Could I get the opinion of OzB?
I travel past this T junction daily and was always confused as to who would have right of way given there are broken lines on both roads.
1. Would it be Car A waiting to turn right or Car B going straight? Both cars would encounter broken lines indicating 'give way'.
2. What if Car B was turning right to the side road?
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/70211/93870/streetview…
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/70211/93871/sat.png
Thank you
Ah, (fropanity) it…
euphemistic was the one that got me onto it…
In that case, my answer is neither car has “right of way”… :D
While that's true as the rules are written, if someone is required to give way to them, it common to say they have right of way.
I am well aware of that… but the point is, just because something is “common” doesn’t make it “correct”.
No one particular driver has a “right” in traffic legislation, but merely the obligation to “give way”. And by giving way, it still does not transfer any “rights” to any other driver.
“Right of way” actually pertains to a completely different legislation that deals with easements.
@pegaxs: Sure, people commonly confuse then and than, as well as writing would've as would of, those are obviously not correct. In this case though, it is a phrase in such common use that I would argue that everyone knows its meaning, and that not only is it not incorrect, its ubiquitous use does indeed make it correct.
@[Deactivated]: Except ubiquitous use of then instead of than will never make it correct.
As an aside, my pet theory as to why this is a thing is because in many US dialects then and than are actually pronounced exactly the same.
@xylarr: Right of way is a bad phrase that needs to go as people treat the fact that they don't have to give way as they don't need to do everything to prevent collision.
@Tleyx: I disagree. Having the right of way doesn't mean you shouldn't avoid a collision if possible, it just means you would be less likely to be found at fault.
How would you prefer to phrase it from the perspective of the person that does not have to give way? Phrasing it in a negative, not needing to give way, is effectively the same thing as saying the right of way.
@[Deactivated]: You and I know the difference but have you seen how other people drive around not carung if they crash because they have right of way.
That increases hospital and insurance costs for us all.
@[Deactivated]: It’s a subtle difference in language, but an important distinction. Omitting ‘right of way’ from language just gets more people thinking that whatever they do, they can’t just keep barrelling along without considering that they must try to avoid an accident if someone else fails to give way.
It’s semantics, but it can change state of mind over time.
You would be incorrect. Cars entering a roadway must give way to cars already on it. In this instance A is required to give way to B proceeding, or doing a U-turn, or exiting the roadway.
B.
A could only turn if the traffic is banked up through the intersection and the driver on the left - B- has obeyed by the keep clear.
When safe to do so, car B would proceed first going straight, followed by car A turning right.
How on earth would it be A?
B is continuing on their path - A gives way to all traffic.
Looks straightforward to me. The space in front of B is a Keep Clear section. In most cases, car B will have right of way as it is going straight on the main road. Car A has to wait.
If traffic is banked up on the straight road; then A has right of way if it is safe to cross the lane in the opposite direction as B has to stay out of the Keep Clear section. A can move into that section.
I generally agree - but why is it permissable for A to move into the 'Keep Clear' section if the traffic is banked up?
Surely A also has to obey the keep clear?
Everything I have read online says keep clear is for emergency vehicles, not for turning vehicles. In the real world watching people drive, it does seem to be used temporarily for people turning, and I also see people turning into the keep clear section, blocking it.
In this case though, it does seem pretty pointless to keep that particular section of road clear, since it doesn't seem to go anywhere. I've never seen a T intersection have a keep clear section before.
If it was not used by turning vehicles, they would never be able to turn right into a busy street during peak hours.
Thank you. What if B is turning right? Would it then have to stop at the give way line in front of B and wait for Car A to turn right?
No, B will still have right of way. B is on the main straight road. A is on a side road.
Thanks. So the broken lines indicating 'give way' is there just because of the 'keep clear' box?
Yes. It is not a Give Way line. It is a Keep Clear Line.
Always has to give way to main road traffic no matter what circumstances. Also car A was going to merge running road can not go ahead without even stop and head check both running traffic.
If B had a stop or give way sign then things would be different.
There's no stop/ give way sign for B
That's what I said.
Who Has Right of Way?
Technically, neither. We don't have right of way in this country, just various levels of requirements to give way.
*heart_eyes_emoji.png*
Despite the somewhat unusual features and not being straight, it's still a T intersection. The same rules apply as any other. That means B gives way to all traffic.
Nope car A merging to main road there is no way car B has to give way
Please dont drive, you will cause an accident, Car A does not have right of way by any means, Car B is on a straight road, the lines you see are not give way lines, they are keep clear lines, which means when there is traffic lights up ahead or just generally traffic banking up and coming to a stand still, this area must be left clear to enable Car B to make their turn
My bad, that should be A gives way to all traffic. Can't edit it now since you've replied. Everything else I said still stands though, the same rules apply as a standard T intersection.
No one has right of way. There is no such concept in traffic law.
Someone has to give way, but no one has a right to way.
Now, in this case: there is no give way sign for B. The lines on the road are different to the give way lines for A, they are for the keep clear section and not give way lines. Normal T intersection rules apply.
Car B, those lines are keep clear so when traffic is banked up, people can still turn right, also, people on a main road always have right of way
See the dotted lines on the road…. that means GIVEWAY…. Now see how only one of those cars are the dotted lines? You do that math.
If you look at the street view, you'll see the dotted lines on both roads, which is the source of their confusion.
No confusion, have a look around, most are like that.
Car B is not crossing any dotted lines to go straight, so why would THEY give way to Car A ever?
When Car B is turning, they are in front front of Car A, so Car A has to give way.
This isn't a rocket science intersection, its a pretty standard T intersection nothing special about it at all.
There is no confusion in the law. It is indeed a standard T intersection. The confusion of the OP lies in the fact that there are dotted lines on both roads.
The confusion of the OP lies in the fact that there are dotted lines on both roads.
Have a look around its not uncommon at all, you might be surprised.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.6786537,144.4303569,45m/dat…
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.6764973,144.4416663,45m/dat…
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.5543907,143.848541,76m/data…
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.5496942,143.8674863,45m/dat…
@JimmyF: They only have dots on ONE road, yes, both sides of the road, but if you click on the street view version in the OP, you will see BOTH roads have dotted lines. If you only clicked on the sat version, then the trees are covering the lines.
@[Deactivated]: Hmmm, appears to be incorrect keep clear zone markings then, should have been solid lines not dotted lines.
@JimmyF: Hence the OP's confusion. :) All good. Of course despite the oddly placed keep clear zone, it is still a T intersection, and standard rules apply.
If you are confused about this, it has me worried about you driving on the roads.
Always give way to the right …
Not a rule. It’s a carry over from yesteryear that doesn’t apply anymore.
“right of way” is a dangerous concept! It is law that drivers give way, but it is no one’s right.
In what world would A have right of way?
Unless the hypothetical is when traffic is stopped and backed up around the ‘keep clear’ area. Otherwise this would be a worrying question for a license holder to be asking
Both A and B will encounter broken lines in their path. If there was no broken line in B's path, it's quite clear that B would always have be given way to.
My question was basically why there was a broken line in B's path if that was not a requirement to give way to someone. From others' answers it seems that the broken lines are from the 'keep clear' box rather than a 'give way' line.
You are only a passenger… right. If not, you need to attend your local police station and voluntarily hand in your licence.
What broken line for B…. it simply infers not to infringe when traffic is full… A is entering a major flow of traffic….
What don't you understand….
This is the usual 'keep clear' box marking https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/70211/93909/20131119_1…
It has solid lines rather than broken ones
That was the confusion.
Do you really have to be so dramatic and rude?
BTW, if one is to voluntarily hand in a licence, it'll have to be to ServiceNSW and not to the local Police station.
https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/surrender-nsw-dri…
@Amaris
I just checked on google maps , thats a ShitSandwich of an intersection especially during peak hour.
If car A wants to go in front of car B , car B essentially has to give way (ONLY IF TRAFFIC IS AT A STANDSTILL) as there is a "keep clear" right in front of him. that "keep clear" area is so you (being car A) can turn in front of car B if you wanted to.
if traffic is moving car B is not obliged to give way and also puts himself in danger from being rear ended.
Reality: in peak hour traffic you have no choice but to push your way into that keep clear but being mindful of any cars where B is positioned.
HOWEVER
if Car B is turning right from that exact position as shown in the image or indicates to turn right , common sense and road etiquette dictates as being car A you "should" let car B complete the turn first before you progress in your direction of travel otherwise a situation like that can turn from simple bad timing to a disaster pretty quick due to the scenario whereby if you both go in at the same time you're at the mercy of car B letting you in (if he even can at that point) otherwise you would be blocking traffic from your right and may also potentially get hit (T bone)
it is still a T intersection, and standard rules apply.
As skylex indicated above , this is the correct answer. and based on that fact my answers for 1 and 2 are both correct in this instance.
Its not always entirely about "right of way" but common sense , patience and just avoiding an accident and taking less risks where possible. its not worth getting into an accident for the sake of a few mins or because people behind you are getting impatient.
Lol. Take it easy pegaxs. Stay calm.