car accident.. am i liable?

Forums › Off topic › car accident.. am i liable?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#683306 9-Sep-2012 09:24

OP did not approach from Kilmore, therefore any reference to lane markings in a street he wasn't on are irrelevant to his issue. If I was intending to travel straight ahead as the OP was, once I rounded the corner, the road layout says that being in the right lane would be wrong on a one way street. If I had just past a bus coming thru the intersection, experience tells me to be aware that it's still to my left, and that it'll probably follow the main route.

cep32

50 posts

Geek

#683311 9-Sep-2012 09:39

My understanding is that the sign in this case is purely a guide sign (see http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/motsam/part-1/motsam-1.html) and has no regulatory function at all. As a result the road markings and general road rules perform the regulatory function. As there were no lane markings heading round the corner from Kilmore into Montreal then you were not changing lanes and in fact is was reasonable for you to expect to be able to go straight through. I would even argue that the driver of the bus could more reasonably be considered the one that was changing lanes and therefore he needed to indicate for 3 seconds prior to the lane change and give way to everyone else in the lane (ie where you were).

Even in the Google maps aerial that shows the lane markings the above argument holds in my opinion.

At the very least I don't think you are responsible for the costs associated with repairing the bus.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#683323 9-Sep-2012 10:03

cep32: My understanding is that the sign in this case is purely a guide sign (see http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/motsam/part-1/motsam-1.html) and has no regulatory function at all. As a result the road markings and general road rules perform the regulatory function. As there were no lane markings heading round the corner from Kilmore into Montreal then you were not changing lanes and in fact is was reasonable for you to expect to be able to go straight through. I would even argue that the driver of the bus could more reasonably be considered the one that was changing lanes and therefore he needed to indicate for 3 seconds prior to the lane change and give way to everyone else in the lane (ie where you were).

Even in the Google maps aerial that shows the lane markings the above argument holds in my opinion.

At the very least I don't think you are responsible for the costs associated with repairing the bus.

In this shot you can see the lane markings on Cranmer Square: http://goo.gl/maps/ofQw6

The left lane has markings for a sharp left turn, and an easy left turn (which is in this case is a dogleg right turn into Montreal Street). The right lane has markings only for an easy left turn (a dogleg right turn into Montreal Street). I think that the lane markings, in conjuctions with the guide sign, make his case indefensible.

Referring to my previous analogy, essentially the situation is the same as approaching a two-laned roundabout - the OP in the right lane has attempted to turn left at the first exit and hence has crossed the lane of the bus in the left lane which has every right to continue straight onto the second exit.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#683325 9-Sep-2012 10:09

Have driven that road many times. It's no where near as confusing as a lot of you are making out. It is quite clearly marked IRL

gzt

17001 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#683327 9-Sep-2012 10:14

TheUngeek: Have driven that road many times. It's no where near as confusing as a lot of you are making out. It is quite clearly marked IRL

IMHO your first sentence disqualifies your second sentence ; ).

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#683328 9-Sep-2012 10:15

It didn't confuse me the first time either as its clearly marked ;)

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#683398 9-Sep-2012 13:38

oxnsox: OP did not approach from Kilmore, therefore any reference to lane markings in a street he wasn't on are irrelevant to his issue. If I was intending to travel straight ahead as the OP was, once I rounded the corner, the road layout says that being in the right lane would be wrong on a one way street. If I had just past a bus coming thru the intersection, experience tells me to be aware that it's still to my left, and that it'll probably follow the main route.

That suggests that there are different rules depending on which direction you are approaching that intersection, which I think is isolated from the rules of the previous intersections. That is a bit monty python if that is the case, as the intersection is the same.

I have seen a similar road to this before, but it had an island between teh lanes directing right laned traffic to turn right, so they couldn't go straight on.

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

wallop

367 posts

Ultimate Geek

#683432 9-Sep-2012 15:41

The thing to remember with this intersection is that it is 2 one way roads meeting. So if you are carry on down the same road all lanes can go straight through. It just by chance that Montreal has a dog leg in it at this point as it does at the other end of Cranmer Square.

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#683435 9-Sep-2012 15:51

I just wonder why there aren't better road markings at that turn. It should have arrows and the right lane should have a curved lane line showing that you must turn right I think. I believe under the road rules that traffic going straight on would have right of way over traffic turning anyway, especially traffic going straight on to the right of the turning vehicle, as traffic ont eh right side should have right of way anyway.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#683437 9-Sep-2012 15:58

mattwnz: I just wonder why there aren't better road markings at that turn. It should have arrows and the right lane should have a curved lane line showing that you must turn right I think. I believe under the road rules that traffic going straight on would have right of way over traffic turning anyway, especially traffic going straight on to the right of the turning vehicle, as traffic ont eh right side should have right of way anyway.

It -is- marked: road markings here http://goo.gl/maps/ofQw6 and sign here http://goo.gl/maps/eDQFX

There are no markings at the next intersection, because the rules depend on how you enter the intersection (much like there are no road markings for a dual-laned roundabout on the actual roundabout but on the approach).

The vehicle on the right doesn't have right of way as it's effectively a right-turn only lane. Topographically, it's the same as two cars entering a dual-laned roundabout, and the car on the right trying to exit left onto the first exit - it doesn't work.

coffeebaron

6213 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683440 9-Sep-2012 16:07

There are two big clearly marked green signs on the approach to this intersection. Definitely very clear cut OP was in the wrong.

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#683441 9-Sep-2012 16:09

KevinL:
mattwnz: I just wonder why there aren't better road markings at that turn. It should have arrows and the right lane should have a curved lane line showing that you must turn right I think. I believe under the road rules that traffic going straight on would have right of way over traffic turning anyway, especially traffic going straight on to the right of the turning vehicle, as traffic ont eh right side should have right of way anyway.

It -is- marked: road markings here?http://goo.gl/maps/ofQw6 and sign here?http://goo.gl/maps/eDQFX ?

There are no markings at the next intersection, because the rules depend on how you enter the intersection (much like there are no road markings for a dual-laned roundabout on the actual roundabout but on the approach).

The vehicle on the right doesn't have right of way as it's effectively a right-turn only lane. ?Topographically, it's the same as two cars entering a dual-laned roundabout, and the car on the right trying to exit left onto the first exit - it doesn't work.

Yes but that is the problem intersection that doesn't have the markings. Normally there would be curved lane lines showing you must turn or at the least arrows on the road at that intersection.
I get your point that the markings would depend on which way you were approaching, so not easy to do, but that isn't good road design, as it relies on peoples memory from 10 metres up the road ( which could be some time if it is busy and gridlocked), and if it is busy you may not even see the road markings.

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#683443 9-Sep-2012 16:14

coffeebaron: There are two big clearly marked green signs on the approach to this intersection. Definitely very clear cut OP was in the wrong.

I can see those signs now, but they are not exactly accurate, as they show it to be a smooth curve. But the actual intersection appears to be 2 x 90 degree turns.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#683446 9-Sep-2012 16:17

mattwnz:
KevinL: It -is- marked: road markings here?http://goo.gl/maps/ofQw6 and sign here?http://goo.gl/maps/eDQFX ?

There are no markings at the next intersection, because the rules depend on how you enter the intersection (much like there are no road markings for a dual-laned roundabout on the actual roundabout but on the approach).

The vehicle on the right doesn't have right of way as it's effectively a right-turn only lane. ?Topographically, it's the same as two cars entering a dual-laned roundabout, and the car on the right trying to exit left onto the first exit - it doesn't work.

Yes but that is the problem intersection that doesn't have the markings. Normally there would be curved lane lines showing you must turn or at the least arrows on the road at that intersection.
I get your point that the markings would depend on which way you were approaching, so not easy to do, but that isn't good road design, as it relies on peoples memory from 10 metres up the road ( which could be some time if it is busy and gridlocked), and if it is busy you may not even see the road markings.

...that's why there's an enormous green sign on the right, so if you can't see the road markings the intention is still clear. Another way of picturing it is as a standard intersection (that just happens to do a bit of a dogleg). Essentially the car on the right has tried to do a left turn and crossed into the left lane.

I agree it's not an optimal design, but people seem to cope with other similar intersections. In most situations, if you want to turn left you should be in the left lane....

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#683449 9-Sep-2012 16:19

mattwnz:
coffeebaron: There are two big clearly marked green signs on the approach to this intersection. Definitely very clear cut OP was in the wrong.

I can see those signs now, but they are not exactly accurate, as they show it to be a smooth curve. But the actual intersection appears to be 2 x 90 degree turns.

It's actually fairly accurate if you look at the aerial shot and the road markings at the intersection: http://goo.gl/maps/7xhBC

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9