Bus Lanes - Who has right of way?

Pugsley2007

My missus had an altercation with a taxi yesterday.

She was in the outside lane, in slow moving traffic. The inside lane was a bus lane. She planned to turn left at the next junction, checked mirror, indicated and when the continuous line seperating the bus lane from her lane arrived, started to move into it.

A taxi was speeding along in the bus lane (not breaking the limit, but travelling about 30 kmh faster than the prevailing traffic) and tore the front wing off her car.

I'm not sure who had the right of way here. Obviously, my wife should have checked more fully before changing lane, but at the same time, the taxi was unable to stop for another 30 metres, suggesting he was doing 30 - 40 kmh compared to the traffic in the outside lane doing 10 kmh.

Who is at fault?

Matt

Anan1

Your wife, she drove into the taxi. Overtaking on the left is permissible in slow-moving traffic. Sorry.:)

Pete4779

[/QUOTE]

That's a tough one indeed because you won't be able to get any hard proof of him speeding.

I'd say though that because she was going into another lane, that the his lane has the right of way TBH. He prob should have not been going so fast of course. If you were in a lane and someone just cut straight in and hit, I would have thought that they would be at fault. There is also all that stuff about courtesy to drivers who want to change lanes, etc., but it's not the "rule" - you are to change position on the road when you have made sure it is safe to do so or something like that

I think the rules allow him to have been travelling faster in the left lane/bus lane if the right lane is travelling slowly.

I hope it works out.

Pugsley2007

Thanks Anan and Pete.

Kinda thought that was the way it would be. The reality is probably that they were both partially at fault, but rules being rules I am sure that it will go that way.

Guess I'll be cooking dinner tonight!

Matt

su_dios

I would be interested to know how this goes because to get into my driveway I have to cut into the bus lane and pull in but its about 12m away from a left turn. The marking for the break in the bus lane to turn left though is at 90deg to the left turn but people still pull in a good bit before my house. Often I pull in just before my house and then the person behind does the same and don't expect me to be pulling in. Now nearly everytime I do this you get taxis flying down the inside lane way faster than the traffic in right lane(about 50-60 compared to 35-40 or less) The amount of times taxi drivers(and others too) have almost ran into the back of me because they don't expect me to be turning in. It results in me having to get to my house faster than the other cars(not breaking limit) or going about 15kmph in the left lane to give them time to react.

It always appears though that the taxi drivers are a good bit above the limit driving down here and not respecting the fact that 50% of the time people are turning left and have to cut into the lane.

su_dios

Also the distance would be important in your wife's case would it not? As surely if the taxi driver wasn't looking ahead he may have reacted too late and crashed therefore is it not his fault?

If he was moving quickly is he not in the wrong partially also as he should have been monitoring if anyone ahead was changing lanes to take the left turn. A case of he cut her off and not the other way around?

mikemac

Sorry OP, seems to me your wife is at fault.

Pugsley2007

Thought provoking Su Dios. My wife brought me down to show me where the incident occurred, and in the space of 10 minutes observing traffic there I noticed quite a few incidents where people indicated and pulled across the bus lane only to be blasted out of it by a taxi (there is an entrance to a filling station along the same stretch, so probably quite similar to your driveway).

I estimated that in most cases the taxis were exceeding the speed limit for the road by quite a margin. There were two narrow misses in the space of the 10 mins. "See that" said my wife, "that was what happened yesterday".

I sometimes drive legally in bus lanes e.g. between 10 and 12 where permitted. Even though I am often moving slightly faster than traffic in the outside lane, I have always been able to stop if someone cut across me, for example, without signalling. Its the old chestnut: What if it had been a child?

Seth Brundle

Whether other taxis were speeding or not is irrelevant. You have no evidence to prove that the taxi driver your wife hit was speeding. YOu also admit that the taxi wasn't speeding.
He was approaching, your wife pulled out. The two cars met. Had your wife not pulled out, then there would have been no impact! Had your wife not decided to break the law and enter the bus lane then there would have ben no impact.

"See that" said my wife, "that was what happened yesterday".

Hindsight is great, but she didn't look properly before she illegally entered the bus lane so it is all her fault!

Shield

From experience, I know that insurance companies will take the view that your wife was in the wrong. When it's just word-against-word, they apply the "reasonable person" test. Unless the taxi driver was caught speeding immediately before the incident, he'll just say that your wife is lying and she cut in front without checking, and unfortunately, that's the view the insurance companies are likely to take as well.

Pugsley2007 wrote:

My missus had an altercation with a taxi yesterday.

She was in the outside lane, in slow moving traffic. The inside lane was a bus lane. She planned to turn left at the next junction, checked mirror, indicated and when the continuous line seperating the bus lane from her lane arrived, started to move into it.

A taxi was speeding along in the bus lane (not breaking the limit, but travelling about 30 kmh faster than the prevailing traffic) and tore the front wing off her car.

I'm not sure who had the right of way here. Obviously, my wife should have checked more fully before changing lane, but at the same time, the taxi was unable to stop for another 30 metres, suggesting he was doing 30 - 40 kmh compared to the traffic in the outside lane doing 10 kmh.

Who is at fault?

Matt

Mr. Presentable

Traffic already in the lane has right of way. You say your wife crossed a solid white to get in lane for the turn, that's a no-no also. I do sympathise, taxis speeding in bus lanes is common.

Pherekydes

Pugsley2007 wrote:

She was in the outside lane, in slow moving traffic. The inside lane was a bus lane. She planned to turn left at the next junction, checked mirror, indicated and when the end of the continuous line seperating the bus lane from her lane arrived, started to move into it.

If your wife moved to the left after the end of the bus lane then she has right of way. In the above quote, I think Matt meant to write "end of the" where I've inserted it above. When the bus lane ends, approaching junctions and such, traffic in the bus lane must yield. If she entered the bus lane itself, she is at fault.

APM

su_dios wrote:

I would be interested to know how this goes because to get into my driveway I have to cut into the bus lane and pull in but its about 12m away from a left turn. The marking for the break in the bus lane to turn left though is at 90deg to the left turn but people still pull in a good bit before my house. Often I pull in just before my house and then the person behind does the same and don't expect me to be pulling in. Now nearly everytime I do this you get taxis flying down the inside lane way faster than the traffic in right lane(about 50-60 compared to 35-40 or less) The amount of times taxi drivers(and others too) have almost ran into the back of me because they don't expect me to be turning in. It results in me having to get to my house faster than the other cars(not breaking limit) or going about 15kmph in the left lane to give them time to react.

It always appears though that the taxi drivers are a good bit above the limit driving down here and not respecting the fact that 50% of the time people are turning left and have to cut into the lane.

I've found that happening in a few places and the cars pulling in have stuck their hazards on as they were turning in. Possibly indicating first then just before pulling in sticking on the hazards. Makes the car behind following either a) slow down because they know your coming to a full stop or
b) indicate and go around you. thus minimizing the chances of a smash

Would doing that help?

cyclopath2001

Pugsley2007 wrote:

She was in the outside lane, in slow moving traffic. The inside lane was a bus lane. She planned to turn left at the next junction, checked mirror, indicated and when the continuous line seperating the bus lane from her lane arrived, started to move into it.

A taxi was speeding along in the bus lane (not breaking the limit, but travelling about 30 kmh faster than the prevailing traffic) and tore the front wing off her car.

While the taxi had right of way, he's still required to travel no faster than he can stop in the distance he can see to be clear. If your wife had indicated and her intention was clear, then he's at fault for being unable to stop in time and then colliding with her. She's only at minor fault for failing to yield.

Having the right of way is not a license to collide with people.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

When the bus lane ends, approaching junctions and such, traffic in the bus lane must yield.

not true. if you are changing from one lane to another in any circumstance then the person in the lane has no requirement to yield.

for example, if a cycle lane crosses a junction with a left turn, the cyclist has right of way over any vehicle that needs to cross their path to turn left. the vehicle changing road position or turning must yield every time.

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

not true. if you are changing from one lane to another in any circumstance then the person in the lane has no requirement to yield.

When the bus lane ends, it is the traffic in the bus lane that changes lane.

meathstevie

Try a "staged approach", get in the buslane first ( say 25-30 meters before your drive ) indicator off and switch it on a wee bit before your turn. As far as I know you CAN cross a solid white line for access reasons as long as you don't have to cross oncoming traffic

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

When the bus lane ends, it is the traffic in the bus lane that changes lane.

where on earth did you get that impression? the lane continues but ceases to be solely the domain of busses and taxis and chancers. do you really think you can cut in on a lane just after it ceases to be a bus lane and be in the right?

Esel

meathstevie wrote:

Try a "staged approach", get in the buslane first ( say 25-30 meters before your drive ) indicator off and switch it on a wee bit before your turn. As far as I know you CAN cross a solid white line for access reasons as long as you don't have to cross oncoming traffic

How would that inform drivers behind in the lane that he was about to turn into his driveway? They would still think he was indicating for the upcoming left turn. Maybe your suggestion, if the indicator was preceded by a few flashes of brake lights, then continuous brake lights along with the indicator, might work.

littlejukka

esel wrote:

How would that inform drivers behind in the lane that he was about to turn into his driveway?

it wouldn't, but it would inform them of a hazard using the hazard light (not "park anywhere" lights, another boards user invented that one and he's not far wrong). people will slow down if they see hazard flashers, i use them all the time if i'm making a turn that wouldn't normally be foreseen by another road user.

Pete4779

Slow coach wrote:

If your wife moved to the left after the end of the bus lane then she has right of way. In the above quote, I think Matt meant to write "end of the" where I've inserted it above. When the bus lane ends, approaching junctions and such, traffic in the bus lane must yield. If she entered the bus lane itself, she is at fault.

Are you sure?

If you are changing into any other lane, the other lane has right of way. You can't just drive into other cars whenever you like in another lane and get right of way.

End of bus lane or not, you are not to change position on the road without due care and attention, and that was not the taxis fault that she wanted to change position and did it the way she did.

Pete4779

Slow coach wrote:

When the bus lane ends, it is the traffic in the bus lane that changes lane.

Or not, because the broken white line allowing traffic in the private driver lane onto the bus lane begins at ~20-30m from the junction. *Some* bus lanes direct back onto the right hand lane (like going up drumcondra road), but most are two lanes, with a broken line signalling the end of the bus lane and that people in the right lane can now enter the left lane. There are still two lanes, the ones in the bus lane haven't gone anywhere and can continue straight on if they like.

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

where on earth did you get that impression?

On page 70 of the new ROTR. At the very bottom:

If a ‘yield’ sign appears at the end of the bus lane, the bus must give way to other vehicles as it merges back into normal traffic.

Obviously, the end of the lane must be marked with a yield sign and a dotted line, and if this is not the case in this instance, then the lady was in the wrong. If the taxi driver crossed a dotted line or ignored a yield sign at the end of the bus lane, then he is in the wrong.

It depends on the specific instance. If two lanes (bus lane + ordinary traffic lane) converge into one lane, as happens in many instances, then the bus lane "ends" and traffic using it must yield.

I hope this clarifies my line of thinking.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

On page 70 of the new ROTR. At the very bottom:



Obviously, the end of the lane must be marked with a yield sign and a dotted line, and if this is not the case in this instance, then the lady was in the wrong. If the taxi driver crossed a dotted line or ignored a yield sign at the end of the bus lane, then he is in the wrong.

It depends on the specific instance. If two lanes (bus lane + ordinary traffic lane) converge into one lane, as happens in many instances, then the bus lane "ends" and traffic using it must yield.

I hope this clarifies my line of thinking.

it's obvious there was no yield sign or merging in this instance, if the taxi driver was able to drive 30 metres down the same lane without hitting half a dozen other cars. for all our sakes, please review the rules of the road before getting behind the wheel again.

Esel

littlejukka wrote:

it wouldn't, but it would inform them of a hazard using the hazard light (not "park anywhere" lights, another boards user invented that one and he's not far wrong). people will slow down if they see hazard flashers, i use them all the time if i'm making a turn that wouldn't normally be foreseen by another road user.

meathstevie made no mention of hazard lights in his post. for all our sakes, please review the posts before commenting again. :rolleyes:

littlejukka

esel wrote:

meathstevie made no mention of hazard lights in his post. for all our sakes, please review the posts before commenting again. :rolleyes:

i'm suggesting that instead of stupidly pressing the brake on and off several times, a couple of seconds of hazard flashers would be a much clearer indication that speed should be cut than brake lights going on and off. please review the jist of the conversation where suggestions are being made as to how to avoid accidents before commenting again.

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

it's obvious there was no yield sign or merging in this instance, if the taxi driver was able to drive 30 metres down the same lane without hitting half a dozen other cars. for all our sakes, please review the rules of the road before getting behind the wheel again.

You think taxi drivers don't ignore yield signs or cross lane lines?

For your information, there are many instances where lanes merge but ordinary traffic only tentatively resumes its correct place on the road, leaving ample room for taxi drivers to bully their way past on the left.

As I said, in nearly every post on the matter, it depends on the specific instance. A taxi bullying past other traffic on the left is not proof that there was no yield sign or end-of-buslane marker.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

You think taxi drivers don't ignore yield signs or cross lane lines?

For your information, there are many instances where lanes merge but ordinary traffic only tentatively resumes its correct place on the road, leaving ample room for taxi drivers to bully their way past on the left.

As I said, in nearly every post on the matter, it depends on the specific instance. A taxi bullying past other traffic on the left is not proof that there was no yield sign or end-of-buslane marker.

if there was a yield sign or cross lane line, why would the OP have created this thread? try to stay on topic. poor show from a mod.

in this specific instance the OP's wife was in the wrong. there is very little else to say on the matter, except to correct the misconceptions of bad drivers posting on this thread.

Esel

littlejukka wrote:

if there was a yield sign or cross lane line, why would the OP have created this thread? try to stay on topic. poor show from a mod.

in this specific instance the OP's wife was in the wrong. there is very little else to say on the matter, except to correct the misconceptions of bad drivers posting on this thread.

A mod of another forum is a general user here. Bad drivers? Do you have to get down from that high donkey very often to collect all the sh!t you leave behind, or is that beneath you? I hope you have already said your 'very little' on this thread, tbh. :rolleyes:

littlejukka

esel wrote:

A mod of another forum is a general user here. Bad drivers? Do you have to get down from that high donkey very often to collect all the sh!t you leave behind, or is that beneath you? I hope you have already said your 'very little' on this thread, tbh. :rolleyes:

i'll continue to ignore your ocular twitch. does it affect your poor driving?

the OP's original post has been responded to. the mediocre efforts to justify the OP's wife's actions have been denounced. anything else?

Esel

lj, you are sad. Hope you feed that donkey.

littlejukka

esel wrote:

Maybe your suggestion, if the indicator was preceded by a few flashes of brake lights, then continuous brake lights along with the indicator, might work.

just to highlight the irresponsible and idiotic driving practices proposed by esel in this thread.

Esel

littlejukka wrote:

just to highlight the irresponsible and idiotic driving practices proposed by esel in this thread.

I'll let the other users of this forum be the judge of that. Your ill-formed opinion does not matter to me. And lay off the PMs, or should that be PMS?

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

try to stay on topic. poor show from a mod.

The personalised snotty remarks are not staying on topic. Poor show from such an old user name not to know that about mods not in their own forum.

littlejukka wrote:

there is very little else to say on the matter, except to correct the misconceptions of bad drivers posting on this thread.

I just hope for all our sakes that you don't drive a taxi.

cyclopath2001

There are two issues here:

1: Who had right of way? I believe the taxi driver had.

2: The obligation to drive with due care and attention: I believe the taxi driver was at fault. He should have been able to stop. The primary fault lies with the moving vehicle, not the stationary one.

Jumpy

cyclopath2001 wrote:

There are two issues here:

1: Who had right of way? I believe the taxi driver had.

2: The obligation to drive with due care and attention: I believe the taxi driver was at fault. He should have been able to stop. The primary fault lies with the moving vehicle, not the stationary one.

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

seamus

Jumpy wrote:

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

This all really depends.

There are some cases where the bus lane "ends" - it is terminated by a broken white line and a yield sign. In this case, any traffic using the bus lane must yield to other traffic.

There are also cases where the "end" of the bus lane is signified by the solid white line changing into a broken one. However there is no yield sign and therefore no requirement for bus lane traffic to yield - although the lane is no longer a bus lane, the traffic which previously occupied the lane has complete right of way. This is the scenario which I assumed the OP was describing.

franksm

Jumpy wrote:

No, the bus lane became a normal lane. This does not mean a vehicle on that lane must slow and stop (only if the lane is closing and they are merging!). Think of it as if they were normal lanes, if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

This is what I take to be true also - the dotted line at the end of the buslane *is* a yield line (in lieu of an actual signpost which wouldn't make sense anyway or would cause confusion at the end of a buslane). Therefore the implication is that when coming to the end of a buslane, anyone in that lane must slow and merge, preparing to let traffic from the right take precedance

Saruman

seamus wrote:

This all really depends.

There are some cases where the bus lane "ends" - it is terminated by a broken white line and a yield sign. In this case, any traffic using the bus lane must yield to other traffic.

There are also cases where the "end" of the bus lane is signified by the solid white line changing into a broken one. However there is no yield sign and therefore no requirement for bus lane traffic to yield - although the lane is no longer a bus lane, the traffic which previously occupied the lane has complete right of way. This is the scenario which I assumed the OP was describing.

A good example of Seamus's first point is In Blanch on the Snugborough road (by the national aquatic Ctr). The bus lane there at certain points ends and there is a Yield sign to traffic in the right (normal) lane. Of course I have heard of Taxi drivers not yielding and then beeping for cars to get out of their way as the Right lane moves to the left.

I think all in all taxi drivers seem to think they are immune to the law and road signs. Such as speeding in bus lanes. N32 is a good example. A stupid 60kph limit and they fly past you in the bus lane.
Also in town, they like going in left hand turning lanes to go straight ahead! Example being Westmorland street heading towards O'Connel street. Moving into the left hand lane which is left turn only and cutting straight ahead in front of cars in the correct lane.
Also along the quays heading west. There are 2 times approaching Heuston that the bus lane ends and turns into a Left turn only. Instead of joining traffic some go right ahead. Cutting into the path of traffic.

Anyway back to the topic at hand... your wife was at fault. The only way her mirror could have been clipped was if the taxi driver, no matter how fast he was going... was in her blind spot as she started to move out. There is no way he was going fast enough for her to check her mirror, see its clear and begin to move out and then have him going so fast as to go right by and clip her mirror.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

I just hope for all our sakes that you don't drive a taxi.

course not. i have a real job.

i despair at the lack of knowledge people have of the rules of the road. in fact, i'm despairing right now.

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

i despair at the lack of knowledge people have of the rules of the road. in fact, i'm despairing right now.

Well, do give us your twist on the quote from the ROTR, then. I'm all ears[eyes], and I'm betting I'm not the only one.

craichoe

AFAIK,

You never cross a solid white line, you can only enter and exit the bus lane at the broken white line.

Also when leaving the lane you to give way to traffic in the non bus lane.

Afaik, if your wife crossed a solid white line shes in the wrong as the taxi driver had right of way. If she crossed the broken white line the taxi driver was in the wrong as he should have given way and made sure it was safe to re-join normal traffic.

cyclopath2001

Jumpy wrote:

if you tried to change lanes into moving traffic from stopped (or almost) then you are at fault if a moving vehicle removes the wing of your car.

I don't agree as the implication of what you're saying is that any car that is illegally positioned is fair game.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

Well, do give us your twist on the quote from the ROTR, then. I'm all ears[eyes], and I'm betting I'm not the only one.

there's no twist. the quote isn't relevant to this incident as there was no yield sign and the bus lane did not end, it just turned into a normal lane.

su_dios

APM wrote:

I've found that happening in a few places and the cars pulling in have stuck their hazards on as they were turning in. Possibly indicating first then just before pulling in sticking on the hazards. Makes the car behind following either a) slow down because they know your coming to a full stop or
b) indicate and go around you. thus minimizing the chances of a smash

Would doing that help?

That sounds like a good idea yes. Some people just don't want to slow down despite seeing that you are slowing down a good bit before the turn. Thanks for advice and sorry to hijack the thread(thought it was originally relevant but not now). Good luck to the OP and his wife

Pherekydes

littlejukka wrote:

there's no twist. the quote isn't relevant to this incident as there was no yield sign and the bus lane did not end, it just turned into a normal lane.

You seem to know this for a fact. Were you there? If not, then we've only the description given by the OP, who doesn't mention the presence or absence of a yield sign. He does, however, mention the presence of a junction, and since ordinary traffic may not enter a bus lane, said bus lane must, in fact, terminate some distance short of the junction, if traffic is to be permitted to turn left.

Esel

craichoe wrote:

AFAIK,

You never cross a solid white line, you can only enter and exit the bus lane at the broken white line.

Also when leaving the lane you to give way to traffic in the non bus lane.

Afaik, if your wife crossed a solid white line shes in the wrong as the taxi driver had right of way. If she crossed the broken white line the taxi driver was in the wrong as he should have given way and made sure it was safe to re-join normal traffic.

I don't think the thick white line delineating a bus lane has the same status as a continuous white line in the centre of the road. Buses and taxis continually leave and join bus lanes by crossing it, as do cars outside stated hours.

Seth Brundle

On that basis, traffic can turn left but if something is approaching then they must give way before they try to move into the lane. Yer woman didn't!

cyclopath2001

Is the outcome of this thread a consensus that if you fail to yield right of way, the blocked party has the right to take the wing off your car?

I think who had right of way has nothing to do with who was to at fault in the collision. They are separate matters.

That should be decided in terms of whether or not the taxi driver could have foreseen the collision if he was taking reasonable care.

littlejukka

Slow coach wrote:

You seem to know this for a fact. Were you there? If not, then we've only the description given by the OP, who doesn't mention the presence or absence of a yield sign. He does, however, mention the presence of a junction, and since ordinary traffic may not enter a bus lane, said bus lane must, in fact, terminate some distance short of the junction, if traffic is to be permitted to turn left.

it's very simple. read. read again if necessary.

IF the woman was moving into a lane in which another vehicle is travelling, she has no right of way. ever.

IF the bus lane was ending for a left turn lane, she's still wrong.

IF the bus lane did in fact terminate, which it couldn't have if the taxi was able to go another 30 metres before stopping without hitting others cars in the lane he was merging into (assuming the lanes merged, which they clearly didn't), she'd still be in the wrong for moving in too early into the path of a vehicle in the lane. the lane wouldn't disappear if there was a left turn ahead. it would turn into a filter lane.

littlejukka

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Is the outcome of this thread a consensus that if you fail to yield right of way, the blocked party can take the wing off your car?

the fact is that he took her wing off because she made an error. we can assume he would have stopped if he could.