23 July 2008

Who had right of way?

| Kristielee
Join the conversation
36

Hi All,

I am wanting to find out some more information of right of way at light intersections as I cannot find enough information on the tams website to clarify my concern.

I was driving to work this morning and nearly ran a kid over at a light intersection in Queanbeyan. I was sitting at the lights ready to turn right (red box see diagram below) heading south from the Kings Highway intending to turn onto Crawford Street toward the Q Arts Centre . I had just looked up to see I HAD A GREEN LIGHT and started to go when out of the corner of my eye I noticed a young boy about 10years or so crossing the intersection in front of me (blue arrow showing his direction in diagram below). He was clearly crossing on a RED WALK signal and ran directly in front of me. The boy ran across and I almost ran him over. My heart skipped a beat. Luckily he didnt touch my car but he was sure as hell within 1/2metre from it and if he had been any faster or I had been any slower off the mark I wouldnt have been able to stop and would have run him over.

I have looked on the TAMS website and briefed through the road rule files they have there but the best I can find is:

  • Pedestrians are not permitted to cross the road on a red walk sign
  • Cars must give way to pedestrians at traffic signals when turning left or right (this indicates to me that if he were crossing in the opposite direction where the yellow arrow is on the diagram below, then I would have had to give way to him, however, he ran across the intersection at the point where the blue arrow went.)
    Intersection

Does anyone know who is in the right of way at a light intersection here. He clearly crossed when he wasnt meant to but if we had collidided, would I have been held responsible??? Any help on this matter would be most appreciated

Thanks

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Thanks guys for slip lane info – yes ACT does seem to have a lot of these. I learned to drive in NSW and my confusion about this, I now realise, coincides with my moving back to Canberra.

Perhaps clearer signage would solve the problem?

Under Australian road rules, people turning left have right of way as long as they are not breaking a line of traffic to do so (eg turning left at a T intersection will still have to give way to people going straight along that road). Your friend is misinformed – New Zealand for example purposes has right of way for right turners.

Unless they’re turning left from a slip lane.

As i said before, it depends what type of intersection you’ve got.

This from page 40 of the ACT road handbook. There’s a picture if you want to have a look.

‘If the driver is turning left using a slip lane,
the driver must give way to:
(a) any vehicle approaching from the right
or turning right at the intersection
into the road the driver is entering
(except a vehicle making a U-turn at
the intersection)’

Most left turns on main roads in the act are slip lanes. They may only be one car length long but there’s usually a broken give way line and a traffic/pedestrian island on the right.

astrojax said :

DJ’s sarcasm detector taking a while to kick in this morning..?

Motor cyclist need to be real careful overtaking vans, I had a couple of bike riders go off at me for pulling out / in and nearly hitting them. As always, I had checked my mirrors, but they were in the blind spot on each occasion.

notice you say it is your blindspot, pesty. yes, cyclists need to beware of all potential hazards, but van/truck etc drivers who ‘can’t see’ need to move very slowly into their lane and watch all the while as more road (and approaching traffic) becomes clearly visible enough to proceed to move into the traffic flow with due safety. or have i missed something?

no, you’ve missed nothing! As I said, my (and most other van drivers) blind spot, changing lanes is a tricky business. generally, I keep a good handle on what is behind me, but when roads merge etc vehicles can just appear, particularly bikes. wide angle mirrors really help. M/bike riders should keep their lights on, especially those who choose to wear all black gear.

I just adore the little sketch map.

DJ’s sarcasm detector taking a while to kick in this morning..?

Motor cyclist need to be real careful overtaking vans, I had a couple of bike riders go off at me for pulling out / in and nearly hitting them. As always, I had checked my mirrors, but they were in the blind spot on each occasion.

notice you say it is your blindspot, pesty. yes, cyclists need to beware of all potential hazards, but van/truck etc drivers who ‘can’t see’ need to move very slowly into their lane and watch all the while as more road (and approaching traffic) becomes clearly visible enough to proceed to move into the traffic flow with due safety. or have i missed something?

Mælinar - *spoiler alert* I've seen S04E1311:40 am 24 Jul 08

I always thought left turners have the right of way, but a friend informs me the right turners do, though I’ll be blessed if I know why this is. For example, turning off Castleton Crescent into Sternberg in Gowrie, or from Hambidge Crescent into Baskerville in Chisholm.

No one else seems to know either – people slow down and wave!

Under Australian road rules, people turning left have right of way as long as they are not breaking a line of traffic to do so (eg turning left at a T intersection will still have to give way to people going straight along that road). Your friend is misinformed – New Zealand for example purposes has right of way for right turners.

Mail me in future rather than hijacking another thread OK guys?

New story right up the top of the page for you.

Steven Irwin has now said he lied to save Carney. I couldn’t comment but I’ll try again.

Feel free to start one yourself if there’s something new…. but the old one is still on the front page and open for comment.

I think it is best not to run over people. They sometimes get hurt.

While riding my motorbike I always remember one thing. That is, it doesn’t matter if i’m in the right and the other guy is wrong, I’m still going to be the one going to hospital in an ambulance.

Motor cyclist need to be real careful overtaking vans, I had a couple of bike riders go off at me for pulling out / in and nearly hitting them. As always, I had checked my mirrors, but they were in the blind spot on each occasion. I have since fitted small wide angle mirrors onto my door mirrors, these help a good deal, but still bike riders should avoid lingering alongside vans. remember, we don’t have the added benefit of looking over our shoulders in addition to mirror use.

Why can’t I comment on the Raiders All Bar Nun blog??

I think it is best not to run over people. They sometimes get hurt.

While riding my motorbike I always remember one thing. That is, it doesn’t matter if i’m in the right and the other guy is wrong, I’m still going to be the one going to hospital in an ambulance.

That is also an important fact to remember. I have told many cyclists the same thing. They can put ‘at least he was in the right’ on your headstone. Cars will always beat a bike or motorbike

In the absence of any other facts, and not knowing whether there are particular nuances in NSW law that we don’t have here, I would suggest that if you had have collected the kid, the fact they had crossed against a red signal (which in itself is against the law) and you had taken sufficient care to avoid a collision would leave you free of any liability. Not saying you aren’t telling the truth either but I say ‘in absence of other facts’ because there are 3 sides to any investigation, the sides of each person involved and the truth.

If you had have collected the kid you wouldn’t have felt any better but I can’t see how you would be prosecuted for anything if your driving manner was reasonable throughout.

As for the ‘plod’ comment, well Jeebus, we have all been called much worse. I do still find the donut references quite pathetic though. Just demonstrates a thought pattern that imagines American stereotypes apply world wide. Too much TV watching and spending time on US internet sites but when it comes to Fant that’s hardly a revelation.

We have plenty of good old Australian stereotypes for Police here regarding McDonalds, pies, phone books or how they are just ‘public servants’. Give them a shot, it will show that at least you’ve broadened your mind past your computer monitor or plasma

tylersmayhem9:12 am 24 Jul 08

When can I be a “RiotACT Overlord”? I think I’ve got definite potential?!

For a sufficiently large donation we might be able to work something out.

Somehow JB, I don’t think I could be trusted 😉

ant said :

You can call them Plod, that just causes a few rumbles. But scatter a few doughnuts about here, and watch them come flying in from all directions, feathers sailing about, squawks, wild flailing. Gets ’em very excited.

As for the pedestrian, a motorist is meant to take all possible steps to avoid them, even when they’re where they shouldn’t be. It seems to depend on the circumstances though, as to whether the motorist faces consquences.

It’s best to get a bullbar, they are effective against cyclists, too.

Insulting and ignorant as always ant… try another tact.

In regards to the orginal question, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong. Bottom line is if a vehicle, even if they are technically ‘in the right’ does somethig that causes an accident they could be found just as responsible as the person doing the wrong thing.

With the turning question this seems to be an age old question. The national road rules seem to make it pretty clear.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.7-TOP+0+N

This is from a NSW site, but the core rules are the same, just with some extra NSW specific rules which don’t apply to this topic.

If a car turning left has a no slip lane they have right of way and the car turning right has the right of way. if the left turning car has a slip lane then the car turning right has to give way to the car turning left. As can be seen this applies only to intersections without lights, stops or give way signs. Rule 73 is for T intersections, but is pretty much the same in this situation.

See Part 7, para 72(3) below:

“72 Giving way at an intersection (except a T-intersection or roundabout)
(1) A driver at an intersection (except a T-intersection or roundabout) without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line, must give way in accordance with this rule.

(3) If the driver is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane), the driver must give way to:
(a) any vehicle approaching from the right, unless a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the approaching vehicle, and
(b) any pedestrian at or near the intersection on the road the driver is entering.”

Now the definition of a slip road is interesting. It can be an island or painted and can only be for a small part. So one of those triangle islands we often see makes the left turning lane into a slip lane.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+fn+0+N

“slip lane means an area of road for vehicles turning left that is separated, at some point, from other parts of the road by a painted island or traffic island.”

I always thought left turners have the right of way, but a friend informs me the right turners do, though I’ll be blessed if I know why this is

I think your friend is right. It’s probably this way because if the person turning right goes, then has to wait for you turning left they may be stranded in the middle of the road to be collected by a bus.

But if there’s no median strip or traffic islands I think the left hand turner has right of way. These are usually in quiet streets.

You can call them Plod, that just causes a few rumbles. But scatter a few doughnuts about here, and watch them come flying in from all directions, feathers sailing about, squawks, wild flailing. Gets ’em very excited.

As for the pedestrian, a motorist is meant to take all possible steps to avoid them, even when they’re where they shouldn’t be. It seems to depend on the circumstances though, as to whether the motorist faces consquences.

It’s best to get a bullbar, they are effective against cyclists, too.

Obviously the child should not have crossed against the red little man and the car had right of way. However! there are some intersections where the right turning traffic are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the road with the little green man (not the alien variety) on the crossing in same way the child crossed the road in this case. I believe a good example is in the City where you turn right at the lights from Alinga St onto Marcus Clarke St. It’s normally always a T junction intersection and signposted to give way wherever it is though.

But this is Canberra, nobody gives way to anybody. Just force your way in or run someone over.

Who had right of way? No one! Doesn’t exist in the Road Rules.
All a green light gives you is the right to proceed WHEN SAFE.
Worse, you are not allowed to proceed onto a pedestrian crossing if there is a pedestrian on it. This is independent of what the lights are doing.
Imagine what would happen if we did that strictly, no crossing ahead or behind, traffic hell.

tylersmayhem said :

When can I be a “RiotACT Overlord”? I think I’ve got definite potential?! 😉

For a sufficiently large donation we might be able to work something out.

Pedestrians have right of way always… Cars are a lot bigger and cause more damage!

Another road query – what about those median strip intersections where there is a dotted ‘give way’ line at every angle?

I always thought left turners have the right of way, but a friend informs me the right turners do, though I’ll be blessed if I know why this is. For example, turning off Castleton Crescent into Sternberg in Gowrie, or from Hambidge Crescent into Baskerville in Chisholm.

No one else seems to know either – people slow down and wave!

Neat diagram Kristielee.

That is all.

Felix the Cat7:05 pm 23 Jul 08

FB said :

Also on topic, Kristielee, it is illegal for a pedestrian to cross on a red cross sign and had you collected said pedestrian your insurance company probably would have pursued them for damages.

Good luck getting damages from 10 yo boy!

You were totally in the right. Though, good thing you didn’t hit him. He had to wait for you, cause he had a red sign.

Cars must give way to pedestrians at traffic signals when turning left or right

This would mean, that if you were turning left, rather than right coming the direction you were going, and the boy crossed your path (across the intersection, left to right, at the first set of light at the top of the picture) then you would have had to give way to him, if that makes sense.

Slightly OT but I witnessed a slightly inebriated brother-in-law answer his front door to two boys in blue wearing only his undies…

gotta ask, what was plod doing in his undies?? boom! boom!

going now…

actually, on topic, yes, rekkun FB is pretty right. as your initial post points out kristielee, the road rules stipulate pedestrians are not permitted to cross against a red signal. the lad’s crossing sign was presumably red, so he was technically at fault. that said, not entirely unknown for signals to go haywire and have two contradictory green lights occur…

Slightly OT but I witnessed a slightly inebriated brother-in-law answer his front door to two boys in blue wearing only his undies. He then proceeded to greet them the phrase “good evening c*nt*slight pause*stables”. Surprisingly they did not invite him to read the yellow pages in the back of a divvy van, nor did they arrest him. I stood by laughing on the inside!

Also on topic, Kristielee, it is illegal for a pedestrian to cross on a red cross sign and had you collected said pedestrian your insurance company probably would have pursued them for damages.

Johnboy I thought when they pulled you over you called them something else that kinda rhymes with constable. But certainly not after running over a little boy in QBN who is colour blind and crossed on a red rather than green.

tylersmayhem4:24 pm 23 Jul 08

When can I be a “RiotACT Overlord”? I think I’ve got definite potential?! 😉

Oh you *CAN* call them plod.

You’re just less likely to get a helpful reply.

A bit like you can call them drinkstable when they pull you over and they can then check your car for defects.

tylersmayhem4:18 pm 23 Jul 08

Shhh JC, the P**d might hear!

tylersmayhem4:17 pm 23 Jul 08

JB, isn’t there a level of freedom of speech on here?! I’d kinda hope the Ole Plod won’t come and knock down my door and arrest me for referring to them by an age old term. There are plenty worse terms I could use, yes?

Anyway, whats wrong with the police officer off Noddy? And a new fact I learned of Wiki today:

PLOD or P.L.O.D. is an acronym for Police Link Officers for Deaf people. Established in 1999 by the Hampshire Constabulary (UK), Link Officers aim to promote equality of access to the Police for deaf, deaf-blind, deafened and hard of hearing people. Similar schemes are being introduced by other police forces.

I am not a plod but tylersmayhem you are right, and not just with running over people. In any situation if you can avoid a collision, even if you are in the ‘right’ you must do so. Failure to do so could be considered negligent driving.

Shh TH they don’t respond well to being called ‘plod’.

tylersmayhem4:06 pm 23 Jul 08

I think the the boy should not have crossed, but of course you are expected to do your best not to plough over someone if they walk in front of your car (again, you did the right thing obviously). If you had run over the little dude, I wouldn’t imagine you’d be at fault other than if you had been speeding, negligent or malicious.

Maybe there is a Plod member of RA who can confirm?!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.