This is near the Museum station in Sydney.
Two lanes (lane 1 and lane 2) are turning left. A middle lane is opened right after the turn. Lane 1 and 2 are divided by a continuous line. Who has to yield when using the middle lane? I always take the rightmost lane, it is easy than arguing with other drivers, but I am curious.
I have added an MS paint diagram as well as a video from my dashcam.
But what about the age old rule of who is bigger has right of way? :)
This actually does apply in Maritime to an extent. You’re taught when getting boat driving license that ferries and large ships always have right of way over your personal watercraft.
Fewer unbroken lines to worry about at sea. Also, I like to see the oil tankers giving way to sail.
Pretty sure the legal reason to give way is that they are commercial vessals not because they are bigger…However, common sense also tells you that smaller vessals are more manouverable and therefore should stay out of the way.
However, common sense also tells you that smaller vessals are more manouverable and therefore should stay out of the way.
Same for the road too ;)
@dizzle: "smaller vessels are more manouverable"
Similar reasoning for paragliders & hang gliders in a thermal - higher gives way to lower. But when a sailplane enters, its lower gives way to higher because sailplane pilots can't see down, but the former two types can see up when manoeuvring
@dizzle: No, the legal (not just common sense) reason is because they’re bigger, not commercial. A water taxi is a commercial vessel. It gives was to pleasure sailing vessels. The collision regulations are drafted to, generally, give the less manoeuvrable vessel right of way over the more manoeuvrable one. So, up to a point, power gives way to sail, but a yacht gives way to a ship. (There’s an exception on Sydney harbour where ferries carry a day shape that gives them right of way over sail.)
Everyone is responsible for safe driving
You must do everything within safe reason to avoid an accident
Anyone asking who must yield is considered an arrogant, unsafe and irresponsible driver dear OP!
There's no question here. There's an unbroken line which means it can't be crossed so there should be no traffic to give way to. Bus in your video made an illegal lane change by crossing that line and even did it while indicating left.
</thread>
You have no idea how many times I had to break when I needed to move to the middle lane (new lane) from the 2nd lane. All vehicles in Lane 1 will move to the middle lane sometimes even without indicating.
*brake
:) thanks. Sorry for my mistake.
I think you are supposed to cross a solid continious line only when turning or avoiding an obstacle? Is the rules different in nsw?
If there was a bus lane there, there are different rules that apply to buses. Road Rule 147(d) deals with what a bus can do over a continuous line if they are in a "special purpose lane".
The bus lane ends further back around the corner. I had to go back to Google Maps data from 2020 to see the "actual" road markings and where the bus lane ends (well before the incident in question). And that part of the lane the incident happened in is only listed as a bus lane from 3pm until 7pm Mon~Fri and only via bus lane signs on poles that restrict parking, not lane use.
Bus is at fault. a: for not indicating correctly, b: for NOT being in a special lane and c: bus is not treated as special in this case, because it is a regular lane at that point.
The only saving grace the bus may have is RR147(a), to avoid an obstruction (ie: the parked bus.), but they would still need to a: indicate correctly, and b: give way as per normal road rules while avoiding the obstruction.
Given what you say (bobbified as well) how is the bus at "fault". They have moved over to this lane, which is free. If the truck was moving accross then that maybe an offence, but the truck was in lane2 and stayed there. There was another bus in lane 1.
Unless you are saying that, what if another car was closer and the bus had forced it to give way?
As your google map indicated Lane 1 initially is a regular lane (at times). If the bus was a car then the lane1 in their case would end, and they would have to give way to any car in lane 2. (since they cant use RR147(a))
This doesnt really make sense. One lane ending and another opening up into 2, rather than lane1 going into this new lane and lane 2 remaining lane 2.
I guess the quandry is that making sense and legally what can occur doesnt always play out.
As with Bobbifieds response, this isnt to argue the point, its to get a better understanding. Driving involves many complex situations, and this is not one often occuring a situation I have never before come across, so I confess my confusion and appreciate the explanations.
How is the bus at fault? The big white unbroken line it crossed to the right with its left indicator on.
To get a better understanding of this law, you need to read NSW road rule 147. This deals with when you can cross over a continuous line to cross into another lane. The bus has only a few exceptions with regards to when it can cross this line and basically none of them were valid at the time the buss crossed the continuous line between the lanes.
Their only out here would be to claim that the parked bus in the video was an obstruction on their path. This is what is covered in NSW RR147(a). If there is no obstruction, they could not change lanes there because there are no other "unless" factors from 147 in play.
Their only out here would be to claim that the parked bus in the video was an obstruction on their path. This is what is covered in NSW RR147(a).
Even this would not be an out for the bus driver. The word "obstruction" is clearly defined in the Dictionary section in the rules:
obstruction includes a traffic hazard, but does not include a vehicle only because the vehicle is stopped in traffic or is travelling more slowly than other vehicles.
@bobbified: I don't think that definition fits this situation, because it's not "stopped in traffic" (which I assume means behind other vehicles), rather at a bus stop. Buses must be exempt, extrapolating the limitation "but does not include a vehicle only because the vehicle [two situations]". But goodness me it would be so hard to apply the law to varying situations.
@Techie4066: Buses are not exempt to any road rule. They have some special rules such as give way when pulling away from a stop but otherwise they must follow all the same rules and that includes crossing unbroken lines.
@apsilon: Add to that I suspect the unbroken line is installed specifically to stop buses passes other stopped buses and pulling into traffic at short notice.
The word "obstruction" is clearly defined in the Dictionary
Which is why I initially said;
The only saving grace the bus may have is…
I agree that the bus may not be able to claim 147(a) based on the other bus just being there (was it "stopped in traffic" or "parked"?), but it would ultimately be with the police officer and their discretion as to if they were going to fine the bus driver or not.
The other caveat in that definition that may help the bus driver is the notion of the phrase "stopped in traffic". I would argue that the stopped bus was not "stopped in traffic" (ie: at a red light/pedestrian crossing/traffic jam), but "parked" for the purpose of dropping off or picking up passengers, ergo, causing an "obstruction" in that lane.
@pegaxs: Thank you for your detailed explanations. 👍🏻
Here’s my solution, as a driver. At that corner, I would never use the left most lane to turn and I would stay in lane 2 until I could move over into lane 1 safely. (Just like the OP says they do)
Plus make sure my dash cam was on and recording.
The bus driver would argue that if you do it safely it is legal to cross a solid white line to avoid an obstacle in the lane in front of you, in his case, the stationary bus. But he cut off a vehicle in the other lane, so he didn't do it safely. And he was indicating left when he did it. So there's a couple of offences he committed.
Why do I always feel like these are math exam questions? Too early on a Sunday!
The left hand lane in the video is a bus lane.
You have to give way to buses that are in front of you turning right.
Priority for buses
Other vehicle drivers should give way to a bus displaying the give way sign in a built up area, when the bus is about to enter or proceed in the lane or line of traffic, and the bus is in front of the driver.
That applies to buses moving off from a stop, not general traffic movement like changing lanes and certainly not illegally changing lanes. Additionally the bus is required to indicate for 5 seconds before moving off.
There is one aspect not being discussed here.
Lane 2 has a broken line between it and this newly created middle lane.
So the car (truck) in lane 2, must give way to any vehicles already in this middle lane. As distinct from where there is no dotted lines which would indicate the one in front is the owner of that space/lane. Same as any lane change procedure, simply being ahead doesnt mean you can change lanes.
The bus has a solid lane marking between it and the middle lane which if effect says it shouldnt be able to move into that middle lane.
However the bus moving into that lane it has it's give way to merging right of way advantage. (NSW "when the bus is about to enter or proceed in the lane or line of traffic")
If the vehicle in lane 1 was a car, then it wouldn't have that extra right.
Frankly I would just be very careful, given that there is 2 left turn lanes and vehicle in lane1 would have no where to go. So commonsense says that lane is there for them to go into otherwise they would end up in the bus stop.
It isnt clear as technically whoever gets into that lane first would be the owner of that lane, but there are two different rules applying here. Which would be the worst breach of the rules.
This would be a great one for those newspaper rules surveys. As I couldn't be sure exactly what the correct procedure is. Hence I would just be extra cautious
They really need to piss off those first 2 segments of broken lane line, so that it simply goes from a single lane to 2 lanes
I agree.
I really get a bit concerned by the number of questions about who has to give way etc. I mean they write the rules in the simplest way possible and (I'd assume) they often try to apply simple logic to avoid confusion when they do the road markings etc). It's not a bad thing to ask if you're not sure, but drivers should already know.
Agree also, as long as you can indicate clearly what rule applies here. Can you please assist?
Do you really not know that you can only cross an unbroken line when entering or leaving the road?
as long as you can indicate clearly what rule applies here. Can you please assist?
Right here
I hope you were just asking for the sake of it and not actually wanting to know what rule applies.
Both. Its not something that occurs in most normal traffic situations.
As you and Pegaxs indicate, there are a number of interconnecting rules, that can apply, and frankly we dont know everyone.
Except personally I would apply the most basic - avoiding an accident wherever possible.
Except personally I would apply the most basic - avoiding an accident wherever possible.
I do as well. But there people here who think that they don't have a duty to avoid an accident where possible, just because they "wouldn't be at fault".
Thank you for phrasing as ‘who has to give way’
Lane 2 has ROW
But even then Lane 1 can't cross into lane 2 anyway as it's a solid white line?
Correct me if i'm wrong.
That bus did the wrong thing and merged over a solid white line which is illegal i believe.
It’s a bus lane, the bus can cross the solid bus lane line. Other vehicles can’t cross the solid line.
I dont think that's the rule
They need to indicate doing so.
I see one of these near a road I drive. It seems pretty clear, but for certainty of avoiding an accident if I was left I always end up the leftest lane to make sure there is no question of wrong, and I started on the right lane I end up on the rightest lane. Basically never use the middle lane as it creates, and if I need to be there I’d just lane change there afterward.
I don’t wanna be in a situation where me and the car next to me both assume we can take the middle lane and crash trying to take it.
To me that's one of the stupidest set of lanes I've seen. Who comes up with this stuff?
Probably a legislator, who catches the bus to work.
If you really have to ask the question you need to hand in your license
You are guided to stay in your lane. When it reaches the vacant centre, which is a stupid idea, the vehicle in lane 1 must yield.
Since when do bus drivers care about giving way? They always have the "give way to me" mentality no matter what the rules say.
There’s a solid white line for a reason. They (bus) has to yield to those in right lane that have right of way.
I have noticed that solid lines aren’t really adhered to much in Sydney though. Not sure why.