I don’t suppose there’s any chance this could be used as grounds to get sole custody?

It’s difficult though, because she’s old enough that it’s not going to be very long before there’s nothing you can do to stop it, and even if you mean well, there’s a chance this could irreparably harm your relationship with your daughter. Especially if it takes lawyers to do…

The ADL are defenders of genocide. Is it any wonder they’d be pro-Nazi?

Oh, I’ve been to Armidale! Just for one night many years ago as a stop off on a leisurely scenic drive back from Newcastle to Brisbane. Apparently the pollution is terrible in winter because it’s just a bowl.

My other Armidale fun fact is that, according to an Australian corvid expert on Reddit many years ago, the general rule of thumb is that Armidale is the dividing line between Australian crows and ravens. South of Armidale most large black birds you see will be ravens. North of it they’re crows.

But if we’re doing cities that have no business being cities: Charters Towers, an hour or so inland of Townsville in FNQ. Apparently it got big enough back during the gold rush to be determined a city.

Dude has a history of winning legal cases that any reasonable observer would say he has no business winning. The media is probably terrified of a defamation suit.

Damn, small enough that you’re confident I won’t have heard of it, but large enough that it’s officially a city? That leaves me very intrigued. Does it show up at the 7z zoom level on Google Maps? (Which on my 1080p desktop monitor is the most I can be zoomed in while seeing all of NSW’ width.)

Yeah you don’t usually see it like in this image. It tends to be that where two lanes merge, it’s more like a road narrowing equally between both lanes, rather than one lane appearing to end while the other appears to continue. The Gailey Rd screenshots I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread are an example.

This is correct.

What about in the scenario shown in this real-world picture?

Or do you not have scenarios like that?

Here we make a distinction between one lane ending and two lanes merging. This government advisory webpage gives examples of both. In theory they could look like the above, but my experience is that in practice, when it’s “two lanes merging” it tends to be shaped more equally between the lanes, like in the real-life image shown there.

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.

In Australia you also indicate when changing lanes. The catch is that in this scenario, you aren’t really changing lanes in that way. See where the dashed line ends? After that point there is only one lane in the direction of travel. It makes it a little less clear.

Yup, that part is easy enough. The part in doubt is who has to indicate in this scenario. I contend section 45(2) and (3) both apply, so both drivers must indicate (blue indicate right, orange indicate left). Others have made cases for only blue, or for neither.

a small rural “city” full of roundabouts

Ah, a Canberran.

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.

Who has right of way?

Whoever is in front has right of way at these. It’s unlike a situation where one lane ends (indicated by a dotted line that runs out), in which case the person in the continuing lane has right of way.

whoops this is a Brisbane question

You could take a look at your state’s laws to verify, but I strongly suspect the answer will be the same wherever in Australia you go. Our road rules are relatively standardised, even though it’s all state legislation.

What they show in pictures is not what’s written in the law. It wouldn’t be the first time TMR’s interpretation in supplemental material misunderstood the law.

Connections
Puzzle #590
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩

Skill 97/99
Uniqueness 1 in 254

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.

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.

It’s not going to be Australian backpackers overstaying their visas who get deported en mass.

Jack Black actively chose to call out his fellow band mates who made a mild joke about the assassination attempt that hit Trump’s ear.

He’s not going to be leading any revolutions.