Road Rules Involving Cyclist Who Has to Give Way?

Ljuns on 18/02/2025 - 10:18

Good morning OzBargain, I seek the wisdom of community to make sure my understanding of road rules is correct.

Location is Perth, Roe St Westbound close to the train station.

I was riding my bicycle going downhill on the Roe St on the bike lane. I was fully aware that there's a truck (probably about that size) in front of me indicating turning left.

So the trajectory looks like this.

I was probably either at the truck's tail or just behind the truck. So I thought the truck would have to give way.

But I instinctively applied emergency brake as soon as I saw the truck's trajectory moved to left.

I shouted to the truck saying "watch your mirror man", to which he replied "yeah buddy, did you see my indicator? that's right!"

Now intuitively I thought the truck have to give way, but I also remember that when I drive my car on a two lane road and a car indicated to merge to my lane, I have to maintain my speed (to allow the merge to happen).

What do you guys think?

Poll Options

  • 57
    Cyclist (OP) have to give way
  • 266
    Truck has to give way
Automotive

Comments

  • sumyungguy on 18/02/2025 - 10:20
    -1

    Cyclists cannot pass on the left of a vehicle that is turning left… but if that's a private driveway the truck is supposed to give way. Either way, your objective as the cyclist is to stay alive regardless of other road users.

    • pegaxs on 18/02/2025 - 11:07
      +80

      Cyclists cannot pass on the left of a vehicle that is turning left

      That is a designated cycle lane. The cyclist isnt "passing on the left", the truck is entering the cyclist's lane (see the dirty big white line and green painted area the truck needs to cross?). What the truck is doing is essentially moving from the middle lane, across the bike lane to enter a road related area.

      • sumyungguy on 18/02/2025 - 11:35
        +42

        Yes, I stand corrected. Bikes in a designated lane do have right of way.

        • smpantsonfire on 20/02/2025 - 09:18
          +6

          Hang on a minute, this is ozbargain.

          You’re meant to stand by your comment and argue your point without giving in. Especially being the forest comment.

      • HeWhoKnows on 20/02/2025 - 18:59
        -8

        Still must give way to a truck turning left regardless if a bike lane or car lane

        • Euphemistic on 20/02/2025 - 19:14
          +1

          Patently false.

          • thanatos350 on 20/02/2025 - 20:55

            @Euphemistic: It might not be a road rule, but is probably still a good personal one.

            I drive a bunch for work and too many drivers barely notice the car in front of them, let alone a bike shooting down a blind spot in mirrors that they probably aren't even looking at. I am incredibly vigilant and attentive to my surroundings, but even I've been shocked by cyclists appearing next to me at the lights.

            I also cycle, but I avoid busy roads for this reason.

            • Euphemistic on 20/02/2025 - 23:01

              @thanatos350: Totally agree that self preservation when cying gazumps road rules at times. BUT, spell it out. Saying the cyclisf 'must give way' is wrong. Saying 'the truck is required to give way but is likely not to see a cyclist sp the cyclist should prepare for evasive acfion' is more accurate.

              If most cyclists gives way to trucks when they arent required it becomes a defacto norm that WILL end up with trucks not giving way.

    • jetblack on 18/02/2025 - 11:12
      +23

      Turning left meant crossing another lane. You can't just turn into a driveway from a middle lane across traffic.

    • Drakesy on 18/02/2025 - 11:54
      +12

      The cyclist is in a dedicated cycle lane, look where the white line markings are.
      The truck is turning across a solid white line across OP's direction of travel.
      The OP's lane doesn't haven any line markings/give way markings requiring them to give way

      OP has right of way and truckie was a dropkick - I wouldn't put this back on the cyclist, there's certain extents to which you are to preserve your life without other's going out of their way to put you in danger.

      As this is a principle shared path it is a major thoroughfare for riders, at certain intersections where drivers are given priority "Give way" markings are applied to the bike path. Where give way is not required (in this situation) the rider has full priority.

        • Euphemistic on 20/02/2025 - 19:15
          +4

          The truck should give way when turning across lanes.

        • Drakesy on 20/02/2025 - 19:31
          +3

          Username doesnt check out

          • rumblytangara on 20/02/2025 - 20:49
            +3

            @Drakesy: The account is an OzBargain meme now for someone who consistently gets it wrong.

    • brotherfranciz on 18/02/2025 - 13:23
      +45

      Bloody hell mate. A bicycle lane is legally a lane. The amount of upvotes for your incorrect statement just goes to show how many idiots are driving amongst us.

      • sumyungguy on 18/02/2025 - 13:54
        +10

        Maybe the odd upvote is for the bit about survival. Many road users are ignorant of road rules or just break them knowingly. As a long time commuter cyclist (having been t-boned on a green cycleway) my objective is to ride defensively regardless of whomever is in the right. Instinctively I would have slowed for that truck because I would have been in their large left-side death zone.

        • brotherfranciz on 18/02/2025 - 14:42
          +13

          See my comment below for a more eloquent response.

          I understand the safety-first mentality, but that's how we have ended up with such an anti-cyclist mentality in Australia - the gradual erosion of rights i.e. of cyclists giving way - even when the road rules clearly state they have the right of way - just because 'safety first', then gradually over time, car drivers have this mentality of "that cyclist was a nuisance and should have given way to me to save me 3 seconds because they would otherwise be putting their lives at risk against my multi-tonne metal box".

          I can tell you from experience riding in Europe and Japan that the mentality of Australian drivers is wack when it comes to sharing the road with cyclists. It's not even close to comparable - it's like European and Japanese drivers respect cyclists as equal road users vs Australian drivers wanting to punish cyclists (like literally physically hurt cyclists or scare them into submission).

          The truck driver failed on so many levels here - no head check of their blind spot, thinking that using their indicator gives them the right of way, lack of awareness when driving past the cyclist knowing they would likely cross paths at the junction… The mentality should be that it works both ways: sure the cyclist needs to be aware of their surroundings and ride safely, but so does the truck driver.

          • sumyungguy on 18/02/2025 - 15:00
            +1

            @brotherfranciz: I'm not disagreeing with you, but how then would you fix it?

            • Assburg on 19/02/2025 - 07:24
              +4

              @sumyungguy: Punish them properly..if I as a cyclist take in some helmet cam footage of a driver illegally putting my safety at risk they should get summoned to court.

          • affable on 19/02/2025 - 08:34
            +1

            @brotherfranciz: Totally agree with everything you've said "brother". I've also coincidently cycled for 3 months in Europe (Spain, France and Italy) and 2 months in Japan and 2 months in NZ. Aussie drivers are 2nd worst, just behind the worst drivers, which are Europeans holidaying in NZ.

          • ThithLord on 19/02/2025 - 09:36
            +1

            @brotherfranciz:

            car drivers have this mentality of "that cyclist was a nuisance and should have given way to me to save me 3 seconds because they would otherwise be putting their lives at risk against my multi-tonne metal box".

            This is my experience when I have right-of-way but get a headshake from a driver - they are sooo put out that they have to apply pressure to a brake pedal and then back onto the accelerator pedal. It's soooo much work for them!

          • fisherfriendman on 19/02/2025 - 10:43
            +3

            @brotherfranciz: There are things that ought to be (right of way), and things that be (pragmatic). I understand your view and have frequent arguments with my brother who drives with right of way in mind. While various road users have right of way based on rules, the way I see it is the road user has to be alive out of the encounter to prosecute a right of way communication with either the offending road user or with traffic police. The road user that comes out of the encounter alive has already established their "right of way" in their POV, regardless of the subsequent consequences.

            A few things here on your comment:
            1. Head check for truck driver is impossible to see a bicycle at the tail end of a truck and still stop on time to prevent an accident. It is a blind spot depending on where the truck driver sits. They cannot be looking at their mirror all the time while turning left, especially when negotiating a pedestrian crossing as well.
            2. In the cities I see in Europe, cyclist have their own infrastructure, and not sharing the roads with vehicles at close proximity within the city area. Further, city speeds in Europe are really slow for those with advanced cycling cultures, or that there is enough road space in bigger cities to give one full lane to bicycles. Australian city centres are built like London with small roads, and many of the roads are built with pass-through traffic for cars, instead of having circular city by-passes that allows vehicles to avoid city centres.
            3. In Japan, high-powered cars and trucks are few and far between, so cyclists are not in danger of being run down by a fast-moving vehicle in the city centre. Further, there are many smaller laneways that cyclists can use instead of the bigger main arterial roads. That's my observation from Shinjuku in Tokyo. It helps that the bigger cities have elevated road by-passes for pass-through traffic that will travel at high speeds.

            Like you, I'm all for right of way if every road user knows what to do. I know that unless there are traffic police everywhere to look out for errant road users, including cyclists that regularly contravenes road rules, then the right of way rules cannot be fully respected and enforced. Survivability should take precedence.

            • Euphemistic on 19/02/2025 - 13:02
              +2

              @fisherfriendman: Except the biggest thing is that right of way is generally not a concept in traffic law (aplears its only a couple of references in WA).

              Dont talk about 'right of way'. Change your thinking to responsibility to give way and it subtly changes your mindset when on the roads to prepare for avoiding a crash and not thinking that you are 'right' and dont have to avoid.

              • fisherfriendman on 20/02/2025 - 14:08
                +1

                @Euphemistic: And I think your thinking paradigm is very correct with reference to traffic rules. There's plenty of entitled road users making life on the roads a quest for survival, and thinking of it as a shared space is a paradigm shift, especially in the age where rego-paying users and on-rego-paying users do use the roads jointly.

        • rumblytangara on 20/02/2025 - 09:53

          Maybe the odd upvote is for the bit about survival.

          Yeah, despite it being clear in the very first sentence that this is a 'correct interpretation of road rules vs real life safety question' the number of people managing to fail to make this distinction is a little perturbing. I think some of those votes are from people who are just confused vs flat out wrong or the occasional anti-cyclist.

      • eddyah on 19/02/2025 - 14:40
        +1

        43 votes at the time of writing.

        Really awful group of people we live among with no regard for other people.

        • Yummy on 19/02/2025 - 16:51

          Safety first.

          • bose666 on 19/02/2025 - 19:33
            +1

            @Yummy: Yep, the truck driver should exercise safety first for all vulnerable road users.

          • eddyah on 19/02/2025 - 20:06

            @Yummy: imagine being hit by a piano and a bystander yell 'safety first' at you

      • HeWhoKnows on 20/02/2025 - 19:04
        -4

        No its shows you are WRONG! by a long shot!

      • ThithLord on 19/02/2025 - 09:37
        +7

        Not if that vehicle is indicating left to enter another lane. They don't just get right-of-way by default

        • spaceflight on 20/02/2025 - 09:12

          There no such thing in road rules providing 'right of way', only the requirement to give way.

          • ThithLord on 20/02/2025 - 09:41

            @spaceflight: Yes, sure, you're absolutely right about the turn of phrase I used being incomplete.

  • GoldenDragon888 on 18/02/2025 - 10:21
    +23

    Admittedly a cyclist also, but I would think the turning vehicle needs to give way. However I never assume they will and I take a defensive position.

    Edit: Thankfully in NSW if you are on a bicycle lane the truck can't do that.

    • whitepuma on 20/02/2025 - 10:26
      +1

      agreed that they can't do that….but they still do unfortunately :-( nearly got hit myself by this very similar incident

        • StalkingIbis on 19/02/2025 - 07:55
          +1

          what do you mean by "paying motorists"?

          • Murkymerv on 19/02/2025 - 10:36
            -8

            @StalkingIbis: Car registration of course , apply that to all motor vehicles and electric . Cyclists don't pay to use the road do they ⁉️

            • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 10:56
              +9

              @Murkymerv:

              Car registration of course , apply that to all motor vehicles and electric . Cyclists don't pay to use the road do they

              This is a tired trope that's been trotted out for decades yet people still believe it.

              Car registration comes nowhere near the cost of maintaining road infrastructure, let alone for paying for new roads. Taxpayers are covering roads, not just the subset of "people who pay car rego."

              • OhmyRyzen on 19/02/2025 - 13:00
                +3

                @rumblytangara: To add on to that. Bicycles also apply a very small amount of wear and tear to the road surface compared to a car or larger vehicle.

                • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 14:04
                  +6

                  @Murkymerv:

                  So what makes you think that cyclists deserve special treatment?

                  Where did this come from- did I say that cyclists deserve special treatment? Or are you exposing some kind of personal bias here?

                  and taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill of roads in my opinion .

                  Then we wouldn't have any roads. Where would the funding come from- the magical roadside money trees? Quick google result from a 2017 government report for AU- average cost for 1km of a single lane of road is $5.1M. Roads are very, very expensive to build and maintain. Pissy little vehicle rego costs go nowhere near covering this, but I guess they buy certain types of people a soapbox on which they can expound their prejudices.

                  I'm really not sure what point you're tying to make, because you're not making much sense overall.

                  • Murkymerv on 19/02/2025 - 16:01
                    -6

                    @rumblytangara: The government makes plenty of money which gets wasted on all sorts of ideological schemes , they don't need money trees after all. And as for the costing ,2017 government report for AU- average cost for 1km of a single lane of road is $5.1M.
                    If you believe that , I've got a vaccine I'd like to sell you .
                    As to my overall point , wasn't this post in regards to a cyclist thinking that he had the right of way behind a truck , I'm pretty sure that's what I read .

                    • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 16:22
                      +6

                      @Murkymerv: Wow, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Thanks for showing your colours so easily, I can now put you into your little (what's the word for it in oz- cooker?) pigeonhole :)

                      • Murkymerv on 19/02/2025 - 17:27
                        -5

                        @rumblytangara: Once again , you missed !

                        • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 20:17
                          +3

                          @Murkymerv: The court of public opinion seems to think you missed, but I am sure you're the type to proudly see yourself as a daring contrarian freethinker, where everyone else just sees a buffoon.

                          Also hate to break it to you, but is there something wrong with your keyboard? Why do you keep messing up your punctuation? You know that just adds to the overall image of incompetence, right?

                          • Murkymerv on 19/02/2025 - 21:30
                            -4

                            @rumblytangara: Nothing comes easy , especially when talking to mob mentality. You can read ? So I wouldn't worry about my punctuation , Oz cooker !

                            • whitepuma on 20/02/2025 - 10:32
                              +2

                              @Murkymerv: Ah, the old 'cyclists don’t pay rego' argument. It's been dusted off more times than my granddad's vinyl collection. Quick fun fact: road funding mainly comes from general taxes, not vehicle registration fees. So, technically, even pedestrians are 'paying motorists' by your logic.

                              Also, special treatment? I must’ve missed the memo on the VIP bike lanes with red carpets and complimentary lattes. All I see are narrow shoulders and the occasional pothole. But hey, maybe my handlebars aren’t high enough to see the privilege you're talking about.

                              Anyway, keep fighting the good fight against imaginary cyclist superiority. We’ll just be over here, pedalling our way to the moral high ground – registration-free.

    • juns on 18/02/2025 - 10:27
      +2

      Wow thanks, that shows how little I know about road rules.

      This is definitely a lesson for me and lucky nothing happened this morning.

    • juns on 18/02/2025 - 10:30
      -1

      Though I have to question the existence of that cycling path though. If it's peak time, does that means the cycling path cannot be used since you're almost always going to be 2m behind a vehicle?

      • Duckie2hh on 18/02/2025 - 10:33
        +1

        I think that means directly behind. So if you are on a cycling path, you are off to the side and therefore not behind a vehicle.

        • juns on 18/02/2025 - 10:34
          +3

          In which case, the road rules I broke this morning is probably just the "Cyclists cannot pass on the left of a vehicle that is turning left."

          • Duckie2hh on 18/02/2025 - 10:36
            -5

            @juns: Yup

          • danwylie on 18/02/2025 - 11:22
            +1

            @juns: It depends how far back you were. What it means to not overtake a vehicle turning left is if you're coming up behind a vehicle that's indicating left, you can't overtake. If you're right at the back, or already on the left of the truck then no. The truck indicator is not a magic, "I go where I want button," when you change lanes or turn you have to give way to vehicles in the lane. In Victoria where I am it's covered by the Road Safety Road Rules 2017, specifically Section 148 which defines giving way to vehicles in another lane, and Section 153 which defines bicycle lanes. I'd be shocked if it were much different in WA.

            • jokingsplits on 18/02/2025 - 18:04

              @danwylie: I'm pretty sure you only give way to vehicles which are ahead of you, not behind.
              When merging you have right of way when ahead, why would that chnage when you are turning?
              Obviously you shouldn't just run someone off the road, but in circumstances when the person ahead of you indicates it is your responsibility to maintain a safe distance and slow if necessary to allow them in.
              Happy to be pointed to where that is wrong in the rules.

              • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 11:17
                +1

                @jokingsplits: Sure, couple of things. This wasn't a merge for a start, it was a lane change. When you merge from one marked lane to another, it's the same rule as changing lanes, you must give way to vehicles already in the lane. When you merging without marked lanes you must give way to the vehicle ahead of you, which I think is the thing you're referring to. https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-rules-and-safety/merging-l…

                I'm in Vic so I'll be referring to rules here.

                When you change lanes to exit the road like the truck was doing in OP's post (which is allowed under road rule 158 (section 1, part a), the truck must give way to vehicles in that lane,
                148 Giving way when moving from one marked lane or
                line of traffic to another marked lane or line of
                traffic
                (1) A driver who is moving from one marked lane
                (whether or not the lane is ending) to another
                marked lane must give way to any vehicle
                travelling in the same direction as the driver in
                the marked lane to which the driver is moving.
                Penalty: 5 penalty units.

                To complicate matters, road rule 141 section 2 says,
                The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or
                overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left
                and is giving a left change of direction signal.
                Penalty: 3 penalty units.

                Which is why I said originally I think it depends how far back the rider was, if the truckie was indicating well in advance and the bike was well back, then the bike should give way. If the bike was right next to the truck, and that's when the truck indicated then the truck driver broke the rules by not giving way. That's how I'd interpret it anyway. I don't think one rule immediately overrules another and bicycle not giving way just cause someone flipped on a blinker isn't license to run someone off the road.

                One last thing is there's no such thing as "right of way" in Australian road rules, only (in this case, competing) duties to give way.

                You can find the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 for Victoria here,
                https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2…

                • jokingsplits on 19/02/2025 - 14:55
                  +1

                  @danwylie: Thanks for that summary.
                  I would agree with your last paragraph, depends a lot on how far back the bike was, and for how long the indicator was on from the truck.
                  I still find it hard to connect the idea of 'crossing a lane' to turn, as in my mind you should always move to the left most lane, and cannot just turn from the right lane. But that is just the spacial nature of bike lanes I guess.

                  I think a reframing of 'right of way' to 'duty to give way' (understanding that they're not in the rule) is a useful way of thinking about it and would make us all safer.

                  Having someone 'fail in their duty', is far more pitiable and less cause for anger than someone 'disrespecting my right' - or that may be just my romanticising language again.
                  Cheers

            • Assburg on 19/02/2025 - 07:26

              @danwylie: It wouldn't be substantively different on the basis that the Australian Road Rules are fairly uniform and included with only minor modifications as a schedule or similar in each state's respective traffic act.

          • banana365 on 18/02/2025 - 18:38

            @juns: You're in a separate lane. You had right of way to proceed. Truck driver was in the wrong. However…. you saw the truck indicating, you knew he was intending to turn. They're a lot bigger than you and there's a very good chance they've not seen you and a smaller chance that they don't care. Ramp up your self preservation, particularly in those cycle lanes that councils think a different coloured paint magically makes safe.

            • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 11:24
              +1

              @banana365: Under the Vic road rules 141 section 2 says that bikes have to give way to vehicles indicating and turning left, which is why I said I think it depends how far back the bike was and when the truck indicated. There's kind of competing duties to give way that depend on the circumstances. Now that said, I agree, self preservation rules trump all the others, I was a bike courier in Melbourne for nearly 20 years, which is why I've read all these road rules for arguing with idiot drivers lol, but I wouldn't be here if I hadn't let people break the laws so I could live

              • banana365 on 19/02/2025 - 14:10

                @danwylie: If they are in the same lane, if they are in a separate lane the normal requirement to ensure that the lane you are crossing is clear of any other road users applies.

                • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 14:40
                  +1

                  @banana365: I don't think that's the whole story

                  road rule 141 section 2 says,
                  The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or
                  overtake, to the left of a vehicle that is turning left
                  and is giving a left change of direction signal.

                  The "overtake" can mean in the adjacent lane, as defined in the dictionary at the end of the document.

                  overtake, for a driver, means the action of—
                  (a) approaching from behind another driver travelling in
                  the same marked lane or line of traffic; and
                  (b) moving into an adjacent marked lane or part of the
                  road on which there is room for a line of traffic
                  (whether or not the lane or part of the road is for
                  drivers travelling in the same direction); and
                  (c) passing the other driver while travelling in the
                  adjacent marked lane or line of traffic

                  • Browsers on 19/02/2025 - 14:55
                    +1

                    @danwylie: Nonsense. Please hand in your license before you harm someone. By your logic any dimwit on a two lane road could use the righthand lane to overtake a group of cyclists in the left lane then immediately swing a hard left turn across the cyclists. It happens, and its illegal.

                    • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 15:00

                      @Browsers: If the driver did that they'd be breaking Road Safety Road Rules 2017 rule 148 section 1
                      148 Giving way when moving from one marked lane or
                      line of traffic to another marked lane or line of
                      traffic
                      (1) A driver who is moving from one marked lane
                      (whether or not the lane is ending) to another
                      marked lane must give way to any vehicle
                      travelling in the same direction as the driver in
                      the marked lane to which the driver is moving.
                      Penalty: 5 penalty units.

                      And 28 Starting a left turn from a multi-lane road
                      (1) A driver turning left at an intersection from a
                      multi-lane road must approach and enter the
                      intersection from within the left lane unless—
                      (a) the driver is required or permitted to
                      approach and enter the intersection from
                      within another marked lane under rule 88(1),
                      92 or 159; or
                      (b) the driver is turning, at B lights or traffic
                      arrows, in accordance with Division 2 of
                      Part 17; or
                      (c) subrule (1A) or (2) applies to the driver.
                      Penalty: 3 penalty units.

                      Probably others

                    • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 17:38

                      @Browsers: I'm not making stuff up here. This is straight cut and paste from the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 in Victoria. Take it up with the Victorian Government

              • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 15:35

                @danwylie:

                I was a bike courier in Melbourne for nearly 20 years

                You're a braver soul than me.

                • danwylie on 19/02/2025 - 16:27
                  +1

                  @rumblytangara: Definitely had it's scary moments but mostly it was really fun. It's a job I only thought I'd do for a few months until something better came along and next thing you know it's 2023

    • jetblack on 18/02/2025 - 11:23
      +15

      On that very same page:

      Drivers must give way to cyclists at driveways, but cyclists should slow down to ensure they have been seen.

      So we have 2 potential situations:

      • Driver entering a driveway, in which case they must give way to the bicycle
      • Driver turning left across an adjacent lane. I'm not going to look up the rules, but surely you can't just swing a left into a driveway across traffic, no matter what type of vehicle it is.

      In both cases, it would seem the driver did the wrong thing. The cyclist, however, needs to assume the driver dgaf.

    • Drakesy on 18/02/2025 - 11:58
      +6

      I'd say given the cyclist is on a dedicated cycle lane they have right of way, it's not sharing the same road as the truck therefore not technically "passing", it'd be treated the same as if a cyclist was on a footpath moving along with traffic - in which case the cyclist would have right of way.

    • lunchbox99 on 18/02/2025 - 12:33
      +4

      That is when you are in the same lane as the vehicle. This example the bike was in a dedicated bike lane and the vehicle must give way.
      Obviously I wouldn't advocate any cyclist tangling with a truck to enforce road rules. Self preservation trumps all other concerns imho.

    • Deridas on 18/02/2025 - 19:31
      +1

      The cyclist was in a dedicated bicycle lane, it's normally treated as like another lane on a road, like a bus lane. You can pass a car on the left when you're on another lane surely.
      Or that's my understanding anyway.

    • MS Paint on 18/02/2025 - 10:33
      +3

      @pegaxs - keep it together man!

      • pegaxs on 18/02/2025 - 10:40
        +3

        And just when I had run out of negs from the past 2 days worth of Trump and Elon simp posts… I'll put it on the list…

        Unfortunately, in WA legislation there are references to "right of way"

        1. Right of way during turns at intersection with
          traffic-control signals

        2. Right of way in roundabout

        Still nothing to do with driving your truck across bicycle lanes though.

  • Jaduqimon on 18/02/2025 - 10:34
    +3

    good rule to follow if you want to stay alive > the bigger vehicle always have the right of way…

    • banana365 on 18/02/2025 - 18:42
      +15

      They typically pay more, proportionally, than non-cyclists. It's rare that a cyclist is not also a driver and owns a car. They're paying rego, insurance, GST on maintenance costs etc. but leaving their car at home and cycling. The more they cycle the less they drive and the more their fixed costs per car mile are. They're paying more than you, not less.

      • ThithLord on 19/02/2025 - 09:40
        +1

        I love this mentality. I am a cyclist, as you described. Gonna use that line next time!

      • moortoozzy on 19/02/2025 - 11:34

        with this logic can I pay rego just once if I own 3 cars but leaving 2 of them home?

        • banana365 on 19/02/2025 - 14:08

          Not sure how you got to that conclusion. The cyclist continues to pay rego for any vehicles they own. There's no suggestion that they stop doing so.

          • tikei on 19/02/2025 - 14:25
            -1

            @banana365: He has a point. If someone has two cars need to pay 2 rego despite only driving one car at a time, then a cyclist should also have car rego (if they have a car) plus a bike rego.

            • banana365 on 20/02/2025 - 12:29
              +3

              @tikei: Bike rego? Sure, cyclists should pay for their share of road usage. How about they pay for the damage they cause. After all, rego cost is related to weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles=higher rego cost). The amount of damage to roads is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight, e.g. a truck with an axle weight of 10 tonnes does 10^4 times as much damage as a car with a 1 tonne axle weight i.e. 10,000 times as much road damage.

              A cyclist, if they were a truly fat git riding a bike made of girders, could have an axle weight of 100kg (0.1 tonnes), so they'd do 1/10,000th the road damage of our example car. Let's say rego is $1,000 (it's not, as the insurance part takes up a significant proportion of that, at least in WA). That would mean that cyclist would pay around $0.10. Just the costs of just transferring that 10 cents would be greater than the rego and that's ignoring the admin costs of implementing it.

              Yeah, there are other aspects that you can throw in, but why bother? This has been looked at regularly by policy wonks, actuaries, transport specialists, health experts etc. over many decades and all have gone "what a silly idea".

              • rumblytangara on 20/02/2025 - 13:56
                +1

                @banana365: This is the funniest breakdown of road wear that I've ever read- thanks for that.

                I've seen similar arguments about right of way when it comes to country trails overseas, when equestrians complain about 15kg mountain bikes 'destroying' the trails and somehow not noticing that they are sitting on 600kg horses.

              • jrowls on 20/02/2025 - 16:50

                @banana365:

                a truly fat git riding a bike made of girders

                my god, it's beautiful

              • tikei on 20/02/2025 - 23:38

                @banana365: I agree that bike rego should cost different to a car rego. I never said they should be the same? My concern is cyclists who break road rules need to be accountable for their actions. Being identifiable helps keep them in check.

                Nevertheless, your argument on how cyclists pay car rego is irrelevant and flawed.

                • banana365 on 21/02/2025 - 02:53

                  @tikei: Sure, show us the KSI stats for incidents caused by cyclists and compare them to drivers. You can kill someone with a car and get away with a brief driving ban. What do you believe is going to be proportionate sentencing for the types of outcomes from cyclist caused incidents?

      • jrowls on 20/02/2025 - 16:49

        some of us own multiple vehicles that we pay rego on and drive way less than other people. we're definitely doing way more than our fair share!

        as a personal example, i have an SUV and a motorcycle that i pay rego on. i probably only drive or ride (motorbike) once or twice a week on average, with the majority of those trips being pretty short. the rest of my trips are on foot, pedal, or rail.

        compared to for example someone who drives 100km+ round trip to work every day, and has the vast, vast majority of the infrastructure funding spent on stuff that is for their benefit only… how exactly are we not doing our fair share?

    • BobLim on 18/02/2025 - 21:11
      +2

      Roads are maintained using general revenue, not registration or fuel excise etc.

      Vehicles / drivers creating a disproportionately large share of damage in relation to their contributions are the very heavy loads, e.g. trucks with very rudimentar suspension, or electric buses making turns. A road used exclusively by cyclists (and probably even motorbikes and kei cars) would likely never wear out from the traffic.

    • Assburg on 19/02/2025 - 07:28
      +1

      Please use the pedestrian equivalent of this next time you run a school kid over at a crossing. Ideally, read it out from a prepared document at your sentencing hearing.

    • rumblytangara on 19/02/2025 - 15:39
      +1

      Just linking this comment to the other arithmetically challenged dimwit who thinks that car registrations pay for building roads and ongoing maintenance.

      Going to drive 2km to the nearest shopping centre along that nice 4 lane road? And you reckon your $500 a year rego covers much of the $40M construction cost? The entire taxpayer base is covering that including people who own zero vehicles, not car registrations.

  • pegaxs on 18/02/2025 - 10:41
    +17

    Truck needs to give way… But! Would you rather be alive and wrong or dead, but right?

    • juns on 18/02/2025 - 10:43
      +4

      Thanks, I acknowledge that the wisest move is to stay alive. Something I read on readdit that stuck with me "When it comes to idiots on the road, the best thing you can do is put a distance between you and them". My question is predominantly to find out whether I am actually in the wrong.

      • pegaxs on 18/02/2025 - 10:46
        +2

        The problem is, the WA road rules are a mess. They are the only state that doesnt follow the Australian Road Rules framework like every other state does, so it literally could be anything from no rule exists to whatever it is.

        • Protractor on 18/02/2025 - 10:53
          +3

          The sort of truckies that traverse metro areas are always cowboys.Always

        • djones145 on 18/02/2025 - 11:20
          +1

          the question is therefore is it a mining truck that makes millions for wa government, if so you are wrong and trucker is right

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join