Bus Lanes - Who has right of way?

littlejukka

esel wrote:

Maybe your suggestion, if the indicator was preceded by a few flashes of brake lights, then continuous brake lights along with the indicator, might work.

just to highlight the irresponsible and idiotic driving practices proposed by esel in this thread.

Esel

littlejukka wrote:

just to highlight the irresponsible and idiotic driving practices proposed by esel in this thread.

I'll let the other users of this forum be the judge of that. Your ill-formed opinion does not matter to me. And lay off the PMs, or should that be PMS?

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

try to stay on topic. poor show from a mod.

The personalised snotty remarks are not staying on topic. Poor show from such an old user name not to know that about mods not in their own forum.

littlejukka wrote:

there is very little else to say on the matter, except to correct the misconceptions of bad drivers posting on this thread.

I just hope for all our sakes that you don't drive a taxi.

cyclopath2001

There are two issues here:

1: Who had right of way? I believe the taxi driver had.

2: The obligation to drive with due care and attention: I believe the taxi driver was at fault. He should have been able to stop. The primary fault lies with the moving vehicle, not the stationary one.

Jumpy

cyclopath2001 wrote:

There are two issues here:

1: Who had right of way? I believe the taxi driver had.

2: The obligation to drive with due care and attention: I believe the taxi driver was at fault. He should have been able to stop. The primary fault lies with the moving vehicle, not the stationary one.

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

seamus

Jumpy wrote:

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

This all really depends.

There are some cases where the bus lane "ends" - it is terminated by a broken white line and a yield sign. In this case, any traffic using the bus lane must yield to other traffic.

There are also cases where the "end" of the bus lane is signified by the solid white line changing into a broken one. However there is no yield sign and therefore no requirement for bus lane traffic to yield - although the lane is no longer a bus lane, the traffic which previously occupied the lane has complete right of way. This is the scenario which I assumed the OP was describing.

franksm

Jumpy wrote:

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

This is what I take to be true also - the dotted line at the end of the buslane *is* a yield line (in lieu of an actual signpost which wouldn't make sense anyway or would cause confusion at the end of a buslane). Therefore the implication is that when coming to the end of a buslane, anyone in that lane must slow and merge, preparing to let traffic from the right take precedance

Saruman

seamus wrote:

This all really depends.

There are some cases where the bus lane "ends" - it is terminated by a broken white line and a yield sign. In this case, any traffic using the bus lane must yield to other traffic.

There are also cases where the "end" of the bus lane is signified by the solid white line changing into a broken one. However there is no yield sign and therefore no requirement for bus lane traffic to yield - although the lane is no longer a bus lane, the traffic which previously occupied the lane has complete right of way. This is the scenario which I assumed the OP was describing.

A good example of Seamus's first point is In Blanch on the Snugborough road (by the national aquatic Ctr). The bus lane there at certain points ends and there is a Yield sign to traffic in the right (normal) lane. Of course I have heard of Taxi drivers not yielding and then beeping for cars to get out of their way as the Right lane moves to the left.

I think all in all taxi drivers seem to think they are immune to the law and road signs. Such as speeding in bus lanes. N32 is a good example. A stupid 60kph limit and they fly past you in the bus lane.
Also in town, they like going in left hand turning lanes to go straight ahead! Example being Westmorland street heading towards O'Connel street. Moving into the left hand lane which is left turn only and cutting straight ahead in front of cars in the correct lane.
Also along the quays heading west. There are 2 times approaching Heuston that the bus lane ends and turns into a Left turn only. Instead of joining traffic some go right ahead. Cutting into the path of traffic.

Anyway back to the topic at hand... your wife was at fault. The only way her mirror could have been clipped was if the taxi driver, no matter how fast he was going... was in her blind spot as she started to move out. There is no way he was going fast enough for her to check her mirror, see its clear and begin to move out and then have him going so fast as to go right by and clip her mirror.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

I just hope for all our sakes that you don't drive a taxi.

course not. i have a real job.

i despair at the lack of knowledge people have of the rules of the road. in fact, i'm despairing right now.

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

i despair at the lack of knowledge people have of the rules of the road. in fact, i'm despairing right now.

Well, do give us your twist on the quote from the ROTR, then. I'm all ears[eyes], and I'm betting I'm not the only one.

craichoe

AFAIK,

You never cross a solid white line, you can only enter and exit the bus lane at the broken white line.

Also when leaving the lane you to give way to traffic in the non bus lane.

Afaik, if your wife crossed a solid white line shes in the wrong as the taxi driver had right of way. If she crossed the broken white line the taxi driver was in the wrong as he should have given way and made sure it was safe to re-join normal traffic.

cyclopath2001

Jumpy wrote:

if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

I don't agree as the implication of what you're saying is that any car that is illegally positioned is fair game.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

Well, do give us your twist on the quote from the ROTR, then. I'm all ears[eyes], and I'm betting I'm not the only one.

there's no twist. the quote isn't relevant to this incident as there was no yield sign and the bus lane did not end, it just turned into a normal lane.

su_dios

APM wrote:

I've found that happening in a few places and the cars pulling in have stuck their hazards on as they were turning in. Possibly indicating first then just before pulling in sticking on the hazards. Makes the car behind following either a) slow down because they know your coming to a full stop or
b) indicate and go around you. thus minimizing the chances of a smash

Would doing that help?

That sounds like a good idea yes. Some people just don't want to slow down despite seeing that you are slowing down a good bit before the turn. Thanks for advice and sorry to hijack the thread(thought it was originally relevant but not now). Good luck to the OP and his wife

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

there's no twist. the quote isn't relevant to this incident as there was no yield sign and the bus lane did not end, it just turned into a normal lane.

You seem to know this for a fact. Were you there? If not, then we've only the description given by the OP, who doesn't mention the presence or absence of a yield sign. He does, however, mention the presence of a junction, and since ordinary traffic may not enter a bus lane, said bus lane must, in fact, terminate some distance short of the junction, if traffic is to be permitted to turn left.

Esel

craichoe wrote:

AFAIK,

You never cross a solid white line, you can only enter and exit the bus lane at the broken white line.

Also when leaving the lane you to give way to traffic in the non bus lane.

Afaik, if your wife crossed a solid white line shes in the wrong as the taxi driver had right of way. If she crossed the broken white line the taxi driver was in the wrong as he should have given way and made sure it was safe to re-join normal traffic.

I don't think the thick white line delineating a bus lane has the same status as a continuous white line in the centre of the road. Buses and taxis continually leave and join bus lanes by crossing it, as do cars outside stated hours.

Seth Brundle

On that basis, traffic can turn left but if something is approaching then they must give way before they try to move into the lane. Yer woman didn't!

cyclopath2001

Is the outcome of this thread a consensus that if you fail to yield right of way, the blocked party has the right to take the wing off your car?

I think who had right of way has nothing to do with who was to at fault in the collision. They are separate matters.

That should be decided in terms of whether or not the taxi driver could have foreseen the collision if he was taking reasonable care.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

You seem to know this for a fact. Were you there? If not, then we've only the description given by the OP, who doesn't mention the presence or absence of a yield sign. He does, however, mention the presence of a junction, and since ordinary traffic may not enter a bus lane, said bus lane must, in fact, terminate some distance short of the junction, if traffic is to be permitted to turn left.

it's very simple. read. read again if necessary.

IF the woman was moving into a lane in which another vehicle is travelling, she has no right of way. ever.

IF the bus lane was ending for a left turn lane, she's still wrong.

IF the bus lane did in fact terminate, which it couldn't have if the taxi was able to go another 30 metres before stopping without hitting others cars in the lane he was merging into (assuming the lanes merged, which they clearly didn't), she'd still be in the wrong for moving in too early into the path of a vehicle in the lane. the lane wouldn't disappear if there was a left turn ahead. it would turn into a filter lane.

littlejukka

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Is the outcome of this thread a consensus that if you fail to yield right of way, the blocked party can take the wing off your car?

the fact is that he took her wing off because she made an error. we can assume he would have stopped if he could.

cyclopath2001

littlejukka wrote:

the fact is that he took her wing off because she made an error. we can assume he would have stopped if he could.

That assumes he was driving with reasonable care.

littlejukka

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That assumes he was driving with reasonable care.

he was driving with more care than she was. on the basis of what a reasonable individual would and should do in both of their positions and on the balance of probabilities, she would be deemed to be entirely in the wrong in any criminal or civil case.

cyclopath2001

littlejukka wrote:

she would be deemed to be entirely in the wrong in any criminal or civil case.

If I saw someone indicating, with or without right of way, I'd be prepared to stop and avoid a collision.

I'd dispute the 'entirely'. I'd go with the most likely outcome being that both would have to pay for their own repairs.

Seth Brundle

littlejukka wrote:

the fact is that he took her wing off because she made an error. we can assume he would have stopped if he could.

He was according to the OP driving under the speed limit. I obviously wasn't there but I can only presume then that he was driving with due care:

Pugsley2007 wrote:

A taxi was speeding along in the bus lane (not breaking the limit, but travelling about 30 kmh faster than the prevailing traffic) and tore the front wing off her car.

The taxi, given the info we have received was doing nothing wrong or illegal.

cyclopath2001

kbannon wrote:

The taxi, given the info we have received was doing nothing wrong or illegal.

The key fact is that he drove into her and it was the motion of his vehicle that caused the damage.

This would place an onus of proof on him to show that she intruded in his path at such a distance, that he could not, with reasonable care, avoid a collision.

Merely claiming he had 'right of way' would not absolve him.

littlejukka

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The key fact is that he drove into her and it was the motion of his vehicle that caused the damage.

This would place an onus of proof on him to show that she intruded in his path at such a distance, that he could not, with reasonable care, avoid a collision.

Merely claiming he had 'right of way' would not absolve him.

no. he was doing nothing wrong, assuming (as kbannon said) it cannot be proved that he was speeding.

Vikings

littlejukka wrote:

no. he was doing nothing wrong, assuming (as kbannon said) it cannot be proved that he was speeding.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Let's say for example that this car which was indicating to move into the lane that the taxi driver was continuing into was actually broken down with hazards on.

The taxi would probably only have been able to see both left indicators (assuming traffic was blocking the far indicators) - who would be in the wrong in this case? By your comment above, assuming the taxi driver was not speeding, it would be okay for him to plough into the broken down car. How do you justify that?

littlejukka

Mustangs wrote:

How do you come to that conclusion?

Let's say for example that this car which was indicating to move into the lane that the taxi driver was continuing into was actually broken down with hazards on.

The taxi would probably only have been able to see both left indicators (assuming traffic was blocking the far indicators) - who would be in the wrong in this case? By your comment above, assuming the taxi driver was not speeding, it would be okay for him to plough into the broken down car. How do you justify that?

do you honestly believe that putting on your hazards gives you the right to change lane with impunity and dissolves you of any responsibility for an ensuing accident? think about your answer.

Vikings

littlejukka wrote:

do you honestly believe that putting on your hazards gives you the right to change lane with impunity and dissolves you of any responsibility for an ensuing accident? think about your answer.

Did you even bother to read my post or did you just automatically jump on the defensive?

My point was that if the car was broken down it would not be going anywhere, it wouldn't be changing lanes as it would be stuck betweem them. I was questioning your statement that you thought because the taxi driver was not speeding he was doing nothing wrong by driving into this womans car.

Seth Brundle

Which implies that he was driving without due care and attention or that the intentionally hit her car. There is nothing to support either but as the OP mentioned "Obviously, my wife should have checked more fully before changing lane" Im inclined to disbelieve either theory.