Abknickende Vorfahrtsstraße folgen oder rechts verlassen, wen muss ich rüberlassen?
Szenario 1:
Ich verlasse die abknickende Vorfahrtsstraße nach RECHTS (Radfahrer will gerade aus fahren):
Szenario 2: Ich folge der abknickenden Vorfahrtsstraße (Fußgänger vorne):
Szenario 3: Ich folge der abknickenden Vorfahrtsstraße (Fußgänger hinten):
Quelle: Google Maps
In welchem Szenario muss ich den Fußgänger rüber lassen?
Nur bei Szenario 3 oder? Bei Szenario 2 bin ich ja noch nicht abgebogen? Oder bei Szenario 2 und 3?
(1 votes)
Loading...
Figure 1:
You have to let the cyclist go. The exit of the roadway is considered to be a bend and therefore § 9 para. 3 sentence 1 StVO:
Figure 3:
The pedestrian has priority (Appendix 3, number 2.1 StVO:
Figure 2:
One can discuss whether the control from scenario 3 is already applied at the beginning of the buckling advance.
Personally, I don’t see it because I evaluate it analogy to a “normal” opening. There, too, the pedestrian crossing the “my” road before me (so before the bend) must wait. Only the pedestrians who cross the road at the end of my bending process (i.e. on the road I bend into) have priority.
In addition, the application of scenario 3 would lead to a duty to wait for those who follow the route, but not for those who want to turn right.
I therefore see a priority for the driver.
I agree with your personal assessment. :
As I can see, in no one.
https://youtu.be/96xJyx5Bb-0?si=Zj_lVa-xOe88vcAk
You pictured the wrong case. According to DEINEM film the car would have to come from the right – and then the pedestrians would have to wait.
In Table 1 the Drivers Prioritybecause he follows the main road and you bend off, § 9 para. 3 S. 1 StVO.
In Scenario 2 and 3 you have you prioritybecause you follow the main road. Of course, don’t let the pedestrian pass over when it goes.
Judgments:
BayObLG (Decision of 08.03.1972 – RReg 6 St 662/71 OWi): “Whoever follows the bending course of the main road changes its direction of travel, but does not bend in the legal sense”
BayObLG (Decision of 30.12.1985 – 2 Ob OWi 291/85): “Since the road that is known does not deviate the following road users”
OLG Oldenburg (Decision of 14.01.1999 – Ss 506/98): “If a road user wants to leave the road to the left straight ahead, he does not change his direction of travel, but he bends in the right direction”
“This also applies to a bending road. If it crosses a pedestrian, it also has priority over the traffic following the road. A hint that one could have done quietly here – most drivers have no glimpse of it.” What about this comment?
https://youtu.be/96xJyx5Bb-0?si=Zj_lVa-xOe88vcAk
is the video incorrectly explained?
I don’t know where the commentary gate refers to its source. I’ve called you readable court judgments from traffic law.
Yeah, obviously. Only that he speaks of bending, although the consequences of the turning road is not a bend (BayObLG (Decision of 08.03.1972 – RReg 6 St 662/71 OWi) and Decision of 30.12.1985 – 2 Ob OWi 291/85). He also speaks at the beginning of the normal priority rules. Since when do pedestrians normally have priority if they want to cross the main road that would not make a bow?
In scenario 3, pedestrians have priority due to Appendix 3 no. 2.1 StVO
Consideration ≠priority.
That with consideration is what I already wrote:
Of course, don’t let the pedestrian pass over when it goes.
If consideration is to give priority to them, § 1 para. 1 StVO:
mean, “All others have priority over me.”
The judgment derives the primacy exclusively from sentence 3, without connection with sentence 1.
You ignore the meaning of the phrase “if necessary to wait”. This is a must rule (“is”) and Obligation the driver to stop when a pedestrian wants to cross the road.
Source
Incidentally, it doesn’t matter whether you call it a priority, a pre-level or not. In any case, the driver must wait in scenario 3 when a pedestrian crosses the road. It is not for nothing that almost the entire Internet looks like that.
Even if I can’t understand it well, I can understand your way of thinking. But then my question: when is it “needing to wait” when there is no case according to § 1 StVO?
You have correctly of § 9 para. 3 StVO as a whole and not only § 9 para. 3 S. 3 StVO alone. The priority from page 3 is only given to the connection with page 1. However, I have already commented on this in detail in the following comments. For reasons of clarity and in order to avoid redundancy, I quote a repetition of the same text.
Without S. 1, which is not available in Appendix 3, there is no precedence even in the absence of the “first right” sequence. That is precisely why the judgment of the OLG Hamm, which is based on § 9 para. 3 p. 3 does not apply to the plant 3 in a detached manner, since in the kinking forward road § 9 para. 3 p. 1 StVO is missing as a derivation basis.
The “first right” application goes on bending because of § 9 para. 3 S. 1 StVO. After this one has to let go of intercourse. However, it is not necessary to leave the traffic at the downhill road. Since this part falls away, the “first right”-derived priority rule (the connection with “in connection with”) is also eliminated.
Of course, I’ve heard this before, but in this case I couldn’t see any meaningful connection.
Your explanation is grammatically expandable, but I think I have read out your core statement (light exaggeration).
But I still don’t understand how you’re making the difference to the buckling runway.
The priority in § 9 and Appendix 3 is given in particular from the part “if necessary to wait”.
The text in Appendix 3 is almost identical to § 9 para. 3 StVO and the OLG Hamm speaks quite of precedence, but at least of pre-ranking position.
In § 1, the part with the “if necessary is to wait”.
You have never heard or understood the meaning of i.V.m. in the legal sense. It wasn’t labeled fat for free. You need to connect both sentences and then use the first right method.
Since sentence 1 states that other vehicles must be allowed to pass and at the same time sentence 3 states that pedestrians must be particularly careful when bending, the joint connection of these sets reveals that pedestrians as weaker road users it is Priority is given when bending, if priority is given to vehicles and you must pay attention to them. (Argumentum a maiore ad minus)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_a_maiore_ad_minus#Juristic_Examples
Here too, it is not explicitly stated in § 2255 BGB that parts of a will can be revoked, but it is the speech of the will itself.
What a fool. In sentence 1, it is about other vehicles, not pedestrians. What gives you the priority control when bending, if not by set 3?
Because of this from § 9 para. 3 p. 1 in connection with p. 3.
And then why pedestrians have to bend according to § 9 para. 3 Set 3 StVO Priority? I don’t see any difference.
In Scenario 1, you have to give a ride to the cycling, because it remains on the priority road and maintains its direction while you are about to leave it (to the right).
With the other two scenarios (2+3) you have an entrance.
On the one hand, you stay on the priority road, on the other hand, the pedestrians (both located at the rear or at the front) do not have a protective path on this intersection. Zebra strips available and therefore have to pay attention to approximate vehicles before crossing the road.