What's the law around indicating in this scenario?
What's the law around indicating in this scenario?
TMR put this up on their Facebook asking who has to give way, but that's too easy. A much more complicated question is: what does the law say around indicating?
I've seen people say only blue must indicate, others say both must indicate, and yet others say neither must indicate. Which is correct?
You're viewing a single thread.
The arguments as I understand them:
Blue is deviating from their line, orange is continuing straight, therefore only blue indicates.
Blue is merging to the right, orange is merging to the left, therefore both must indicate towards the side they are merging to.
Neither blue nor orange are changing lanes, they are simply entering the lane that their lane becomes. Therefore neither indicates.
Blue is “changing lane”, if they continued straight they’d go off the road. At least in the NSW drivers manual this is specified as a zipper merge. I treat them the same in Brisbane.
Blues lane is ending, of the two only one has to alter their steering wheel (or in the bikes case, leading wheel) to stay on the road. The orange vehicle is simply driving straight. The centreline of the road is indicative of this.
When you’re driving on a road and the number of lanes or lines of traffic reduces, and there are no longer any road markings, you must give way to the vehicle that’s ahead of you. This is called a zipper merge.
Sauce
That's a user-friendly advisory article. I'm asking what's specifically in the legislation. It also doesn't actually say anything about indicating, only implies it in the graphics. No text or speech ever discusses indication.
Blues lane is ending
No, two lanes are merging. That's why this is different to a situation where one lane ends, in which case the continuing lane always has right of way.
It is also supplemental to the drivers manual, which the test to get your license is based on. Get enough of these wrong and you fail, no license.
No, two lanes are merging
Sorry, but that’s incorrect, the lanes are being reduced (edit: which to be fair, and likely the source of confusion, is all but synonymous with two lanes “merging”). Merging describe what traffic must do as a result of this reduction. The reduction is simply not marked, to indicate a zipper merge. Otherwise you’d be crossing a broken line and have to give way to traffic already in the lane you’re merging into. Being it is unmarked it means a zipper merge, which means traffic in the lane you’re merging with has to give way to you.
When the lane you’re driving in is ending and you need to cross a broken line to move into another lane, you must give way to vehicles already in that lane – for example, when you’re joining a motorway
You must indicate to let others know when you plan to move into another lane. Make sure your indicator is off after you’ve merged or changed lanes.
Definitely not an edit and was here the whole time 2: Blue goes from being beside the broken line to (after merging) being beside the double dividing line. Whereas before and after the merge orange remains beside the double dividing line. If I had 6 hours spare I could go on paint and continue the broken line, turning the unmarked ending of the lane into a marked one demonstrating this.
@CTDummy @Zagorath 'scuse my butting in from over Masto way.
Going by Qld Road Rules:
From what you've quoted CTDummy, neither would need to "cross a broken line" - the line marking just ends. The car "should" indicate, and as the "in front" vehicle, gets to go first. The motorbike does not need to indicate.
If the left lane had markings that went all the way into a lane-ending merge, the car gives way to the bike.
The link below does not talk about indicating, and I don't indicate if I am in the left lane in this scenario.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/lanesNo worries, the more in the fediverse the merrier.
From what you've quoted CTDummy, neither would need to "cross a broken line" - the line marking just ends.
Yes, that lines up with my comment. I’m providing alternatives as examples. The rest of your comment is pretty much what I’ve said in mine.
Here's what I think is the relevant legislation.
My interpretation is that both are "entering a line of traffic" to the right or left, so both should indicate. But I'm far from confident.
Which clause there would compel the bike to indicate?
2 d) / 3 d) are "entering a marked lane, or line of traffic, to the left/right" but this line is directly ahead of the bike.
but this line is directly ahead of the bike
So in your interpretation, when two lanes merge, whether or not indicating is required would depend on the precise configuration of the lanes? For example, in my experience a road shaped like the above would be more likely to have the left lane end; the "two lanes merge into one" scenario more often places the line down the middle, like this:
In that scenario, would only the left, neither, or both be required to indicate, in your opinion?
edit:
one other thing worth considering...the motorbike in the image actually won't be legally allowed to keep its line straight. When there is only one lane in each direction, road users are required to "drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road". By driving directly down the centre of the lane, a motorbike is probably not doing this. So it will need to move left, under the law.
So in your interpretation, when two lanes merge, whether or not indicating is required would depend on the precise configuration of the lanes?
Yep. It also lines up with my general interpretation of indicators themselves, that they're a way of saying 'I want to begin moving in this direction, instead of straight'.
In your example picture, I see that as the centre lane remaining and the left lane gradually merging into it, just like the OP image but longer.
In that scenario, would only the left, neither, or both be required to indicate, in your opinion?
My interpretation of law: Left only must indicate.
My opinion: it's obvious that the left has to merge in, they ideally shouldn't even have to indicate, but if a driver in the centre lane is tired and oblivious then they might not realise that and get caught unaware so just indicate anyway to be safe. Middle should not indicate, because that makes it seem as if they want to turn off into a side road or driveway (if one exists) or over on the shoulder.
It also lines up with my general interpretation of indicators themselves, that they’re a way of saying ‘I want to begin moving in this direction, instead of straight’
What about T-junctions where the continuing road curves?
In this case, turning left from the perspective of the camera does not involve indicating, while continuing straight requires indicating right.
My take is that this is similar. The literal direction a road goes doesn't matter. What matters is where line markings are and how lanes relate to each other.
Going back to the image above, here's another example of that same kind of situation. Who would you say indicates here? To me it could not be clearer that there is no one lane that ends, but instead the two lanes become one, dead centre.
T-intersection
Good point, and you're right. That statement I made was not well thought through.
example 2
I agree that two lanes become one centre lane (and it's possible that I interpreted the last photo example wrong with the photo quality).
What would you think if a car on the centre lane put their left indicator on? Personally, I would assume they want to enter that side road or a driveway. That's my reasoning for why I don't believe an indication would be appropriate.
I think neither is obliged to indicate here, they're both continuing fully in the direction of their lanes. The lane changes, and just as you don't indicate in the T intersection example when the lane curves left, you wouldn't need to indicate as the lanes blend (rather than one merging into the other, which to be honest, doesn't benefit from an indication either).