https://youtu.be/2Q1lBw1-Q2g (unedited, pls run at 2x to save time)
I experienced the following incident today. I was tempted to crash into this taxi not giving way at a merge when I was clearly ahead of them. I needed my car later in the day so decided I probably shouldn't. What's the forum's opinion on the matter? Do Brisbane drivers just not know how to merge? Or am I am complete idiot for thinking this?
My understanding is the secondary lanes are installed to reduce traffic congestion and should be used where possible. Similar to lane reductions on the freeways, the lane should be fully utilised or else it defeats the purpose of it being there. Is my understanding not correct?
Absolutely that is correct, and generally drivers should go 1 per lane there. But the fact is that most don't, and the cab driver has viewed your actions as pushing in and not wanted to let you.
Next time in that situation I would join the other lane and save the hassle.
merge better. use your acceleration, braking ability to smoothly move into the space that the other driver has left for you.
@abuch47: Not that I think much of their 'professional' habits and scams, but taxi drivers encounter terrible drivers too- 24x7.
So a little patience is good.
To avoid this kind of thing, stop lane trolling. You are showing the lane-snails that they are foolish. They don't_like_this, and one will always try to respond.
Try a new method at junctions. Only ever pass on the left slowly, and brake calmly. You'll notice straight away that others will allow you to merge on the other side happily. When you rush by, regardless of when you indicate your need to merge, they will perceive you as 'pushing in'.
If somehow you get stuck in a queue of lane-snails, and someone rushes past you on the left, it probably just creates a feeling that you missed out getting ahead. But for the average douche lanesnail, the one that lives in every queue for fear of stepping out of order and being crushed by a garbage truck, see people race past them on the left and think that they are intending to push in; should be jammed out; should be stopped; etc. Most taxi drivers are firmly in this group, and have many more problems in addition to being constantly jammed out, fatigued, yelled at, unable to pay their rent, or perceived as a douche by the back-seat clients for being inept behind the wheel, etc.
Some tips to avoid even small incidents:
i. Proceed slowly in empty left lanes. Not just because of the above, but because bad things happen when other types of lane-snails realise they are stuck in the queue. There are those that forgot they were actually wanting to turn left, or failed to do what you are doing (both can pull in front of you without warning), not to mention a passenger opening a door to exit, or a dog or a kid emerging from between the queued cars.
ii. Always indicate well ahead of time. Before the junction so you can merge after the junction. If not, don't push and merge when it is safe to do so without agro. Remember a minimum 30m before you leave the lane is the rule (maybe different now, but that's what I use) and most of the time I indicate a lot before that because if you are paying attention you should know what you will be doing a long time before you get there.
If someone jams you out, slow down and stop if you have to, they are having a bad day, no need to suffer that too.
And the golden rule is changing lanes over a junction is dangerous and not allowed. Again, proceeding calmly helps enormously. If you attempt to merge in a junction others can get justifiably upset. You may indicate over the junction, but never begin the merge. I see people do this all the time for quick wins in rush hour traffic, and apart from it causing others to react and crash into poles at speed, in congestion it causes vehicles to get stranded in the junction after the light turns red.
@abuch47: Merging is an Aussie phenomenon and we are very nice about it.
Any other country in the world views it as cutting in and you will be given no quarter.
The dashcam drivers car was in front when the lane marking ended and the taxi is required to give way and merge behind DC car. Those are the rules and if you dont want to follow then please take a bus or train.
See page 84 for more details
The problem with that is, OP didn't indicate their intention to merge lanes. There is no indicator sound in the video when you can hear every other thing in the vehicle. No radio over the top of it or other excessive noises. You can even hear the subtle change of gears, but no indicator sounds.
How is the taxi driver supposed to give way if they don't know WTF OP was doing? I suggest you read page 79, right where it says that if you are moving lanes, you need to signal. You also need to give sufficient notice with your indicator. Flashing once is not considered "sufficient", nor is not flashing them at all.
What is considered "changing/moving lanes" is covered in a post further down.
the DC car was not "changing lanes" they were ahead when the lane markings ended so were in front of the taxi on the single lane road.
"When lines of traffic merge , you must give way to any vehicle that is ahead of you"
DC car is in the right, taxi MUST give way. There is no "moving lanes" because there is no lane change. The 2 lines of traffic become one.
Please see example 1 in the handbook on page 84.
How is the taxi driver supposed to give way if they don't know WTF OP was doing?
Taxi drivers know next to nought of road rules anyway
the DC car was not "changing lanes"
OP is changing "lines of traffic". Same rules apply. Must use indicator. (covered in the already linked conversation below.)
Moving from one "line of traffic" to another is considered the same as "moving/changing lanes". On page 84, Example 1 (your example), it literally shows the car (A) using its indicator. Here it is again from the RMS website. And again. Each time it shows that a road user moving across a line or traffic, it requires the indicator. And just in case you missed it, in OP's home state, the legislation also shows the same indicator use while moving over a line of traffic. I don't know how much more proof you need. If you are moving from one line of traffic to another, you must use your indicator as it is considered the same as "changing lanes".
DC car is in the right, taxi MUST give way.
OP's car is in the wrong by "not indicating". Once OP indicates their intention to move between lines of traffic, then the taxi driver may have known WTF OP was trying to achieve and the onus is then on the taxi driver to give way. Only after OP has signalled their intention to change lines of traffic for a "sufficient time" is the taxi required to give way.
Taxi drivers know next to nought of road rules anyway
While I tend to agree, even still, it's not up to the taxi driver to "guess" what OP might be doing. For all the taxi driver knew, OP was parking or pulling into one of the many driveways to the left. OP then suddenly accelerates and tries to jam their car in the right lane without using their indicator. OP is the (profanity) driver here, not the taxi.
@pegaxs: You are making incorrect assumptions, I never said he doesn't need to indicate and just because you can't hear the indicator relay doesn't mean it wasn't used. Some cars have very weak sounding relays while some don't use relays at all now.
If you assume he didn't, I will assume he did and the only (profanity) is the taxi driver.
@[Deactivated]: I’m not making assumptions. The video quite clearly displays a lack of indicator use. It cannot be heard at any stage, you don’t even hear the indicator stalk click, even though everything else can be heard, even subtle things like the gear change. I would bet my arse on it that whatever car OP is driving, it has audible noise when the indicator is on.
I am saying that there is a requirement to indicate. This requirement goes to proving my point, that OP failed to indicate, and is therefore at fault, as the taxi driver didn’t know WTF the other driver was doing.
I’m not making assumptions.
I would bet my arse on it that whatever car OP is driving, it has audible noise when the indicator is on.
@[Deactivated]: It becomes a valid assumption because OP run away and does not bother to clarify it.
@[Deactivated]: How many vehicles on the market come without an audible sound when the indicators are used? What are the chances that OP just happens to be driving one of these cars?
The fact is that there is no indicator sound in the video and the probability that OP just happens to be on one of these cars that doesn't have an audible indicator is practically zero. That, coupled with the plethora of responses in this thread that say "you don't need to use an indicator here" seems to point that a majority of people don't use their indicator in this situation.
I'm pretty happy with my "assumption" based on the information I have (ie: 99.9% of vehicles have audible indicator tell tales and an indicator stalk that clicks and neither could be heard in the video.)
How confident are you in your 0.1% assumption? A car with no audible tell tale and a soft click indicator stalk.
Kind of like Ockham's (Occam's) Razor. Is it more likely that OP just didn't use their indicator, or that they were driving a vehicle that has neither an audible tell tale nor an indicator stalk that would click through a detent?
@pegaxs: I heard plenty of cracking/creaking noises possibly from the dashcam mount and possibly e-tag and something swinging from the rear view mirror, all of which could either be or cover the noise of an indicator stalk click. The possibilities are endless.
Your assumption is based on information that you don't have, hence it's an assumption and not a fact. I never said he did indicate, or didn't. I never said he did indicate, or didn't. In the scenario presented with the vision available, the OP is ahead when the line markings end, therefor they are entitled to merge behind the Mazda and not be forced into parked cars by the taxi (as long as an indicator is used).
Your assumption is based on information that you don't have
The information I have is;
The information you have is;
(as long as an indicator is used)
Which you cant prove, so equally, your point is moot. But on the balance of probability, my version is at least plausible. Your version of a car that makes no sounds when indicators are used, is "improbable".
So, we have an impasse. Until OP provides what vehicle they are driving and if it indeed has a silent indicator tell tale, or the taxi company release footage from their perspective, the balance of probabilities points the the fact that OP just didn't use it. And, until I am convinced otherwise, OP is at fault because they changed their line of traffic without indicating.
So, unless you can produce something better than "some cars don't" and then tie that car to OP or have alternative footage or something else, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree based on balance of probability.
@munecito: And again, another link that shows the vehicle (A) changing its line of traffic as indicating.
@pegaxs: Your own qld link stipulates op (the green car) has right of way. There is no sign saying lane is ending and no road markings indicating left lane is merging into right lane. And no where in your qld link does it say op needs to indicate. If Op needs to indicate, as you claim please tell why taxi doesn't? I mean there isn't road markings at start to indicate which lane is added
has right of way.
Please, paste the text or link to the portion of the legislation that say anyone has "right of way"…
There is no sign saying lane is ending
Nope, but there are a bunch of parked cars in OP's "line of traffic" which tell me otherwise…
qld link does it say op needs to indicate
The example drawing literally shows the vehicle with the indicator on. AND for all those playing along at home, the link also says;
45 What is changing direction
(3) A driver changes direction to the right by doing any of the following—
(c) diverging to the right;
(d) entering a marked lane, or a line of traffic, to the right;48 Giving a right change of direction signal
(1) Before a driver changes direction to the right, the driver must give a right change of direction signal in accordance with section 49 for long enough to comply with—
(a)subsection (2);
(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians.
The taxi doesn't need to indicate because they are not changing "lines of traffic" or "diverging". The taxi is in the main "line of traffic" and OP wants to get into that line, ergo, OP must indicate. Taxi is not changing direction (ARR 45).
@pegaxs: Hahahaha, read your own link, vehicle b (in taxi) must give way to vehicle a. The link which is 'the legislation also shows'
ReAd YoUr OwN LiNk, VeHicLe B MuSt GiVe WaY…
Not arguing that. This is correct under Australian Road Rule 149. (Do you want the direct link to it??) (and added to that, it's not even what you were originally talking about)
If you took the time to read what I am saying, what I am trying to tell you is; OP MUST give a change of direction signal before they change their "line of traffic" and for a "sufficient amount of time". (This is what your original line of questioning was about.)
Both drivers were idiots, but OP was the instigator of the stupidity.
@pegaxs: You see this as something that is based on stupidity etc. As your links to the qld road site says.
A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with 1 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle.
The lanes END. There is Nothing saying the left or right lane has to merge.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/lanes
There is a lovely video showing this.
Look again at the video the op supplied.
The road is one lane, then splits at the traffic lights into two. The left lane cant turn left, it can only go straight on, then quickly it turns back into one lane.
Its bloody obvious that the split is so more cars can get through the lights, just because other drivers have decided to stay in the same lane is their choice.
So the left lane doesnt end. BOTH lanes end, so the only logic is that the car in front when it ends is given right of way.
This is not the same as when the left lane ends or there is a merge right sign.
Sorry but you are getting hung up on the picture on the roads website showing an indicator being used.
These pictures help people understand whats going on, but the words which are the basis of the law dont say you have to indicate.
Cars are not changing direction they are going forward. If you say because someone is moving across their lane (its now one lane) they have to indicate then thats crazy. We would have to "indicate" every time we moved within a lane. Now that would be dangerous and irrational.
The Cabbie didnt like the fact someone got ahead of him/her because of the choice they made.
Yep it is annoying because if you move to the left to keep your place in the queue then someone may well do the same to you. Its the way it is. The OP took advantage of their rights.
Once the lane markings ended and they were in front the cabbie should have backed off because to be in front they would have had to be right up the bum of the first car, which in itself would have been illegal.
The lanes END. There is Nothing saying the left or right lane has to merge.
Compelling, but I cant agree here. While I agree that the "lanes" end, the right side "line of traffic" does not, where as the left "line of traffic" is ended by the mere fact that there are now cars parked in their "line of traffic". The fact is that the left "line of traffic" has nowhere else to go, other than to "diverge" into the right side "line of traffic" to avoid the parked cars. Ergo, left "line of traffic" ends.
the car in front when it ends is given right of way.
No such thing in the Australian Road Rules as "right of way", but I get your point and have said multiple times that I agree that the law (ARR 149) says the car behind has to give way. I never disputed this.
Cars are not changing direction they are going forward
"Change of direction" is outlined in ARR 45 by mentioning that any action that is "diverging left or right" or "entering another line of traffic" (among other things like U-turns, etc.) So, yes, OP is going forward, but is also "diverging" to the right and "entering another line of traffic", ergo, "change of direction"
the law dont say you have to indicate.
ARR 48 says that if you perform a "change of direction" (outlined in ARR 45) you must give a change of direction signal. So, yes, I cant agree with you here either, as it's pretty clear in the Road Rules that if you "change direction" you need to "signal".
We would have to "indicate" every time we moved within a lane.
Not so (and it's almost a strawman or false cause to inject it in this context) If you are within your own "line of traffic" or your own "marked lane" and are not doing any of the things from ARR 45, then you do not have to indicate.
But, yeah, I generally agree with everything else.
2 lanes were not merging into 1 though.
As I understand it, the rule posted above is for a 2 lane merge into one lane. This driver was headed towards parked cars, his lane was not ending. So was it safe to merge across broken white lines? Doesn't seem so.
2 lanes were not merging into 1 though.
his lane was not ending.
Oh, ok, if the lane wasn't ending, then why didn't OP just drive straight on??
@pegaxs: Yeah you're right, he should just keep driving into the parked cars.
The issue all the way through here seems to be what's meant by 2 lanes merging into 1.
@mincemeat: Prior to the parked cars, there are two “lines of traffic”.
After the parked cars, there is one “line of traffic”
They had to merge at some stage when one of the “lines of traffic” ended. I would say that the mere fact that OP’s “line of traffic” was full of parked vehicles suggests that at some stage, OP would have to change their “line of traffic” to continue.
To do this change to their “line of traffic, OP is required to indicate “for a significant time”. Zero is not considered a “significant time”.
“Line of traffic” is outlined in the Australian Road Rules Dictionary.
@mincemeat: 2 lanes did merge into 1, the broken centre line between the 2 stopped 2 broken lines after intersection and well before the parked cars
He doesnt have to indicate…it is a Zip merge, not a merge right….did the taxi have to left indicate too?
@siresteelhell: You are another that needs to re-read their drivers handbook and go over the road rules. Already linked to it multiple times in this thread, I suggest you read them (starts around Road Rule 45~ish :)
Taxi doesn't have to indicate, as they are not "changing line of traffic", where as OP was.
@pegaxs: You are trying to win an argument over the internet with facts. This statistically ends badly for you, and it's only a matter of time before someone compared you to Hitler. :)
Anyways, the number of people here thinking that they don't have to indicate here freak me out.
I don't mind those who smoke the others at the light to capture a lane ahead, but they better know how to do it. But there's always the possibility that another old mate at the lights will do it better because he's got better reaction times, or a faster car, or often both.
People who can't do this safely and correctly taking into account all the factors shouldn't race off the lights to get into a lane ahead.
@CocaKoala: Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Or, my latest fave when I said drivers should be fined for traffic infringements; "WhAt ArE YoU? A CoMMuNiSt?" (Perhaps Reductio Ad Communisimum??)
The one comment that freaked me out the most was the driving instructor who doesn't know the rule and used "right of way" as the excuse.
I understand that the rule is "give way to whoever is in front", but the law doesn't say that it is a race to get there and OP is obviously abusing this rule to their advantage (noted by the very heavy acceleration), but nevertheless, OP is still required to indicate to let the taxi driver know what their intention was.
Had OP simply have indicated, this whole shit storm in a teacup may not have happened. This is more about OP trying to be a traffic bully than it is about a taxi driver.
The one comment that freaked me out the most was the driving instructor who doesn't know the rule and used "right of way" as the excuse.
No wonder then that our streets are full of incompetent drivers.
@pegaxs: FYI the OP needs to indicate right, and the taxi needs to indicate left. Yes, both need to indicate, as BOTH lanes are ending.
@StickMan: While I would be happy with the taxi indicating, I'm not 100% convinced they have too. It also may make the people in the vehicles behind think that the taxi is about to turn or move to the left.
In OP's situation, the taxi is not diverging from their continuation (Taxi is car (2) in example 1 in this drawing). Taxi is not diverging or changing a line of traffic. There are two lines of traffic, OP's line and taxi's line. OP (Car 1) has to diverge (or eat parked cars), where as the taxi (Car 2) does not.
But I do agree, that in some situations, where the road merges down to one lane, where both left and right have to move to a central "line of traffic" (Example 2 in this drawing), then yes, absolutely both must indicate, as both would be diverging.
I also agree that in both of these examples, vehicle (2) has to give way to vehicle (1), so I am not disputing that.
@pegaxs: Example 1 and 2 are the exact same according to the law. Hold up, lemme clarify - QLD law. I've checked my state in detail, and I'm confident in my assessment, but yah other states could vary or be more vague.
The only time a particular lane is required to give-way no matter what, is if the dotted line extends all the way, hence one lane ends. Typically this is left lane, but I've seen it with right-lane too.
@StickMan: I'm not talking about giving way (as I have already stated that Car (2) has to give way), I'm talking about indicating.
Example 1 and 2 are the exact same according to the law
These two examples are not the same.
In example 1, Car (2) is not changing direction, not changing lanes, not changing lines of traffic, not pulling out from parking and are not turning, ergo, Car (2) has no requirement to indicate, as Car (2) is not doing anything other than continuing in their "line of traffic" (denoted by red line)
In example 2, both Car (1) and (2) have to change direction, move line of traffic or diverge. Both must indicate. Both cars must change their direction to continue along the new path (the green line that neither were a part of)
I've seen it with right-lane too.
This is example 3 (That I have now added) would be just example 1 flipped over… The car that is changing their "line of traffic" or "diverging" is required to give a change of direction indication.
In example 1, Car (2) is not changing direction, not changing lanes, not changing lines of traffic
In my interpretation of QLD traffic law, they are both doing the above, hence the need to indicate inwards.
As in, it doesn't matter what the shape of the road boundaries is, or what general direction the cars need to take to manoeuvre - both lanes are ending, so it's a legal 'change of direction' that occurs.
But yah, no point us two going back and forth about this one point if you don't agree with me lol. We agree overall. :D
We agree overall.
Generally, as I think it's better to over indicate your intentions than to not indicate at all.
Not to play down the cab driver's actions, mate, but situations like this do need little bit of "negotiating" between parties on who should compromise and let the other through. If the other is being a dick about it, don't let them take up any more of your life's valuable time and just let them through on their way to spread more COVID cases.
Don't fly up the left lane just to cut infront and squeeze in to avoid waiting.
Do give way to the car who has been chugging along in the left all along and now needs to suddenly merge.
What is the purpose of having the left lane?
Would you still not use the left lane if another car in the right lane wanted to turn right?
Purpose of left lane was for turning left. Was there even a road to turn right? I’ll need to watch again but I think not.
Purpose of left lane was for turning left.
Except for if you're in Melbourne and there's a hook turn head of you. In that case, you would be on the left lane just before turning right. :-)
Of course one could also just go straight from the left lane.
it would be marked as such.
Got to agree with this. AND added to that fact is that there is a "NO LEFT TURN" sign at that intersection and that Cordelia St is a one way road.
If anything, that lane would be there to facilitate ease and safety of access to the driveways just past the intersection, NOT for drag racing queue jumpers.
@pegaxs: Sorry now you are making things up to suit your arguments.
If anything, that lane would be there to facilitate ease and safety of access to the driveways(google.com) just past the intersection, NOT for drag racing queue jumpers.
If that was the case the would very simply have marked the road after the driveway as a merge in lane - those small line markings indicating lane is ending.
Drag racing queue jumpers …..
Now you are letting personal bias cloud your argument. Thats not rational assessment of the situation. And like the cabbie, it can be rather dangerous.
The OP like most would be put out, and like all of us would think later they should have forced their rights, but wisely decided not to force it. But they can still complain and rant about it. Drag racers tend to be the ones who crash into others to win the point.
@RockyRaccoon: Oh, I think the road is divided up like that for both functions. To ease congestion when it gets busy, to let a few more people across AND to allow vehicles a much easier and safer way to enter and exit those driveways. A little column A, a little column B.
What I don't think the intention of the lane is, is for entitled bozos to manipulate road rules and drag race. I would have had a lot more sympathy for OP if they didn't accelerate like a drongo and used their indicator.
And my personal opinion is "two idiots playing chicken". Neither is innocent in this situation, and if either one of them could have just relinquished one car space and forgot about the "BuT i'M iN ThE RiGhT" for a moment, this thread would not have even existed.
@pegaxs: Look I think you have spent a lot of time evaluating this, and that is to be commended.
However again I think you are mixing two things.
The queue jumper vs the way the road has been set up.
Let’s take the situation that the second car, in this case the Taxi, moves to the left lane when the first car stops.
So “ethically” they are 2nd at the lights, and the lights change, and our “bozo” tries to shut him down, then in this case the cabbie would be legally in the right.
The issue is the Cabbie has no right to force the other car to give way, just because he choose to stay behind the first car. That’s why we have a clear law here. In fact the bozo, if they were truly dragging off would have beaten the first car. But they did the right thing and stayed behind the first car.
Being honest the Cabbie would have ignored any indicator as well, because they were not following the rules anyway.
Btw not anti-cabbie having done a stint in my life of driving in inner Sydney, which is a far more aggressive place than Brisbane.
I think you have spent a lot of time evaluating this
Yeah, but the whole thing is boring me now. But either way, I'm not mixing anything up. What other people are doing is misreading and inserting into what I am saying what they think I am saying or what they want me to have said, as it is easier to attack.
The case how I see it is, OP's "intention" was to queue jump. I agree, not illegal, just douchey.
When the cars left the lights, OP realised that they were going to have to lose a place to the taxi.
OP then accelerated hard to abuse or manipulate a law in the hope the taxi driver would back down.
Taxi driver was an idiot and maintained speed with OP (to teach OP a lesson??).
OP then tried to merge into the taxi's "line of traffic" (ARR 45) without signalling (ARR 48) their intent.
Taxi driver at this point is under no obligation to give way to a car that they don't know what it is doing.
For all the taxi driver knew, OP was going to park or pull into one of the driveways, as there was no indication (ARR 48) of intent to change into the taxi's "line of traffic" (ARR 45).
At the point where it was obvious to the taxi driver that OP was changing "line of traffic" (ARR 45) without using their signals (ARR 48), the taxi driver should have left space for OP to come into their "line of traffic" (ARR 149).
OP tried to play a silly game and tried to drag race another silly game player and got pwn'd at their own game. OP was the instigator of the stupidity, not because of using the lane they were in, but by trying to drag race and get to the "end of the lanes" first to manipulate a rule in the road rules.
What OP should have done was used their indicator and let other drivers know they were changing into their "line of traffic" and there is a high possibility they would have just been let in. (Probably not by the taxi driver, but hey, I would rather lose one space to an idiot than to possibly crash my car to prove a point.)
Anyway. I'm done in this thread. At this point, I think it would be quicker for me to just cut and paste. OP is never coming back to confirm anything and if anything, it has taught me that people seldom read the road rules beyond a flick through the learners manual and some epic pub stories…
I think to tar a whole city based on one experience seems a bit … over the top. Then I read that you would have deliberately crashed into someone and only stopped as you needed your car later in the day… People make mistakes, be patient and forgiving with others and life will go much more smoothly.
Yes are right, I was probably still too heated when posting this. Just not a fan or aggressive drivers not following the road road and giving way to the vehicle in front at merges.
Just not a fan or aggressive drivers not following the road road and giving way to the vehicle in front at merges.
YOU were the aggressive driver. YOU were the one that accelerated heavily to "get in front". YOU were the one that didn't use your indicator and signal that your intention was to merge.
Have you possibly stopped to think that maybe YOU were the problem in this altercation?
You're the aggressive one. Maybe they should have let you go in front, but they might have thought "(profanity) this aggressive guy trying to cut up the inside".
Driving should be a cool and relaxed activity, you should never get heated or aggressive when driving. That's how you make mistakes.
YOU are the aggressive driver. The self entitlement is ridiculous!
Get off the road, take off your crown, learn to drive and get back on public roads once you've grown up
I think we need to play it safe. Bikies
I get what OP is saying, but ultimately we can't tell who was in front of who due to the field of view. Basically OP and the taxi are trying to do the same thing - force the other to give way. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
How would you drive this stretch of road? Join the end of the queue? Leave the left lane empty? What is the purpose of building the left lane then?
It's not about that. It's about the fact that both OP and cab were racing to be in front. Neither willing to concede that only one of them can "win". Whoever was behind should have given way, but maybe nobody was in front - they were side by side all the way.
Personally when the queue is really long and there’s no car in the left lane and I’m feeling a little impatient, I use the left lane. But only when I’m driving a car that can accelerate faster than the majority of cars.
when I’m driving a car that can accelerate faster than the majority of cars.
Lol - apparently your car here was no faster than a taxi.
So why did you try it if your car was not faster than a taxi? also it appears you did not indicate so you are definitely in the wrong as well.
Would have used my indicators as soon as the first car passed the traffic lights, so taxi dude gets ample time to notice and react.
Yes I would join the queue, yes leave the left empty if I knew the road would end, you clearly know the road your driving on.
The left lane had to end somewhere, it just ended there mate, or else you could have a single lane throughout your whole burb, make it state, make it country.
Add to the fact the OP had no indicator on - how was anyone to know what the OP was planning on doing??
There are what appears to be driveways on the left-hand side of the road - who would know if the OP was planning on pulling into one of those, planning to pull up behind the parked cars, or try and cut across into the right lane?
This is what indicators are for - to make others aware of what you intend to do.
I don't have any issues with the OP using the left lane - the road is clearly marked that way and the OP is just using it as intended.
Thanks for signing up to OzBargain to tell us your views on the competency of all of Brisbane drivers based on one incident with a taxi, helpfully detailed in your username.
I look forward to your upcoming posts on why everyone in Perth blocks sidewalks, and why all Sydneysiders are obsessed with not returning their trolleys to the designated area.
Also thoughts on roundabouts! And empty car parks where someone will always park next to you.
Video looks like you are the one that cant merge?
How would you merge? In front of the mazda?
Properly
note to self need faster car.
Properly is what the OP did. They were in front of the taxi. As the OP was not crossing over any dashed lines, the car in front (OP) has right of way.
Step One: Use your mirrors.
Step Two: Use your indicator and ensure you have met the time requirement.
Step Three: Ensure everything is safe.
Step Four: Change lane.
With an indicator for starters.
Just looks like two idiots playing chicken to me. More of a case of queue jumper getting a taste of Karma…
As above, please educate me on the purpose of the secondary lane and how you would drive here.
It's designed for queue jumpers to slide down the left side and power away at the green, only to get carved up by a taxi, cop a sweet dose of Karma and then to come onto this forum with a troll account to whine and complain…
Probably wouldn't have happened if you just lined up like everyone else…
@[Deactivated]: Nah, just a lack of respect for drivers that wont line up like everyone else (it was literally 5 cars waiting or about 20m), try and overtake 5 cars down the left hand side and then get all butt hurt when people shut them out, so much so that they need to make a fake account on a bargain forum to try and illicit some vigilante style street justice…
@pegaxs: I find the amount on up votes you are receiving slightly fascinating yet disturbing at the same time. You seem to just suggest that I am an idiot, which is fine, I appreciate your feedback. But can once we return to road rules, road design, you seem to be completely silent on the matter. Please include some facts and logic into your response instead of just emotions.
@[Deactivated]: Have you been lurking here long? This is a bargain forum, what exactly did you hope to achieve here?
@[Deactivated]: Ok, let's put it this way. Your intention was to cut in, skip the queue (not to ease congestion). You got smoked off at the lights because the Mazda knew what shit you were trying to pull. The taxi driver more than likely also knew the shit you were trying to pull. You then accelerated very hard and tried to "force" your vehicle in front of the taxi and potentially making the whole situation unsafe for everyone around you, all for the sake of saving yourself 20~30m.
Technically, the law is, who ever is behind, must give way, but in saying that, this does not mean that it is a drag race to get your car jammed into a space, all because you want to jump a queue of 5 cars.
You started to drag race the taxi before the lane ended with the dividing line. At that point, YOU are supposed to give way to the taxi. Why the need for acceleration that hard at that point if for nothing else other than drag racing to get to the unmarked section of road?
As I said in my original comment… "Just looks like two idiots playing chicken to me."
You played a silly game and won a silly prize.
Edit: And at no time in the video does it sound like you put your indicator on. So, not only did you queue jump, then drag race a taxi, you then merged on them with no indicator. How was the taxi driver supposed to know you wanted in front of them if you didn't use your indicator??
@pegaxs: I find it bizarre that people still call drivers like the OP "queue jumpers" - there is an empty, legal lane that is there to be used to reduce congestion. The OP did absolutely nothing wrong. If people want to line up like sheep when there is an empty lane beside them then so be it, but don't disparage other drivers who are using the road how it's designed to be used.
Also when the lane markings end, there is no legal requirement to use an indicator as the car in front goes first.
@Flying Ace: It was 5 people, hardly "congestion". OP's intention was to "queue jump" not to "ease congestion". 10 or more cars there or a large truck or other slow moving vehicle, sure, I agree, but to try and slide past 5 cars… "queue jumper". I would say that that lane exists more so for the facilitation of easy/safe access to those properties along that section, without interrupting the main flow of traffic, not for idiots to drag race down and jump a line of traffic.
Also when the lane markings end, there is no legal requirement to use an indicator as the car in front goes first.
Then I suggest you re-read your road rules… (the part you need starts around rule 45ish) If you are changing from one line of traffic to another, you are required to give a change of direction signal. The taxi is not required to give a change of direction, as they are in the continuation lane. OP was in a lane that was ending and had to move to the right, ergo, change line of traffic, need indicator.
@pegaxs: So what is the limit, 5 cars is not ok, if there are 10 cars its ok to use the left lane, what if there are 7 cars?
@BuyOrNot: The number is the time allowed by the lights to let cars go thru, which is no specific number obviously. But just like the word congestion, there is no specific definition. So if someone doesn’t want to wait for just one car they can have a drag race to make it to the front. But is that the kind of driving we want in society? Ask yourself.
But is that the kind of driving we want in society? Ask yourself.
I want to live in. society where you are not crucified for using the left lane to go straight and then merge after the intersection and not have to follow any arbitrary rules 5 cars is ok and 10 is not.
So if someone doesn’t want to wait for just one car they can have a drag race to make it to the front.
Or you can just merge like civilised people as per the rules.
@BuyOrNot: There is no crucification for using left lane, but if you use it for the purpose of skipping a few cars don’t be surprised if you someone feels like your a cheat and choose to make life hard, wait a gap.
@cloudy: Let me explain why that thinking is wrong.
Lets say Car 1 and 2 want to go straight, Car 3 wants to go right, what should Car 4 do in that such, should it wait behind car 3 till it turns right or should car 4 use the left lane, go straight and then merge. Logic says Car 4 should use the the left lane but as per your reasoning Car 1 and 2 will feel like they have been "cheated".
Instead of thinking like you are in the hunger games, why not everyone use the left lane so that traffic can move faster for everyone in that lane.
@pegaxs: Neither lane was ending, as no line markings are showing a lane ending, so two lanes merged into one, ergo, both cars are in the continuation lane and no indicator required. Had taxi given way, as required, once had become one lane, op would not have had to make such a sharp manoeuvre to avoid parked cars
@Largie: Wrong, but thanks for playing.
OP’s “line of traffic” is definitely coming to an end (parked cars). OP needed to move out of their “line of traffic” and into the “line of traffic” to their right.
If you change “line of traffic”, you are required to give a change of direction signal. There are already plenty of links to the relevant road rules and examples where in every one of them, it shows the vehicle with its indicator on.
@pegaxs: Yes there are plenty of links, how bout you scroll down 2 posts to capped baldy's and read the accompanying text, which explicitly states in op's sittuation (im assuming he's the front car) has right of way
@Largie: Capped's post has nothing to do with what you are saying here and is not what I am talking about. So, It's irrelevant. That's a totally separate topic. But good on you for having a go. :)
you merge across broken lines when its safe to do so, your lane isn't ending by the letter of the law, its just happens that its got obstacles infront.
The zipper lane is the one where if you're infront then you have r-o-w, and slide right in.
This situation comes down to courtesy only really, be interested to hear if you would let yourself in… be honest, do you speed up to block..
Hard to tell from the video but right of way depends on which car is in front.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/lanes
I agree, the rules are the same as in WA. When there is no dashed dividing lines as the lanes merge then the car in front has the right of way and you adopt the zipper effect. The OP had the right of way.
He clearly announced his intentions by accelerating hard to place himself behind the leading vehicle. Had he backed off and allowed the taxi to overtake his reduced speed would mean he couldn't safely merge with other following traffic and cause a bank up in his lane.
The taxi driver was totally at fault.
Agreed. I had actually voted the taxi driver at fault. Surprised that more people thought OP was at fault.
Edit: I see in other comments that OP may not have indicated so could be at fault. My Forester has a near silent indicator so there's that too.
Am surprised by the number of people defending a taxi driver.
Old mate was probably being a bit of a douche, but on the other hand you've gone to slip up the inside, tried to burn the others off at the lights and got beaten at your own game.
Who would have been at fault had it come down to it? Hard to say … not give way vs. unsafe lane change.
By the law of the jungle, you've just had one added to your "L" column.