Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
bright, I have a question on road rules for you.

Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes East-West,
the intersecting road, North-South.
The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
direction
Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly direction
Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection, while
vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.

Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who intends
on turning right?

The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it being
two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on the
other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in the
intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should be
the one giving way.

Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.

"George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:7Qsyq.6211$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>
> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes East-West,
> the intersecting road, North-South.
> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
> direction
> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly direction
> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection, while
> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>
> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who intends
> on turning right?
>
> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it being
> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on the
> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in the
> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should be
> the one giving way.
>
> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.

How wide is the "offset" road? Is the five metres sufficient to actually turn it into two T-intersections? If there's even a slight overlap between the two sides, it'd be considered a single road.

You'll have to excuse the crude drawing:
http://yak.net.au/t1/fig1.jpg
http://yak.net.au/t1/fig2.jpg

I assume this is a hypothetical question, borne of a few beers between mates? Under normal circumstances, such intersections would be marked with appropriate signage to remove ambiguity.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

George W Frost wrote:
> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>
> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes East-West,
> the intersecting road, North-South.
> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
> direction
> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly direction
> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection, while
> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>
> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who intends
> on turning right?
>
> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it being
> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on the
> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in the
> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should be
> the one giving way.
>
> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.
>
>
>


Vehicle A is traveling south but intends to Keep traveling north ?

"Bob Milutinovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4eca62e3$(E-Mail Removed)...
"George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7Qsyq.6211$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>
> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes
> East-West,
> the intersecting road, North-South.
> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
> direction
> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly direction
> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection, while
> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>
> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who
> intends
> on turning right?
>
> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it being
> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on
> the
> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in
> the
> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should
> be
> the one giving way.
>
> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.

>>How wide is the "offset" road? Is the five metres sufficient to actually
>>turn it into two T-intersections? If there's even a slight overlap between
>>the two sides, it'd be considered a single road.

The offset road is about 20 metres wide for both lanes

>>You'll have to excuse the crude drawing:
>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig1.jpg

More like figure 1


>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig2.jpg

>>I assume this is a hypothetical question, borne of a few beers between
>>mates? Under normal circumstances, such intersections would be marked with
>>appropriate signage to remove ambiguity.

No, it was a question raised because of what a copper said to one of the
drivers


No signage as to who should go first

"F Murtz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jaf0hr$u8u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> George W Frost wrote:
>> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
>> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>>
>> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes
>> East-West,
>> the intersecting road, North-South.
>> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
>> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
>> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
>> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection,
>> while
>> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>>
>> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
>> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who
>> intends
>> on turning right?
>>
>> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it
>> being
>> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
>> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on
>> the
>> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in
>> the
>> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should
>> be
>> the one giving way.
>>
>> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Vehicle A is traveling south but intends to Keep traveling north ?

Smart-arse, you know what I meant
FFSyndrome got me..

"Moike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> George W Frost wrote:
>> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
>> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>>
>> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes
>> East-West,
>> the intersecting road, North-South.
>> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
>> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
>> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
>> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection,
>> while
>> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>>
>> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
>> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who
>> intends
>> on turning right?
>>
>> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it
>> being
>> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
>> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on
>> the
>> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in
>> the
>> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should
>> be
>> the one giving way.
>>
>> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.
>>
>>
>>
> Answer #1
> Neither vehicle has right of way. (Victorian) road law does not assign
> right of way, only a duty to give way.
>
> Answer #2
> Which way do the give way or stop signs face?
>
> In Victoria there are no uncontrolled intersections. The only unsigned
> ones are a few T junctions, where the terminating road has to give way.
>
> As bob says, the intersection is defined by extending the boundaries of
> the roads. if they overlap, there is a single intersection, and in Vic, at
> least, it would have give way or stop signs. If there is no overlap, it's
> a pair of T intersections.
>
> HTH
>
> Moike

The intersections of the North-South road do overlap
as in the North bound lane, is about three metres overlapping with the South
bound lane, as in Bob's figure 1.

"George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:_BEyq.6282$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
>
> "Bob Milutinovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4eca62e3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:7Qsyq.6211$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
>> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
>> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>>
>> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes
>> East-West,
>> the intersecting road, North-South.
>> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
>> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
>> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
>> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly direction
>> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection, while
>> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>>
>> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
>> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who
>> intends
>> on turning right?
>>
>> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it being
>> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
>> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on
>> the
>> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in
>> the
>> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should
>> be
>> the one giving way.
>>
>> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.
>
>>>How wide is the "offset" road? Is the five metres sufficient to actually
>>>turn it into two T-intersections? If there's even a slight overlap between
>>>the two sides, it'd be considered a single road.
>
> The offset road is about 20 metres wide for both lanes
>
>>>You'll have to excuse the crude drawing:
>>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig1.jpg
>
> More like figure 1
>
>
>>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig2.jpg
>
>>>I assume this is a hypothetical question, borne of a few beers between
>>>mates? Under normal circumstances, such intersections would be marked with
>>>appropriate signage to remove ambiguity.
>
> No, it was a question raised because of what a copper said to one of the
> drivers
>
>
> No signage as to who should go first

Next question then, did the "non-gender-specific officer of the law" simply say it, or was it part of a "I'm going to rip your wallet out through your arsehole" fine-dispensing procedure?

If it's the former, chalk it up to stupidity, have a few drinks to forget about it, and move on.

If it's the latter, take the issue to court.

As Moike pointed out though, despite recent advances in homologating Australian road rules and procedures, there _are_ still a few differences between the states. If it's out the back of Hicksville (Coff's Harbour comes to mind), you're up **** creek, 'cause the constabulary and judiciary are well 'n' truly in each other's behinds.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

"Bob Milutinovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4ecb203b$(E-Mail Removed)...
"George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_BEyq.6282$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
>
> "Bob Milutinovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4eca62e3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:7Qsyq.6211$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
>> Okay, for all the bright sparks out there, or even those who are not so
>> bright, I have a question on road rules for you.
>>
>> Coming up to an intersection, where two roads meet, one road goes
>> East-West,
>> the intersecting road, North-South.
>> The East-West road, traverses straight, while the North-South road, is
>> offset by about 5 metres, in other words, a dog leg crossing.
>> Question is which vehicle has the right of way and why.
>> Vehicle A, is travelling along the North-South road, in a Southerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle B, is travelling along the same road, but in a Northerly
>> direction
>> Vehicle A, intends to keep travelling North across the intersection,
>> while
>> vehicle B, intends to conduct a right hand turn, into the East West road.
>>
>> Which vehicle has the right of way, is it vehicle A, because of the
>> intention of continuing along the same road, or is it vehicle B, who
>> intends
>> on turning right?
>>
>> The argument has been put forward, because of the perception that it
>> being
>> two "T" intersections and not a through road and the vehicle A continuing
>> along the same road, should be in fact the vehicle giving way, while on
>> the
>> other hand, the argument here, is that even though there is a dog leg in
>> the
>> intersection, it is still the same road, therefore the vehicle B, should
>> be
>> the one giving way.
>>
>> Once this question has been answered, then I have another one later.
>
>>>How wide is the "offset" road? Is the five metres sufficient to actually
>>>turn it into two T-intersections? If there's even a slight overlap
>>>between
>>>the two sides, it'd be considered a single road.
>
> The offset road is about 20 metres wide for both lanes
>
>>>You'll have to excuse the crude drawing:
>>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig1.jpg
>
> More like figure 1
>
>
>>>http://yak.net.au/t1/fig2.jpg
>
>>>I assume this is a hypothetical question, borne of a few beers between
>>>mates? Under normal circumstances, such intersections would be marked
>>>with
>>>appropriate signage to remove ambiguity.
>
> No, it was a question raised because of what a copper said to one of the
> drivers
>
>
> No signage as to who should go first

Next question then, did the "non-gender-specific officer of the law" simply
say it, or was it part of a "I'm going to rip your wallet out through your
arsehole" fine-dispensing procedure?

+++++++++++++++++++

The copper claimed he classed it as two seperate intersections, even though
there was not really a clear division between the two
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If it's the former, chalk it up to stupidity, have a few drinks to forget
about it, and move on.

If it's the latter, take the issue to court.

As Moike pointed out though, despite recent advances in homologating
Australian road rules and procedures, there _are_ still a few differences
between the states. If it's out the back of Hicksville (Coff's Harbour comes
to mind), you're up **** creek, 'cause the constabulary and judiciary are
well 'n' truly in each other's behinds.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

+++++++++++++++++++++++

You would not be talking about the blonde copper in Bellingen would you ??

"George W Frost" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:cSJyq.6241$(E-Mail Removed) ond.com...
>
> "Bob Milutinovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4ecb203b$(E-Mail Removed)...

<snip>

> > As Moike pointed out though, despite recent advances in homologating
> > Australian road rules and procedures, there _are_ still a few differences
> > between the states. If it's out the back of Hicksville (Coff's Harbour comes
> > to mind), you're up **** creek, 'cause the constabulary and judiciary are
> > well 'n' truly in each other's behinds.
>
> You would not be talking about the blonde copper in Bellingen would you ??

Can't really remember the hair colour now; this was back in January 2005.

A member of Boss Hog's constabulary in an unmarked Falcodore (it was night, on a dark desolate road) zoomed up my backside in Mad Max style, in a 100Km/h zone. I initially slowed from ~95Km/h to ~70km/h to allow him to overtake (assuming as I did that he wanted to do so, given his driving style), but he sat glued to my arse.

Normally I'd have slammed the brakes on hard, but in this instance I had a woman and child in the car and, as I said, was out in the middle of nowhere. So I accelerated to get some space between us and yep, as soon as I hit 110Km/h, he turned his dash lights on.

Went up to Coff's on two occasions to contest it in court, but all I got to show for it was a condescending verbal pat on the head by the magistrate - along with court costs tacked onto the end of the fine.

In hindsight I should've listened to my boss of the time, who'd had similar run-ins with the the "force" in that particular area - he already knew I was trying to push **** uphill by complaining. The moral of the story then is to (a) avoid driving through there, (b) avoid driving through there at night and (c) stick to 10Km/h _under_ the speed limit, no matter what threat of doom looms behind you.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom