Road Rules - Who is in the wrong?

[BENT_8]

Keep clutching mate, as the traffic is still flowing, which we MUST presume unless told otherwise, car B has failed to give way to the oncoming traffic. As it appears there was a break in the traffic big enough for car B to get through but he hasnt allowed for car A so B is at fault.

Now i understand why so many people struggle with the diagram part of a learners test, they complicate it with what if's that just arent there.

[Fireblade]

It says in the first post example car B gave way to Car A, go back and reread it. Now I see why people cant read, too busy looking at diagrams.

[BENT_8]

Your still looking at it from a point of view where car A has come to a stop which again hasnt been shown, he was indicating his intention to turn left whist moving towards the intersection, changed his mind whilst still on the intersection and continued ahead. Car B must still allow car A to clear the intersection before he makes a move as he is crossing the flow of traffic at an uncontrolled intersection.

[Spanrz]

The way I see it :

Scenario 1 : Car A is at fault (unsafe lane changes)

Scenario 2 : Car A would be at fault "if" Car A was turning left and there was a give way sign (or turn left with care sign) or a red signal (either light or arrow) if at a set of lights.

However it looks like there is no traffic device at all, Car A was in a new lane and "not turning Left", thus making Car A "oncoming traffic" to Car B. Which now makes Car B at fault for not "giving way".
You could argue in your defence that Car A made it unsafe to avert a collision, if there was a "KEEP CLEAR" printed on the road. Car A just didn't look or take care when changing lanes around an intersection. Maybe use unsafe lane change, but you would have to prove that in court, which it would be pretty hard to....

If there is nothing of a traffic device of any type (signs, road markings (keep clear), traffic lights or arrows), I think you are out of luck, Car B is at fault for "failure to give way". Unfortunately.

[BENT_8]

Thankyou... :togo:

[Fireblade]

So if your committed to a turn which everybody allows you to do, then they decide that they now dont want to give way to you and your already halfway through it, bugger your legal attitude because I couldnt care this now would become a moral attitude. Half the problem with todays drivers its all about whos legally in the right, no common courtesy at all.

[BENT_8]

Where does it say everyone has allowed you to go, your still confusing the diagram as its drawn.
No one has come to a stop exept car B which is waiting for the intersection to clear before crossing 3 lanes of oncomming traffic.
Car A has clear right of way and can do whatever he likes as he has not exited the intersection.

[Fireblade]

Im now just going to leave it that, agree to disagree, god I hope I never turn in front of you.

[BENT_8]

You can agree with what ever you like, i would suggest you take notice next time your faced with this scenario on an uncontrolled intersection and see how many cars with right of way stop to allow a turning car to go.

[Fireblade]

I see it all the time, when cars are backed up in peak hour traffic, cars are stopped at a set of lights some 200m down the road and they let cars through a lot. But then in the Northern suburbs you probably wouldnt see it because everyone thinks they own the road down there, oh and no common courtesy either. Im never in a hurry to get anywhere that I cant spare a few seconds to allow some one through that could be waiting for 5 mins for a gap or someone else to do the same thing.

[BA-Fan]

in Scenario 2:

The traffic WAS stopped. Car A was stopped too, Car A in my books was technically pulling from the Kerb without Caution?

[Fireblade]

Thankyou Smoked as you were the OP. Proves my theory.

[NC1183]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

Actually reread the example given in the first post, car B gave way to car A who then changes his mind and goes after Car B has made more than half his turn which then collides with Car B, I would believe Car A would then be in the wrong in this example because then he hasnt given way.

I agree, from the info written and the diagram, car A would be in the wrong in scenario 2. The point of impact in the pic is right in front of the "lane" that A came from. The only way that accident could have happened is at a set of traffic lights, in which the cars turning right get an arrow to go, and there is a left turn at anytime sign, otherwise you would have to be a complete and utter moron to try and make that turn.

God help some of you, if you come through Moree, and take on our two round-abouts, if you don't give-way to your right or let the trucks go, you will be a road statistic no ifs or buts

[BA-Fan]

As discussed:

Car B gave way to Car A while he was stopped in traffic. Car A changed mind midway through car B's Turn.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

So if your committed to a turn which everybody allows you to do, then they decide that they now dont want to give way to you and your already halfway through it, bugger your legal attitude because I couldnt care this now would become a moral attitude. Half the problem with todays drivers its all about whos legally in the right, no common courtesy at all.

forgive me, because i have not read all of this thread. i see what you are saying but as spannerz particularly suggested, if there are no signs or lines to suggest that car a must give way, then without witnesses to prove otherwise, car b should have given way

the original diagrams are sketchy at best, but if it is a normal intersection without markings or lights, then car b must give way

the problem with that is that morally car b may very well be in the right, but what should happen morally does not matter at times, particularly if there are no witnesses to say that car a was a moron

the rules in most situations (rear ending accidents included) are very close to black and white. it doesn't always make it fair, but without witnesses sometimes unfair situations have to be accepted


from what i can see, car a is morally wrong, car b is probably legally wrong. however, with a small amount of brain power and consideration, car a could have avoided the accident. and depending if there was two lanes in the road both were turning into, then car b may have left some room too. no one bothers to look anywhere but their exact destination. and when two are headed for that same destination, most drivers are too dumb to change their line or momentum even slightly to avoid an accident

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by prydey

undertaking refers to the removal of dead bodies.

I probably didn't explain myself too well

I meant to say you'd need an undertaker if you tried to pass a turning truck on the left.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by SM0KED

As discussed:

Car B gave way to Car A while he was stopped in traffic. Car A changed mind midway through car B's Turn.

with all due respects, going by your diagram, car b never gave way to car a. car b gave way to the vehicle infront of car a. in which case could car b have missed car a even if they entered the left turn lane in a proper manner

i still think from the limited (i was not there so it is limited) information, that car b is probably morally correct though. morally and legally are sometimes two entirely different things though

[Fireblade]

Thankyou GTXB67, you have hit the nail on the head pretty much. The law maybe black and white but we as drivers can be the grey area, and change some of the way we drive and view other drivers.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

The law maybe black and white but we as drivers can be the grey area, and change some of the way we drive and view other drivers.

unfortunately virtually no one cares enough to change the way they drive or how much consideration they have for others

they are too busy telling everyone they are right or teaching others lessons or just telling themselves they are never wrong

the current licencing system and driver safety program is a joke as well and helps to create these people who can not only create unnecessary frustration on our road, but also have the power to take away our loved ones - which of course is the biggest tradegy

[BA Baracus]

It's just assumption that car A even knew of car B's intent and was rude or impatient. We drive with trucks, buses, fourbees, vans, loaded utes, trailers, we have barriers, medians and inclines. If car A was one of the front cars it's blatantly rude but in the same token they may of had no idea B was coming until too late and were simply legally making use of an open lane. That may also explain them changing their mind as they may of freaked out upon sighting of car B and tried to turn left to avert the accident.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by SM0KED

in Scenario 2:

The traffic WAS stopped. Car A was stopped too, Car A in my books was technically pulling from the Kerb without Caution?

Nope, still the same outcome. Turning vehicle at fault. It is wrong (as the vehicle crossing the intersection) to assume all traffic are giving way. Technically they are keeping the area clear whilst stationary, but they do not have to give way.

Whether it morally right or not, that's not what the original topic was. Personally, courtesy will minimise car crashes.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by SM0KED

in Scenario 2:

The traffic WAS stopped. Car A was stopped too, Car A in my books was technically pulling from the Kerb without Caution?

Where did you put in the original post that the traffic had stopped, you cant expect people to read your mind.
Given the drawings that you provided one must conclude that it is an uncontrolled intersection and that traffic was flowing and with these basic points in mind car B is at fault.

You cant come in after hours of discussion and move the goal posts.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

I see it all the time, when cars are backed up in peak hour traffic, cars are stopped at a set of lights some 200m down the road and they let cars through a lot. But then in the Northern suburbs you probably wouldnt see it because everyone thinks they own the road down there, oh and no common courtesy either. Im never in a hurry to get anywhere that I cant spare a few seconds to allow some one through that could be waiting for 5 mins for a gap or someone else to do the same thing.

This is the only time i have ever witnessed this situation and yes i always allow turning cars to go when faced with this situation.
However, this situation is not shown in the diagram either so one must conclude that traffic is not stopped for a set of lights 200m up the road.

If Police were called to this scene it would be a he said she said situation and the failure to give way law, not morals would lead to the outcome of fault.

I had a situation a few years ago where i was turning left onto salisbury hwy from a side road, looked right nothing coming, took off and collected a bloke who had over shot the turn i was coming out of and was reversing back across the intersection.
Now morally he was wrong as he shouldnt be reversing across an intersection but as i failed to look left until too late i was found at fault.
Neither of us claimed as it was a minor scratch to both vehicles but the Police confirmed i was at fault.

[FPV GT]

In scenario 2 it would be argued that the driver of car B did not take due care. Whether car A slowed down or came to a complete stop because the driver changed their mind, or the car lost power due to a mechanical fault, the driver of car B would cop it for careless driving. Relate this to the rear end collison, car in front slows or stops, you plant into the back, your fault
As a firie i see a lot of collisions, and it is the driver of the car that is turning into traffic that cops the ticket.

Hey SMOKED, are these actual incidents, do you know the outcomes?

How about our AFF finest, surely one of the serving ossifers could shine some light.

Regards
Paul

[Trendseeker]

The correct answer was given in post number 2, although he wasn't completely confident about the second scenario. Then Yaw correctly covered off the two possible situations in the second scenario in post 8. All the rest is white noise, although it is amusing to read and there hasn't been a thread like this for at least a week or two now.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Yaw

2.
However if a straightford intersection a lot is going to depend on the point of impact. If car a was to hit car B around the front guard, that would suggest car A had right of way, If the impact was towards the middle or rear of car B it would be more likley car B should have given way to Car A which would prove that car b was already estabilshed in the intersection. Possible arguments for Contributing Negligence.

LoL both these points lead to car A having right of way.

All you can do is work with the information provided and that clearly shows an UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION where a vehicle has failed to give way to oncoming moving traffic regardless of if's but's or any other way of wording it to suit yourselves.

[Trendseeker]

Yaw's first sentence on scenario B is correct: if car A is turning into a slip lane than car B has the right of way. If there is no slip lane, car A has the right of way. No ifs or buts. Point of impact on the car's body has no effect.

[BENT_8]

There is no slip lane!!!

Why do people continue to add things that clearly arent there.
The only reason there is a deviation in the line/gutter on the left of car A is for the commencement of the extra lane after the intersection, its not a slip lane.
If there was a slip lane it would need to show an island or similar to clearly show car A as entering the new road from a T junction situation where you would then need to give way to the traffic (car B) already on the new road as i said in one of my first posts.

[Silver Ghia]

As Bent 8 said, (I was writing this and he beat me to it) Car A is not in a slip lane going by the OP diagram, but changing into a lane thats going straight ahead, going by the lane on the other side of the intersection. If Car A was turning left and had to give way, there would be an island there, and he would be on the other side of that island.

I can't believe some of the interpretations here in this thread. Goes to show how many dont know the simple road rules like giving way to all oncoming traffic when turning right.

Morally or not, road rules are there to be observed, otherwise there would be chaos on the roads.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by 2008WhiteSR

Yaw's first sentence on scenario B is correct: if car A is turning into a slip lane than car B has the right of way. If there is no slip lane, car A has the right of way. No ifs or buts. Point of impact on the car's body has no effect.

no one has right of way - some have to give way
the law states that you must drive in a way to avoid an accident
therefore no one has right of way, because even if someone has not given way - you do not have the right to drive into them. you must give way to avoid an accident