1

Topic: The task of traffic regulations

All greetings. To recently lifted subject about re-examination and to the comment that it is useful for some drivers to esteem traffic regulations, I offer a question There is a road (1), from it there is a turn in court yard ("the Residential zone is not present a sign"). There is a road (2) which goes perpendicularly to houses. Also there are departures from these houses (3). In case of intersection of a red and dark blue path who for whom should make way? "The red" driver considers that "dark blue" leaves from adjoining territory. "Dark blue" the noise on the right considers that at "red". Some generally consider that time "red" goes directly, at it principal road (it by the way not a joke! I repeatedly faced the such, when at a crossroads the sign "Principal road hangs turns to the right", and all the same stand and pass those who goes directly) Are expensive 2 and 3 identical, asphalted. Signs on a priority and a marking are not present either there or there. And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment.

2

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> "the Red" driver considers that "dark blue" leaves from adjoining territory. U> "dark blue" the noise on the right considers that at "red". U> Some generally consider that time "red" goes directly, at it principal road (it by the way not a joke! I repeatedly faced the such, when at a crossroads the sign "Principal road hangs turns to the right", and all the same stand and pass those who goes directly) the Noise on the right, roads are equivalent. Therefore the red should concede. Lived in the house with approximately such marking. In practice the direct road is considered principal, therefore if leave, it is better to pass. And if you go on it you pass. Only it is necessary to be  since in case of road accident you will be guilty.

3

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, alzt, you wrote: A> Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>> "the Red" driver considers that "dark blue" leaves from adjoining territory. U>> "dark blue" the noise on the right considers that at "red". U>> Some generally consider that time "red" goes directly, at it principal road (it by the way not a joke! I repeatedly faced the such, when at a crossroads the sign "Principal road hangs turns to the right", and all the same stand and pass those who goes directly) A> the Noise on the right, roads are equivalent. Therefore the red should concede. And why not adjoining territory? Here that  (I do not defend this or that position, it is simply interesting): From determination of traffic regulations driving on adjoining territory is carried out according to the same rules, as rules on road, and to them again there is an adjoining territory - a recursion. All is simple, in adjoining territory the road can be constructed also and one more territory will adjoin to this road. I.e. in itself this entrance to court yard after the journey (1) is adjoining territory, and departures from houses on road (2) are not? A> lived in the house with approximately such marking. In practice On concepts the direct road is considered principal, therefore if leave, it is better to pass. And if you go on it you pass. Only it is necessary to be  since in case of road accident you will be guilty. "Who goes directly, that on principal" (corrected)

4

Re: The task of traffic regulations

What horse-radish the red and dark blue do on sidewalk?

5

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Sheridan, you wrote: S> What horse-radish the red and dark blue do on sidewalk? Really! At Stalin such was not! And if it is serious, sidewalk there - here those sections, which between roadside and houses. And machines go quite to themselves on road. : And it not the answer, and a question

6

Re: The task of traffic regulations

U> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. The variant "Dark blue" is considered that at "red" by a noise on the right. But generally happens that in some places/court yard there is something like private traditions, like that that in bottlenecks the machine passes from the certain side or somewhere someone passes at a crossroads.

7

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> There is a road (1), from it there is a turn in court yard ("the Residential zone is not present a sign"). U> There is a road (2) which goes perpendicularly to houses. Also there are departures from these houses (3). U> In case of intersection of a red and dark blue path who for whom should make way? U> "the red" driver considers that "dark blue" leaves from adjoining territory. Judging by it: http://ruspdd.ru/commentpdd/205-prilega … erritoriya it is right. Departures from houses come to an end with lockup or the same parallel road (as 2). U> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment.  in case of ambiguity (whether not clearly to consider 2 adjoining as territory or only 3) it is better to go slowly and accurately, just in case.

8

Re: The task of traffic regulations

U> I.e. in itself this entrance to court yard after the journey (1) is adjoining territory, and departures from houses on road (2) are not? The adjoining territory can be road - then rules as on any other roads, and can not be road - a field, a parking, wood, the gas station and . Then it will be minor in relation to road.

9

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, _AND, you wrote: U>> I.e. in itself this entrance to court yard after the journey (1) is adjoining territory, and departures from houses on road (2) are not? _AN> the adjoining territory can be road - then rules as on any other roads, and can not be road - a field, a parking, wood, the gas station and . Then it will be minor in relation to road. Well here all that sideways from road (1) is (1) territory adjoining To ROAD. Road (3) in turn adjoining to (2) or not? The priority between (2) and (3) In this case interests. There not wood, not a first coat, not the gas station.

10

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, _AND, you wrote: U>> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. _AN> the variant "Dark blue" is considered that at "red" by a noise on the right. _AN> But generally happens that in some places/court yard there is something like private traditions, like that that in bottlenecks the machine passes from the certain side or somewhere someone passes at a crossroads. The driver can and not live in this court yard and not know local traditions and concepts On that and the general for all Corrected is.

11

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, XuMuK, you wrote: XMK> Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>> There is a road (1), from it there is a turn in court yard ("the Residential zone is not present a sign"). U>> There is a road (2) which goes perpendicularly to houses. Also there are departures from these houses (3). U>> In case of intersection of a red and dark blue path who for whom should make way? U>> "the red" driver considers that "dark blue" leaves from adjoining territory. XMK> judging by it: http://ruspdd.ru/commentpdd/205-prilega … erritoriya it is right. Departures from houses come to an end with lockup or the same parallel road (as 2). Prodrivings along houses (it is expensive 3 and parallel to it) - open, on the other hand road, parallel (2). U>> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. XMK> Imho in case of ambiguity (whether not clearly to consider 2 adjoining as territory or only 3) is better to go slowly and accurately, just in case. Rules "three " yes, works.

12

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: S>> What horse-radish the red and dark blue do on sidewalk? U> it is valid! At Stalin such was not! And that! U> and if it is serious sidewalk there - here those sections which between roadside and houses. And machines go quite to themselves on road. Generally there is a rule: road - (||) - sidewalk. Further additional signs: - if it is necessary to overcome a border - precisely you call in on sidewalk. - If at departure from a court yard there are no type signs "make way", it not departure, and the output on sidewalk - if along "road" is not present sidewalks given "road" itself is sidewalk - if on "road" not |, and a tile it too most likely sidewalk - if along "road" of a shop or   steps directly on "road" quit, it besides not road, and sidewalk - if the width of "road" does not allow to part to two car and thus there are no signs on type "one-way traffic" it again sidewalk Well and at last if there are doubts that leave on road it is necessary to look back and be convinced once again that it not sidewalk. And after at least two-three years at the wheel the ass starts to feel that  not so.

13

Re: The task of traffic regulations

_AN>> But generally happens that in some places/court yard there is something like private traditions, like that that in bottlenecks the machine passes from the certain side or somewhere someone passes at a crossroads. U> the driver can and not live in this court yard and not know local traditions and concepts On that and the general for all Corrected is. Well I also write that by rules are equivalent roads, red passes.

14

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. And that, point "if  it is not clear, the driver should consider that it on minor" cancelled? And point "when  it is not clear also all stand, agree" too?

15

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Sheridan, you wrote: S> Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: S>>> What horse-radish the red and dark blue do on sidewalk? U>> it is valid! At Stalin such was not! S> and that! U>> and if it is serious sidewalk there - here those sections which between roadside and houses. And machines go quite to themselves on road. S> generally there is a rule: road - (||) - sidewalk. Well indeed. The house, round it a lawn, then sidewalk, then a border, it is then expensive. S> further additional signs: S> - if it is necessary to overcome a border - precisely you call in on sidewalk. It is not necessary. S> - if at departure from a court yard there are no type signs "make way", it not departure, and the output on sidewalk At departure from a court yard on road (1) is signs and even a traffic light. S> - if along "road" there are no sidewalks given "road" itself is sidewalk the Lord with you. At road (2) on the one hand a lawn, there bushes, trees even planted recently. Sidewalk only on the one hand, and that about houses. S> - if on "road" not |, and a tile it too most likely sidewalk Asphalt, I specified in the beginning that both roads (2) and (3) are asphalted just to avoid speculations on a subject of inadequacy of roads because of a covering. S> - if along "road" of a shop or   steps directly on "road" quit, it besides not road, and sidewalk S> - if width of "road" does not allow to part to two car and thus there are no signs on type "one-way traffic" it again the sidewalk Allows, but it is traditional one of the sides (and even two) are forced by machines (Signs "the Stop/parking is forbidden is not present! Stand by rules. In this side too it is not necessary to dig) S> Well and at last if there are doubts that leave on road it is necessary to look back and be convinced once again that it not sidewalk. And after at least two-three years at the wheel the ass starts to feel that  not so. Pancake of That everywhere sidewalks seem to you??? I do not have doubts that I leave ON ROAD. There are doubts about the PRIORITY ON TWO ROADS to a court yard. If it was normal  equivalent roads, questions would not be.

16

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, _AND, you wrote: _AN>>> But generally happens that in some places/court yard there is something like private traditions, like that that in bottlenecks the machine passes from the certain side or somewhere someone passes at a crossroads. U>> the driver can and not live in this court yard and not know local traditions and concepts On that and the general for all Corrected is. _AN> well I also write that by rules are equivalent roads, red passes. And than their equivalence is defined? I here searched in traffic regulations, did not find.

17

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> the Pancake of That everywhere sidewalks seem to you??? I do not have doubts that I leave ON ROAD. U> there are doubts about the PRIORITY ON TWO ROADS to a court yard. If it was normal  equivalent roads, questions would not be. If there are doubts in a priority - make way. It is better to appear  and to steam of minutes to feel the fool, than to appear rumpled. I conceded road in the described configuration, whether for at departure to me  who would be visible to eat on road and I would drop speed up to a stop if needed. On the other hand, moving on a red arrow, I would keep the left extreme position and  departures about absolutely assured. , more shortly.

18

Re: The task of traffic regulations

_AN>> Well I also write that by rules are equivalent roads, red passes. U> and than their equivalence is defined? I here searched in traffic regulations, did not find. In sense? If there are no signs \marking \traffic lights and both asphalt - that equivalent.

19

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, the Daisy wheel, you wrote: Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. And that, point "if  it is not clear, the driver should consider that it on minor" cancelled? And point "when  it is not clear also all stand, agree" too? And why it is not clear? All all Clearly dark blue is clear that at red a noise on the right, and it goes. Red it is clear that at dark blue departure with adjoining and it too goes. And just not "all stand", and "all go". At all Also interests how to part, and that GAI officers in a case tell if did not part. Clear business that on road (3) you go very slowly (there a court yard, children, ), and on (2) separate unique persons occasionally fly quickly enough. It seems to me that those who goes on a straight line, hardly reflect on rules, noises and a priority, is simple because go faster and go directly. It there are enough percent for 30 drivers as practice shows. UPD: generally I did not see there ANY failure, i.e. all somehow part. On concepts or on traffic regulations, but that is not the question. A question - as it is correct from the point of view of rules. Whether how to define equivalent these are roads or one for another adjoining?

20

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: 2 is an adjoining territory. 3 is a domestic territory. Point 17.4 of traffic regulations of the Russian Federation equates domestic territories to residential zones. Point 17.3 orders at departure from a residential zone to make way for other participants of driving. Therefore dark blue should concede, and in practice normally and concedes. A hitch that in traffic regulations there is no determination of domestic territory. That is it like as is obvious that 3 is a court yard, and 2 - is not present, but generally it is a gap in rules.

21

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, _AND, you wrote: _AN>>> Well I also write that by rules are equivalent roads, red passes. U>> and than their equivalence is defined? I here searched in traffic regulations, did not find. _AN> in sense? If there are no signs \marking \traffic lights and both asphalt - that equivalent. Here there where there live my parents, instead of (2) there transits road - street, with a title, with a marking. At departure from a court yard of parents (3) on this street there are no signs and traffic lights, the marking clear business in a court yard too is not present. But here obviously situation unambiguous on traffic regulations - departure from a court yard is adjoining territory. I.e. you treat so, what time in a picture at (2) is not present signs and a marking, it equivalent in relation to (3)? And draw on it a marking - the situation changes? (About priority signs even it is not necessary to speak, for their setting removes all questions).

22

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Sheridan, you wrote: S> Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>> the Pancake of That everywhere sidewalks seem to you??? I do not have doubts that I leave ON ROAD. U>> there are doubts about the PRIORITY ON TWO ROADS to a court yard. If it was normal  equivalent roads, questions would not be. S> if there are doubts in a priority - make way. It is better to appear  and to steam of minutes to feel the fool, than to appear rumpled. To appear rumpled (especially on those speeds that in a court yard) - generally anything terrible. Here on me it was knocked foreheads, I on  was repaired, the franchize paid, then collected through insurance from this forehead. At a forehead the machine in breakage and a minus in a karma (magnification of cost of the further insurance). But I (hope) further it will look at priority signs. I too learned a lesson - even approaching on principal road I brake. Sometimes just  behind. But the fool of I do not feel. S> I conceded road in the described configuration, whether for at departure to me  who would be visible to eat on road and I would drop speed up to a stop if needed. S> on the other hand, moving on a red arrow, I would keep the right edge and  departures about absolutely assured. S> , more shortly. Unfortunately, GAI will not clarify, who is more "" from two drivers and for this reason the for the second (which less "") should it concede And I think that define the originator accurately, proceeding from traffic regulations.

23

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>>> the Pancake of That everywhere sidewalks seem to you??? I do not have doubts that I leave ON ROAD. U>>> there are doubts about the PRIORITY ON TWO ROADS to a court yard. If it was normal  equivalent roads, questions would not be. S>> if there are doubts in a priority - make way. It is better to appear  and to steam of minutes to feel the fool, than to appear rumpled. U> it to Appear rumpled (especially on those speeds that in a court yard) - generally anything terrible. Anything terrible is  in millimeters from. To be rumpled is to lose some time, nerves and money. U> I too learned a lesson - even approaching on principal road I brake. Here I just about it.  it is necessary not only for itself, but also for others. For   ... U> Sometimes just  behind. But the fool of I do not feel. It is good. Events much to such turn afflicts and even offends. Quit to understand, glasses start to beat... Was at me once. Before me of foreheads sharply  (as it appeared decided to pass the girl who was going to pass road and to it was two more bands and a lawn). I was in time, but . Well that took offense, partitioned off to me road, the beginnings in a window ... Glory to masters, it did not master a window, and at me the logger was. Half a year then that of foreheads  resembled. , claims after that any to me, even informal S>> On the other hand, moving on a red arrow, I would keep the right edge and  departures about absolutely assured. S>> , more shortly. U> unfortunately, GAI will not clarify, who is more "" from two drivers and for this reason the for the second (which less "") should it concede And I think that define the originator accurately, proceeding from traffic regulations. Is better to avoid it absolutely.

24

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. About one year back I got to small road accident on departure from a court yard in almost identical situation. I.e. I was on a place of the "dark blue" driver. In GAI me recognized as guilty since I left after the journey, immediately adjoining to entrances and domestic territories and should concede to the second driver, i.e. "red". I.e. on their logician I left from adjoining territory, and it - is not present. Priority signs, "residential zone", etc. there was not, both roads asphalted. I live in Belarus, if that, though hardly at us with Russia the strong distinctions in traffic regulations. And I with GAI decision agree (instead of conceded not on ignorance, and by a carelessness).

25

Re: The task of traffic regulations

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> And what you consider? If something is not clear, I can comment. We note that from the practical point of view it is values has no. From what side I would not go, I will not have a confidence based on traffic regulations, pass me or pass, because the second person himself does not know, how is correct. Therefore a unique safe variant - to drop speed, and on behavior of the second participant to estimate, it passes or goes. If it is not clear, just in case to pass it.