This is in Hoppers Crossing, VIC.
Car A, cruising through, following the traffic light when arrow is green.
Car B, doing a U turn on the same road, also following traffic light when arrow is green. No sign like "No U turn in traffic signal", so U turning here is valid.
So who has the right of way? Car A or Car B?
Right of Way
He is going to loose lose his shit over this. FFS
And what sort of monster doesn't put the poll options in alphabetical order. FFS²
They are in alphabetical order.
It's ok, I've just been released from hospital… It wasn't an aneurysm, just a burst nasal capillary…
Car A has right of way because:
When making a U-turn: give way to all other vehicles and pedestrians, including vehicles turning left from a slip lane or side street even if they are facing a ‘give way’ or ‘stop’ sign.
Source: https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-rules-and-safety/u-turns
I believe the u turn has already been completed. The wording about vehicles turning from a sliplane applies to sliplanes before the intersection. At this point the uturn has been performed and B is merely a car on the road that A should give way to.
Are you in NSW? U-turns are illegal at traffic lights unless a sign allows it.
This is in Hoppers Crossing, VIC.
They are in Victoria so it's allowed unless signed otherwise.
Why does VIC do so many things backwards/different to other Aussie states?
Why would it be illegal to make a u-turn unless there’s a sign??
Sort of related, but there’s a u-turn near me that says “No u turn between 10pm-6am”
What would be the reason for this? It’s off a main road, and it’s also at a traffic light (turning into a business area)
Other states call a parma "parmi", they don't have a leg to stand on.
Yeah Victorians calling scallops, potato cakes feels a bit wrong.
I have absolutely no idea how I missed that. D'oh!
What? Missed the reply button?
Missed that Victoria separated from NSW on 1 July 1851.
I make that error all the time.
jv is still bitter about that.
Can you teach me how to use OzBargain?
Not sure about road rules in VIC, but in qld, we are only allowed to do u turns where there are signs telling us that u turns are allowed.
Sometimes we do get signs reminding us that u turns aren't allowed at specific places, so many people think they can do u turns at places that don't have those signs, but they invariable find out they are wrong when they get penalised for their legal breach.
A common argument when challenging the allegation of an unlawful u turn is "there was no sign telling me I couldn't" to which the legal response is "there was no sign telling you that you could".
I guess that means there is a road rule here that says something like "no u turns allowed unless otherwise signed".
Not entirely correct, that rule only applies at traffic lights. At other intersections you can do a u-turn as long as there is not a sign saying you can't.
At intersections without traffic lights or at breaks in the centre island of the road, you must not do a U-turn if there is a no U-turn sign.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/traffic-l…
I understand why everything needs to be spelled out in QLD, of all places.
It doesn't. Muppet Detector needs to refresh themselves on Road Rules.
Refreshed!
Thanks folks!
Poll needs one more option 'Hoppers'. I cannot see any crossing hoppers. If there was even one hopper crossing neither of them but the hopper!
What if the other car is a Ranger Raptor?
😳
Real tradies drive F150s and have right of way 😅
They can't do U-turns because their turning circle is so poor.
The one doing the u-turn in that case was the Mustang!
Why?
Revved over 4000RPM, had to go park it to recover.
A few weeks ago I had a tricky one in that regard.
The slip road wasn't separated with a raised island, it was just painted on the road. And they were resurfacing the road. The driver approaching swore at me for looking like I wasn't going to give way to him when he KNEW that there was a slip road there that required me, turning left, to give way to him, turning right. But because they hadn't yet repainted the lines there was no slip road markings there that day. I let him go, but it would have been interesting to know whether the law considered there was a slip road there because there was supposed to be, but the line markings on the road for it weren't there at the time.
If a line marking or road sign is supposed to be there, but isn't for some reason, do you still have to obey it? Google AI says you don't, though I wonder if that's the case with a speed limit sign. So the idea would be if its absence means you weren't in the wrong, sneak back and remove it. There'll be a record that it wasn't there, and they had to replace it.
Why do you have so many of these driving incidents? And do you have (1) excess skin or (2) rello in plod or (3) are a wannabe plod?
No. You're wrong.
true dat. Kinda default,in fact
Ooh, ooh, what devastatingly incisive and convince arguments you put.
Agreed with you in the other post but you are wrong on this one
In Vic U-turners must give way to everyone else.
When making a U-turn:
give way to all other vehicles and pedestrians, including vehicles turning left from a slip lane or side street even if they are facing a ‘give way’ or ‘stop’ sign.
make sure you have a clear view of traffic in either direction
indicate well before you turn
complete your U-turn without disrupting any other traffic.
You can’t make a U-turn if there is:
a single continuous line down the centre of the road
double continuous lines down the centre of the road
a 'no right-hand turn' sign
a ‘no U-turn’ sign.
The rules for U-turns in Victoria may be different to other Australian states. In some other states you are only allowed to do a U-turn if there is a sign saying that you can.
You, sir, are 100% correct.
Car B is doing a U turn at a different intersection to that of Car A.
So the question is does Car A have to give way to Car B if Car A has a green light? OMGWTFH4X
Mate, I seriously don't get why these people are negging you. It was the same bizarre case in the mustang vs tesla case. THE U-TURN IS COMPLETE WAY BEFORE A CAN COLLIDE INTO B. Seriously, at what point do these people think that the u-turn is complete and the driver has discharged the responsibility of giving way. Or, do they think that the driver now has to give way for the rest of their life because they did a u-turn once upon a time?
No wonder why there seems to be so many incompetent seniles here on the road in Aus, driving everyone else mad. Pun intended.
Exactly.
Thank you. Exactly.
The morons have succeeded in getting it hidden.
car c
Noone has "right of way" in traffic law. There is only responsibility to give way.
TIL : U-turns are legal at traffic lights in VIC. Seems dangerous.
I can be a bit of a pedantic arse, but even I would not stoop to be the one that says "nobody has right of way" on all these posts.
even I would not stoop to be the one that says "nobody has right of way" on all these posts.
I believe its important to remind people. Too many drivers seem to think they can barrell along at the speed limit and everyone else is less important than they are so should get out of the way.
It like changing the phrasing from 'accident' to crash. Accident implies there is no fault, its just an oopsie and allows drivers to think they 'havent done anything wrong'.
Sure, its pedantic, but its a subtle part of an overall process to make our roads safer.
Doesn't accident just mean that you didn't do something on purpose?
It does, but it has connotations that there wasnt anything that could be done to avoid it. As i said, hanging the language around crashing to imply that there is always a cause can make drivers more defensive in nature.
Seems dangerous
Yes, so in this scenario 'car B' should really have a no U-turn sign, as they end up intersecting with traffic that has a green light. 🤷♂️
TIL : U-turns are legal at traffic lights in VIC. Seems dangerous.
Only for people that rely on a green light and not their eyes to see the traffic.
Not dangerous at all. IMO its absurd that its not legal unless signed in other states, I got stung by this in NSW years ago. First time driving in NSW, been in the state like 15 mins, did a completely safe U turn at a green arrow and immediately got pulled over and was absolutely puzzled why, the cop then continued to berate me and insist that because he has been a cop for 20 years he would know the rules and that in Victoria it is definitely the same…. except that it's not, it is the exact opposite.
It is so weird, like how is a visitor supposed to know that? Even all this time later if I google it I cannot find a 'road rules for visitors' or anything that clearly spells out all the differences.
People will be used-to-what-they're-used-to (grew up with). I haven't had to drive interstate yet but would probably be caught out too honestly. Seems silly to not let you do a U-turn unless signed. I can imagine it being so artificially limiting, much how these days more and more intersections will have static red turning arrows instead of ones that disappear after a few seconds so even if there are no on-coming cars you can't go.
how is a visitor supposed to know that?
They tried to get consistent road rules across aus, but it hasnt worked.
We should have a national road rule system and national licence system. Sure, administer licences by state, but make the testing, fees etc equal.
Right of way? Was this accident on a property easement?
dont know this gets asked too much
How far along that road would Car B have to have travelled to be considered no longer performing a U-turn?
Is it once you are travelling parallel to the lane markings (ie no longer turning)?
If so then Car A would be the one needing to 'give way'.
If not then how is it decided? Is there any clarification somewhere in the road rules?
How far along that road would Car B have to have travelled to be considered no longer performing a U-turn?
This is the key to the question that not enough people are considering.
But I do think in this instance if someone has been given a green arrow such as A, he isn’t obligated to look out for traffic when follow a green traffic light.
There's no ambiguity in the OP's situation because the slip road and U-turn occurs on the same intersection. The ambiguity occurs if car B is turning left from a side street. How far away from the side street does it have to be from the intersection that car B now has to give way to car A.
There's no ambiguity in the OP's situation because the slip road and U-turn occurs on the same intersection.
I agree with this.
he isn’t obligated to look out for traffic when follow a green traffic light.
Except that the green arrow is for turning right. It is often in combination with a green left arrow for other road. A U-turn may interfere with traffic turning left, and therefore needs to look out for, and give way to, other traffic.
I was talking about the green arrow for turning left for car A. If you have a green light to go, you should not be obligated to look out for any directional traffic in your directed line of travel. So A has been told to go left by the lights, he should go.
Do you honestly check every direction of travel whenever you pass through a green light straight or otherwise?
Do you honestly check every direction of travel whenever you pass through a green light straight or otherwise?
Yes.
Crashing your car is frustrating, inconvenient, expensive and sometimes distressing, painful and even fatal.
@Muppet Detector: If you're travelling along a road thats 80kph and you are about to cross a light thats green, do you even have enough time to look both left and right before you are crossing that intersection if you're travelling at/around the speed limit?
If you have a green light to go, you should not be obligated to look out for any directional traffic in your directed line of travel.
Ummm. Yes, you should ALWAYS check it's clear before going. Just because the light is green doesnt mean some clown had decided to do a u turn in front of you.
@Euphemistic: If you're travelling along a road thats 80kph and you are about to cross a light thats green, do you even have enough time to look both left and right before you are crossing that intersection if you're travelling at/around the speed limit?
@cloudy: Its called defensive driving. Should you not be scanning for cars coming from both sides at all times? This is part of the problem with our driving culture, an expectation that you should be able to travel the posted limit with no obstruction.
If you dont have time to react to someone blowing through a red light, you're travelling too fast. Most intersections have a reasonably clear line of sight to allow you to see approaching cars. Of course, some dont but you should approach with caution.
Work out where you're going before you start - and stick to it. You'll find the number of 'U turns' you do reduces dramatically.
I thought no one has "right of way", but people do need to "give way".
Who voted car b ?
Car A clearly.
But car B is turning into its immediate lane and car A should be turning into its immediate lane so there shouldn't never be a problem.
OP here, answer is Car A. Case closed.
I just passed through that intersection last night, and below the traffic light for Car B the sign "U turn must give way" was there.
For context, asking this because, me, as Car A, was met with a couple of instances of getting the hand from Car B for not giving way. Understandably, unlike any other slip lane, Car B had a few meters of acceleration, giving the illusion of "we have a right of way".
answer is Car A. Case closed.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Based on the consensus of internet forum votes or through consulting the actual "Road rules"??
giving the illusion of "we have a right of way".
There is no illusion of "RiGhT oF WaY". There is NO "right of way", only the obligation to "give way".
38 Giving way when making a U-turn
(1) A driver making a U-turn must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians.
"Give way" to all vehicles… There is no mention of "right of way" anywhere in the Vic Road Rules.
FFS.
Based on "U turn must give way" sign that I sighted last night.
Not sure why you're triggered with the term "right of way", to me that is just the opposite of "give way".
right of way", to me that is just the opposite of "give way".
Then you are wrong. One infers that you have a "right" to do something, the other infers an "obligation" you must adhere to. There are no "rights" afforded to you under the road rules, only "obligations". They are not complementary opposites, they are totally different terms and concepts.
And it's not "triggering" as I am just pointing out that this is just another part of the stupidification of the human race. It's on the same level as saying "me and Frank…" or asking for "advise" or not being able to differentiate between your and you're.
@pegaxs: so do you just drive out at give way signs and hit other cars? then come out and tell them that im an illusion and drive off
Option C, neither, there is no right of way. Ther is giveway to all vehicles when performing a uturn. Recommend reviewing the road rules before driving again, unsure is unsafe. How many other dangerous situations do you enter into without knowing a of the details that could save a life?
There is also give way to people who's lane you are merging into.
A made their u-turn first (I mean 3-dimensionally first, not necessarily fourth-dimensionally.)
I do not ever need to drive in Vic, so I do not update on their Rules.
But like everything everywhere …there will be written Road Rule on this I am sure.
It is easy to find and easy to comprehend the U Turn Rules in Qld….so Vic should be similar.
Then there is always default Road Rule NO 1.
Do everything in your power too avoid any Road Incident, regardless of who, what, when or where and leave your ego at home.
Even if B did have the right of way, how is A mean to know B is doing a u-turn and not just indicating a regular turn?
thats why B does not have the right of way. The rule is there so the person turning (car A) does not need to guess if car B is doing a right turn or a U turn
By using their eyes.
This is a tricky one. Because the U turn is further up than where car A is merging into the oncoming traffic, Car B has the right of way - B has already made the U turn and is part of the traffic that A has to give way to.
This is the correct answer.
I would also double check that there isn’t a no u turn sign for A.
Car B is just driving down a straight road in their lane minding their own business. The fact they did a u-turn earlier is irrelevant.
Car A is merging into car B's lane from a slip lane. The fact they had a green light earlier is irrelevant. They need to give way.
This isn't a tough call at all.
Car A isn't merging, they are turning onto a new road where they have a green light.
The car doing the U turn is entering a road where it is a red light for people travelling in that direction.
https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-rules-and-safety/u-turns
When making a U-turn:
give way to all other vehicles and pedestrians, including vehicles turning left from a slip lane or side street even if they are facing a give way or stop sign.
The fact they did a u-turn earlier is irrelevant.
You're talking about mere seconds, not 20 minutes earlier.
I was taught that you should abort a u-turn in this situation. Some teach it here too https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/confusing-right-of-way-u-…
In that example the blue car must give way because as far as they can tell the yellow car is just making a right turn. Yellow car must also give way because it must give way to everyone when doing a u-turn. So it's a stalemate where blue car should go but they don't know they should go because they can't tell that yellow car wants to do a u-turn. Which is why I was told to abort the u-turn.
This example is no the same as OPs because it looks like car B is indicating to turn into a road that doesn't involve car A at all. There is no stalemate, car A should go and car B should abort the u-turn because car B should not obstruct traffic while attempting a u-turn.
@pegaxs