Right of way?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Right of way?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1215787 16-Jan-2015 07:13

joker97: this is how i see it. both are right and both are wrong.

the law asks both drivers to work it out. somehow they both did without hurting car or people.

think of it like cutting into a free flow traffic from a T junction during congested peak hours. if you dont cut in you will stay in the intersection for another hour.

but despite being pretty legal, i think the toyota was being discurteous. he was probably behind dashcam car (we cannot know from that angle) and sped up to overtake the dashcar by the end of the merge but failed to do so. whether he exceeded the speed limit we also won't know. but he mandated the dash car to yield to prevent a rear ending.

now the question, if the dashcam car rear ended the toyota, is the rearender always at fault?

that's all rhetorical, as i really have better things to do with my time energy and blood pressure, and i pick my battles

The accident looks like it would have been door to door. I would say the give way to the right would have ruled any insurance claim, or the insurance companies may apportion blame. I think it can be expected that the Toyota was joining the existing road all said and done.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1216010 16-Jan-2015 11:45

joker97:think of it like cutting into a free flow traffic from a T junction during congested peak hours. if you dont cut in you will stay in the intersection for another hour.

I think you mean merging with the flow after one or more drivers courteously make some room in the flow tho they don't have to. Other than that the law says you stay there forever. The road.code contains no provisions for making up rules because you have to wait ; )

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1216072 16-Jan-2015 13:00

Im siding with the OP and I'm sure a court would too.

- The corolla made a dangerous decision speeding up to merge in front of jarledb who was also clearly accelerating. The corolla had to not only meet the accelleration of jarledb's car, but beat it in order to get ahead.
- jarledb was clearly ahead at all times, even though he was perhaps in the wrong when traveling on the right hand side of the road without cause.
- Regardless of the give way to the right and keep left rules, the corolla was still in the wrong as he/she was merging with the flow of traffic and almost caused an accident by failing to merge in a manner that was safe.
- If jarledb continued at the speed he was traveling without maneuvering like he did to avoid collision, the corolla would have struck the rear of his vehicle and therefore would have found himself in the wrong.

The law doesn't say "Speed up in order to make the people traveling on the right give way to you". If you saw the dash cam footage of the corolla's perspective (if there even was any) and you saw jarledb's car ahead of the corolla with the corolla's lane running out, the obvious solution to the problem would be for the corolla to slow down in order to let the car in front of you in the other lane ahead of your vehicle, as any other option would be considered careless driving. Especially considering the decrease in speed the corolla would have had to make to merge safely would have been negligible to start with, but far less considering jarledb's acceleration.

TL;DR: The corolla made a large speed change in a merging lane that was clearly running out to over-take a car in the main flow of traffic. If an accident occurred because neither driver saw each other, the corolla would have hit the rear of jarledb's vehicle or drivers side door and instantly been in the wrong for making a dangerous maneuver.

EDIT: My aunty (a lawyer) watched the video and said she would be pretty confident in arguing the corolla was negligent and was not aware of his/her surroundings while driving. She also said fault would also most likely be adjudicated in this situation but would most likely be in favor of jarledb over the corolla if that was the case. Also, the corolla could have made arguments in this case too regarding the lane he was traveling in, but according to her: "Serious damage due to negligence trumps minor/subjective road rule infringements any day"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1216075 16-Jan-2015 13:15

I would rather back off survive and not be 'dead' right

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1216079 16-Jan-2015 13:22

DravidDavid: Im siding with the OP and I'm sure a court would too.

- The corolla made a dangerous decision speeding up to merge in front of jarledb who was also clearly accelerating. The corolla had to not only meet the accelleration of jarledb's car, but beat it in order to get ahead.
- jarledb was clearly ahead at all times, even though he was perhaps in the wrong when traveling on the right hand side of the road without cause.
- Regardless of the give way to the right and keep left rules, the corolla was still in the wrong as he/she was merging with the flow of traffic and almost caused an accident by failing to merge in a manner that was safe.
- If jarledb continued at the speed he was traveling without maneuvering like he did to avoid collision, the corolla would have struck the rear of his vehicle and therefore would have found himself in the wrong.

The law doesn't say "Speed up in order to make the people traveling on the right give way to you". If you saw the dash cam footage of the corolla's perspective (if there even was any) and you saw jarledb's car ahead of the corolla with the corolla's lane running out, the obvious solution to the problem would be for the corolla to slow down in order to let the car in front of you in the other lane ahead of your vehicle, as any other option would be considered careless driving. Especially considering the decrease in speed the corolla would have had to make to merge safely would have been negligible to start with, but far less considering jarledb's acceleration.

TL;DR: The corolla made a large speed change in a merging lane that was clearly running out to over-take a car in the main flow of traffic. If an accident occurred because neither driver saw each other, the corolla would have hit the rear of jarledb's vehicle or drivers side door and instantly been in the wrong for making a dangerous maneuver.

EDIT: My aunty (a lawyer) watched the video and said she would be pretty confident in arguing the corolla was negligent and was not aware of his/her surroundings while driving. She also said fault would also most likely be adjudicated in this situation but would most likely be in favor of jarledb over the corolla if that was the case. Also, the corolla could have made arguments in this case too regarding the lane he was traveling in, but according to her: "Serious damage due to negligence trumps minor/subjective road rule infringements any day"

The toyota was ahead of the OPs car though, not behind it, when it was visable before the merge zone. It is designed to be visable to allow BOTH drivers to adjust the speeds. We don't know the speed it was travelling, but it was probably slower, and was speeding up to merge safely. When it meets the merged point, it really has to be travelling at the same speed as the traffic, otherwise it risks getting into a nose /tail accident.
In this type of situation, both drivers have to access the situation. I would have thought the default action would be to slow down to allow the merge, and not to speed up. The toyota though must speed up to match the speed of the motorway traffic.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1216081 16-Jan-2015 13:29

DravidDavid: Im siding with the OP and I'm sure a court would too.

- The corolla made a dangerous decision speeding up to merge in front of jarledb who was also clearly accelerating. The corolla had to not only meet the accelleration of jarledb's car, but beat it in order to get ahead.
- jarledb was clearly ahead at all times, even though he was perhaps in the wrong when traveling on the right hand side of the road without cause.
- Regardless of the give way to the right and keep left rules, the corolla was still in the wrong as he/she was merging with the flow of traffic and almost caused an accident by failing to merge in a manner that was safe.
- If jarledb continued at the speed he was traveling without maneuvering like he did to avoid collision, the corolla would have struck the rear of his vehicle and therefore would have found himself in the wrong.

The law doesn't say "Speed up in order to make the people traveling on the right give way to you". If you saw the dash cam footage of the corolla's perspective (if there even was any) and you saw jarledb's car ahead of the corolla with the corolla's lane running out, the obvious solution to the problem would be for the corolla to slow down in order to let the car in front of you in the other lane ahead of your vehicle, as any other option would be considered careless driving. Especially considering the decrease in speed the corolla would have had to make to merge safely would have been negligible to start with, but far less considering jarledb's acceleration.

TL;DR: The corolla made a large speed change in a merging lane that was clearly running out to over-take a car in the main flow of traffic. If an accident occurred because neither driver saw each other, the corolla would have hit the rear of jarledb's vehicle or drivers side door and instantly been in the wrong for making a dangerous maneuver.

EDIT: My aunty (a lawyer) watched the video and said she would be pretty confident in arguing the corolla was negligent and was not aware of his/her surroundings while driving. She also said fault would also most likely be adjudicated in this situation but would most likely be in favor of jarledb over the corolla if that was the case. Also, the corolla could have made arguments in this case too regarding the lane he was traveling in, but according to her: "Serious damage due to negligence trumps minor/subjective road rule infringements any day"

One can never be too sure of what a court would say in the end of a trial that hasn't begun

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1216085 16-Jan-2015 13:37

mattwnz:
The toyota was ahead of the OPs car though, not behind it, when it was visable before the merge zone. It is designed to be visable to allow BOTH drivers to adjust the speeds. We don't know the speed it was travelling, but it was probably slower, and was speeding up to merge safely. When it meets the merged point, it really has to be travelling at the same speed as the traffic, otherwise it risks getting into a nose /tail accident.
In this type of situation, both drivers have to access the situation. I would have thought the default action would be to slow down to allow the merge, and not to speed up. The toyota though must speed up to match the speed of the motorway traffic.

It wasn't behind the OP's tail lights, but was behind the nose of the OP's car. That warrants "behind" when merging as far as I've ever known. When you are merging, yes you have to match the speed of other vehicles on the motorway, but if your merging lane is running out, speeding up is not an option anymore for obvious reasons and the next car in the queue must adjust it's speed in order to allow the merging car in to the flow of traffic. But then the tables have turned. All of a sudden the Toyota is in front of the car that is following up the OP's vehicle and must slow down to accommodate the Toyota safely. Which is exactly what the Toyota should have done with the OP's vehicle.

I agree the OP should have slowed down out of courtesy (and probably by the rule of the law), but at the end of the day it was the Toyota that wanted in on the motorway action and should have found a safer way to merge on to it rather than speed up to match and even better the OP's speed, dangerously cutting in front of him.

joker97:
One can never be too sure of what a court would say in the end of a trial that hasn't begun

Absolutely. But one is allowed to be confident of arguing in favor. It very well could go down a different way, especially if either driver has some sort of previous conviction regarding driving. Even though it might not have anything to do with a case, it still mounts against you.

My brother was on a main road and a driver on a give-way failed to do so and they ended up colliding. Even though it was fairly clear cut and dry my brother was not in the wrong, the fault was adjudicated 50/50 but the woman that failed to give way had to pay out my brother's car. She successfully argued in front of the adjudicator that my brother was speeding (even though she had no evidence) and said she thought she had more time to cross the center line.

The "judge" was also a woman and gave in to the teenage girl's tears and my brother had no defense other than "She didn't give way, I was on the main road, what's to discuss?".
When it came to how much each car was worth, the teenage girl successfully argued her car was worth $6,000 dollars (a 1990 Mazda hatch with 360,000+KM on it) without any evidence what-so-ever. Where as my brother had an evaluator around (at his expense) only to have his vehicle (A 1997 Toyota Levin with 180,000+KM on it) valued at $2,500)

Court can definitely be a bunch of BS sometimes.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Xile

155 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#1216154 16-Jan-2015 15:07

This can't be compared to entering a motorway. There you have an on ramp and the motorway proper divided by broken white lines at the end of the on ramp running parrallel with the motorway lanes. You also have a law which places the onus on the person entering the motorway to do so safely and appropriately.

This situation is where two lanes become one. No lane has priority over the other. Each driver should indicate their intention to merge and do so. Sadly the law in this respect is wanting for absolute clarification. The give way rules certainly do not apply.

Each driver should have been more aware of their surroundings. The OP? can be heard talking, or rather talking can be heard, so was the driver distracted. Heaven only knows what the driver of the Toyota was doing but clearly also not aware of what was going on.

In an ideal world the OP, driving defensivley would have seen the approaching merge, seen the approaching Toyota, started to indicate to signal his merge and adjusted his speed as necessary. The Toyota driver the same. Result: every body lives happily ever after.

Another way of looking at it is this. If this had occurred during a driving test would either party have passed? Answer: no.

Who's at fault? Both.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1216173 16-Jan-2015 15:45

The police have a lot of leeway in terms of what they could consider inconsiderate or dangerous driving, or not paying full attention and being distracted. For example if you are driving with earbuds in, although I don't believe there is any specific law preventing it, the police could consider it as the potential to affect your driving. I have been warned in the past by the police about driving with earbuds in, with this very reasoning. The same would likely apply if someone isn't courteous, and lets other drivers through, or doesn't slow down to merge etc. It all comes down to common sense and courteous defensive driving. To speed up trying to pass another car that is also speeding up, I wouldn't consider to be defensive driving, and I don't think the police would either if they witnessed it.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1216234 16-Jan-2015 17:32

Last time I checked non defensively driving is not a crime.

Also, our police exercise a lot of common sense compared to Aussie ones if highway patrol (south island) and the force are to be the sole portrayal

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1216238 16-Jan-2015 17:39

joker97: Last time I checked non defensively driving is not a crime.

Also, our police exercise a lot of common sense compared to Aussie ones if highway patrol (south island) and the force are to be the sole portrayal

It is all down to interpretation. Non defensive driving though could be considered agressive, as there would be a very fine line, and agressive driving could be considered reckless, which is potentially a crime, espec if the car is involved in an accident as a result. I know someone who was fined, becuase they were following another driver on a tightly curved hill road, in an intimidating way. They disputed they were doing this, but did say that they were probably travelling a bit too close, as the other driver was slow, but that they always drove like that.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1216240 16-Jan-2015 17:41

joker97: Last time I checked non defensively driving is not a crime.

Also, our police exercise a lot of common sense compared to Aussie ones if highway patrol (south island) and the force are to be the sole portrayal

Defensive driving is very sensible though.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1216241 16-Jan-2015 17:46

Saves time effort energy hassle. I'd rather avoid a crash than go to court over a week, full of confidence in winning my argument.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1216243 16-Jan-2015 17:47

Or worse, proving innocence from causing death or maiming someone

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1216358 16-Jan-2015 21:55

JWR:
I think he is wrong on the 'technically' and 'illegal' part.

You should be in the left hand lane - unless its congested, you are overtaking, or you intend to turn right soonish, or other obvious reasons - like lane closed, crash etc..

You're right, I'm wrong on the "technically" part. It's outright illegal. You must keep in as far left on the roadway as practical with limited exceptions to that rule.

The legislation says "must", not "should".

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6