New road safety rules for drivers Whilst all of the new road rules affect drivers, these rules are additional new road safety rules particularly for drivers. They include the following:
At an intersection, a driver must stop at the first stop line and must not enter the area for cyclists when the traffic light is red. If a driver is blocking a driveway, the driver is only allowed two minutes to pick up or drop off passengers and must not leave the vehicle unattended. A driver must not have another person or animal on their lap. If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must give way.
> New road safety rules for drivers > Whilst all of the new road rules affect drivers, these rules are > additional new road safety rules particularly for drivers. They include > the following:
> At an intersection, a driver must stop at the first stop line and must > not enter the area for cyclists when the traffic light is red. > If a driver is blocking a driveway, the driver is only allowed two > minutes to pick up or drop off passengers and must not leave the vehicle > unattended. > A driver must not have another person or animal on their lap. > If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > give way.
> -------------
> So lane splitting is ok then?
> :-P
Talking to various members of VicRoads and the Police Department they say that you may lane split at the traffic lights to gain a front position but do not encourage lane splitting whilst in moving traffic, as you would be moving from lane to lane without signalling, but it may be okay to overtake another vehicle in the same lane while passing to the right of that vehicle and to the left of another vehicle. But, I guess that it would still come down to the cop who pulls you over for lane splitting and his or her interpretation of the rule If a cop claims you are lane splitting and it was dangerous at the time, you will have a hell of a hard time trying to convince the court otherwise, remembering that a coppers word is as good as whatever he or she says, regardless of whether it is right or not
Peter wrote... > If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > give way.
>> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must >> give way.
>> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must >> give way.
> What does this "diverging" thing mean?
If you don't know what it is I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
> >> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > >> give way.
> > What does this "diverging" thing mean?
> If you don't know what it is > I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
>> >> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, >> >> are >> >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to >> >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must >> >> give way.
>> > What does this "diverging" thing mean?
>> If you don't know what it is >> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
That is what I meant, If he didn't know what diverging trasffic was, then he should be riding a tram, which doesn't diverge and leave the road to ones who do know
>> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must >> give way.
> What does this "diverging" thing mean?
Its a good question and ever since i saw that new rule it has puzzled me. If two vehicles are in the same lane, travelling in the same direction, and one of them wants to change direction, it has to give way to the other one. I didn't know we needed a new rule for that. I always assumed it was already the law. Bugger.. all these years I've been squandering opportunities to diverge into adjacent vehicles in the same lane with apparent impunity..
> >> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > >> give way.
> > What does this "diverging" thing mean?
> Its a good question and ever since i saw that new rule it has puzzled > me. If two vehicles are in the same lane, travelling in the same > direction, and one of them wants to change direction, it has to give way > to the other one. I didn't know we needed a new rule for that. I > always assumed it was already the law. Bugger.. all these years I've > been squandering opportunities to diverge into adjacent vehicles in the > same lane with apparent impunity..
> Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8
Hmmm.... Camry and bus drivers might get a shock now you reckon?
> >> >> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, > >> >> are > >> >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > >> >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > >> >> give way.
> >> > What does this "diverging" thing mean?
> >> If you don't know what it is > >> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
> > Trams don't diverge, they just stay on track :)
> That is what I meant, > If he didn't know what diverging trasffic was, > then he should be riding a tram, which doesn't diverge > and leave the road to ones who do know
>> >> >> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two >> >> >> motorcycles, >> >> >> are >> >> >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges >> >> >> to >> >> >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle >> >> >> must >> >> >> give way.
>> >> > What does this "diverging" thing mean?
>> >> If you don't know what it is >> >> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
>> > Trams don't diverge, they just stay on track :)
>> That is what I meant, >> If he didn't know what diverging trasffic was, >> then he should be riding a tram, which doesn't diverge >> and leave the road to ones who do know
> > If you don't know what it is > > I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
> No trams where I am.
> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are always ragging > you.
Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway unless you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in the same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
>> > If you don't know what it is >> > I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams
>> No trams where I am.
>> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are always > ragging >> you.
> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the > marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid > scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway unless > you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something > leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in the > same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct > preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with the diverging rule
What they mean is that when you are going from one lane to another, whether it be on your right or your left such as diverging from one lane to the other, then the leading vehicle takes precedence On the other hand, such as in most roads where two lanes diverge into one and whether it be with the dotted lines continual till the end of the lane or when the dotted lines stop 20 metres or so from the end of the said lane In the lane with the dotted lines which continue to the end of that lane, then the car in that lane, is technically facing a give way sign at the end of that said lane and therefore must give way to all traffic on the other lane. In the case where the dotted lines cease around 20 metres from the end of either lane, then it is taken that the vehicle ahead, takes precedence unless you are driving a tank, a bus, or a fucking huge truck Is that right Doug ?? But, with a bus diverging from one lane to another, then you have to give way, because a bus drivers word is as good as a coppers and we all know that a bus has precedence over all other traffic.
George W. Frost wrote: > "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in > message news:hdcvpk$975$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Marts wrote: >>> George W. Frost wrote...
>>>>> What does this "diverging" thing mean? >>>> If you don't know what it is >>>> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams >>> No trams where I am.
>>> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are always >> ragging >>> you.
>> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the >> marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid >> scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway unless >> you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something >> leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in the >> same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct >> preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
> Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with the > diverging rule
who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must give way.
> What they mean is that when you are going from one lane to another,
It says nothing about oing from one lane to another, it explicitly says [twice] that the rule applies when the vehicles are travelling in the same lane.
But being wrong has never stopped you before.. so off you go and explain how they got it wrong...
> whether it be on your right or your left > such as diverging from one lane to the other, then the leading vehicle takes > precedence
This law you describe is an old law, that is, I believe that "the car with it's nose in front" rule has been law in Victoria for a couple of years already.
On 2009-11-11, hippo (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the > marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid > scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway unless > you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something > leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in the > same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct > preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
I'd say it's so that they can fine unconfident bicycle riders who weave in and out of parked cars, because the alternative of requiring drivers to leave space even in lanes that don't really exist and can't legally be driven in (bicycle lanes with cars parked over them), is just too onerous for their puny little brains to cope with.
-- TimC I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was a Linux geek from the way I *walked*. -- Skud
> George W. Frost wrote: > > "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in > > message news:hdcvpk$975$1@news.eternal-september.org... > >> Marts wrote: > >>> George W. Frost wrote...
> >>>>> What does this "diverging" thing mean? > >>>> If you don't know what it is > >>>> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams > >>> No trams where I am.
> >>> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are always > >> ragging > >>> you.
> >> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the > >> marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid > >> scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway unless > >> you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something > >> leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in the > >> same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct > >> preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
> > Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with the > > diverging rule
> who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > give way.
> > What they mean is that when you are going from one lane to another,
> It says nothing about oing from one lane to another, it explicitly says > [twice] that the rule applies when the vehicles are travelling in the > same lane.
> But being wrong has never stopped you before.. so off you go and explain > how they got it wrong...
> > whether it be on your right or your left > > such as diverging from one lane to the other, then the leading vehicle takes > > precedence
> This law you describe is an old law, that is, I believe that "the car > with it's nose in front" rule has been law in Victoria for a couple of > years already.
> Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8
That was my point - and part of the pedantry comment. 'Diverges to the left or right within the marked lane' is a very precise, restricted scenario, that would seem to be unachievable in the majority of traffic lanes with the majority of potential vehicle pairings. I wonder if it is acutally what they meant?
> George W. Frost wrote: >> "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:hdcvpk$975$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Marts wrote: >>>> George W. Frost wrote...
>>>>>> What does this "diverging" thing mean? >>>>> If you don't know what it is >>>>> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams >>>> No trams where I am.
>>>> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are >>>> always >>> ragging >>>> you.
>>> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the >>> marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid >>> scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway >>> unless >>> you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something >>> leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in >>> the >>> same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct >>> preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
>> Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with >> the diverging rule
> who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to the > left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must give way.
>> What they mean is that when you are going from one lane to another,
> It says nothing about oing from one lane to another, it explicitly says > [twice] that the rule applies when the vehicles are travelling in the same > lane.
> But being wrong has never stopped you before.. so off you go and explain > how they got it wrong...
>> whether it be on your right or your left >> such as diverging from one lane to the other, then the leading vehicle >> takes precedence
> This law you describe is an old law, that is, I believe that "the car with > it's nose in front" rule has been law in Victoria for a couple of years > already.
> Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8
So Nev, if this is an "old law" as you say, then why do so many vehicle drivers insist on they are in the right to barge into traffic while diverging and why do they not get fined for doing so??
I think, that you may find that the rule has been in for a little bit longer than a couple of years
The trouble with the majority of drivers, including you Nev, is that you do not fully understand the road rules and you interpret them as you see fit.
How many times Nev, have you been booked for breaking the road rules because you thought you were in the right?
> "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote in message > > But being wrong has never stopped you before.. so off you go and explain > > how they got it wrong... > > This law you describe is an old law, that is, I believe that "the car with > > it's nose in front" rule has been law in Victoria for a couple of years > > already. > So Nev, if this is an "old law" as you say, then why do so many vehicle > drivers insist on they are in the right to barge into traffic while > diverging and why do they not get fined for doing so??
> I think, that you may find that the rule has been in for a little bit longer > than a couple of years
> The trouble with the majority of drivers, including you Nev, is that you do > not fully understand the road rules and you interpret them as you see fit.
> How many times Nev, have you been booked for breaking the road rules because > you thought you were in the right?-
Hehehe. Well done Nev.
George, the 'vehicle in the lead when merging has right of way' is many, many years old in WA. Basically the F1 chicane rule.
Nev.. wrote: > George W. Frost wrote: >> "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote >> in message news:hdcvpk$975$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> Marts wrote: >>>> George W. Frost wrote...
>>>>>> What does this "diverging" thing mean? >>>>> If you don't know what it is >>>>> I think it is time you handed in your licence and rode the trams >>>> No trams where I am.
>>>> Pity that you couldn't answer the question. Any wonder people are >>>> always >>> ragging >>>> you.
>>> Good question. It says diverging to the left or the right within the >>> marked lane, so unless you're talking two m/cycles, bikes, or invalid >>> scooters, then you're pretty well obund to have a collision anyway >>> unless >>> you're considering pretty huge marked lanes! Maybe it means something >>> leaving the lane has to give way to another vehicle that's already in >>> the >>> same lane? But that would be 'diverging from', which is the correct >>> preposition anyway. (Good day for pedantry).
>> Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right >> with the diverging rule
> who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > give way.
Does this mean that the diverging vehicle has to drop behind the other vehicle to diverge?
>> What they mean is that when you are going from one lane to another,
> It says nothing about oing from one lane to another, it explicitly says > [twice] that the rule applies when the vehicles are travelling in the > same lane.
> But being wrong has never stopped you before.. so off you go and explain > how they got it wrong...
>> whether it be on your right or your left >> such as diverging from one lane to the other, then the leading vehicle >> takes precedence
> This law you describe is an old law, that is, I believe that "the car > with it's nose in front" rule has been law in Victoria for a couple of > years already.
Nev.. wrote... > > Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with the > > diverging rule
> who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
And he tells ME to get on the tram...
> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are > travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to > the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must > give way.
Having read this a bit more (remember, where I come from such traffic moves are rare - our roads are wide enough for the goats that we herd, and that's about it) I think that I have come to grips with it.
So, am I correct in assuming that "diverging" means to move to the left or to the right of the lane where say there is room for two vehicles side by side but there are no marked lines that delineate the lanes?
So, if you and I are riding our bikes down say, Malvern Road, I think it is (the road that runs off Warragul Road 100m after you get off the Monash heading north, you are in front but are close to the centre line. You wish to move left, say to avoid a dead wombat which got horribly lost, then you'd be "diverging"?
If so, then you'd have to give way to me?
What if you're in front, what then? Am I allowed to pass you on the left as you slow because you want to diverge and I'm in the way but you have to give way to me?
What if the diverging vehicle in the right side of the lane wants to turn left into a driveway or into another street, indicates, but the vehicle to its left and behind it refuses, as most Melbourne drivers tend to do, allow it to merge left?
I'm still buggered as to what the purpose of this new rule is. I just hope that I have to never put it into practice, next time I'm in the Big Smoke.
And yes, if it means getting on the tram, then so be it...
>> > Besides all the ragging about my comments, you are not quite right with >> > the >> > diverging rule
>> who's not right? This is a copy paste from the vicroads website..
> And he tells ME to get on the tram...
>> If two vehicles, for example a bicycle and a car or two motorcycles, are >> travelling in the same single marked lane and one vehicle diverges to >> the left or right within the marked lane, the diverging vehicle must >> give way.
> Having read this a bit more (remember, where I come from such traffic > moves are > rare - our roads are wide enough for the goats that we herd, and that's > about > it) I think that I have come to grips with it.
> So, am I correct in assuming that "diverging" means to move to the left or > to > the right of the lane where say there is room for two vehicles side by > side but > there are no marked lines that delineate the lanes?
> So, if you and I are riding our bikes down say, Malvern Road, I think it > is (the > road that runs off Warragul Road 100m after you get off the Monash heading > north, you are in front but are close to the centre line. You wish to move > left, > say to avoid a dead wombat which got horribly lost, then you'd be > "diverging"?
> If so, then you'd have to give way to me?
> What if you're in front, what then? Am I allowed to pass you on the left > as you > slow because you want to diverge and I'm in the way but you have to give > way to > me?
> What if the diverging vehicle in the right side of the lane wants to turn > left > into a driveway or into another street, indicates, but the vehicle to its > left > and behind it refuses, as most Melbourne drivers tend to do, allow it to > merge > left?
> I'm still buggered as to what the purpose of this new rule is. I just hope > that > I have to never put it into practice, next time I'm in the Big Smoke.
> And yes, if it means getting on the tram, then so be it...
George W Frost wrote... > > And yes, if it means getting on the tram, then so be it...
> I will send you a day pass
Presumably you'll be there too, given that you didn't know the differences between this diverging rule and merging rules with or without the broken lines that signify the end of a lane....
|
