Right of way

[teng_fred]

Are there such thing as right of way? Care to comments?

[ReBornBikeR]

Don't be stupid,

There is no such thing as right of way for motorcyclist.

 

Only large bus, taxis and lorrys have right of way

[miss]

Theoretically, there is such a thing as right of way.

[VFRider]

Originally posted by miss@Dec 22 2006, 10:38 PM

Theoretically, there is such a thing as right of way.

Yes, you can be dead right as well.

[Guest NPNT]

Originally posted by miss@Dec 22 2006, 10:38 PM

Theoretically, there is such a thing as right of way.

Yes yes. And all god-damn drivers and riders THEORETICALLY know there is such a thing.

 

but in real life? NO!

[madman]

wats the purpose of this question har?

 

The right of way is the way to stand accident free and be alive. That's my right of way.

[BlackDawn]

hmmm.. (perhaps this is what the threadstarter means)

 

1) when you are at a minor road turning into a major road (without traffic lights), the vehicle at the major road has right of way

 

2) when you are at a zebra crossing, or pedestrian crossing with flashing green man, the pedestrian has the right of way

.

.

.

.

etc

[Guest ViciousKitty74]

Originally posted by VFRider@Dec 22 2006, 11:53 PM

Yes, you can be dead right as well.

I like this one!

[mitosis]

Not all car drivers will deny you your right of way, some are even nice. Today I was late for my match for my school, was zooming down pie at 100-110, this car was at the right lane travelling at around 90-100. I went up behind him but didnt want to squeeze pass because a huge bus was on the middle lane, i flashed my lights once and tapped on my horn, the driver graciously sped up and filtered into the middle lane for me. He was driving a big car too! (lexus)

 

Then again , you get idiots who stop at traffic junctions and you cant squeeze because of lorries/buses. You stop in the middle and the car still want to filter into your lane (all vehicles at standstill), he will slowly turn into your area, trying to nudge you out. Most of the time i just keep my eyes on them and turn behind to get the driver behind's attention, so that when he touches me, ill just drop my bike and the driver behind hopefully can be my witness. I am in need for a new paintwork, free is always better

[contrarian]

The driving schools here teach us concepts like right-of-way. Unfortunately they have often over-emphasised it so that students get the wrong idea that they can stand on their right-of-way.

 

When you take a boat license (PPCDL), the instructors will be very clear - right-of-way is a misnomer. You never, never stand on your right of way if doing so will endanger yourself and others. It is always better to give way in these instances if you see that the other vehicle's movement is potentially unsure or dangerous.

 

Look at a simple case: right turning vehicle and a straight going vehicle approaching a junction in opposite directions. Who has right-of-way?

 

Most people will say the straight moving vehicle. That's only partly right. What if the straight moving vehicle is moving slowly and is far away enough for the right turning vehicle to successfully complete the turn safely? It's a matter of judgement.

 

When it comes to two moving vehicles and there's a collision, both parties will share some of the blame in almost all cases, even if one vehicle has the theoretical "right-of-way". Why? Fail to keep a proper lookout, etc.

 

Never forget that the vehicle with the right-of-way still has the duty to keep a proper lookout, and to avoid a collision from another motorist who may be infringing on the right-of-way.

 

 

If you're interested, have a look at what the subordinate courts had to say in the case of Loh Tek Hua v Tey Jok Soon and Another:

"20 After a careful consideration of all the evidence before me, I came to the finding that the 1st defendant was more to blame for the accident than the 2nd defendant. I found that while the traffic lights were green in the 1st defendant’s favour, the arrow light had not turned green (the plaintiff himself was not sure if the arrow light was green in the 1st defendant’s favour). I accepted the 2nd defendant’s evidence that the lights were still green in his favour as he entered the junction. This finding was consistent with the testimony of all the witnesses. As a matter of fact, counsel for the 1st defendant conceded that although the 1st defendant had “the right to enter the junction … this right must be second to the right of the 2nd defendant to drive straight along Admiralty Road West from the opposite direction … There is a higher duty on the 1st Defendant to notice and be aware of vehicles that are travelling straight from the opposite direction from where he intended to turn right”. It was also apparent to the court from the evidence of the plaintiff and Poh that the 1st defendant did not stop to look out for oncoming traffic before he proceeded to turn right across the T-junction into Woodlands Avenue 8. It was imperative upon the 1st defendant to stop to look out for oncoming traffic, especially since (as was admitted by him and confirmed by Poh) the trees blocked his line of sight of vehicles coming from the opposite direction. If he had done so, he would have seen the 2nd defendant’s car approaching the junction. In this regard, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the headlights of the car were on. There was no excuse for the 1st defendant not to notice the car in the circumstances.

 

21 The 2nd defendant’s evidence as to the position of his car after it came to a stop after the collision was unchallenged. This evidence squared with the 1st defendant’s evidence that he was turning right from the extreme right lane of Admiralty Road West and that the collision occurred immediately after he entered the junction. This lent further weight to the court’s finding that the 1st defendant shouldered more blame for the accident as the 2nd defendant would have already been travelling in the junction box before the 1st defendant dashed into his path.

 

22 However, the 2nd defendant was also partly to blame for the accident, albeit to a lesser degree. There were tall trees planted along the centre divider, obstructing the 2nd defendant’s view of the traffic in the opposite direction until those vehicles reached the traffic junction. As such, he should have driven at a slower speed than he had so that he could better anticipate any vehicles crossing the junction and into his path, applying the brakes in time if necessary.

 

23 In the final analysis, I found the 1st defendant substantially to blame for the accident. However, the 2nd defendant was contributorily negligent to the proportion of 20%. I awarded interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants, with damages to be assessed by the registrar. The 1st defendant would be liable to pay 80% of the damages awarded, with the 2nd defendant bearing the remaining sum awarded. The issue of the costs of the action before me would be reserved to the registrar presiding over the hearing of the assessment of damages."

 

source: http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/51557.html

[compfused]

Originally posted by mitosis@Dec 23 2006, 12:55 PM

Not all car drivers will deny you your right of way, some are even nice. Today I was late for my match for my school, was zooming down pie at 100-110, this car was at the right lane Then again , you get idiots who stop at traffic junctions and you cant squeeze because of lorries/buses. You stop in the middle and the car still want to filter into your lane (all vehicles at standstill), he will slowly turn into your area, trying to nudge you out. Most of the time i just keep my eyes on them and turn behind to get the driver behind's attention, so that when he touches me, ill just drop my bike and the driver behind hopefully can be my witness. I am in need for a new paintwork, free is always better

Your limbs/life just cost a new paintwork? $300-$500? Suay suay the driver behind don't want to be witness..You know these kind of things..Most people just don't wanna be involved..Anyway try at your own risk..Just imagine what will happen if the car just hit and run..And no one wants to be witness..You go make report..He twist story saying he was never there in the first place..And worst he got an alibi to prove he was really not there at the time and place it happened..We riders havenothin but everything to lose..Just tap your horn..If he's "deaf" just give way..If no place to move away tap on the car's windows..