Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Is this correct?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Apr 3, 2011.

  1. From one of the letters to the editor in the herald sun regarding the swan street bridge and the lane changing fiasco.

  2. surely that can't be right...

    why even have them in the first place then?
  3. Yeah I smell FAIL.
  4. rule 147

    147 Moving from one marked lane to another marked lane across a continuous line separating the lanes
    A driver on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane to another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes unless—
    (a) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
    (b) the driver is obeying a traffic control device applying to the first marked lane; or
    (c) the driver is permitted to drive in both marked lanes under another provision of these Rules; or
    (d) either of the marked lanes is a special purpose lane in which the driver is permitted to drive under these Rules and the driver is moving to or from the special purpose lane.
  5. So then that means all the queue jumpers on swan street bridge can hog the lane and cut in to the left lane as the right lane is a special purpose lane.
    No wonder this country is so fucked when it comes to road laws.
  6. Hmm, interesting??
    I'm sure I've heard of a TIN given soon after they brought in the stupid single line rule in VIC for someone moving (with an indicator) to another lane coming up to traffic lights where the broken lines come solid lines 50 or so meters from the stop point at the intersection...

    Crazy stuff.....
  7. I thought the recent change in the law was to specifically prohibit changing lanes across a solid white line - which is the reason why they very quickly put a few breaks in the solid lane lines on the Westgate Bridge.

    Still, bit hypocritical to biatch about people jumping the queue if you're one of those riders who lanesplits/filters.
  8. No, they cannot.
    Reread RR147 (d).
    It must be a special purpose lane that "they are permitted to drive in".
    They are not permitted in the lane therefore they cannot cross the white line.
  9. What constitutes a special purpose lane then?
    One with arrows pointing a certain direction?
    The citylink lane would constitute a special purpose lane wouldn't it?
    The swan street lane is a straight arrow as it would also constitute a special purpose lane or am I missing something?

  10. Lanesplitters/filterers do not cause traffic holdups like the queue jumpers, they actually free up traffic.
  11. They probably mean a bike lane, bus lane, transit lane, etc, rather than a lane for vehicles heading a certain direction.
  12. I like the concept. Supposed to stop lane jumpers at the lights which is a dangerous practice.
  13. So do queue jumpers. If they drive faster than the car they cut in front of then the overall speed of the queue shouldn't decrease.

    People who jump to the front then go slower than everyone else are a different matter. This of course also includes slow bikes that filter, and which certainly don't help free up traffic.

  14. Not on swan street, the queue jumpers create complete chaos.
    JD you are comparing apples to oranges, on the whole bikes don't generally hold up traffic, cars generally do, there are exceptions to the rule.
  15. Not very clear then.
  16. indeed they do. from the dictionary

    special purpose lane means a marked lane, or the part of a
    marked lane, that is a bicycle lane, bus lane, emergency
    stopping lane, tram lane, transit lane or truck lane;
  17. Yep, like the fact my car accelerates faster than my bike - which is why if I see a chance to get in front of a much slower vehicle I'll take it.

    Also has a lot to do with learning to drive in a city where having 2 or even 3 lanes on one side of an intersection, but only one on the other side, was common. No merging lanes or specific rules, simply a case of either giving way to anything faster than you or running out of road.
  18. Agree, seems unclear and could be the difference in recieving a TIN or not.

    The biggest issue here is not about lane jumping etc...
    But if the solid white line rule differs depending on whether it's seperating traffic traveling in opposite or same direction.

    Probably worth finding out from VicRoads.

  19. Quoting a dictionary is not quoting legislation, what is the legislation's interpretation or identification of a special purpose lane?

    Not bagging you just trying to clarify things