Turning Left into a Multi Lane Road

deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 18:12
Last edited 12/02/2019 - 18:33

Hi all

I'm just trying to understand why people don't wait until they get at least 2 lanes clear on a multi lane road before entering it to turn left.
For clarity, I believe that you should not enter a multi lane road if there is another vehicle in the second lane even if the lane that you're wanting to enter is clear.
Is this not the case?"
I blew my horn this morning at someone who did this and the guy got very offended signalling me to pull over. I ignored that and then he tried to cut me off and was being a jerk overall.
I decided to just pull over and wait 5 mins before resuming my journey to avoid road rage but it got me thinking on why he behaved in the manner. Maybe he didn't know the rule or maybe I'm not clear on it as I've encountered this many times before as well even when people are entring from a slip road.

Here's the obligatory MS Paint diagram:
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/18071/66763/msp.png

Automotive

Comments

  • dcep on 12/02/2019 - 18:14
    +6

    need ms paint

    • deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 18:34
      +4

      Here you go mate. https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/18071/66763/msp.png You've made me realise how bad I am with it.

      • CMH on 12/02/2019 - 18:36
        +1

        You forgot to draw in the smaller lane.

        • deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 18:45

          The first lane is meant to be clear in this case.

          • Hirolol on 14/02/2019 - 04:33
            +1

            @deveshwar0: Are you just turning in from the nature strip/footpath?
            Why is there no lane for cars going the other way?

            Very confusing diagram

            • wozz on 14/02/2019 - 15:02
              +2

              @Hirolol: you might just be a confused person. I found it easy to understand.

              There may be a multi lane road coming the other way, but no point drawing this

              • Hirolol on 14/02/2019 - 21:01
                +7

                @wozz: Is it to scale?

                Why are there no trees?

    • deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 18:46

      Thanks mate.
      I've read through the link and there doesn't seem to be a consensus there as well?

      • mhaqs on 13/02/2019 - 21:51

        I was driving on a similar two lane yesterday, and there was a police car parked near by, looking at the intersection. A car entered into the left lane pretty the same time I passed the intersection, the cop didn't move a muscle. It felt dangerous to me, but I guess it's not an issue law wise. I live in VIC.

      • ATangk on 14/02/2019 - 13:54
        +3

        If the lane is tight then you should wait. Most multi lanes are wide though and shouldnt need the second car to be affected.

        However, I believe it has a lot to do with how the person comes out of the lane as well. If they started wide and turned in, it wouldnt cause an issue. But if they started close and swing wide thats a no no.

        • cameldownunder on 15/02/2019 - 15:03

          And then there's the idiot in the far right lane, behind the first car, that upon realizing that the car in front is slowing down, suddenly changes lane, and now T-Bones the car coming out of the side-lane.

  • CMH on 12/02/2019 - 18:36
    +18

    It's actually in the learner's book that you need to leave 2 lanes free before entering a road. It's probably written in law as well if I can be bothered to look for it.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 19:00
      +10

      Two lanes free. Law aside, common sense.

      1. People going straight can change lanes. They can change a few lanes but that's a different problem.

      2. Turning circle.

      • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 22:39
        +30

        But just because it’s common sense, does not make it legislation.

        OP had no right to sound their horn unless the other driver entered OP’s lane. There is no legislation that says the other car has to wait for OP to pass… but there is a law about sounding your horn and when you can and can’t do it. (Aust Road Rule 224.)

        • imurgod on 13/02/2019 - 17:14
          +6

          You're forgetting Space Corp Directive 5799

          • Antikythera on 14/02/2019 - 13:31
            +3

            @imurgod: Space Corp Directive 5799 : No officer above the rank of Mess Sergeant is permitted to go into combat with pierced nipples.

      • callum9999 on 14/02/2019 - 23:09

        1. Then they should use the indicator. Do you similarly never drive next to someone in case they ignore other traffic and blindly change lane?

        2. If your turning circle keeps you within the lane, what's the issue?

        I have no idea what the law says, just addressing your "common sense" claim.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2019 - 23:24
          +2

          1. If they indicate whilst you've initiated your turn, who do you think can get in the lane first and who has right of way?

          2. And what if it doesn't?

          I guess it's not so common after all.

          • callum9999 on 15/02/2019 - 10:49

            @[Deactivated]:

            1. Who can get in the lane first? If they've already initiated their turn then they're already in the lane and, in my mind, therefore have right of way. As I said, I have no idea what the law says and, to be honest, couldn't care less.

            2. If you don't know how wide your turning circle is then you shouldn't be on the road…

            Indeed, common sense clearly isn't very common. As someone else said before, if we all followed your advice then it would be literally impossible to turn onto main roads during rush hour. Not to mention motorway slip roads…

            • badg3rz on 17/02/2019 - 13:16

              @callum9999: No… You're wrong. Couldn't care less causes accidents.

              It is in the learner book that it must be two clear lanes before entering…. I don't know how long but I guess the 3 second rule.

  • jjjaar on 12/02/2019 - 18:40
    +4

    I leave at least two lanes free, but sometimes more, especially if they’re narrow.

    I was once in the second lane. Someone turned from a side road into the first lane, but over shot it and went into the second lane, my lane. Thankfully there was a third lane and I anticipated this happening and avoided any accident. But just don’t risk it. Be patient.

  • nocure on 12/02/2019 - 18:41
    +9

    There is always a chance the other car could change lanes at the same time.

    • dazzledayz on 13/02/2019 - 10:54
      +1

      Only a problem if the through vehicle fails to indicate a lane change.
      There are plenty of potential Kamikazes on the road though.

    • peterpaoliello on 14/02/2019 - 09:36

      In that position, personally I would never change lanes into the path of someone at a giveaway or stop. Same reason why you don't change lanes while going through traffic lights - there's usually a give way on the other side. My view is that if your lane is free and no one is indicating their intention to use the lane you are set to enter the road on it is fine. I agree it's possibly more risky, wouldn't do this when I'm on my bike say..

    • dufflover on 14/02/2019 - 23:37

      People should indicate, and they should avoid changing lanes at those points, but in the case of a collision you are screwed either way because you are most likely behind a STOP or Give Way sign at the intersection.

  • Seraphin7 on 12/02/2019 - 18:42
    +5

    The NSW road rules state that "Generally if you’re turning across another vehicle’s path, you must give way." RMS.

    This creates something of a grey area in your case. You could argue that so long as the vehicle entering the road is not crossing "your" path they are clear to do what they have done. On the other hand, if they have "impeded" your progress in any way you could argue they have not given way.

    As ever, in these edge cases it comes down to the very specific circumstances applicable.

      • Quantumcat on 12/02/2019 - 22:00
        +9

        You must have a really massive car or tiny lanes, I manage it every day with 30-100cm spare in a Ford Festiva. But we have generous shoulders on most roads so that probably makes the difference.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/02/2019 - 11:43
          +3

          Or really poor driving skills.

      • Ughhh on 13/02/2019 - 00:48
        +10

        How you position your car prior to and while entering the road can make a difference.

        • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:27

          True. Maybe I'm also just used to roads with really narrow lanes.

        • Waffles on 15/02/2019 - 14:15

          I think this is a big part. 90 degree turns need two lanes. Wide, smooth angled turns allow you to make it in one. I tend to wait for two lanes to be clear unless the turn gives you a lot of space

          • fusion17 on 15/02/2019 - 22:55

            @Waffles: In these situations you move as right as you can before turning left to give a better angle. People don't seem to do this and then overshoot into the 2nd lane…

  • smartazz104 on 12/02/2019 - 18:51
    +2

    but it got me thinking on why he behaved in the manner

    Sounds like he's suffering from SDS.

    • deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 19:03
      +3

      Lol. Made me look this up. I was like what has this got to do with a safety data sheet. Found the real meaning at urban dictionary.

  • Nugs on 12/02/2019 - 18:51

    go and nail it
    .

  • emibel19 on 12/02/2019 - 19:34
    +36

    In SA, it's never occurred to me to wait for the left two lanes to clear in this case (unless the vehicle in the second lane is indicating intention to move into the first lane).

    I don't see any logic in it, nor do I believe it is required by law.

    • macrocephalic on 14/02/2019 - 00:13
      +2

      If a car, travelling straight, [legally] merges into the lane that you're trying to turn into and you collide, then you will be at fault. I know someone who wrote off a car that way.

      That said, I don't wait for two lanes to be clear, and I get annoyed at people who do - holding up a line of traffic who are trying to turn.

    • Nebargains on 14/02/2019 - 08:49
      +3

      You don't get the logic?

      It is pretty unsafe in my opinion. You look right, no car in the immediate lane but a car in the next lane.

      You then look left as you start to pull out, at the same time the car in the other lane goes to merge lanes and now has to swerve back.

      It's pretty logical.

      Edit:
      Everyone should do their best to avoid an accident and if waiting 5 seconds for a car to pass will 100% rule out the possibility of a collision then I would wait the 5 seconds.

      Also from the other drivers point of view, sometimes cars turning look like they are coming out further than they are and you may brake out of instinct.

      • callum9999 on 14/02/2019 - 23:19
        +1

        If I had identified a car coming from my right with nothing to my left, I'd be focusing on that car - not staring into empty space to the left.

        The only thing you'd need to watch out for on your left are pedestrians, and they should be pretty easy to spot and to stop for (if they were stupid enough to suddenly run infront of two moving cars) considering you'd barely be moving at that point.

        • db87 on 15/02/2019 - 08:30
          +1

          Or in my brother's case, a phantom ambulance with no lights or siren, travelling the wrong direction up a service lane and claiming to not be at fault. Attitude along the lines of we own the road and always have right of way.

          Looked both ways, right-left-right, pulled out, bang.

    • Quantumcat on 12/02/2019 - 21:27
      +4

      Of course it is relevant, should I give way to a vehicle on the same road 50km away? Giving way is about when vehicles would cross each other's path, and who needs to stop for whom. Not the technicality of which named road you're on.

        • Quantumcat on 12/02/2019 - 21:53

          Maybe you should too. The "road" is the part of the road you are going to drive on, and giving way to cars that are on that patch of road. Not on patches of the road that have nothing to do with where you are driving. Patches 50km away being an extreme example.

          • oscargamer on 13/02/2019 - 09:03

            @Quantumcat: ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 12
            What is a road

            (1)     A "road" is  an area that is open to or used by the public and is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles

            NO MENTION OF LANES BELOW…….AND A ROAD DEFINITION IS ABOVE (AGAIN NOTHING ABOUT WHERE A PARTICULAR CAR WANTS TO PLACE IT'S WHEELS)

            ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 74
            Giving way when entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land

                 The driver entering the road must give way to—

    (a)     any vehicle travelling on the road or turning into the road and

    (b)     any pedestrian on the road; and

    (c)     any vehicle or pedestrian on any road related area that the driver crosses to enter the road; and

    (d)     for a driver entering the road from a road related area—

          (i)     any pedestrian on the road related area; and

          (ii)     any other vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle or approaching from the left or right.
            • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 09:06

              @oscargamer: None of that contradicts my interpretation. Your interpretation means you have to give way to people that have no chance of crossing your path - they may be 100m further down the road travelling away from you or 50 years in the past.

              It's whether people may cross your path that is the important part. Do you know what the phrase "give way" means? I think maybe you don't.

              • oscargamer on 13/02/2019 - 09:09
                -1

                @Quantumcat: From the dictionary attached to the Road Rules……….

                give way, for a driver or pedestrian, means—
                (a) if the driver or pedestrian is stopped—remain stationary until it is safe to proceed; or
                (b) in any other case—slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision;

                Your interpretation or understanding of what give way means is irrelevant. THat's why the term is defined.

                • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 09:11
                  +4

                  @oscargamer:

                  avoid a collision;

                  There's no collision if you wouldn't cross each others' paths. Therefore it isn't a give way situation.

    • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 22:16
      +1

      When entering a road, you need to give way to all vehicles on the road you are entering.

      The number of lanes on the road you are entering is not relevant.

      Source? Got the specific legislation for that rule? I can only find references to lanes and giving way only when you are entering someone else’s lane. Nothing about entering an empty lane and having to give way to all other traffic.

      You know, unless you’re just making it up as you go along?

      So, let me get this.. if I’m turning left onto a 6 lane road, and there is only one car, in the innermost 6th lane, I have to wait for them to go past before I can pull out?

      • oscargamer on 13/02/2019 - 09:05
        +2

        See my above reply for the source.

        There is a very big difference between 'giving way' and 'waiting for the road to be totally clear'.

        NO, you don't have to wait until all 6 lanes are clear, but if you pull into a road and collide with a car that is changing lanes on the road you are now in, you have failed to give way to that vehicle (in simple terms).

        • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 09:08
          +1
          • If they were not in your lane while you made the turn, then you could turn
          • If they change into your lane AFTER you made the turn, then they merged into you and are in the wrong.

          Basically, you can turn into an empty lane as long as no one is actively changing lanes - seems fairly obvious. You are changing your story once these obvious things start to get pointed out, once you realise you're wrong.

          • oscargamer on 13/02/2019 - 09:11
            +4

            @Quantumcat: You can turn into any lane at any time.

            Generally, if the act of you turning into a road ends in a collision, you have failed to give way to a vehicle that's on the road you are turning into

            • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 09:12

              @oscargamer: OK, I'm glad you've begun to see sense, congratulations :)

              • oscargamer on 13/02/2019 - 09:13
                +1

                @Quantumcat: If you can be bothered, read all my previous replies and tell me where I said you have to wait until the whole road is clear. I have only ever used the term 'give way'. And that was very deliberate.

          • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:33
            -1

            @Quantumcat: Actually no. If you turn onto a road, but as you are already turning (even if you've already begun your turn) someone changes lanes into the lane you're turning into, and there's a collision, you would be at the very least partly at fault, if not fully at fault, because the other car was already on the road you were turning into. Oscargamer is right in this case.

            • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 16:50
              +1

              @HighAndDry: If the car is already merging or about to merge before you change lanes - yes you're at fault (but you would have seen that, and hung back).

              If the car is not already merging, then it is at fault - it merged into you.

              If you couldn't tell it was about to merge and it merged while you were turning - that means that the other car was able to a) decide to merge b) put on indicator and c) complete the merge, all in the time you were turning. For this to happen, either you're a dangerously slow driver (taking 30 seconds + to complete your turn), in which case then you are probably at fault for driving so badly, or the other car is at fault because they were going way, way faster than the speed limit (or is driving dangerously by making split second decisions to jump lanes).

              Holding up traffic for minutes at a time, not taking available gaps, just in case one of the drivers in the outer lane is a moron seems like a bad trade (you may become victim of road rage or someone behind you might do something crazy like drive over the footpath to get around you).

              • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:52
                +1

                @Quantumcat:

                If the car is not already merging, then it is at fault - it merged into you.

                Only if you've completed the turn (and arguably gotten up to the prevailing speed of traffic already on the road). Otherwise, you've failed to give way while turning. That the other car was in a different lane is irrelevant - it was still on the road you're turning into.

                that means that the other car was able to a) decide to merge b) put on indicator and c) complete the merge, all in the time you were turning. For this to happen, either you're a dangerously slow driver (taking 30 seconds + to complete your turn)

                First, you can indicate and change lanes in far less than 30 seconds, and second - it doesn't really matter. Some people might turn very slowly, especially from a small road (or driveway even) onto a major road.

                you may become victim of road rage or someone behind you might do something crazy like drive over the footpath to get around you

                And that would be unequivocally 100% the fault of the person behind you. Whereas if you turn without giving proper room and get into an accident, you'd be at least partly at fault, if not fully.

                • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 16:54

                  @HighAndDry: If you're one of the people that drive really slowly, then yeah, you probably need to take higher precautions. But if you're a normal driver, you don't.

                  You don't need to get up to the speed of the traffic in lanes that have nothing to do with you - if someone is travelling at 40 in a 50 zone, does that give you the right to merge on top of them? No. The driver in the outer lane still has to wait for the lane he wants to merge into to be clear. Why does he get the right to run you off the road because you haven't gotten up to his speed? He could just wait 2 seconds and be past you and then merge.

                  • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:56

                    @Quantumcat: Think in terms of changing lanes - if you change into a lane and are immediately rear-ended because you're going far slower than cars in that lane, you'd also be at least partly at fault.

                    Same logic here - if you turn onto a road and are hit immediately because you're still going far slower than traffic already on that road, you have failed to give way. Again - the road rules are than you need to give way to cars on the road you're turning into - there are no references to lanes, so it doesn't matter if you turn into their lane, or they're changing lanes.

                    • Quantumcat on 13/02/2019 - 17:20

                      @HighAndDry:

                      if you change into a lane and are immediately rear-ended because you're going far slower than cars in that lane

                      You would have to be turning into a lane where there is already oncoming traffic

                      if you turn onto a road and are hit immediately because you're still going far slower than traffic already on that road

                      Now how are you going to be hit if neither of you are crossing the same part of space? Have you got access to some sweet 4th dimension the rest of us don't know about?

                      I don't know about you but when I pass someone in another lane who is going slower than me I don't usually hit them. Someone going faster than you in a lane you don't plan to be travelling on shouldn't be a consideration when you're deciding where to drive.

                      • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 17:34

                        @Quantumcat:

                        Someone going faster than you in a lane you don't plan to be travelling on shouldn't be a consideration when you're deciding where to drive.

                        Unless it's possible that they might change lanes into the lane you're turning into. Which is most of the time.

    • JimmyF on 12/02/2019 - 22:20

      source?

    • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:32

      I think people are misreading your comment (or I am - I don't know) but if my interpretation is correct, then I agree with you.

      If you're turning onto a road, you have to give way to all cars on the road so that you do not hit them or cross into their path. If you can do that even while they're in the adjacent lane, then that's fine. If you can't, then you'd need to make sure the adjacent lane is also clear. And if you're a moron and you somehow take 4 lanes to turn onto a road, you'd need to wait for all 4 lanes to be clear. Etc.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 14/02/2019 - 12:59
      -2

      Where did you find that retarded nugget of information?

  • Almost Banned on 12/02/2019 - 19:57
    +31

    The answers about giving way don't really address the issue.
    If the lane you are turning into is clear, and you do not obstruct or interfere with any vehicle in the second lane, why would you wait?
    On the other hand, if you cannot turn into the left hand lane without obstructing the second land and that would interfere with oncoming traffic - you have to wait.
    I don't drive a truck, so I seldom have a problem turning into the left-hand lane.

    • Freitag on 14/02/2019 - 08:37
      +3

      I think the reasoning is, as others have said, that the left lane may be clear but someone in the middle lane may be about to pull into that lane because they want to turn off soon or simply because it's clear.
      If the car in the centre lane does merge you might not see them and have pulled out in-front of a lane that is no longer free. They would have right of way to change lanes at the speed limit without assuming someone would pull out in front of them at slow speed.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 14/02/2019 - 13:01
        -1

        Only a retard would cross the lane dividers into a lane where another vehicle is pulling out

  • bobbified on 12/02/2019 - 20:08
    +12

    In contrast, you get the drivers in regular-sized vehicles who, when turning left, swings out wide into the next lane before turning because they think they're driving a truck!

    • fedwood on 13/02/2019 - 23:56
      +1

      This makes me go crazy when people do this on a 70 km/h road every single day near me

  • JimmyF on 12/02/2019 - 21:42
    +35

    I blew my horn this morning at someone who did this

    Did they enter your lane at all?

    If the answer is no, then you're in the wrong.

    • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 22:05
      +3

      I got to that part of the post as well and just started laughing.

      • JimmyF on 12/02/2019 - 22:38
        +17

        I'm unsure whether he managed to stay within the lane.

        They either entered your lane or didn't…….

      • Strahany on 12/02/2019 - 23:54

        How can you not know if they entered your lane or not when they were right in front of you? It sounds like you saw the car, panicked, and hit the brakes without actually paying full attention to the road and the other vehicles on it. It would be extremely obvious if a car the size of a Ford territory encroached into your lane.

        If this was a plain two lane road with no bike lane and no areas for parked cars along the side, then a car that size could have problems turning left without encroaching, but with extra space it would be extremely easy.

        • deveshwar0 on 13/02/2019 - 00:10
          +7

          Mate, I did say that to me it did look like we would have collided. This was more a case of instant reflexes similar to you noticing a pedestrian on the curb and they start to move onto the road but then stop. Can you be sure they put a foot on the road and not retracted it midway? You'd rather brake instinctively, no?
          I saw the car waiting to enter the road, and then it suddenly moved right when I was about to cross it. I did not wait to see whether it would encroach on my lane and collide or remain in its intended lane, I braked instinctively.

          • Strahany on 13/02/2019 - 01:10
            -2

            @deveshwar0: So the possibility that he “might have encroached” was enough to warrant slamming on the horn? I hope you equally slam on the horn any time someone in an adjacent line might possibly encroach into yours. The easiest thing to do would be to short the horn switch so it’s blasting permanently; saves you the hassle.

            • deveshwar0 on 13/02/2019 - 01:21

              @Strahany: You're again missing the point.
              This was not at a busy time when there was lot of traffic. All he would have to do is wait 2 secs and he would have had a clear road for the next minute or so.
              I sounded the horn similar to when I would if a car starts to move towards me from an adjacent lane to alert the driver of my presence. I never said anything about slamming on the horn (As in I was blowing the horn for an extended period).
              I gather that you would rather wait and collide.

              • dazzledayz on 13/02/2019 - 11:15
                +2

                @deveshwar0: The offending driver may have been confident they were clear of you during the manoeuvre.
                They may have been right or simply arrogant, we really needed to be there.
                I'm in Brisbane and we have many left turn feeds that encourage just the thing you object to.
                You maybe overreacted to the possibility of collision?
                If you didn't need to deviate from your course that's probably the case.
                A foot off the gas and a readiness to deviate right slightly would have probably been my response unless I perceived the turning vehicle was about to cross my bow.
                The alarm sounding probably served no purpose other than to distract the other driver at the time.
                If they were in the middle of a legal safe turn I can understand why they would be upset.
                (no danger but they got a frightener anyway)

            • HighAndDry on 13/02/2019 - 16:35
              +3

              @Strahany: Actually I kind of agree with Deveshwar0 here - it could be that mashing the horn is what caused the other driver to stay in their lane, much like doing so might cause a pedestrian who's about to step in front of your car to stop too.

      • aboogee on 13/02/2019 - 20:17
        +4

        agree with OP. I dont recall the learners guide but remember the words of my instructor back then saying you should wait till both lanes are clear. the risk is if the other driver switches to left lane when the you turning left. cant say i have followed this all the time but i try to..

        • badg3rz on 18/02/2019 - 09:19

          Your right on

  • ozzie freddo on 12/02/2019 - 22:18
    +2

    Interestingly the Victorian Road Rules do not seem to address this question.
    Personally I can't see why you can't turn left into an "idle" left lane of a multilane carriageway.

  • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 22:44
    -1

    What I want to know OP, is why were you travelling in the middle lane and not keeping left? There is legislation for that…

    • emibel19 on 12/02/2019 - 22:52
      +9

      On a multi-lane road, it's only necessary to keep to the left if the speed limit is above 80 km/h, or a "keep left unless overtaking" sign applies (Section 130 of Australian Road Rules).

    • deveshwar0 on 12/02/2019 - 23:26

      I was not in the middle lane but the right lane. There were only 2 lanes. I was turning right in about 200 meters.

      • pegaxs on 13/02/2019 - 08:08
        -4

        @emibel… You need to go back and read over the WHOLE road rule regarding staying left. While you are partially right, there is more to it than "over 80km/h"

        (2) The driver must not drive in the right lane unless: (and then it gives you about 10 exceptions)

        @devesh… Of the two lanes you were in, was the right lane closer to the middle of the road than the left lane?

        I was turning right in about 200 meters.

        Cool. Was just curious. :)

        • deveshwar0 on 13/02/2019 - 10:10

          Yes, the right lane was closer to the middle of the road.

        • emibel19 on 13/02/2019 - 11:21

          @pegaxs… Fair enough. I was aware of the right-hand lane restrictions, but at the time of my post, there was no mention of the OP being in the right-hand lane (I was probably thinking of it being at least 3 lanes) so omitted to mention that part of the rule.

        • Easton on 14/02/2019 - 20:18
          +2

          There isn't "more to it". Immediately prior to clause 130(2), which you quoted, clause 130(1) states that the clause only applies if "the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving is over 80 kilometres per hour". Thus everything is 130(2) is irrelevant if the speed limit is not above 80 km/h.

          • pegaxs on 14/02/2019 - 22:09
            -2

            @Easton: Oh, you’re a lawyer! Thanks for chiming in… Bookedmarked you as “traffic lawyer”

            So none of that road rule applies if the road is 80km/h or less or otherwise sign posted. Can just dismiss every other “suggestion” as soon as I read (1).

            It’s not how I read it, but it’s good to know. Will pocket that information next time I get pulled over.

            • sakurashu on 15/02/2019 - 14:31

              @pegaxs: Basic comprehension skills don't make him a Lawyer. Travelling only in the left lane for multilane roads travelling around cities at 50-60km/h would be pure stupidity. One of the obvious main factors for traffic to be as close to where they need to be (as both entries and exits to highways and faster roadways are on the left). In places where there are also just as many right turns - this doesn't make sense.

              • pegaxs on 15/02/2019 - 16:34
                -3

                @sakurashu: Oh, so much outrage… You get it all out? Feel better now possum?

                • Moderatorneil on 17/02/2019 - 14:36

                  @pegaxs: There's no need to be rude and aggressive when discussing issues. Let's please be respectful.

      • affable on 13/02/2019 - 08:33
        +1

        Did the offender also turn right in 200 metres, as that would be a fast manoeuvre for him to do in front of you (enter road and immediately cross to right lane)?
        You said "guy got very offended signalling me to pull over. I ignored that and then he tried to cut me off and was being a jerk overall." which is a lot to do in the 10 or so seconds you were travelling together (unless he also turned right and the "road rage" continued on the next street)?

        • deveshwar0 on 13/02/2019 - 10:16

          He did cut in front of me, noticed that I had indicated to turn right, cut me off again and followed my intended route gesturing for me to pull over. At the same time another car came from the opposite direction turning left into the road that I was turning in which resulted in a car getting between us. I took the opportunity to create more distance between us and then turned into another street to get away from him.

  • ozb10 on 12/02/2019 - 23:05
    +6

    I don't know what the law says, but I just use common sense and consider what's reasonable.

    Considering that it is perfectly okay to enter the highway when the left lane is clear, I don't see why the other car is in the wrong unless part of that car entered your lane.

    One would normally anticipate that you stay in your lane unless you have already indicated left to change lane.
    Otherwise, we would never be able to enter a main road during peak hours following this logic.

  • Strahany on 12/02/2019 - 23:50
    +8

    There’s no specific legislation regarding this, in any state, as far as I’m aware.

    As for what the OP did, unless this turning vehicle encroached into OP’s lane, then OP is 100% in the wrong. If someone turning into an adjacent lane worries someone so much that they need to blast the horn, then you really need to reassess your anxiousness on the roads, as it’s panicked reactions like this which are more dangerous, overall. I would suggest some defensive driving courses to get this under control.

    If the turning car encroached into OP’s lane and caused a collision/near collision, or forced the OP to swerve/brake, then they are absolutely justified in using their horn (although, not by letter of the law, I believe. Moreso on the standard of average use of horns). But, if the turning car didn’t do this, then it’s no different to driving past any other car which is wholly in their own lane.

    There’s no point saying they should wait because “well, what if they do encroach”, since any driver could swerve into your lane at any point in time, so if that’s too upsetting then you really shouldn’t be on the roads.

    And think about the practical implications of traffic flow; imagine how long you’d have to wait for two or more lanes to be free before joining a busy road. Plenty of spots around my area would have someone waiting in excess of five minutes for both lanes to be free at several turning points, due to having multiple popular feeding points upstream which would constantly “take the gap” before it reaches you.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join