Do Pedestrians Have Right of Way on Unsignalled Intersections?

leiiv on 12/05/2022 - 10:11
Last edited 12/05/2022 - 10:25 by 1 other user

On an intersection (crossing or T junction) without traffic light nor marked foot crossing, which is very common on less busy and local roads, do pedestrians must give way to vehicles?

They should, for their own safety, but there are situations that are not really about safety. For example, a pedestrian is about to cross on a road that ends at a T-intersection. A vehicle is fastly approaching on that road and it ignores the pedestrian and just stop in front of them to give way to or to observe other vehicles on the continuing road. It effectively blocks the pedestrian way (usually the spot with a ramp to the path).
Is this the right and expected behaviour? The vehicle could slow down or stop just 1 or 2 meter before the line and let the pedestrian cross first. They will have to stop at the line anyway.

Now imagine that same intersection, which is empty most of the time, can occasionally get very busy at times and vehicles stop and go, take turn with the right off way rules, and at the same time ignoring pedestrians which have to wait for a long time until the traffic clears up.

This page states it pretty clear:

give way to pedestrians on or entering a road you’re turning into

However, the rule does not mention about pedestrian entering the road the vehicles are in. And most motorists seem to disregard this anyway and assume that pedestrians have to give way to them. Even on crossings with traffic light, a lot of them will scare off pedestrians by pushing forward or creeping while the pedestrian light is still blinking!

Poll Options

  • 100
    Yes, pedestrian has the right of way
  • 15
    No, vehicle has the right of way
Automotive

Comments

  • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 10:17
    +16

    Pedestrians always have right of way.

    (Yes, Even when they cross roads like a drunk person playing frogger)

    • Xistn on 12/05/2022 - 10:19
      +2

      To a degree….

      • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 10:22
        +3

        So, if one walks out in front of you and its not a crossing, you are permitted to hit them?

        • Xistn on 12/05/2022 - 10:24
          +1

          Depends on how much distance I have to stop..

          • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 10:26
            +13

            @Xistn: Sharing the road is the responsibility of everyone, unfortunately not everyone knows how to do it.

            Pedestrians don’t have a legal right of way to cross roads willy nilly, but once they are on there, a driver has no choice but to give way.
            It’s not that the pedestrian has a legal right of way, it’s just that they have shifted the responsibility onto the car to yield by placing themselves in harms way.

            • Drakesy on 12/05/2022 - 11:43
              +2

              @El cheepo: You've just rebutted your first argument…

              • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 11:49

                @Drakesy: I said they have right of way, not a legal right of way.

                Its already explained above.

                • Caped Baldy on 12/05/2022 - 11:55
                  +2

                  @El cheepo: Yeah nah. That won't fly on a freeway..

                  • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 12:09

                    @Caped Baldy: How many pedestrians do you see on a freeway?

                    • Xistn on 12/05/2022 - 13:26

                      @El cheepo: You forget your frogger remark? So obviously you have…

                      • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 13:32
                        +2

                        @Xistn: The comment stands.

                        Simply put, pedestrians can’t be run over for their own stupidity, as all drivers have the responsibility not to run people over (obviously unavoidable if they do it suddenly and unexpectedly - which is not what’s been discussed but your arguing about for some reason)

                        Theres a difference between people jumping in front of your vehicle and it not been physically possible to stop

                        and

                        seeing a drunk person wandering on the road and choosing not to slow down or stop.

                        So not really sure what you are trying to insinuate.

              • Chandler on 12/05/2022 - 15:09
                +3

                @Drakesy: Yes and no.

                El cheepo's initial point (in my opinion) is that cars always yield to pedestrians - not the other way around. Ergo, pedestrians always have right of way.

                This doesn't give pedestrians free reign on the road: they still have their own rules to follow (i.e. jaywalking). But if they're on the road, they take precedence over all other occupants.

                Except for maybe busses, because (profanity) I'm a bus!

                • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 15:41
                  +4

                  @Chandler: Yes, thats exactly what i am trying to say (but communication is not my strong point haha)

    • leiiv on 12/05/2022 - 10:36
      +1

      Yes. But that is not what meant. It is about the etiquette, rules, and normal behaviour of any sane, sober and reasonable people.

      • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 10:46
        +8

        Common sense should suggest to people to never trust any approaching vehicle and rely on it to:
        1) see you
        2) slow down
        3) allow you to cross in front of it.
        Even at a pedestrian crossing.
        Because people are people and make mistakes/get distracted.

        Etiquette wise, even when i as a pedestrian have right of way I don’t always act on it (eg: on a road where it states turning vehicles must give way to pedestrians crossing) because I don’t fancy getting run over by people that don’t know the road rules.

        Sidenote: The term “right of way” is probably the cause of many stupid assumptions and decisions on the part of both drivers and pedestrians due to a lack of understanding.

        • leiiv on 12/05/2022 - 10:57
          +1

          I think the term “right of way” is just loosely used as an opposite of "give way".

          Your common sense is true in general, but there are also rules in place. Most motorists will give way to pedestrians in a marked crossing, etc. It is just the rules are not made clear and popular for intersection without marked crossing or signals.

          • Ughhh on 12/05/2022 - 11:06

            @leiiv:

            I think the term “right of way” is just loosely used as an opposite of "give way".

            I think the majority known and understand what is meant when people say "right of way" as opposite of "give way", but be careful, there are some here who are very anal and triggered by that term.

    • Caped Baldy on 12/05/2022 - 11:57
      +3

      Always assume everyone is a clown in cars and on their feet.

      90% of pedestrians don't look left and right as they cross and stare at their phones as they dawdle across.

    • Some Human on 12/05/2022 - 12:33
      +5

      I agree.

      When I read the learner book many moons ago, I believe the correct answer to “when must you give way to pedestrians” was “always”.
      Because you’re not allowed to hit a pedestrian.
      It’s a trick question.

  • MS Paint on 12/05/2022 - 10:19
    +5

    So many triggers here for pegaxs 🙂

    The system works fine when pedestrians understand when cars have to give way to them. Unfortunately not many pedestrians know the rules, especially younger pedestrians that don't have a driver's licence.

    • pegaxs on 12/05/2022 - 10:29
      +8

      *inhales…* Well, let me first start by saying….

      • Jugganautx on 12/05/2022 - 10:34

        GOD IS GOOD ALL THE TIME

    • AdosHouse on 12/05/2022 - 11:27
      +5

      Unfortunately a lot of people, mostly pedestrians, think that pedestrians have right of way in all scenarios. They then confuse right of way with being invulnerable. Even if you have right of way it doesn't stop 1.5-20 tonnes of steel on a dime.

      One of my local shopping places has a small shared area in the carpark and the amount of people I see walking directly in front of moving cars is insane. Right of way does not mean free from consequences.

      Years ago I was driving through the city fairly late, like 8pm-ish, roads were mostly empty, I driving at 60km/h as was the speed limit, coming up to a set of light , start braking, light then goes green, start accelerating, then suddenly 2 drunk as f#ck teenage girls step out in front of a van parked on the side of the road directly into my path. Pucker factor 10, slam on the brakes, and no exaggeration I stopped about 30cm from them, they just giggled and carried on oblivious to how close they came to being in hospital. Lucky for them I spent bloody good money getting the best tyres and brakes on my car, and in the 6 months prior to that incident I had replaced nearly all the suspension, brakes and tyres. Probably the only thing that saved them.

      • Caped Baldy on 12/05/2022 - 12:00

        Old mate gave me a dirty look in the shared zone at Marrickville Metro.

        Two pedestrians stopped and gave way to me so I crept forward then old mate with the trolley decided he had right of way.

    • Ughhh on 14/05/2022 - 11:32

      5 big comments already about 'right of way', blood must be boiling lol.

  • Porker on 12/05/2022 - 10:21
    +7

    Perhaps a diagram?

    But for T-intersections, turning traffic (left or right into the side street) gives way to pedestrians, but cars exiting the side street have right of way over pedestrians.

    Best practise would be for neither party to assume as pedestrians will always come off second best regardless of who is right. Had a friend that willing walked in front of a car because he was in the 'right' and I pulled him back. He snapped at me saying that the driver was wrong, to which I replied that is correct, but had you been hit, you'd be worse off regardless of his/her being in the wrong.

    • trustnoone on 12/05/2022 - 10:26
      +2

      I learnt this lesson as a kid. Walking to school through a childrens crossing (was in primary school) and would make a point not to check for cars as they needed to stop due to the flashing lights/sign/etc. Until a taxi driver narrowly missed me one day and slammed on the breaks because they weren't looking. I was right, but a few seconds off and that car would've hit me all the same and I'd be stuffed.

      • Quantumcat on 12/05/2022 - 13:49
        +2

        Similar thing happened to me when I was 9 or 10 except it was a bus and it did hit me. Luckily I was wearing a helmet. My school kept it to use in their road safety lessons.

        • macfudd on 12/05/2022 - 22:23
          +4

          They wouldn't be allowed to just keep a bus these days.

  • pegaxs on 12/05/2022 - 10:37
    +4

    take turn with the right off way rules

    *mumbles* here we go again… *mumbles*

    Anyway, the road rules for how cars must behave around pedestrians is mostly covered in Division 5 Crossings and Shared Roads of the road rules.

    How pedestrians must behave around cars is covered in Part 14 Rules for Pedestrians
    Please note, that at no point in any of these rules does it state that anyone has "right of way", only who has the "obligation to give way"

    For extra fun, have a good read through road rule 236 from the links above. Basically tells you what pedestrians must do if there is no designated crossing for them at that point in the road.

    And your description in your example is vague. Are they crossing the corner?, are they crossing the main road? Is the car turning or going straight? What direction is the car moving?

    I think what you are talking about here is covered in road rule 72-(3b) and (5c) Giving way at an Intersection but I'll need an MS Paint diagram to confirm…

  • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 10:42
    +2

    Just give way to pedestrians. Easy, takes 30 seconds or so, no-one gets hurt.

    • orangetrain on 12/05/2022 - 11:20
      +3

      But I am being robbed of 30 seconds by this pedestrian!

    • Caped Baldy on 12/05/2022 - 12:03
      +2

      Nah, be predictable. I was going along Pittwater Road near Field of Mars once and someway decided to stop for a dogwalker. Was very unexpected and a few cars had to slam on the brakes. Fortunately no one crashed.

      • Caped Baldy on 12/05/2022 - 16:34

        someone*, I should have proofread but too busy ozb'ing at work.

  • Archi on 12/05/2022 - 10:43
    +4

    depends if you are asking the question from the pedestrians perspective or the driver on the roads perspective

    i know… as a pedestrian even though i have a right of way, i will still be cautious crossing any road. i'd like to stay alive whether i am right or wrong regardless what the rules say… common sense should prevail.

  • Oz8argain on 12/05/2022 - 10:47
    +2

    there is no such thing as right of way

  • skid on 12/05/2022 - 10:52
    +2

    The poll results restores my faith in humanity

  • SF3 on 12/05/2022 - 10:56
    +2

    When “rules” has more weight than “doing the right thing”, you know society is going downhill.

    • pegaxs on 12/05/2022 - 11:13
      +3

      *standing around at a funeral* "Well, at least he was in the right…"

  • Drakesy on 12/05/2022 - 11:25
    +3

    Pardon my ignorance but the only instances where a pedestrian has right of way are
    1. At a pedestrian crossing (zebra crossing).
    2. At a set of traffic lights.
    3. Any instances where the vehicle is turning across a pedestrian

    But other than that the pedestrian has to give way to traffic.

    There's nothing protecting a pedestrian from being a numpty and walking straight out into traffic, even at an intersection and nor should there be.
    If i was driving and someone wearing headphones walked out from nowhere in front of me resulting in a crash/injury/fatality i sure as hell would hope the law wouldn't come after me.

    If pedestrians were afforded the right of way then the number of insurance fraud claims would go through the roof.

    Downvote away, but i don't make the rules thats just how it is, cars have right of way while on the road.

    Source: Ex Transport engineer

    • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 11:34
      +2

      If i was driving and someone wearing headphones walked out from nowhere in front of me resulting in a crash/injury/fatality i sure as hell would hope the law wouldn't come after me.

      You could be fine legally, but that wouldn't help a dead person, or their family and friends.

      • Drakesy on 12/05/2022 - 11:36
        +1

        But then, ask yourself would it be right to punish someone who was going about their daily commute, following the road rules?

        Until our local/state/national governments have a mode shift to favour pedestrians (such as in the netherlands) pedestrians will still need to yield to cars.

        Unfortunately laws govern our roads, not necessarily morals and ethics.

        • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 11:52

          Didn't I say "You could be fine legally…"?
          Who is talking about punishments? What punishments?

          • Drakesy on 12/05/2022 - 11:58

            @GG57: This goes back to the story where the girl did the morally and ethically correct thing, stopping for ducks on the road, only to be slapped with jail time. Would be the same in this case if someone went into the back of you for stopping where you wouldn't necessarily be expected to stop

            • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 13:01
              +1

              @Drakesy: Wow.
              A story from Canada, from 2010, about someone who parked her car in the left lane of a highway…left her parked car…and a motorcyclist ran into the vehicle. Criminal negligence.

              Meanwhile, this forum is about pedestrians at intersections.
              Again, whilst your actions as a driver may be fine legally, if you had to choose between stopping to avoid killing a pedestrian, or stopping and having your car rear-ended, there really isn't a decision, is there?
              If you were rear-ended, that is the fault of the other driver.

            • whatwasherproblem on 12/05/2022 - 15:16

              @Drakesy: What a strange story that is. She "never reached out" to the family of the father and daughter who are literally dead because of her idiocy, but somehow had enough 'empathy' to stop for ducklings on the middle of a highway? I get so suspicious of animal lovers sometimes, to be honest.

              • Drakesy on 12/05/2022 - 15:25

                @whatwasherproblem: Not sure what the relevance if she did reach out would have to the story?
                It more displays the fact that the morally and ethically right thing isn't always the right thing in the eyes of the law which this thread is about. If you stopped in the middle of a street to let people cross the road then if a motorcyclist goes up your backside and kills themselves the law will go after you according to the precedent set there.

                • whatwasherproblem on 12/05/2022 - 15:39

                  @Drakesy: Well I mean they wouldn't mention it if she did, because the fact that she didn't is what's odd about it.

                  Agree that it doesn't have much relevance either way, I just thought it was a strange story is all. Then again Canada is a strange place, and "animal lover that moves mountains for critters but despises their fellow man" is practically a stereotype.

                • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 16:16

                  @Drakesy: Is that really a precedent for the circumstance you describe?
                  Running into the back of a vehicle is the fault of the following vehicle.

                  But, again, this forum is about pedestrians at intersections.

    • bobbified on 12/05/2022 - 12:16
      +1

      If pedestrians were afforded the right of way then the number of insurance fraud claims would go through the roof.

      In most cases, the CTP insurers (I can only speak for NSW) will pay out injury claims to pedestrians even if they were supposed to give way. On the odd occasion, insurers will only decline a claim or apply contributory negligence where there is absolutely no way a driver was able to foresee a potential accident - even in hindsight.

      For example, if there was no-one around and a pedestrian steps out from behind a tall vehicle parked on the side of the road and the driver had no time to react - then they might decline the claim. If, at the time, there were lots of other people around, then they will still admit liability because the courts often determine that the driver should have known to slow down because there were other pedestrians around, etc.

      Past court cases seem to favour the pedestrians and the insurers know that so they don't bother letting the case get that far because they know it'll just be a waste of everyone's time and they won't win. It doesn't sound very fair to the insurers, but that's how the court works and they can't do sh.t about it.

    • El cheepo on 12/05/2022 - 12:18

      It’s not that a pedestrian can wander on to the road and they are always right, but they shift the majority of the responsibility to the driver. You can argue its not their right of way, its just the car’s responsibility not to hit them now.

      But realistically its the same thing.
      Your just arguing phrasing.

  • AndyC1 on 12/05/2022 - 11:33
    +1

    NSW road rules changed a long time ago so that pedestrians have right of way if they are not crossing the through road on a T intersection.

  • bobbified on 12/05/2022 - 11:51
    +6

    Regardless of who the law says is right:

    As a pedestrian, I'm not going to blindly walk out in front of a multi-tonne chunk of metal coming at speed in my direction even if they should be giving way.
    As a driver, I'm not going to continue driving and run over a pedestrian if they don't give way when they should.

  • WreckTangle on 12/05/2022 - 12:53
    +1

    Pedestrian is king

    • GG57 on 12/05/2022 - 13:03
      +1

      or queen

      • Porker on 12/05/2022 - 14:52
        +1

        or other?

  • Austaurean on 12/05/2022 - 13:20
    +5

    my understanding was

    if a pedestrian is already crossing the road and a vehicle comes along, the vehicle must yield to pedestrian so they may safely finish crossing.

    The pedestrian should not begin crossing when its unsafe and in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

    Also drivers, please dont stop out of the blue if there is no crossing and a person is safe on the nature strip waiting to cross a road, its a great way to have a car or motorbike up your rear..

    • Smithg on 12/05/2022 - 13:27
      +3

      Cannot agree more. The stopping to let people come out of path to cross the road creates avoidable accidents. Usually with people waving at each other to still go.

  • Smithg on 12/05/2022 - 13:25
    +4

    Think I might be old school.

    If I am walking and not at a cross walk, I expect cars to have right of way. It even annoys me when I'm at an intersection and a car stops out of nowhere to let me cross. This is an accident waiting to happen. People waving at each other to go and cars behind likely to have an accident. I see no problem in waiting for an appropriate gap between cars before I cross. Naturally a cross walk is different, thus allowing primary flow for pedestrians.

    However if I am driving and a pedestrian comes out into the road at intersection, then absolutely I'll stop and let them continue to cross. I don't see why I'd stop to let them on the road to start with though.

  • Austaurean on 12/05/2022 - 13:35

    Ive heard a screech and unfortunately turned just in time to see a guy get hit as he was crossing against a do not walk light.

    Was not a good thing to see, and worse for those closer to the crossing.

  • dogboy on 12/05/2022 - 13:50

    This question is literally on the driving exam. Q: When does a pedestrian have right of way? A: Always.

    • pegaxs on 12/05/2022 - 17:50

      Literally everything you typed there is wrong. a: no one has "right of way" and b: there are plenty of times where pedestrians do not have "RiGhT oF WaY".

      Quite literally Road Rule 236 says;

      236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
      (1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.
      (2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

      • dogboy on 13/05/2022 - 09:29

        This question was on my driving test so I am talking from experience. Regardless of what the handbook says, they ask this exact question.
        I hope you don't have a license because you would fail the test miserably.

        • pegaxs on 13/05/2022 - 11:03

          This question was on my driving test

          No, it wasn't

          Regardless of what the handbook says, they ask this exact question.

          No, they don't.

          And here is why;

          a.) They would not use the term "right of way" for a start. It would be phrased as "Who would have to give way" and be an example with a picture.
          b.) And there is no "regardless of what …. said" and then they would make up a completely different answer to what was in the "handbook".
          c.) Under the current road rules legislation in Qld, pedestrians do not have any "right of way" and there are cases where pedestrians must "give way" to vehicles.

          I hope you don't have a license because you would fail the test miserably.

          At least I read my drivers knowledge test and didn't get the test off the back of a Weet-Bix box.

  • Porker on 12/05/2022 - 15:00

    Side topic, but I find it odd when pedestrians J-walk or cross when not meant to do so and stare at the on-coming driver.

    I suspect they're looking to see if the driver is aware that they're (pedestrian) is on the road, but I figure that looking at me doesn't make what they're doing any safer. Admittedly, I sometimes 'encourage' them to move along a bit quicker by not reducing speed if I can see that they'll be clear before I get to where they are - I certainly don't speed up.

    • Trekky on 13/05/2022 - 08:39

      When I'm crossing any road, I try to make eye contact, so I know they see me crossing. There have been MANY times that I am at the road first and crossing, then the cars comes, and not slowing down, as they aren't even looking where they are going. So may times, I see cars not even noticing pedestrians.

      • Porker on 13/05/2022 - 09:25

        I'm different in that I try to avoid putting myself into a situation where I need to rely on that indirect/direct communication, but this mainly applies to high/higher speed areas, not so much where traffic is just crawling.

        I tend to just speed up my crossing or commence a brisk jog to get out of the way in place of determining if the driver has seen me.

        Not saying one was is right or wrong - just different philosophies.

  • FourBeanMix on 13/05/2022 - 07:52

    Speed bumps on every road and we wouldn’t have to worry about this

  • 12Sydney34 on 13/05/2022 - 08:42
    +1

    Here is what I saw a few weeks ago right in Sydney CBD….
    A man (may be a homeless one?) was crouched in the middle of the intersection (Hunter and Pitt streets) looking into some hole in the bitumen…. No idea what is he looking for….

    He stayed there for a good 5-10 minutes and no car horned or bumped him off…..

  • larndis on 13/05/2022 - 11:31
    +2

    Do pedestrians have right of way? No

    Should vechicles give way to them anyway? Yes

  • the Unforgiven on 13/05/2022 - 18:07

    If it does not have a stop or give-way sign at the intersection and a pedestrian tries to cross in front of you, just think Death Race 2000

  • leiiv on 13/05/2022 - 19:39

    Ok, to all of you here who think that the term “right of way” has a very specific legal meaning, can you please give a citation where it is defined and quote the definition here? For most normal people here, "I have a right of way" is equal to "you have to give way to me".

    • pegaxs on 13/05/2022 - 22:40

      I’m glad you asked…

      “Right of way” refers to an easement given to property owners to cross over another land owners property to enter their own property. For example, if your land is located over the hill from a road and the only way to access your property from the road is to cross over your neighbour’s land, they must give you an easement on their land so that you may access your own property. This is called “Right of way”. (Google it. It’s not that hard to find)

      As you are using it in your post, “right of way”, it is summed up well in the SA Road Rules Readers Guide. (Link to guide from AustLII.)

      Obligation to give way

      There are a number of rules requiring a driver to give way to another driver or a pedestrian. However, under the Rules the other driver or pedestrian does not have a "right" of way. Indeed, in some situations, a number of drivers may be required to give way to each other, eg at an intersection with a stop sign or give way sign on more than 1 of the intersecting roads. Similarly, although a driver may be required to give way to a pedestrian, the pedestrian is required under rule 236(1) not to cause a traffic hazard by moving into the driver's path.

      The reason you do not have the “right of way” is because, even if you are legally allowed to go first, this does not give you the “right” to just crash into someone else or to just walk out in front of cars, even if they have to give way to you, there is still the obligation within the law, that you must also avoid, where possible, any accident or to not cause an obstruction.

      As for more links, feel free to rummage through your states road rules and see if you can find even one mention of “right of way”. You can then sit your states drivers knowledge practice tests and feel free to screenshot any time the test asks you “who has right of way”

      What you should have asked was, “In this situation, who has to give way?” as there is an obligation to give way, but there is no blanket “right” for any road user.

      • leiiv on 14/05/2022 - 09:19
        -1

        feel free to rummage through your states road rules and see if you can find even one mention of “right of way”

        Well of course you couldn't, otherwise you and other people wouldn't be triggered by this.
        And that makes it moot. If there is no such thing as "right of way" in traffic context, then everyone know that "right of way" means just the opposite of having to give way.

        So how would you say the opposite of "who has to give way"? Who has not to give away? Who goes first?

        • pegaxs on 14/05/2022 - 10:06

          Why does there have to be an opposite? The road rules state who has to "give way", so why not just use the legislation's own wording? It's quite clear on what needs to happen and who needs to do what.

          Car X is here and Car Y is there on Z intersection, who has to give way?

          And partially the reason there is no opposite is because everyone needs to give way, even those that are adhering to the laws by trying to avoid idiots who are not. The rules are written in such a way that there is an "obligation" on the other drivers to give way, and not for any one particular car/driver to have any "rights".

          "right of way" means just the opposite of having to give way.

          No, it doesn't. Rights means that something is written into law that gives you a "right" or ability/entitlement to do something that is protected by law. In the road rules, there are no "rights" given to any driver. You have no "rights", you only have obligations, and those are to drive within the legal framework of the road rules and to do it safely.

          otherwise you and other people wouldn't be triggered by this

          The only people that seem to get triggered by this is the "RiGhT oF wAy" crowd who get overly emotional and defensive when they are simply told that there is no "right of way" under road rule legislation (which, for the record, in case you didn't know already, there isn't). For me and some others, it's more of a laughable meme at this point…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join