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 Lane Merge - who has right of way?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Mouth, Apr 26, 2016.


Who had right of way?

Poll closed May 3, 2016.
  1. Rider

    0 vote(s)
  2. Van

    53 vote(s)

  1. According to law, who has right of way?
    I know the answer ... wondering what peeps think?
    Respond to the poll, and post why you think your answer is correct.
  2. That is a zip merge so you must give way to any vehicle which is ahead of you. Motorcycle would therefore give way to the van.

    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Going off the NSW handbook here. You southerners may do it differently.

    No dotted lines so the vehicle trailing has to give way. The van was in front the rider rode up beside the van and forced the van to take evasive action, although the van actually had right of way.
    If the dotted lines continued and the van had to cross them to merge, then the bike would have had right of way.

    IMHO even if I had the right of way, in that situation I would have let the van go, because there would be a high probability of getting skittled riding up beside a big vehicle at a merging point.

    Attached Files:

    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. The van. 100%. Like Justus said, it's a zip merge (ie. no line to cross) and he's ahead of the bike.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Pretty sure it's the same laws down here fatbastardfatbastard Additionally, if someone is in the right lane, and they are going to drive over the painted island to turn right - they must giveway to anyone in the left lane ahead of them turning right as well (I know that this isn't in the situation given, but something worth noting if you are going to turn after driving over a painted island).

    Back to the video given I agree with the others above me - my understanding is that the rider was behind the van and thus in the wrong (not just legally, but doucheally* as well ;) ).

    * Legally - of, relating to, or concerning the law
    * Doucheally - of, relating to, or concerning a douche bag
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Van, can't see why the rider would think otherwise.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. who ever has the biggest balls
    • Funny Funny x 4
  8. Surely I always have right of way.... :wtf:
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Van has right of way, that was terrible riding imo. If the bike was in front, then the bike has right of way.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. They'll have a massive cross sectional area after the van has driven over them :)
  11. lol
    it was another non event
    dick on the bike should of got infront before the merge
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. That was my thought exactly UG, too bloody tentative. Should have either stayed back or got through quick instead of dithering up beside the van and sitting there like a rabbit in the spotlight.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Give way to anything bigger than you. No use being legally right if you're legally dead.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. yeah
    but was heaps of room to get ahead
    still got in safely but should of gotten further up
  15. Good to see all correct/positive responses and voting :)
  16. what did you vote for?
  17. yep dont be proactive on the roads
    might upset some one
  18. Van. As I said in OP, I already knew the answer. Wondering what the majority on here thought was the answer.
  19. obvious the van
    but i dont care about the letter of the law
    if the guy on the bike had of been more on the ball he wouldnt of got himself in the situation in the first place
    • Agree Agree x 4