Give way rule to change

[Usarka]

Some cuntries are removing traffic lights because the extra responsibility makes people think more and be more considerate.

Some places overseas have shitloads more traffic, yet everyones considerate and things flow.

maybe it'll be good for changing the attitude of drivers.

The only constant in life is arse biscuits.

[MaxB]

In South Auckland there is only one rule - there are no rules.

To some people red lights etc mean absolutely nothing. Changing the turn rule won't mean a thing to these people.

[Toaster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In South Auckland there is only one rule - there are no rules.

KFC closes at 11pm... that's a rule yes??!!

[MaxB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

KFC closes at 11pm... that's a rule yes??!!

But we have heaps of 24 hr Maccas so the herd need never get hungry.

[crazyhorse]

Oh yeah! More accidents to happen. Thought ACC were wanting to reduce their payouts...............clearly not!

[crazyhorse]

Actually, why change something if its not broken!

[Usarka]

Why not break something if it's not changed!

[Scuba_Steve]

Our current rule is by far the most logical choice & is not only best for traffic flow but also the safest, the problem isn't the rule its that people don't know how to drive!!! changing the rule will NOT help this it'll only make the roads more dangerous & generally worse! more-so for bikers.

[R-Soul]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it would be better if all the left turners go through letting one right turner go through per cycle?

Are you arguing that its better for the left turner to stop, together with all the traffic behind them, and sit and stare at the right turner, who does not think that they can go becaise of all the traffic behind the left turner, so that they can stare at each other and no cars from either side go per cycle?

[R-Soul]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our current rule is by far the most logical choice & is not only best for traffic flow but also the safest, the problem isn't the rule its that people don't know how to drive!!! changing the rule will NOT help this it'll only make the roads more dangerous & generally worse! more-so for bikers.

Its not safe at all! For example if the left turner thinks that he is there early enough to go before the right turner, but the right turner thinks that he has right of way and wants to turn quickly to avoid traffic behind the left turner - you have a fuck up right there. In the line of oncoming traffic no less.

Left truners can hide cyclists and moorbikes to either side, making it more unsafe, and resulting in a car truning directly across tehir path - lethal!

Whereas if the law is that you just dont turn if there is no space, then the right turner has one thing to look at- a gap in thetraffic, and stays there until its ALL clear. One direction of focus.

The left truner also only has to worry about cyclists coming up on his left, and does not have three separate (and oppositely aligned) areas to focus on.

Cars behind the right turner basically also have single focus - the car in front of them. Its not rocket science.

Also the current rule is counter intuitive to human survival instincts - turning across an incoming car while relying on their knowledge of the rules does not inspire confidence, causes hesitation, and hence fuckups. But waiting and looking for a gap, and going when it looks safe to you, means less "two people in a passage" scenarios and smoother traffic flow.

[R-Soul]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

more-so for bikers.

Quite teh opposte- it is bikers who are currently hidden by teh left turner stopping in teh lane, and bikers hwo are going straight can find themselves in a situation where they are legally passing on teh right, and having a car turn in front of them - head on collision right there- the worst type.

And if bikers want to turn right under the proposed laws they can move to the right handside, and there will be space for traffic to move past on their left. They also have better acceleration and can take smaller gaps turning right.

Explain how ekse the current rules make it safer for bikes?

[R-Soul]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The advantage of the present rule is that if there is a queue built up of left truning cars giving way, it is easy to slip up the inside.

To have a right turning car move in front of you?

[twotyred]

in the short to medium term it will mean more bikes taken out at intersections because car drivers will have even less of a clue about the correct procedure than they do now, so it will help the gubmints ACC figures on how dangerous bikes are...

[EJK]

I'm afraid that's gonna create a little confusion.



... Really.

[R-Soul]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I submit that there's something about the current rule that doesn't fit people's brains. (I cannot cite solid evidence to support my submission, but, hey, this is an Internet forum.) I think it's the fact that side roads are seen as less important than main roads. Or just the fact that side roads often have give way signs, so people find it hard to switch mental gears when they don't. Whatever. There are many lazy and stupid drivers on the roads, but when considerably more than half of the drivers just don't seem to get the hang of a road rule (a very simple one) I think it's more than that.

I think its common sense that cars on a straight road/lane can be expected to be going faster, and thus are more difficult to slow down to yield for anybody. They should clearly have right of way to continue as is. END OF. Making a law that they must yield does not change the laws of physics.

To my mind its also completely counter intuitive to me as a driver to put my safety and the safety of my family in the hand of another driver who may or may not know he is supposed to yield.