets of flashing lights, so I am pretty sure the driver saw me well before turning. As our paths meet, she winds down the window and shouts "I was here first, are you trying to get yourself killed?"

Can you please let me know if I am in the wrong? My understanding of the road rules is that in this situation, the car turning right has to give way to all traffic going straight - please correct me if I am wrong. Does being on a bicycle change anything?

Appreciate the feedback

Image:

https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/201767/60142/screen_sh…

EDIT:

  1. To clarify, the driver of the car did arrive at the intersection first. However, the car was unable to proceed with turning right due to traffic on the main road. This is when I also arrived on the opposite side of the intersection. To be clear, we were both at a standstill and waiting AT the intersection as traffic on the main road cleared and started our lines.

  2. Totally agree and appreciate concerns about bike safety and to give way to cars even when you should not have to. The purpose of this post is simply to clarify if the driver's actions and response was justified, and how to approach this situation in the future

Poll Options

  • 195
    Bike has right of way
  • 12
    Car has right of way
Automotive

Comments

  • PissLUR on 29/06/2018 - 19:11

    was she there first?

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:18
      +3

      Yes, she was definitely there first at her stop line. However, as there was traffic on the main road, she could not cross. I then arrived at my stop line and we both waited for ~30 seconds before the traffic on the main road cleared.

      The fact that she said "I was here first" meant that she certainly saw me coming and waiting on the other side.

      My understanding is that her being there first does not change my right of way. As stated, we both had to wait ~30 seconds before moving. Let me know if I am wrong

      • PissLUR on 29/06/2018 - 19:19
        +23

        ok. she should have given way to you.

        however, its not a matter of right or wrong. your own safety comes first.

        • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:28
          +4

          I agree with the safety issue. Just curious, what would you do in this situation? Would you let the whole stream of opposing traffic through, while holding up angry drivers behind you, who are expecting you to move?

        • CMH on 29/06/2018 - 19:50
          -1

          @xenobium:

          It's not a bad idea to just sit there, but I wouldn't block "angry drivers" behind you.

          You're on a bike, move to the side and wave them past you on the right.

          I once had to cross a busy road with 8 lanes on foot (overseas, no crossings in sight). It took me 15 mins to find an opening, but better be slow than dead.

        • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 00:53
          +3

          @CMH: sure I could have done this at every intersection, it would just turn my 20 min commute to 8 hrs - but better to get home in one piece ;)

          Also not sure how you crossing an 8 lane road by foot (illegally?) compares to me trying to commute by the rule book

        • CocaKoala on 30/06/2018 - 08:11

          @xenobium: NO problem then, keep pushing your luck assuming that all drivers are law abiding citiens (haha).

        • vroomkroom on 30/06/2018 - 08:58
          +1

          @xenobium: No it wont, just jump on the merri creek bike path up the road and avoid the roads where possible !!

  • bdl on 29/06/2018 - 19:14
    +19

    Bike doesn't change anything. She should give way to you.

    She is a boner bandit for having a go at you!

  • justmex on 29/06/2018 - 19:15

    She should give you "give way"

  • CMH on 29/06/2018 - 19:20
    +8

    Regardless of who's got the right of way, the person on the bicycle will be the one in hospital.

    Take care of your safety first before arguing who has right of way.

    In another scenario, if a B-double looks like it's going to run a red light doing 80km/h, are you going to exercise your right of way by going in front of it on your green?

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:24
      +8

      Completely agree with you. The point of this post was not to prove that I am right. Rather, it was to check that if I am in the wrong, then I would have certainly waited for the car to pass the next time I am in the same situation.

      Try to understand that we both moved as the traffic cleared - I was not deliberately exercising my right of way in a dangerous manner. I was moving with the expectation that all was clear

      The scary thing is that she thinks she is in the right - I am not sure if this is because I am on a bicycle, or because she is just ignorant of the rules (I suspect the former)

      • justmex on 29/06/2018 - 19:30
        +1

        Bike riders should be considered and honour same as one of car driver by law.

      • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:35

        ie, it was not a situation where you could predict a vehicle was going to run a red light, we both moved from a standing stop

        • CMH on 29/06/2018 - 19:41
          -7

          You couldn't predict that she would turn right and possibly hit you?

        • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:43

          seriously, no I could not

        • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:59

          @CMH: Thanks for your tips, let me know of a good defensive driving school

        • CMH on 29/06/2018 - 21:53
          -6

          @xenobium:

          I recommend Driver Dynamics that operates out of Sandown Racecourse. They do practical scenarios as well.

        • terrys on 30/06/2018 - 08:22
          +1

          @CMH: I've done 5, 3 as a Public Service driver in N.Z. I also ride a bike and have work for some years as a treadly-riding postie.
          I would have ridden on, whilst taking care that self-entitled idiots like the moron driving the car assuming a temporal priority as valid as the " I'm in a Beamer/Merc/Knob-wagon, you're in a cheap car" claim don't try a little inadvertent homicide.
          Just as the O.P. did.

        • CMH on 30/06/2018 - 15:21
          +2

          @terrys:

          I find that people in that category REALLY don't like it when you assert your right of way. They are acutely aware that you are there and that you have the right of way, and have never gotten into an accident with these sorts while asserting my right of way.

          Then again, I'm in a car.

  • Quantumcat on 29/06/2018 - 19:24
    -1

    As said above, on a bike, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Better to let a driver "get away" with doing the wrong thing if it means you live another day.

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:26

      Agreed, but in some situations, there is no opportunity to let the driver "get away", things just happen so fast

      • CMH on 29/06/2018 - 19:40
        +3

        You didn't consider the possibility she would go at the same time you did, and crash straight into you?

        You ALWAYS drive/ride/walk assuming everyone else on the road are idiots that will do the wrong thing.
        - the truck will run the red. Watch to see if they are stopping before going.
        - the car will pull out of the lane right in front of you. Be prepared to stop/move into the next lane.
        - the car will stop for no reason on a clear freeway. Stay 2-3s distance in case.

        It's when your guard is down, and you expect people to do the right thing that's when you get into an accident. In a car this might just mean repairs, but on a bike, your stakes are much higher and not being prepared for other people's crap will get you injured/killed.

        On a positive note if you survive you can sue them.

        • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:42

          noted, thanks!

        • John Kimble on 30/06/2018 - 06:47

          You ALWAYS drive/ride/walk assuming everyone else on the road are idiots that will do the wrong thing.

          No assumptions necessary.

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 09:20

          @John Kimble:

          I agree. As a motorcycle rider, I replace "assuming" in CMH's words of wisdom with "as if"…

          At a rider training day I went on, something that a trainer once said to everyone that really stuck with me…

          "Ride as if everyone out there is actually trying to kill you…"

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 12:14
          +1

          You ALWAYS drive/ride/walk assuming everyone else on the road are idiots that will do the wrong thing.

          I agree with your sentiments but that's totally impractical and no one here would do it.

          That philosophy would mean that you give way to everyone and drive around at 10 km/h in case someone pulls out from anywhere. When driving on the highway at 100 km/h, you would need to slow right down when approaching a side street, especially if you see a car waiting to turn onto the highway.

          The fact is that you can be cautious but you must assume a certain level of driving ability of others for traffic to flow. Driving assertively and making your intentions clear improve safety, hesitating and giving way to everyone do not.

        • CMH on 30/06/2018 - 15:01

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          That philosophy would mean that you give way to everyone and drive around at 10 km/h in case someone pulls out from anywhere. When driving on the highway at 100 km/h, you would need to slow right down when approaching a side street, especially if you see a car waiting to turn onto the highway.

          • the car will pull out of the lane right in front of you. Be prepared to stop/move into the next lane. Or just move to the next lane first.

          Where does it say slow right down? If the person shows no indication that they are stopping where they should, then by all means, slow right down. If it's too early to tell if they will, just be prepared that they won't: check your mirrors in case you need an emergency lane change, be prepared to brake hard.

          You MAY NOT prevent an accident in all cases, but it would reduce the severity of any accident you are involved in.

          The fact is that you can be cautious but you must assume a certain level of driving ability of others for traffic to flow. Driving assertively and making your intentions clear improve safety, hesitating and giving way to everyone do not.

          While I advocated for OP to give way in this case, that is due to the extreme risk to their safety being on a pushbike vs car.

          In a car, small low-speed accidents are generally safe for everyone involved (inconvenience aside). But like my other example with the B-double, you take absolutely no chances with that. Heck, doesn't even need to be a B-double, a car doing 80kmph T-boning you can still cause serious injuries.

          It's all about identifying risk and preparing for it. Where you can't be sure you'll be safe, then going slow is the the only option. A good example of this is driving on a windy country road at dawn/dusk: the risk of wildlife on the road is very high. Might be 100kmph road, but roos are completely unpredictable and WILL appear around a blind corner. Slowing down to 80 or 40 would be your only option around those turns. (Of course, if you're driving a 2T SUV with a bullbar designed for trucks, feel free to keep going at 100).

          I can't tell you what to do at every instance, it is every driver's own responsibility to make sure their driving is as safe as possible. If making plans in advance for stupid crap other drivers pull on the road is too hard for you, then just pray hard nobody pulls any stupid crap around you. Only you would know if you could have prevented it by being more aware of your surrounding when you're involved in a serious accident, and my advice for you then is to keep that to yourself for your sake.

        • Iam12 on 01/07/2018 - 20:32

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          This. The best way to drive is to be predictable. The car behind the cyclist will assume the cyclist has the right of way to cross the intersection and if the cyclist starts braking because "it's better to let the kent go first and stay alive", they can get ploughed into from behind(depending on the cyclists speed and trajectory ofc)

  • garffi on 29/06/2018 - 19:36
    -6

    Usually both go at the same time and kind of give way to each other. Since you’re obviously much slower on a bike, she might’ve had the impression that you just started to go after she came over.

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:41

      "Usually both go at the same time and kind of give way to each other" this sounds like a recipe for disaster if this were in the rule book

      • garffi on 29/06/2018 - 22:52

        Well let's say instead of you going straight, you're turning right, just like the other driver on the other side. Who gives way to who? Wouldn't both just go at the same time cautiously otherwise you would just be staying there both trying to give way to each other. For your case, I think the driver should've given way. Sometimes road rules aren't definitive, there will always be stupid drivers out there and you will have to give way even though you're in the 'right'. Stay safe! :)

        • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 23:03

          who gives way to who?

          Australian Road Rules have a handy picture if you needed to have a look at what happens when both vehicles are turning right…

        • garffi on 29/06/2018 - 23:30

          @pegaxs: Proves my point. However, the pic you linked is not really applicable for OP's intersection as both drivers are leaving the side road and onto the main.

        • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 23:46

          @garffi:

          It was more in reference to your “what if you’re both turning right”, not a reference to OP and their experience.

          Here is the photo that is relevant to OP and that situation…

      • garffi on 29/06/2018 - 23:47
        +5

        Sorry was completely wrong. I just found the perfect video for your situation. Link - Start from 34s

        • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 23:52
          +1

          Great video. I think that what is applicable here to OP is the example that starts at 45 seconds. Where the car turning right arrives first and still waits for the car going straight.

        • garffi on 29/06/2018 - 23:57
          +3

          @pegaxs: Yep, looks like I need to freshen up on the road rules. Although I knew the lady should've given way, I didn't know what the road rules exactly states.

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 00:03
          +1

          @garffi:

          Well, you’re doing better than the guy further down the page that has the “who ever gets there first, wins” mentality… :D

        • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 01:01
          +2

          thanks for the video and +1 for looking into this and learning something new

        • chriise on 30/06/2018 - 19:20
          +1

          Thanks for the vid, i learnt something new. I thought OP would have needed to give way as the car was (sort of) coming from OP's right, and you need to give way to your right. Wasn't 100% sure though.

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 19:39

          @chriise:

          Then you can add this one to your list for learning as well… There is no road rule (bar one obscure one out of context with this incident) that states you must give way to your right. If I can find it again, I'll post it for the lulz.

          It's like the "right of way" saying. That is not in Australian Road Rules either… ;)

  • jdf on 29/06/2018 - 19:51
    +3

    Since you were closer to the left, she may have assumed you were going left. If you wanted to go straight, maybe staying closer to the right would have helped her gauge you were going straight. That way you wouldn't have had to cross over the double lines which you can't in Vic.

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 19:58

      I was in the middle of my lane

    • Terocket on 29/06/2018 - 20:39
      +1

      That way you wouldn't have had to cross over the double lines which you can't in Vic.

      Its hard to make a judgement call on a bicycle at unmarked crossroads - is the rider planning to go straight or turn a lazy left and then turn right almost immediately to cross the lines to visit his favourite cafe on the other side. Mind you, I do not intend to mark the OP out particularly, sadly there are such riders out there.

      Coming back, following summary from give way rules as per Vicroads,

      At Intersections without lights, signs or lines:

      you must give way to any vehicle entering or approaching the intersection from your right
      if you are turning right, you must give way to oncoming vehicles going straight through the intersection or turning left (except if they are using a slip lane)

      Now to determine if a bicycle is considered a vehicle hmm..

      • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 20:45
        +2

        I think you are confusing vehicle with motorized vehicle

        From Vicroads:

        What counts as a bicycle?
        A bicycle (or bike) is defined as a vehicle that:

        has two or more wheels
        is moved by human power through a belt, chain or gears.
        This definition includes:

        pedicabs
        penny farthings
        tricycles
        power-assisted bicycles.
        The following are not classified as bicycles:

        wheelchairs
        wheeled toys
        scooters.

      • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 20:54
        +7

        cross over the double lines which you can't in Vic.

        Got the legislation for that? (I'll give you a hint, Road Rule 134…) At this intersection, you are allowed to go through the marked center lines on the road as they are not applicable to where the cyclist was going.

        Its hard to make a judgement call on a bicycle at unmarked crossroads

        Looks like a pretty well marked out intersection to me. Cyclists have as much rights as a 80 tonne B double road train at that intersection.

        is the rider planning to go straight or turn a lazy left

        Doesn’t matter, the car still has to give way to the bicycle rider in either of those situations.

        At Intersections without lights, signs or lines

        Intersection has plenty of road markings indicating who has to give way.

        Now to determine if a bicycle is considered a vehicle

        Yep. It certainly is.

        Rule 15 of the Australian Road Rules says:

        15 What is a vehicle
        A vehicle includes:
        (a) a motor vehicle, trailer and tram, and
        (b) a bicycle, and
        (c) an animal-drawn vehicle, and an animal that is being ridden or drawing a vehicle, and
        (d) a combination, and
        (e) a motorised wheelchair that can travel at over 10 kilometres per hour (on level ground),
        but does not include another kind of wheelchair, a train, or a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.

        • jdf on 30/06/2018 - 07:07

          yes in this case there is a gap (break in the double lines) you are allowed to go through, but from the picture attached, it seemed that the cyclist was on the left and then went straight over the double lines. He has since clarified he was in the middle and therefore would have made the gap (with no double lines)

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 08:19
          +3

          @jdf:

          there is a gap….you are allowed to go through

          It doesn’t matter if there is a gap or not, the continuous double lines marked on that road have no bearing on what OP did with his vehicle. Even if OP was further left in their lane and drove over the double lines, they are allowed too.

          Please, cite the specific legislation that says that if you are at an intersection and there is a continuous double line across your path, you cannot cross over it if you are going straight ahead.

        • jdf on 30/06/2018 - 10:55
          +1

          @pegaxs: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

          Why would you be on the left edge if you are going right or straight?

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 18:07

          @jdf:

          Nice. Don't quote any relevant legislation to back your point up, just quote ALL the legislations!

          So, which Road Rule am I going to look at where it says that drivers are not allowed to cross over an intersection where continuous lines on an intersecting road are present? All of the road rules I have read start with a very important statement…

          A driver on a road with (insert what ever road marking your like), must/must not:

          The road OP was on, these parallel continuous lines are not applicable. OP was not on the road where those markings are applicable.

          Why would you be on the left edge if you are going right or straight?

          Because the Road Rules (Road Rule 129 (1) actually) says that you have to keep to the far left side of the road…

          129: Keeping to the far left side of a road
          (1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must
          drive as near as practicable to the far left side of
          the road.

        • jdf on 30/06/2018 - 20:23
          +1

          @pegaxs: If you want to, go to Road Markings -> Double Continuous Dividing Lines. I don't want to copy and paste all of it here so it is better to direct you there. I am still at a loss to understand why you think the parallel continuous lines rule are not applicable to this road when it has parallel continuous lines except for the relevant breaks at the intersection.

          Look at the end of the day there is a difference between a car keeping to the left side of the road and a cyclist. A car would have their signals on whereas with the cyclist it's all guess work on where they are going. I agree with the other person in the thread who says that a cyclist can be looking at a coffee shop in one direction or going in a completely different direction.

          Your 129 quote is while driving on the road not when stopped at an intersection. Bottom line, it doesn't hurt to make it easier for all concerned by sticking in the middle of an intersection or as I see some responsible cyclists waving your arms Left or Right to indicate where you are going next.

        • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 20:35
          +1

          @jdf: I was in the middle of the road, going straight, hence no indication.
          Any tips on how to indicate I am going straight?

          Even If I was going left, I am not sure how this changes the situation as the car should still give way

        • jdf on 30/06/2018 - 21:00

          @xenobium: Look you are a 100% correct in this situation. I assumed you were on the left because of your diagram, glad to know you weren't. I mention left because at some intersections there is space for 2 cars to simultaneously turn left & right. In that case, she may have assumed you were turning left which doesn't take too much time to do and then you would stay to the left so she could make her move and move on. It can be a big surprise if someone is on the left and then goes straight or worse right.

          In this case, I don't think you could have done anything differently but just give the lady a long leash because someone crapped on her and gave her a headache that day and it seems she couldn't help but pass it on.

        • Peace Horse on 01/07/2018 - 15:41

          Hmm this is an interesting question. I always assumed that you can't cross double continuous lines except where there are breaks under any circumstances, but reading through the VIC legislation it doesn't seem to address crossing them in a perpendicular fashion, so I supposed that it's technically not illegal to not follow the break if you are crossing from a different road.

          From a practical standpoint however, it is best not to do it because other road users would find this unexpected. Also in a cyclists case, sometimes that should 'give way' even though they don't legally need to because car is heavier than bicycle so it's just not worth the physical risk even though legally in the clear.

          The car was still wrong in not properly giving way though.

    • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 20:45

      As much as I detest road vermin, they are still traffic and still deserve to adhere to the rules and have the same courtesy shown to them. This is not a “user pays” system, and a majority of cycle rats also have cars and pay rego, so your comment is moot.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 20:45
    +2

    Depends on the colour of the bicycle.

  • Euphemistic on 29/06/2018 - 20:55
    +4

    There is no ‘right of way’ in the traffic rules, only a responsibility to give way. It is a subtle but important concept on the roads.

    It looks to me like the car should have given way.

    • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 21:18

      thanks for your insight

    • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 21:49

      For later reference, Australian Road rules says this on the matter of Right of Way:

      Obligation to give way

      There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to another driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Rules the other driver or pedestrian does not have a "right" of way.

      • xenobium on 29/06/2018 - 22:05

        noted, thanks!

  • JimmyF on 29/06/2018 - 22:21
    +2

    Sometimes its the 'largest' has right of way…..

  • ozzie freddo on 29/06/2018 - 23:07
    +1

    According to the road rules the rider of a bicycle is subject to the same rules as the driver of a vehicle and in the described situation, the turning car has to give way to you, regardless of who got there first. See the Victorian Road Rules 2017 SR41/2017, Part 7 (Giving Way), Div 1, No 67, part 3a which says
    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

    • pegaxs on 29/06/2018 - 23:42
      +5

      I beg to differ. It’s not about who gets their first. The law states, as @ozzie said above, the driver must give way to any vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection.

      The cyclist was approaching, so the car turning right must wait to give way to the cyclist “unless” the cyclist is indicating they will also be turning right.

      Another note is that you are not obliged to give way to all vehicles on the cross roads and turning vehicles in the intersection. You are obliged to give way where the road rules say you are to give way.

      The cyclist has to give way to cars travelling along the main road, not to the car turning right across their path. (Common sense and safety say steer clear of the car)

      Car driver is clearly in the wrong, even if she got there first. Car driver should have waited, as per the Road Rules.

      Edit: @garffi posted an excellent video above produced by VicRoads that shows exactly what I and @ozzie said above. Watch the example given at the 45 second mark. It shows the car turning right arriving before the car going straight, and the car turning right waiting until the approaching car has cleared the intersection…

      • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 00:52
        +1

        Actually, I entered the intersection well before she did, as the main road traffic was clear on my side of the road before hers. I was already at the halfway point crossing the intersection before she started accelerating then jammed the brakes.

        Regardless, my opinion is that she should have given way if I was merely approaching the intersection. This was not even the case, we were both at a standstill AT the intersection waiting for traffic to clear. There was no excuse for thinking she could beat me into the intersection.

        I believe there is (a) ignorance of the road rules by some drivers and (b) not treating bicycles as vehicles and assuming they have to give way to all cars, at all times

      • endotherm on 30/06/2018 - 01:06
        -7

        So what part of your quote:

        "…the driver must give way to any vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection"

        doesn't apply?

        IN the intersection.

        If a vehicle enters the intersection before you, you are obliged to give way. Pretty simple.

        They were both approaching the intersection. That alone gives neither party any priority. Stating "you are not obliged to give way to all vehicles on the cross roads and turning vehicles in the intersection" is clearly wrong — see the first rule you quote: "the driver must give way to any vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection."

        The video actually supports my argument. The green car actually enters and is in the intersection first, thereby obliging the other car to have to give way. The second car is still stopped at the "give way" line and is governed by the rule you state. Once in the intersection, a different set of rules relating to clearing of intersections occurs. This "exception" isn't really an exception, it is more of an attempt to disambiguate the situation where both drivers are facing "give way" signs and both are obliged to perpetually give way to each other.

        In my scenario, I am not talking about the approach to the intersection. I am talking about whoever entered the intersection first and is in it. In this sense it does matter who got there (inside the intersection) first. I agree your argument would apply if both parties were sitting at the give way line wondering who was allowed to proceed first. Perhaps the other driver should have seen the bicycle while both were stopped at their respective lines, and should have applied that rule. But we have no way of knowing whether she was able to see the bike or her vision was obstructed at the time she decided to enter the intersection. We now potentially have a situation where two pieces of legislation are in conflict — one obliging the car to give way before proceeding past the give way line, and another obliging the bike rider to give way to traffic in the intersection. Additionally, it is possible for the car to turn and complete the maneuver prior to the bike entering the intersection sufficiently so that there is a chance of collision or needing to take evasive action. This happens legally all the time on wide multi-lane cross-roads, where there is ample time to turn in front of approaching traffic and clear the path without affecting their movement. "Give-way" does not necessarily mean you need to sit still like a deer in a spotlight until the other vehicle does their thing.

        Clearly I don't know what happened nor the timing involved.

        • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 01:17
          +1

          Firstly we were both at a standstill AT the intersection.

          Secondly, if there was a reasonable margin of error for the right turning car to execute the manoeuvre before I entered the intersection, then sure I will accept this is fine even if I was just approaching the intersection (after all, approaching could mean anywhere from 10m-100m away). In any situation where a collision may happen (like it did), then I believe the right turning car has to give way to approaching oncoming traffic going straight.

          But, you are entitled to your opinion ;)

        • endotherm on 30/06/2018 - 02:12
          -1

          @xenobium: You clarified the situation and posted it while I was typing my last reply.

          The discussion was a hypothetical — what would happen if the other car was in the intersection first. The argument would progress beyond which give-way sign you had previously faced and more to do with giving way to vehicles already in the intersection and clearing of same. I'm not saying this applied to your situation. I'm sure the way you described it was accurate and she was obliged to give way. But there is a discrepancy.

          You say you were half way across before she accelerated. Thus she had "given way". She was presumably surprised to see a bike in the middle of the road. She took appropriate action and braked heavily and presumably stopped, opened her driver's window then had a conversation with you. That also reads like you were stopped to be able to turn around and be part of the conversation, possibly while giving way to other cross traffic? If not, you would have completed your crossing and been out of earshot on the other side of the road. Sounds more like you startled the turning driver trying to get out of the intersection completing her turn, and safely clear the newly approaching cross traffic. Are you sure she wasn't having a go at you for blocking her progress, leaving the tail of her car vulnerable? Perhaps she has a valid point that you entered and choked the intersection and was unable to complete it due to more cross traffic approaching from your left? Perhaps you shouldn't have crossed before traffic was sufficiently clear to complete your crossing. Maybe it's not really a question about right of way at all.

          Just saying, that's how your own words read, and an argument could easily be made that you were at fault for other offences. Sometimes these things get very complex, especially when you walk a mile in the other person's shoes and see it from their perspective. No matter how right you think you are (or actually are!) sometimes it is better just to leave it be and not dwell on it. It's more productive to think "did I do everything right?" rather than worry about if someone else did something wrong.

        • John Kimble on 30/06/2018 - 06:56
          +1

          @endotherm:

          No matter how right you think you are (or actually are!) sometimes it is better just to leave it be and not dwell on it. It's more productive to think "did I do everything right?" rather than worry about if someone else did something wrong.

          But that's what he asked from the start?

          Can you please let me know if I am in the wrong? My understanding of the road rules is that in this situation, the car turning right has to give way to all traffic going straight - please correct me if I am wrong. Does being on a bicycle change anything?

          And reiterated here: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6106519/redir

        • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 08:30
          +1

          @endotherm: I can only say she definitely was aware of my presence before entering the intersection from her very entitled language “I was here first”

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 08:53
          +3

          @endotherm:

          If a vehicle enters the intersection before you, you are obliged to give way. Pretty simple.

          Wrong. "Approaching" comes before the "in" part when travelling. I have to approach before I can come to be "in". It's not a race to who can get into the intersection first. And you were breaking it down into milliseconds. No. Both vehicles were stopped. Car should have given way to cyclist.

          They were both approaching the intersection.

          No they weren’t. OP clearly states that they were both stationary and had to wait for traffic to pass. No one was approaching. So, you're still wrong.

          The video actually supports my argument.

          The video destroys your "argument". Did you even watch it? The red car arrived first and still waited until the green car arrived and went through the intersection. Why? Because the red car "had too".

          Once in the intersection, a different set of rules relating to clearing of intersections occurs

          Wrong. The red car has to wait. It wasn't because the green car got its wheels over the line first.

          both drivers are facing "give way" signs and both are obliged to perpetually give way to each other.

          Wrong. The green car in this video does not have to give way to the oncoming car if the oncoming car is turning across their path. The give way sign exists to force them to give way to the traffic that is coming at them from left and right.

          In my scenario, I am not talking about the approach to the intersection.

          If you are not talking in reference to OP's situation, then it is irrelevant.

          I am talking about whoever entered the intersection first and is in it.

          Irrelevant in OP's situation. Both vehicles were stopped. Car had to give way to OP. Simple as that. Turning right car gives way to straight ahead or left turning vehicle. NOT "who ever gets into the intersection first".

          I agree your argument would apply if both parties were sitting at the give way line wondering who was allowed to proceed first.

          This is exactly what OP explained. And there is no "wondering" as it is written down in the Road Rules as defined above.

          we have no way of knowing whether she was able to see the bike

          Yeah, that excuse doesn’t cut it.

          This happens legally all the time on wide multi-lane cross-roads

          And this is relevant to OP's question??

          "Give-way" does not necessarily mean you need to sit still like a deer in a spotlight until the other vehicle does their thing.

          This is exactly what give way means. It's nearly the textbook/dictionary meaning of "give way".

          Clearly I don't know what happened nor the timing involved.

          Try reading OP's comments. Try reading some of the Australian Road Rules. Timing is irrelevant. Car driver was in the wrong…

          You clarified the situation and posted it while I was typing my last reply.

          Wrong again. OP has clarified it at the top of this post and several times during the post. It was clear enough for everyone else who commented to see what happened.

          The discussion was a hypothetical irrelevant

          FTFY. Even your "hypothetical" situation is wrong.

          an argument could easily be made that you were at fault for other offences.

          What did OP do in this situation that was wrong and can you please cite the relevant legislation for what OP did that was wrong?

    • DarkOz on 30/06/2018 - 07:49

      It depends on the traffic.

      If no traffic on the main road, first come first served.

      If there are traffic on the main road, turning vehicles give way to vehicles going straight. The reason is simple, everyone waited for the traffic to clear so when the traffic is finally cleared everyone literally got there at the same time!

      • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 08:32

        Well yea the traffic neutralises everything, essentially everyone is there before and after it clears

      • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 09:00
        +2

        Another wrong answer.

        Why do so many people think that it is a race? It's not the "who ever gets there first". It isn't a supermarket deli counter. If you are turning right across someone's path, you must give way to them.

        Sure, if the approaching car is 100m away and you can make the turn before they even get close, have at it. But if there is a chance you will meet in the middle of the turn/intersection, as the driver turning right across the path of a straight ahead driver, you must give way to that driver. Regardless of who gets there first…

        • DarkOz on 30/06/2018 - 10:16
          -1

          It is like a race! If the vehicle turning right is there first and no one to give way to it can actually turn right.

          What do you expect the vehicle turning right to do? Wait there forever to give way to possible vehicles wanting to go straight?

        • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 17:30
          +1

          @DarkOz:

          Yeah, don't bother reading my comment before you reply. And feel free to over exaggerate.

          I said (in case you missed it…)

          if the approaching car is 100m away and you can make the turn before they even get close, have at it…

          I then went on to say…

          But if there is a chance you will meet in the middle of the turn/intersection, as the driver turning right across the path of a straight ahead driver, you must give way…

          "Wait forever"… Drama much?

  • haimrevolution on 30/06/2018 - 07:40

    Considering both sides have a give way you can treat it in your mind as neither having one for the purposes of your question. Had this been a car vs a car the road rules dictate that the car turning across a straight driving bike/car has to give way to that vehicle.

    • John Kimble on 30/06/2018 - 07:42

      Huh?

    • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 08:33

      Sorry not sure what you mean

  • DarkOz on 30/06/2018 - 07:42
    +1

    You should have shouted back at her, "ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL ME?!"

  • giftcardinspector on 30/06/2018 - 08:21
    +1

    I'm prepared to give up my right of way to avoid an accident. Some people aren't.

    • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 08:35

      I am too, I am just clarifying the situation to better know how to react in the future. Not the first time I am seeing this happen to a cyclist at this intersection. Will probably try an alternate route to avoid it.

    • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 09:05

      While it is a car v. cyclist this time around, the best is to err on the side of caution and let the car driver go, but it does make sense to clarify it, because next time it may be car v. car or car v. truck. The Road Rules treat a truck, car, motorcycle or bicycle the same in this instance. It's about knowing the rules more so than what was safe, as the rules are what apply here…

      Common sense though, yes, avoid the car. Even as a motorcyclist, I would be very cautious in this situation. Even more so now I read this thread and see all the "who ever gets there first has right of way" comments popping up…

      • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 09:19

        Yes, my thoughts exactly. The number of comments perceiving this as “whoever gets there first should be given way” is very concerning. Regardless of whether I was driving a car or riding a bike.

  • bobbified on 30/06/2018 - 10:24
    +1

    You may or may not have the right of way - just remember you're on a bicycle with nothing for protection.

    Is it worth potentially giving up an arm or a leg or your life to win an argument that gets you no prizes?

    There's idiots out there and no-one is going to look after your, except you.

  • Hithere on 30/06/2018 - 11:16
    +3

    Here lies the body of William Jay, who died maintaining his right of way.

    He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.

    Dale Carnegie

    • CMH on 30/06/2018 - 15:14

      Nice quote but Dale Carnegie did not write it.

      He put it in his book but it was referenced to Boston Transcript.

  • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 11:31

    What is dead may never die

    George R.R. Martin

  • jacross on 30/06/2018 - 13:36
    +1

    The car has to give way to the bike in this scenario.

    As everyone has already said, protect yourself at all times coz people cant drive for shit.

  • iforgotmysocks on 30/06/2018 - 15:17
    +1

    Irrelevant who came first. If she was turning across your path she needs to give way to you.

  • cheapisgood on 30/06/2018 - 17:51
    +1

    there is no such thing as "right of way" in Australia. People should stop using US English.

    Regardless, the car had to give way to you.

    • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 18:49
      +1

      It's "obligation to give way". Right of way does not exist in Australian Road Rules. And I'm too tired and too lazy to go thumbing back through repealed legislation to find if it even ever has…

      Current legislation says:

      Obligation to "give way"
      There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way
      to another driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Road
      Rules the other driver or pedestrian does not have a "right"
      of way.

    • xenobium on 30/06/2018 - 20:37

      Agree with you for this situation. However, right of way does exist in Australia - ie, right of way to access property etc

      • whooah1979 on 30/06/2018 - 21:10

        right of way to access property

        Are you referring to land access? If not then please provide a link to a legislation specifically covering motor vehicles and right of way.

      • pegaxs on 30/06/2018 - 23:12

        Right of way does not exist in Australian Road Rules.

        Wasn’t talking about access to property. But thanks for playing. :D

  • sparkles on 30/06/2018 - 21:25
    +3

    My understanding is that the vehicle turning must give way to the vehicle going straight when both are facing STOP or GIVE WAY signs. We have a similar intersection locally and the amount of people who don't seem to know this road rule is shocking. It's like a roll of the dice, a game of dare. Based on experience I'd estimate 70% of road users don't know this basic road rule or principle.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join