Giving Way to buses

[somebody]

Current rules in QLD (I think in Australia now) are that a car driver must give way to a bus if he is pulling out of a kerb and has indicated for 5 seconds.  These rules are far too restrictive.  I would say that a car driver needs to give way to a bus if he has been indicating for 5 seconds under any circumstances.  I would go further and say when pulling away from a kerb/stop the time should be reduced to no more than 3 seconds.

While we are looking at the road rules, I'd suggest that current insane rules regarding giving way to pedestrians where turning vehicles must give way to pedestrians only if they are in the road they are turning into need to go.  These rules only make sense at traffic lights and so should be confined to there.  I would give cars right of way under those circumstances.  One of the problems with this rule is that it is unclear how close you have to be to the intersection for the car to be deemed "making a turn".

A final point is that tooting people after failing to give way to them is a disgrace and should be made an offence.

Except for the last point and the indicator durations, I believe it was this way in NSW previously.

[Golliwog]

I would agree with the first one.

Don't quite understand what you're trying to say on the second one. I understand that as it stand now car have to give way to pedestrians who are in the road they are turning into, but what are you saying you think it should be? That that only applies at traffic lights, or that it should apply everywhere but traffic lights? Also, could you explain your reasoning behind that? I like the way this one currently is.

[somebody]

The rule should be as simple as possible, that would mean on an unmarked road, cars have priority.  I'm pretty sure this is the way it was previously in NSW, before attempts were made to nationalise the road rules.  It was probably the same here, but my guess is the Victorians removed the logic from the system. <evil>

[Golliwog]

I've always taken it to mean when the pedestrian is crossing AT the intersection, or with the first few meters of it. Perhaps clarify that bit, but I'm in favour of keeping it for all intersections. Cars travel a lot faster than a pedestrian. They can check for turning cars when they start to cross but theres no guarantee that the car that wants to turn is even within sight distance by then, or that said car has started indicating by then.

[somebody]

Does anyone understand the current rule?

[Golliwog]

Does anyone understand the current rule?

There may be cause to clarify this one then, but I don't see one for changing what kind of intersections it applies to. It should be all of them.

[Jonno]

I believe under current rules a car must give way or stop for pedestrian where ever they are on the road. This is irrespective of whether the pedestrian is breaking any law or doing something very dangerous or stupid.  This is they way it should be!!

[ozbob]

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf  page 84

Division 4 Keeping clear of and giving way to
particular vehicles

76 Keeping clear of trams travelling in tram lanes etc.

(1) A driver must not move into the path of an approaching tram
travelling in a tram lane, or on tram tracks marked along the
left side of the tracks by a broken or continuous yellow line
parallel to the tracks.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Example 1
Driver turning right from a road into
a road-related area giving way to an
oncoming vehicle that is going
straight ahead and to a pedestrian on
the footpath

Example 2
Driver crossing a continuing road at a
T-intersection to enter a road-related area
giving way to a vehicle on the continuing
road

In each example, vehicle B must give way to vehicle A. In example 1, vehicle B must also
give way to the pedestrian on the footpath.

[s 77]

(2) If a driver is in the path of an approaching tram travelling in a
tram lane, or on tram tracks marked along the left side of the
tracks by a broken or continuous yellow line parallel to the
tracks, the driver must move out of the path of the tram as
soon as the driver can do so safely.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) In this section—
tram includes a bus travelling along tram tracks.

77 Giving way to buses

(1) A driver driving on a length of road in a built-up area where
the speed limit applying to the driver is not more than 70km/h,
in the left lane or left line of traffic, or in a bicycle lane on the
far left side of the road, must give way to a bus in front of the
driver if—
(a) the bus has stopped, or is moving slowly, at the far left
side of the road or in a bus-stop bay; and
(b) the bus displays a give way to buses sign and the right
direction indicator lights of the bus are operating; and
(c) the bus is about to enter or proceed in the lane or line of
traffic in which the driver is driving.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(2) In this section—
left lane, of a road, means—
(a) the marked lane nearest to the far left side of the road
(the first lane) or, if the first lane is a bicycle lane, the
marked lane next to the first lane; or
(b) if there is an obstruction in the first lane (for example, a
parked car or roadworks) and the first lane is not a
bicycle lane—the marked lane next to the first lane.
left line of traffic, for a road, means the line of traffic nearest
to the far left side of the road.

[somebody]

I believe under current rules a car must give way or stop for pedestrian where ever they are on the road. This is irrespective of whether the pedestrian is breaking any law or doing something very dangerous or stupid.  This is they way it should be!!

I'm sure this is incorrect.  However, authorities take a dim view of drivers who hit pedestrians and generally argue it is negligent driving or similar.

Ozbob, thanks to NSW, section 48 (2) of both acts specifies the 5 seconds.  The NSW act refers to that section but the QLD one doesn't.

Does anyone understand the current rule?

There may be cause to clarify this one then, but I don't see one for changing what kind of intersections it applies to. It should be all of them.

I disagree.  The current rules are confusing and counter intuitive.  Sometimes drivers have to give way to pedestrians on the road, but other times they don't.

[dwb]

I believe under current rules a car must give way or stop for pedestrian where ever they are on the road. This is irrespective of whether the pedestrian is breaking any law or doing something very dangerous or stupid.  This is they way it should be!!

This is correct in fact and IMHO also as it should be.

[somebody]

Care to cite a reference?

[dwb]

Care to cite a reference?

Countless discussions with traffic planners about road safety rules. Basically if a pedestrian ever gets hit, its the cars fault.

[somebody]

It would make large tracts of the road rules redundant, of course.

[Jonno]

Care to cite a reference?

Recent "Safe Driving" presentation at a work function.  Can't remember the gentleman's name or organisation

[somebody]

I submit that this is only anecdotal, and is against statute law.  Common law may go against statute law though, but the other possibility is that this talk is largely a bluff to stop drivers hitting pedestrians.