You know the drill with these posts. Not asking for opinions, just want to know who has right of way.
Unsigned intersection, no traffic lights.
Who Has Right of Way? (Diagram Included)
Comments
- 1
- 2
Oh dear, I'm really concerned about the "Green car" votes..
I voted green car initially, because I misread the diagram and through the green car was on the main road, turning left into the street which red car is waiting at.
Red car is correct though.
IN Queensland, the road rules say that because both cars are giving way, (because of the road markings, no need for signs) that whichever car was at the intersection second, they would be giving way to the car that arrived first. but if they arrive at the same time, the one turning across the path of the other would give way first
It would have helped to draw arrows indicating the directions of the cars… :)
You can't tell by which side of the road the red and green lines are on?
I don’t know about you, but I always drive on the left-hand side of the road on a two way street.
Tell that to Mr. White van on the left of picture.
I was watching a (US) movie, and subconsciously saw the White Van.
The direction of the dotted lines don't help either. So I was thinking the Green Car has the Right of Way. It took a reading of jenki's comment that got me to check it again and realise this was Oztralia.
You should be on USBargain or CABargain
Haha oh dear I am terrible at reading maps and directions (I have to turn the map around to read it), so totally didn't pick up on that. Hangs head in shame
i just spent 4 hours trying to work out if this is usa or australia…
Completely understandable, it's Tasmania.
Nah, international tourist heading for the Great Ocean Road.
Now we know who one of the green votes was…😁
Look at the green roofed house's fence line. It's the same road, realigned.
No one has "right of way". There is no part of Aus Road Rules that says "right of way"
There is, however, the "obligation to give way"…
If one car has an obligation to give way, the other car it's giving way to has right of way - in everyday terms even if not in a technical sense.
"Right of way" implies that regardless of what the other person is doing, you can do whatever you please. This simply isnt the case. The other car has the obligation to give way, you have the obligation to not run into them, even if they are a (fropanity) idiot and ignore the give way rule.
"Right of way" implies that regardless of what the other person is doing, you can do whatever you please
It really does not imply that all
Intent is more than a technical difference though…
eg, If you had a green and someone is running the red you still have no 'right of way' hit the gas and intentionally ram him. That's not an accident, it's a criminal act.
He might get a fine, but you could end up in jail. (Might be hard to prove your intent, but not impossible.)
So many times this.
No one has right of way.
Except pedestrians, trams and trains. And emergency vehicles. And buses leaving the curb. And anything in the same lane in front of you.
The "obligation to give way" to these people effectively gives them right of way.
No it doesn’t. Pedestrians can’t just walk across a crossing without looking asserting their ‘right of way’. There may be a car in the way before they step out, the car may have no chance of stopping because the pedestrian suddenly turned to cross
Just becuase one party has an obligation to give way doesn’t absolve he other party of any responsibility to prevent an incident via forcing right of way.
It may be semantics, and they may ‘effectively’ have right of way but there is no concept of right of way in the traffic code. It is a subtle but important point.
@Euphemistic: Don't think this is accurate.
Well pedestrian crossings are usually indicated with a raod sign and or a zig zag line (in the case where driver cannot see the curb)
The drivers have an obligation to slow down and anticipate any pedestrian that might suddenly step into the crossing.
Which I've seen many drivers ignore for some reason.You're are still at fault if you hit a pedestrian who suddenly steps in front of your car at a crossing because you failed to give way.
But I agree with your other statement, the right of way does not mean you can do whatever you like.
Pedestrians can’t just walk across a crossing without looking.
Of cause they can. Have you ever heard of kids? We have 40, 50 and 60 kmph zones because of them.
Just because one party has an obligation to give way doesn’t absolve he other party of any responsibility
Of cause not. If you are a pedestrian asserting your right not to get hit by motor vehicles you are likely to be hurt if not killed. There can be legal penalties, too, for both parties.
It may be semantics, and they may ‘effectively’ have right of way but there is no concept of right of way in the traffic code.
Tell that to anyone unhealthy enough to take on a train.
Of cause they can. Have you ever heard of kids? We have 40, 50 and 60 kmph zones because of them.
Of course pedestrians do cross without looking, but they do not have a right to do so, it is an error of judgement or lack of awareness. They have a responsibility to not put them self in harms way. it is the responsibility of a driver to give way to them when they do it, but not always possible.
Tell that to anyone unhealthy enough to take on a train.
That is not a right of way, but physics. Hundreds of tonnes of momentum says that regardless of a train driver trying to not run someone down the train is unlikely to stop in time.
So many times this.
No one has right of way.
[Our chat]
It is the responsibility of a driver to give way to them
I am glad to see you listen to reason. Nice chat!
OP asked who has right of way. Not the rules.
Obviously if one car must give way the other has right of wayHaving said that all drivers are obligated to drive in a safe manner and that means avoiding accidents no matter who has right of way.
Unfortunately too many Australians are obsessed with right of way instead of driving responsibly.
Obviously if one car must give way the other has right of way
Just no. No one has right of way. You cannot ask who has right of way, it doesn’t exist.
The green car needs to give way first. The red car does not need to give way to the green car, but that doesn’t mean they have right of way.
Unfortunately too many Australians are obsessed with right of way instead of driving responsibly.
This is the reason that many of us will point out that there is no right of way. So many don’t understand. Changing drivers attitude from ‘right of way’ to responsibility to give way would make life easier on the roads for everyone.
Green must Give Way as Red Car enters the road upstream, or alternatively the roads could be considered to intersect (just) and therefore it's a standard Cross Junction.
Either way Red has Right of Way!Not really. If green turns into the main road first, red would have to give way to car already traveling on the road it's turning into.
My assumption (implicit in the question) is that the cars arrive at the intersection at the same time.
There is no question if one car has already entered the intersection.That's the problem though. If they both get to the main road at the same time, the green car is actually a lot closer to the point where the cars would intersect, meaning it would be on the main road first and the red car would run into the back of it.
In that case the red car would be at fault, because at that point both cars would be traveling on the same road, and it would be a case where the red car rear ends the green one.
@HighAndDry: If you look at the pic, it looks as though the red car is actually making a right-hand turn and not proceeding straight ahead. If I was the green car, as soon as I noticed this I would be on my way.
I'd love to know the answer to this cause I have a similar intersection on the end of my street I use all the time. If the east/west road is clear, I believe whoever got to their respective giveaway spots (note the dotted lines on the road) first has right of way. Otherwise if I was turning right I'd play it safe if you arrived at the same time and let the guy turn left into east/west street then right into the street I was turning out from.
What a shit intersection.
Precisely my first reaction. The idiots that design this crap are simply causing accidents. This is what happens when you leave the work experience kids in charge.
And a driveway so close to the corner.
This. It's actually 2x T-intersections, not 1x X-intersection.
The problem is that road rules (least in QLD) don't define what an intersection is. So while you may be legally right, you might have to fight the cops, courts, let alone Average Joe's interpretation of the road rules. If red car doesn't indicate anywhere and proceeds straight, technically they failed to indicate, but as I just said you will have uphill battle anyway. Road rules are vague in various aspects, it's very likely everyone will just say "but it's clear it's an intersection" - even though it's actually not.
If both cars really did get there at the same time, it's in the best interests of Green to give way.
It's bad road design plain and simple.
It counts as an X intersection if you can see the opposite road on approach. So the red car in this example should not indicate.
Source?
Either way you look at it whether the small street is continuous or straight, the red car has right of way.
If the red car was going straight, the green car has to still give way.
If the red car is perceived to be joining the main street before turning right, the green car has to give way to left turns first or if the red car is already on the main street, the green car has to give way to the car on the main street.
Red car has right of way
the green car has to give way to left turns first or if the red car is already on the main street
Unless the green car turns into the main road first.
I feel no one is considering this possibility. Sigh.
If the green car has already turned into the main road, that renders the question moot as the green car would have cleared the red car's path already.
Unless it's going slower and gets rear-ended.
But yeah, for most cases that would happen.
@HighAndDry: If the green car has already turned right and the red car proceeds to go "straight" (or some variation of that word to fit the "road^" mentioned), that would result in a T bone collision if the green car decided to stop as soon as they've completed the turn.
^(or some variation of the word to describe the offensive manner in which the path intended for vehicles has been constructed.)
@HighAndDry: what if green gets to intersection, doesnt see red, move slightly forward and is about to turn right
when red arrives at intersection, assume its got right of way, and proceeded
i totally see your point that green car is already on the main road and turning right near the left lane (because u dont turn a sharp right at where green is stopping right) when red just came out without checking
in that case red is at faultbut yeah if both arrive at the same time then tshows logic applies.
Well done mate. Gave you plus. Doesn't matter it is X crossing or 2 T-junction the green car has to give the way to the red one. With another words red car has the right of way
What is the big black thing on the side of the main road, almost pointing at the car turning right? It looks a bit like a huge cannon. Perhaps that's how they enforce giving way?
It's a green cannon ball blaster blasting cars that don't let green cars go first. You can see where it blasted a green cannon ball at the white car just missing it landing at the front of the green roof house.
Because OP's diagram is 7 shades of misleading, I decided to do one based on a more realistic version of what a the RED car would be doing…
Also, for your viewing amusement, I have a Google Maps Street View of the intersection…
this is just one of those scenarios where obviously the red one has right of way because he needs to put his indicator as turning left for a bit and enter the intersection and immediately turn right (with indicator)
but i'd just be letting the more aggressive driver through cos it's not worth the headache and time wasted in dealing with insurance/no insurance, ozbargain replies, mspaint work etc.
If the red car was signalling left, the green car is obliged to give way.
If the red car was signalling right, whoever arrived second is obliged to give way (though functionally doesn't matter since their paths do not intersect).
If the red car was not signalling, the green car is also obliged to give way - there is only one logical "going straight" path, and the intersection is not ambiguous enough that the green car should not realise this.Please change your thread title to ‘who should give way’
There is no such thing as right of way in the road rules - anywhere. The is an obligation to give way in many instances.
the green car would need to give way as it is turning right across the path of the red
We have the same intersection from where I live. If both cars arrived at the same time, the green car has to give way to the red car. Well, that's what I remember my driving instructor said back then.
The north and south sections, where the red and green cars are coming out of, are both named "Lennox Road" so I'd treat it as a four-way intersection. A very monged-up four-way intersection
Therefore, the turning green car should give way to the red car, who is going "straight".
Even if you treat the red car as not going straightthe green car would still give way to the red car when turning left and again as it turns right.
Just going by what OP was asking in his diagram. I agree that green car should give way to a left-turning red car. Although, if both turning right, their paths don't cross so no need for the green car to give way in that situation.
This intersection is still close enough that as red car I will just be going straight through. Not enough room to turn left then indicate right. So red wins.
If there was space for red to go left then right, then….
As Red car must first indicate left and Green car won't know Red is going to turn right until its on the main road. So as cars arrive both cars turning onto main road with red going left and green going right. Standard give way applies. Red wins again.Not clear on your signage…
However, if both at Give Way/Stop signs, and Red indicates left, Green must give way - as Red may and can immediately turn right.
If there are no Give Way, or Stop signs, Red must give way to any vehicle on its right - allowing Green to proceed
Not clear on your signage
If there are no Give Way, or Stop signsGiveaway lines are clearly marked on the ground. No signs required
must give way to any vehicle on its right
Would like to update my road rule knowledge. Got a link to the legislation that says I have to give way to vehicles on my right at intersections with give way signs/lines?
Nope. It comes under the Aust. Road Rules as a "give way line" and is the same in NSW and I would say every other state in Australia.
The NSW version of rule 69 (*giggity*) Aust. Road rules says;
69 Giving way at a give way sign or give way line at an intersection (except a roundabout)
And from OP's example, if you look at the Google Maps Street View I posted earlier, you will see that this intersection has no give way sign in Taswegia, but is marked with a give way line
It makes no sense to say Red must give way to Green because Green is on his right. If it’s considered a cross intersection they are both on each other’s right. If it’s considered as 2 T junctions then they are both on each other’s left
OP Why do you ask ?
Op drives green car. Crashed into red car.
Or worse still, OP designed the road.
OP saw an accident at this intersection and a very aggressive argument ensued. Green car thought it had right of way. Was curious as I was 99.99999% sure red had right of way.
Again: No one has right of way. Green car had to give way, but apparently didn’t.
whether it's a T-junction or an intersection, green must give way.
in a T-junction, green must give way to a straight driving red car, even if they had just turned in from a nearby street
in an intersection, green must give way to a straight or left turning red carThank Buddha someone has spelt it out! I concur.
The red car has to wait as turning left from the right lane.
If you don't know you shouldn't be driving.
You must give way to whichever vehicle is already in, entering, or about to enter an intersection unless the other vehicle is making a U-turn, turning left from a slip-lane or going straight/right when faced with Give Way/Stop signs. Otherwise, you give way to cars on your right.
Since this is a really shitty intersection, both cars may have an argument if they got there at the exact same time. However, red car may have right of way if he indicated right when entering the intersection, and then indicated right again to show he was leaving the intersection. Red would also be right if he's classified as "going straight." If red didn't indicate and it's not classified as straight, then it gets even murkier because the green car is further along the intersection. I'm not sure how easy it would be to spot each car from either position.
Is the red driver drunk? Why are they doing a handbrake skid into the road like that?
The road rules never give anyone the "right of way". They only say who must "give way".
Flashing emergency vehicles do.
Quote a reference? I suspect that all other vehicles need to give way, not emergency vehicles having right of way.
Getting out of the way and/or pulling over is more than giving way. Given emergency vehicles can travel in the wrong traffic direction, you still need to get out of their way. If an emergency vehicle has its lights or siren on, driving towards you, it has right of way. Giving way is passive.
"At any intersection an emergency vehicle with lights or sirens activated has right of way regardless of signage or traffic signals."
Senior Constable Susan Lowndes on Mar 1, 2019 @ 1:39pm
https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/sunshinecoast/2019/03/01/giving-…
WA:
"Emergency vehicles include police, fire and ambulance services. If an emergency vehicle has blue or red flashing lights and/or sounding an alarm, you MUST clear the way to let it easily pass."
Vic:
"Move out of its path as soon as you can do so safely."
"If a police, emergency, enforcement or escort vehicle has its red, blue or magenta lights flashing or its siren on, you must:
Get out of its way "
@[Deactivated]: It’s covered under Aus Road Rule 78 and 79, and nowhere in there does it say that these emergency vehicles have “right of way.” Only says that drivers must clear a path for them by stopping or moving out of their way “when it is safe to do so”.
These rules also only apply when lights are flashing and/or siren is sounding.
@pegaxs: If you want to get pedantic, right of way is actually a term relating to land entitlement, often an easement. Anyone legally able to travel on a piece of land has right of way over the land. Every registered car travelling on a public road has 'right of way'. People here have said no one has right of way. Well I do in my land title. I'm your exception, recognised by law.
@[Deactivated]: Good for you. However, we are talking bout the road rules and in the road rules there is no such thing as right of way. Yes, it is pedantic, but it is an important concept lost on many drivers. Yes, it is passive language, but not passive in action, especially if you re talking about giving way to emergency vehicles - you actively need to ensure you get out of the way.
If ‘right of way’ is within the land title legislation that is a different concept to the action of driving. The onus on all drivers is to give way and not cause incidents, not to enable the driver to force others to give way.
@[Deactivated]: Normal, state owned public roads are not easements. An easement is a road that crosses private property and is covered by a totally seperate set of laws. That “right of way” or “right of access” or “right of carriageway” or “right of passage” only applies if you have to cross over private land to get to your own land. Pretty sure, with the exception of tollways, that most roads are pretty much a public piece of infrastructure and not really considered as “easements”.
Easements are not mentioned in the Aus Road Rules either. There are no specific road rules that pertain to the use of an easement road. You can’t take a completely different set of laws and apply them to any situation. And the definition of what you are referring to with “right of way” and easements is not even the same as when people make reference to it under the road rules.
So, no, you are not the exception to these rules.
@pegaxs: You've now changed your tune from your earlier statement: "No one has 'right of way' and "'Right of way' implies that regardless of what the other person is doing, you can do whatever you please". Right of way relates to land access. You are wrong. Right of way appears on my land title in both the written description and the surveyor's plan recorded with the land titles office, so you'd better start believing that someone has right of way.
If you ignore the proper and correct meaning of right of way and instead want to use the spirit, emergency vehicles with lights and/or sirens on have the right to do whatever they please, including driving the wrong side of the road. An emergency vehicle flashing lights can perform a 15 point turn in the middle of a freeway if it chooses. Other vehicles not only have to passively give way, they have to actively make way.
@[Deactivated]: Frugal, you are missing the point. The road rules are what is in question. The road rules have no concept of right of way in them at all. Right of way may exist in other areas, but no driver has right of way when driving.
No, emergency vehicles don’t have the right to do whatever they want. They still have the responsibility to not cause incidents and do not just go barreling along through Rd lights and on the wrong side of the road assuming everyone will get out of the way. If you watch emergency vehicles approaching a red light they will slow and proceed when clear. They are giving way to vehicles that have not heard the sirens or are in a position they cannot get out of hw way from.
@Euphemistic: An emergency vehicle with lights on can reverse down a freeway backwards and park perpendicular if it chooses. You might say it doesn't have right of way. Your mistaken choice. Happy crashings.
I overlook an intersection that gets callouts of 3 firetrucks at a time regularly. No attendance is ever identical as they do whatever the heck they please.
@Euphemistic: Sigh away. You don't accept a literal, legally accepted definition. You don't accept a spirit definition. You choose something subjective in the middle and say it doesn't exist. Sigh back at you. You are the one debunking your own creation.
You asked for a quote and I provided a senior constable this year on a government police website. Go try the your sigh at them.
@[Deactivated]: You haven’t given any legal reference as to ‘right of way’ for emergency vehicles. Your quote from a police man is not a legal reference. The other stuff confirms that other vehicles need to give way. Pegaxs references rules that do not state right of way.
If it was legally accepted it would be within the rules. Ok, you can have your ‘in the spirit’ definition. Sadly you have not provided evidence of YOUR interpretation.
Rule 78;
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s78…Again, the o is is for other vehicles to give way. Legally, different to having right of way. It is semantics, but legal ones.
@Euphemistic: You believe Senior Constable Susan Lowndes is a 'police man'?
You asked "Quote a reference?". I did just that.
"Pegaxs references rules that do not state right of way." QED material, right there.
@[Deactivated]: Clutching at straws there mate. So I missed the name of said police person and used an out of date phrase to describe said role. A quote from a police officer is an interpretation of the law, not the law. It has been shown plenty f times, and many within this forum that a police officer isn’t always correct.
Apparently the subtleties of the language in the legislation are too much for you to comprehend.
As for QED, the proof is indeed there. The law only refers to responsibility to give way.
In the mean time I will continue to drive and give way as required by the law. Sometimes that will mean I don’t get to proceed because some other clown has not given way as required by the law, I will not assert any right of way I will instead give way to prevent a crash - as is required by the law. I suggest you do the same.
@Euphemistic: It's no fun when you try to play the visual learner card in a know-it-all contest.
Where is your legal proof that no part of that intersection falls within an encumbrance?
"It has been shown plenty f times,"
vis-a-vis
"Apparently the subtleties of the language in the legislation are too much for you to comprehend."
Please, do go on about the subtleties of language when it's clear you can't even read what you have written. Teach me more.
Where is your legal proof that no part of that intersection falls within an encumbrance?
Now that’s a curve ball. You now seem to be admitting that there is no ‘right of way’ unless the property is not within the road corridor. I can’t guarantee that is the case becuase I don’t know where this intersection is, other than Hobart - assuming the OPs location is correct. It’s a pretty safe bet it is a road corridor.
@Euphemistic: "becuase"?
Isn't he a French chef? Is that another subtlety of language that I don't comprehend? I will concede, you are too much.
@Euphemistic: Elsewhere:
"Just becuase one party has an obligation to give way doesn’t absolve he other party of any responsibility to prevent an incident via forcing right of way."
"The is an obligation"
"Apparently the subtleties of the language in the legislation are too much for you to comprehend."
Yes, yes I am picking on your spelling and grammar. It's pretty funny for someone who also talks about the subtlety of language. Go on, tell me how far in life you have gotten without being able to spell 'because'. Would you heed the advice of someone wearing their underpants on the outside? No, I would dismiss them as being terminally oblivious. For someone who dispenses advice freely, you sure struggle to accept your own unequivocal fault.
@[Deactivated]: Phone plus fat fingers is a fault of many in this day and age, combine that with autocorrect and yes, my faults are significant. I’m sometimes surprised I remember to breathe.
You, on the other hand, have failed to provide any evidence of the ‘right of way’ you desperately cling to.
@Euphemistic: Walk me through how you misspell 'because' so consistently. You brought up the comprehension of language. Let's explore that, shall we? If you struggle understanding simple words taught in primary school, how can you understand more complex legislation?
- 1
- 2
Red car, as Green car is turning right (give way right side)?