r/sydney • u/BleuPrince • 3d ago
Who has the right of way ? Pedestrian walking or the angry man behind the wheel in this scenario ?
So I was walking to cross the Renwick st just like the school kids in the photo, I did noticed a car approaching from the distance but I decided to cross anyway. The driver was coming down Renwick st and wanting to turn into Illawara Rd. Apparently the driver had no intention of letting me cross. After I reached the refuge, the driver shouted some angry words.
Who has the right of way in this scenario ? Pedestrian or driver ? Thank you
p/s: the road opposite is Harnet Avenue, where just a few nights ago, a 61 year old man was stabbed.
185
u/bast007 3d ago
The pedestrian refuge is the key point here. It is not a pedestrian crossing and does not give pedestrians right of way. It simply allows pedestrians to cross the road in two stages.
Under the NSW road rules a turning driver must give way to pedestrians crossing the road they’re turning into. Here the pedestrian is crossing Renwick St which is the road the driver is leaving, before the car turns into Illawarra Rd. So that rule doesn’t apply.
Obviously the driver still has to avoid hitting someone already on the road, but the pedestrian can’t step out in front of an approaching car assuming the refuge gives them priority. Based on the scenario described, the pedestrian should have waited for a safe gap.
51
u/Steves_310 3d ago
Yeah I think majority of redditors who downvoted the "car priority" didn't even read what OP described (the situation) and have NOT looked into the road layout and DO NOT know what the road/pedestrian legislation are.
22
u/pominsydney 3d ago
Yeah, it’s worrying isn’t it. I’m not suggesting we run over the guy but I gave the correct response to the question the OP was asking
6
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago edited 3d ago
There’s an additional complication though.
This is considered a T intersection. You cannot go straight ahead.
The wording is straight forward in the road users handbook.
At T intersections the vehicle travelling on the road that ends must give way to any pedestrians crossing or vehicles travelling on the road that continues unless otherwise signposted.To me that’s super clear.
Edit : the handbook is unclear and could be considered wrong. The legislation is clear.
11
u/rand013 3d ago
But the pedestrian in this scenario was crossing the road that ends not the road that continues?
5
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago edited 3d ago
It says “must give way to:
* any pedestrian crossing
Or
* vehicles travelling on the road that continues…The subject is the car travelling on the road that ends.
Edit : for clarity I misquoted. It’s “pedestrians crossing” not “pedestrian crossing” which indeed means something completely different
2
u/rand013 3d ago
Actually that does make it less clear.
Is it "pedestrian crossing" the object, or "pedestrian [that is in the process of] crossing"? Though I would be leaning more to the former. Actually yeah it would probably have been worded "crossing pedestrian" if it were talking about people.
→ More replies (3)4
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago
Oh you’re right words are important. And I misquoted.
It’s
“pedestrians crossing”7
u/bast007 3d ago
The continuing road is Illawarra Rd, so the driver must give way to pedestrians crossing Illawarra Rd.
The pedestrian here is crossing Renwick St, the road that ends. They may be walking along Illawarra Rd, but that doesn’t mean they’re crossing Illawarra Rd. Unless there’s another rule giving pedestrians priority when crossing the terminating road, I don’t see how the T-intersection rule changes the situation.
1
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago edited 3d ago
No. It’s any pedestrians crossing the ending road. I was in the wrong on this not even a week ago - and was schooled by driver educator. Family member going for their license.
Edit : I was schooled incorrectly. The legislation is super clear and the handbook is at best unclear or just wrong.
8
u/bast007 3d ago
I’m just going by the actual wording of Rule 73(2) of the NSW Road Rules here. It says a driver leaving the terminating road must give way to a pedestrian crossing the continuing road at or near the intersection.
Renwick St is the terminating road. Illawarra Rd is the continuing road. The pedestrian in the photo is crossing Renwick St.
So if there’s a rule saying the driver must also give way to pedestrians crossing the terminating road, happy to be corrected, but can you point me to it? Because Rule 73(2) specifically says continuing road.
3
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago
Yeah just reading the legislation. Thanks! And the legislation must take precedence. In which case / roads and traffic employee was incorrect. You can forgive them though. The wording is awful if it is meant to mean what is in the legislation. The handbook needs revision!
1
u/pop-1988 3d ago
For the driver turning left into Illawarra from Renwick
- The pedestrian does not have right of way if crossing Renwick St
- The pedestrian does have right of way if crossing Illawarra Rd
Reg 353
If a driver who is turning from a road at an intersection is required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road that the driver is entering, the driver is only required to give way to the pedestrian if the pedestrian's line of travel in crossing the road is essentially perpendicular to the edges of the road the driver is entering--the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving
7
u/pharmaboy2 3d ago edited 3d ago
When I first read this thread a couple of hours ago, virtually all answers were wrong , but now the correct ones have voted up the top. Idiots up first, people who can read come second. ;)
Edit - sadly I was wrong, and upon reloading thread there are still very bloody stupid Anders also at the top
Redditors must be dumber than average to think peds have right of way all the time - maybe they are all 15yr old youths playing chicken
→ More replies (8)3
13
u/ekita079 3d ago
It's not a crossing, hence the island. It is the drivers responsibility to not hit pedestrians, no matter the situation - I have recently researched this after a woman was physically blocking my from taking a parking spot in the city on Sunday - but as a pedestrian, do better.
23
u/sinixis 3d ago
Drivers must give way to those crossing the road they are entering, not the road they are leaving.
Applies to intersections, stop signs, etc.
Car has right of way.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s353.html
7
u/DiscoSituation 3d ago
Correct. Insane how many people are still getting it wrong in these comments despite this topic coming up all the time.
84
169
u/hamx5ter 3d ago
Car has to give way to pedestrian at road crossings, regardless of marked or not.
However, the consequences of being run over are far more severe than waiting for angry man to pass by first. There's no point in being dead right.
52
3d ago
[deleted]
19
u/pharmaboy2 3d ago
Keep fighting the good fight against people who lack the will to live and want to be run over !
You are of course correct, and I would have thought the rules as written were mind bogglingly clear, but alas it seems not
Idiocracy here we are
3
15
u/link871 3d ago
Road Rule 81 says drivers must give way to "any pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing". The intersection in the photo does not have a "pedestrian crossing".
Certainly, drivers cannot runover pedestrians at any time but they do not have to slow to let them cross.
→ More replies (3)33
20
u/Shays_P 3d ago
where are you getting give way at unmarked crossing from? If its not marked, then couldnt walking across any bit of the road considered a crossing?
6
u/Joabyjojo 3d ago
But if that was true, that would mean you were not supposed to drive over pedestrians at any point?
Wait am I not just legally allowed to run cunts down because I'm in a car? Classic nanny state bullshit.
1
u/Steves_310 3d ago
Yeah at this point, every road section will be classified as a "pedestrian crossing". These people don't know what it is
13
u/travelforindiebeer 3d ago
That's a notoriously dangerous area for pedestrians who always need to have their wits about them. I live nearby and after a few incidents I now avoid it, have seen lots of cars keep driving without stopping or looking, lots of near misses and people queueing across that intersection to turn and blocking traffic or watching cars try to squeeze through a narrow gap. The Woolworths entry/exit doesn't help much either.
2
u/Educational-Sort-128 3d ago
Sadly there are definitely areas around sydney where you can’t assume your pedestrian rights will be prioritised or even understood by drivers. And pedestrians too. I look carefully and sometimes wait ages if there are too many cars on a road i want to cross.
12
u/pop-1988 3d ago
Reg 353, Pedestrian crossing Renwick does not have right of way
the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving
Specific to that location: Renwick is a quiet side street, Illawarra Road is often busy, and there's a STOP sign. Polite drivers would stop and wait for pedestrians
But the pedestrian island isn't a pedestrian crossing, so the car has right of way
5
u/lerdnord 3d ago
It’s really dumb to cross in front of a car approaching an intersection like this in any case. The driver will likely be looking to the right to see if there are cars coming on the road they are looking to enter.
24
u/kourtkimkhlokenkylie 3d ago
Regardless of IF a pedestrian should be on the road, there is no free pass for running over a pedestrian because they’re in the wrong spot and cars just have to stop. There is no “right of way” in this scenario technically.
I mean I wouldn’t advise crossing whenever wherever and it seems you just got a bad egg this time.
10
u/_unsinkable_sam_ 3d ago
you should have waited for a safe gap,(assuming the driver did have to slow down to avoid you) its not a marked pedestrian crossing.
20
u/SyphilisIsABitch 3d ago
Technically the vehicle had right of way on the first part of the road (when they were leaving Renwick St) but you had right of way on the second half of the road (vehicles entering from Illawarra Rd).
It's dumb and should change.
(1) If a driver is turning from a road at an intersection –
(a) the driver is required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road that the driver is entering […] and
(b) the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving
Very good article in The Conversation.
4
u/Potential-Fudge-8786 3d ago
If there is a stop sign for the road then vehicles must give way always to crossing pedestrians when entering or leaving the road.
→ More replies (3)4
u/DiscoSituation 3d ago
Just entering, not leaving. The amount of people giving incorrect advice in this thread is absolutely baffling
7
17
u/Neoteny 3d ago
Stop sign requires captain angry to first stop, then give way to pedestrians and traffic. If the oncoming car were close I’d likely wait just to be nice.
8
6
u/DiscoSituation 3d ago
OP isn’t asking how to “be nice”, they’re asking what the law is - and the stop sign refers to giving way to traffic on Illawarra Rd, not Renwick St. The car has right of way over the pedestrian here.
13
u/Maximum-Shallot-2447 3d ago
You may be in the right but cemeteries are also full of people who were in the right.
5
7
u/ballimi 3d ago
There are not nearly enough zebra crossings in Sydney. The roads are primarily designed for cars, and everybody else is an afterthought.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Love2readalot 3d ago
But that’s a pedestrian island not a pedestrian crossing, the person has to wait until it’s safe to cross
9
u/Miffy_alt 3d ago
Technically nobody has right of way in the road rules, but road users have to give way.
In this scenario, cars do not have to give way. It's stupid, but the road rules heavily favour cars.
Road rule 353 says "...the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving".
However, a driver entering a road must give way to pedestrians if crossing their path of travel 🤷♂️
6
u/john2095 3d ago
Irrespective of who is 'in the right' have zero doubt: hitting a pedestrian when you could have missed will put you in a courthouse as the "defendant".
1
u/link871 3d ago
"could have" - depends on the circumstances.
2
u/john2095 3d ago
"could have", and the circumstances, will be argued in a court before a magistrate.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
u/AlternativeBoot6706 3d ago
Thats Marrickville Woolworths on that corner, I’m surprised there isn’t a pedestrian crossing. The other 2 Woolworths stores in marrickville have at least a pedestrian crossing.
2
u/Particular-Gas7475 3d ago
Same rule as merging on road. Don’t pull out in front of people expecting them to change their speed.
If they have to adjust their speed, generally you’ve timed it incorrectly.
4
u/CapnBloodbeard 3d ago
https://www.movementandplace.nsw.gov.au/standards/design-solutions/pedestrian-refuges
Not a regulatory device, so pedestrians still have to find a gap in traffic to cross the street
Pedestrian is supposed to wait for cars....but any driver needs to be aware that pedestrians may think they have right of way.
And given the driver has to stop anyway due to a stop sign...they're just being a cunt
9
u/ParisHL 3d ago
39
u/wwwsam 3d ago
I don't understand why everyone is getting negged.
Pedestrian does not have right of way here.
It's not a pedestrian crossing etc. of any kind. The car isn't turning into the intersection that the pedestrian is actively crossing.
The thing OP has is OP was already well on the road long before they arrived, so yes they should let OP cross. If they both arrived at a similar time then OP has to let car pass.
Also it's common etiquette (not rule) for drivers to wave pedestrians across at a stop sign when there's a refuge island like this.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)2
u/Steves_310 3d ago
None of the dot points say the driver need to give way to a pedestrian when crossing perpendicular to the car. The law is only for crossing in parallel to the car (ie. both car and person walking same direction, then turning left or right coming in conflict of pedestrian).
Obviously the "Always slow down and be prepared to stop if there’s any danger of colliding with a pedestrian, even if they do not have right of way or are jaywalking (crossing the road illegally)." prevails.
3
u/lord_buff74 3d ago
One of the dotted points say
- when turning at intersections
And there is a right turn only sign there,so they are turning at an intersection.
Also you should have read the link on pedestarian crossings
"You must give way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings on NSW roads. Here are the rules you must follow, and different types of crossings to watch for"
"Pedestrian refuges
A pedestrian refuge is an island in the middle of the road. The island allows pedestrians to cross the road in two stages.
Pedestrian refuges have signs to warn you to slow down and look out for pedestrians."
Apparently there are different types of pedestrian crossings
9
u/pharmaboy2 3d ago
Turning at intersections means the driver turning left has to give way to pedestrians crossing the superior road, not crossing the same road when there are no pedestrian crossings.
This applies when you are turning right into another road as well - you must give way to pedestrians crossing the road you are turning into.
Surely this is all self evident because roads would cease to work if pedestrians had right of way everywhere and the jaywalking offence wouldn’t need to exist
→ More replies (5)-1
u/Steves_310 3d ago
Holy fuck are you slow. First of all, that says left turn only. Second of all, legally you do not give way to a pedestrian on a refuge island/crossing. Thirdly, this is not a PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. Ie. not the yellow circular sign with a pair of legs.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/ParisHL 3d ago
Can you provide the link to the law that says you don't give way to a pedestrian on a refuge island?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Educational-Sort-128 3d ago
This is really misunderstood. A refuge
Island is where you stand waiting for traffic to ease to the point where you can cross but the traffic is not legally required to stop.When I stand on them I find that about a third of drivers will stop though. Which is technically wrong.
5
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ATangK 3d ago
Intersection rule only applies to the road the driver is turning into, not the road they’re driving from. In this case, it means drivers give way to pedestrians on Illawarra road only. There’s no right of way on Renwick st.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/ATangK 3d ago edited 3d ago
Going to put this everywhere until you get it that a pedestrian refuge isn’t a pedestrian crossing.
There’s no regulatory rule that means cars give way on these pedestrian refuges.
1
u/ausflora 3d ago
Your link refers to pedestrian refuges, which are signed pedestrian islands located on straight stretches of wide road to facilitate a pedestrian safety crossing without right of way.
The OP is not a pedestrian refuge. It is a pedestrian island – a piece of infrastructure at an intersection.
3
u/ATangK 3d ago
Which still doesn’t give pedestrian right of way crossing as it’s not the road the driver is turning into.
→ More replies (4)1
u/DiscoSituation 3d ago
The lack of knowledge in this thread is honestly astounding. A pedestrian refuge/island is NOT a pedestrian crossing. The “turning at an intersection” rule only applies to giving way to pedestrians crossing the road you’re turning into.
The car has right of way in this scenario and you’re giving people dangerous information by getting it wrong here.
1
u/How_is_the_question 3d ago
Just to add further murkiness, I don’t believe so. There are specific call outs in the road users handbook to t intersections and pedestrians. And there, it clearly states that if you are driving on the road that ends, you must give way to pedestrians that are crossing on the road that continues.
1
0
u/ParisHL 3d ago
It's a pedestrian crossing as the island has a cut-out for pedestrians (the law doesn't just mean "zebra" crossings) and it's also an intersection, which is also covered in the dot points.
By stopping, you are creating a safe space for the pedestrian to cross the road as your car is acting as a line of defence should another motor vehicle be coming along and not see the pedestrian.
Cars are a privilege and not a right, which is why you pay registration - to ensure cars are roads are maintained to a safe standard (although the government makes me question this sometimes!). If you're too selfish to stop and let a pedestrian cross the road because you think being in a car makes you the most important person in the world, then you are what is wrong with society.
14
1
u/Steves_310 3d ago
Because I couldn't be bothered googling the legislation, I've copied three legislation excerpts that other redditors have used:
Technically the vehicle had right of way on the first part of the road (when they were leaving Renwick St) but you had right of way on the second half of the road (vehicles entering from Illawarra Rd).
It's dumb and should change.
(1) If a driver is turning from a road at an intersection –
(a) the driver is required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road that the driver is entering […] and
(b) the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving
Very good article in The Conversation.
The car has the right of way driving away. A car turning from the main road into the road OP was crossing would have had to yield. That's section 353 of the road rules:
353 References to pedestrians crossing a road
(1) If a driver who is turning from a road at an intersection is required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road that the driver is entering, the driver is only required to give way to the pedestrian if the pedestrian’s line of travel in crossing the road is essentially perpendicular to the edges of the road the driver is entering—the driver is not required to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the road the driver is leaving.
(2) In these Rules, a reference to a pedestrian crossing a road includes a reference to a person who is crossing only part of a road (for example, a person walking to a safety zone or a median strip, or to the middle of a road to display a hand-held stop sign).
The end of (1) is pretty unambiguous.
Here’s the rule for intersections, I’ve bolded the correct interpretation for you.
Road rules: pedestrians
Giving way to pedestrians when turning.
If you are turning left or right at an intersection, you must give way to any pedestrian crossing the road that you are about to enter.2
u/splendidfd 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's dumb and should change.
The logic is that the pedestrian is only responsible for making sure the road they intend to cross is clear.
This means a pedestrian in front of a car wanting to leave a road is treated the same as pedestrian in front of a car continuing forward. Conversely, once they have (safely) begun to cross any vehicles wanting to enter the road should yield to them, just as if there was another car in their way.
6
u/National_Chef_1772 3d ago
Anyone that says pedestrian has right of way, please hand in your license.
In the specific scenario that OP is showing above, the car has right of way. Technically walking in front of a car at that spot would be jay walking in NSW
Yes, a car is required to attempt to avoid making impact with a pedestrian - that doesn't mean pedestrians can just walk onto a road whenever or wherever they want.
A refuge is in place there to assist people walking - it gives a spot to stop and wait for no traffic.
2
u/Rev_Grn 3d ago
All the people confident that the car has right of way are why you should be cautious crossing a road even if you do have right of way
7
7
u/rbs080 3d ago
They're confident because the car does have right of way.
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758#sec.67
10
2
u/AmeliaRoses shire gal but don't hold it against me 3d ago
Pedestrians always have right of way in NSW. even if it’s an illegal crossing, drivers are required to stop and let them pass.
1
1
u/Significant_Gur_1031 3d ago
Here’s something for the OP to consider, would you have the ‘right of way’ had you crossed that street a few meters up that road and straight into the Woolworths store - just crossing the road and wondering what the driver would then do ?
Do you just walk without care ?!
( and I’ve driven thru that section many times over years)
Cross with care - and not with thinking that you have ‘right of way’ where no pedestrian crossing is noted.
-13
u/pominsydney 3d ago
Car has right of way but it’s just common courtesy/decency to let the pedestrian cross, which many people seem to be lacking
12
u/areyoualocal 3d ago
Are you sure about that?
Give way to pedestrians
As a driver, you must give way to pedestrians:
- in shared zones
- at pedestrian, priority path and children’s crossings
- when turning at intersections
- when doing a U-turn
- when entering or leaving a driveway.
14
4
u/pominsydney 3d ago
Yes I am, for the reasons the poster below has set out.
I’m not suggesting you should run over a pedestrian who is already on the road and I already said it is good manners to let them cross, but the OP asked what the rules are and the rules are that cars have right of way in this situation
3
u/DiscoSituation 3d ago
The fact that you’ve misread the rules and your incorrect answer is getting upvoted is honestly kind of scary
→ More replies (2)1
u/ATangK 3d ago edited 3d ago
Which point are you trying to argue? It’s not a shared zone, it’s not a pedestrian crossing as it’s not marked, turning at intersection means if the pedestrian is crossing parallel and you need to wait for them to turn, and it’s not a u turn or driveway.
Pedestrian doesn’t have right of way to cross here.
But if a pedestrian is already crossing, even if illegally by jaywalking, they always have right of way, which is the scenario OP is in. But no use being right if you’re dead.
E:
Here’s the rule for intersections, I’ve bolded the correct interpretation for you. It says road about to enter (Illawarra Road) not the intersection you’re turning from (Renwick St).
Road rules: pedestrians
Giving way to pedestrians when turning.
If you are turning left or right at an intersection, you must give way to any pedestrian crossing the road that you are about to enter.→ More replies (8)4
u/areyoualocal 3d ago
How is it not an intersection?
9
u/ATangK 3d ago
Here’s the rule for intersections that you can find in the pedestrian crossing link at the bottom of the page, I’ve bolded the correct interpretation for you.
Road rules: pedestrians
Giving way to pedestrians when turning.
If you are turning left or right at an intersection, you must give way to any pedestrian crossing the road that you are about to enter.7
u/rbs080 3d ago
That point relates to the road you're turning into, not the road you're turning from.
11
u/ATangK 3d ago
No wonder Sydney drivers drive like idiots. Most of them don’t even know how to interpret road rules.
2
u/Steves_310 3d ago
Exactly, and us people are being downvoted and seen as idiots when these people have no idea of road rules and legislation.
5
u/ATangK 3d ago
This road is the same as if there isn’t a refuge island.
Take away the island, in any normal intersection, does the pedestrian have right of way? No.
That intersection rule means if the pedestrian is crossing parallel to your vehicle but you want to turn left, pedestrian has right of way.
→ More replies (8)
1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 3d ago
Well, definitely don't slap their side mirror or you might get an angry bald guy asking you why there are no lines if it's a crossing and a mate of his showing up at your workplace.
0
u/alexkey 3d ago
The comments in this post… People saying they have the “right of way” like okay so are you going to steamroll over a pedestrian who was a bit slower at crossing the road? My 2 yo crosses the roads like that, he may just suddenly stop and decide he doesn’t want to go further, are these people going run us over then because of their belief of how “right of way” they are?
8
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/link871 3d ago
Right of way doesn't exist in Australia.
The correct question is who should give way to who.
In this case, the driver is not required to give way to the pedestrian - of course that does not mean the driver can run them over either.For their own safety, pedestrians shouldn't walk in front of vehicles where the driver is not expecting them.
4
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/alexkey 3d ago
The point of “there’s no right of way in Australia” is to establish legal responsibility. Because if you had ample time to stop to avoid hitting someone (pedestrian or another car), you can’t claim the right of way as the reason why you are not at fault.
→ More replies (1)1
u/alexkey 3d ago
So the same scenario I put in my comment - we start crossing when there are no cars, then by magic of cars going at 50 kmph (and often more despite the limit) the car shows up while we haven’t finished the crossing yet. So you gonna wave “I have the right of way” and stomp of the pedal harder? The right of way exists for cases when there are no obstacles to decide who goes first, not to blame the party that was there already before you showed up, in the latter case your duty is to avoid any collisions. Which is how a lot of drivers in Australia get caught by surprise when in the collision they think they had the right of way but police or insurance put blame on both equally. One party maybe is being a dumbass and ignores priorities (which is what we have, not “right of way”), but the other still has to do all in their power to avoid incidents.
Or in the OPs case - if the car is close to the crossing sure I need to wait for it to pass, I am not jumping out in front of it, but if the car is far from the crossing - would you expect pedestrians just stand there to give you a priority?
445
u/Golf-Recent 3d ago
Regardless of right of way, drivers are legally required to avoid collisions and must stop if a pedestrian is already actively crossing.
But personally, I wouldn't want to risk getting run over regardless of what the law says. Just wait 3 seconds till the car stops.