I hope you are a Forum member because you really need to read this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Ian Read 188 (1):
148 Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic
(1) A driver who is moving from one marked lane(whether or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving.

---

But how is the phrase "must give way" interpreted?
Is it adjust your speed by just enough to avoid a collision? Even if that means the distance between the merged vehicles is less than 3 m.
Is it merge in a way that the distance between the merged vehicles corresponds to a gap of around 2 seconds -- which at 70 km/h corresponds to a nearly 40 m gap.
Note that at the observed maximum capacity for free flowing traffic (at 50 km/h), the gap between vehicles is in the order of 15 m, and on the Sydney Harbour Bridge during peak periods, gaps less than 15 m are quite common.

Quote:

---

Ian, can I respectfully request that if you wish to discuss this matter, which is of no consequence to the issue I started the thread for, that you start a thread of your own. Continuing to run it here is watering down the particular safety issue I am trying to highlight from the incident this morning.

---

noted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

But how is the phrase "must give way" interpreted?

---

From https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/...iving-way.html

Quote:

---

Give way in the road rules means a driver or pedestrian who is stopped must “remain stationary until it is safe to proceed”, or otherwise “slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision”.

---

I see this as meaning that the vehicle which does not have right of way is th eone who is responsible to ensure that the it does not attempt to occupy the same physical space as the vehicle with right of way.

Also note that they are given the options of:
- remaining stationery
- slowing down
- stopping

this rules out the usual favorite around here of speeding up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

From https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/...iving-way.html

I see this as meaning that the vehicle which does not have right of way is the one who is responsible to ensure that the it does not attempt to occupy the same physical space as the vehicle with right of way.

---

I don't want to be picky about your use of "right of way", it is, after all, your thread, but the reference material is pretty careful about referring to one vehicle "giving way" to the other. I haven't seen were the material refers to one vehicle having a "right of way" over the other.


In the situation that prompted this thread, was the "other vehicle" travelling more quickly or more slowly than you? i.e. was one vehicle passing the other when the event occurred?
or were both vehicles travelling at the same speed and could you have been in the other driver's blind spot?


Your description of the event implies that it was the other vehicle which needed to brake to avoid a collision.
However, the reaction from the other driver -- following you for some distance and being abusive -- implies you did something unexpected.

Quote:

---

note they are given the options of:
- remaining stationery
- slowing down
- stopping

this rules out the usual favorite around here of speeding up.

---

which is interesting given that the other advice, especially when entering a motorway or similar, is to "match speed" and find a suitable gap. Matching the speed of vehicles on a freeway will most often involve speeding up !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Ian, can I respectfully request that if you wish to discuss this matter, which is of no consequence to the issue I started the thread for, that you start a thread of your own. Continuing to run it here is watering down the particular safety issue I am trying to highlight from the incident this morning. I am really hoping that this message will get back to the guy who caused the problem before he hurts himself or someone else. If he continues to be as aggressive as he was to me, confronting me in the car-park and again in the store, it is only a matter of time until he picks on the wrong person and gets beaten up or worse.

---

noted

---

And ignored apparently.

Ian - all the answers I have given are easily found on a google search - work it out for yourself.

And for the sake of all potential victims please sort it out in your mind before you venture out on the roads again - particularly if you come to Victoria.

The difficulty with these discussions is that Vic road laws are actually quite different in a number of aspects then other states. As far as I can see you are right Doug.

Peter.

In the case of a fatal accident it makes little difference what the road rules say. When you're dead you're dead. Drive defensively. As for taking offence at the fellows tirade. As I recall, you are just as capable of dishing it out yourself.

Not knowing what took place apart from you being adamant you were in the right which you may well have been
But is there a chance that you were driving in a manor where you thought you were in the right and just held your line to a point where the other driver had to take radical action to avoid an accident ?
The fact he went to the measures he did to abuse you must mean he was pretty upset with the situation and it was more than the usual typical daily encounters on the road.

I don't know what happens with motor vehicle accidents, but at a Marine Court of Inquiry into a collision, almost the first question that each master will be asked, regardless of the circumstances, is "What did you do to avoid a collision?" In the absence of any reference to "right of way" in the road regulations, I suspect that road rules are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

I don't know what happens with motor vehicle accidents, but at a Marine Court of Inquiry into a collision, almost the first question that each master will be asked, regardless of the circumstances, is "What did you do to avoid a collision?" In the absence of any reference to "right of way" in the road regulations, I suspect that road rules are the same.

---

Road rules serve three broad purposes
1. a guide to how our roads should be used.
2. a means to legally assign blame when a crash occurs.
3. a way to apportion civil responsibility when, as a result of a crash, damage (to persons or property) occurs.

unfortunately purposes 2 and 3 are too often confused, which is one reason why the rules are typically written as which vehicle should "give way", rather than which vehicle has "right of way". A "right of way" implies a right to continue unobstructed without the need to take evasive action, which is not the intent of the road rules.

A relatively simple example,
at the end of a slow vehicle or overtaking lane the vehicle in the left hand lane (which is normally travelling well below the speed limit) has to give way to a vehicle in the right hand lane (which is normally travelling at the speed limit), if the left hand vehicle is crossing a lane line (Rule 148, see post #8). However, that rule would only be applied when the distance between vehicles is so short that failing to "obey" it results in a collision. If the distance between vehicles is such that the faster vehicle can brake to avoid a collision when they see the slower vehicle starting to change lanes, then that is what the faster vehicle is expected to do. (Alex's "what did you do to avoid a collision?")