Give way rule to change

[Dim]

About time you guys changed to the proper way of doing things :yes: (disclaimer: I'm from Aus :blink: )

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt

[mattian]

About time you guys changed to the proper way of doing things :yes: (disclaimer: I'm from Aus :blink: )

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt

I like the idea of catching up with the rest of the world with regards to giving way to right turning vehicles. It doesnt make sense to be one of the only countries in the world doing that. The first few weeks after the rule change would be very interesting. "only considering changes" though. May not ever happen.

[Ferkletastic]

Good to see they're looking into improved rider training and power to weight rules for motorcycles too. It's kinda dumb that I can ride a 45hp bandit 250 but can't ride a 33hp DRZ 400 on my 6R.

[neels]

They might as well change it, I could have at least an accident a day turning right out of the street my work is on with people turning right into it not giving way, the bus drivers are the worst ones for it.

I wonder what they mean by 120 hours of supervised driving, if they're meaning with a driving instructor you'd probably be looking at $10k to get a license.

Licensing for mopeds doesn't sound like a bad idea, at the moment if you want to ride a 50cc motorbike you need to do a handling test and bike learners but to ride a scooter (which isn't really a moped anyway) you do a car scratch and win test and then go riding on a machine that doesn't even require a WOF to check that it's safe to ride. Always seemed a bit strange to me.

[Dim]

I wonder what they mean by 120 hours of supervised driving, if they're meaning with a driving instructor you'd probably be looking at $10k to get a license.



The Idea behind this is to probably bring it into line with similar law in Australia too, where a learner driver has to do x number of hours supervised driving with a fully licensed driver and pass a test at the end before being allowed to drive solo. However where it is in place its not very effective as the logged hours are easy to fudge, and there's no real way to tell if the hours logged have actually been completed (perhaps except from driving standard come time for testing).

[ckai]

The Idea behind this is to probably bring it into line with similar law in Australia too, where a learner driver has to do x number of hours supervised driving with a fully licensed driver and pass a test at the end before being allowed to drive solo. However where it is in place its not very effective as the logged hours are easy to fudge, and there's no real way to tell if the hours logged have actually been completed (perhaps except from driving standard come time for testing).

I'm one of the biggest supports of improved driver education. It's better to educate from the start then to try and discipline bad behaviour (e.g. driving like a dick head, not be courteous to other drivers) but some of the driving instructors are plain daft. I often wonder how they got their ticket. Shouldn't the first thing they teach you be respect your fellow road user? That's not the the reason I call some daft. More so lack of skill in appropriate education.

I can't really see a fool proof way of logging hours unless it's with a certified instructor. I was shitting myself when I got my licence and could drive a car by myself, without every being told what to do when the shit hit the fan.

Half the giveway rules aren't even followed at the mo' so they're obviously confusing a few people.

[Maha]

Cant see it having any effect on the current situations you at intersections to be honest.
People will still look dazed and confused, get three women at an unmraked intersection and watch them all sit and grin at each other.
If you know what I mean.

[sinfull]

Give way ??? WTF

[gtr boy]

Give way ??? WTF
here here i just turn the corner when on the bike,if they dont like it im gone anyway

[FJRider]

The first few weeks after the rule change would be very interesting. "only considering changes" though. May not ever happen.

Few will notice .... as few obey the current rules.

[CookMySock]

I quite like the current give way rules - there's enough people who are unsure, so that I can ride around all of them before anyone has figured out wtf just happened.

Didn't they have a go at changing this just a few years ago?

Steve

[Ixion]

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. And a bike giving way at a left hand turn is in a safe position to the left of the road, can wait safely there as long as necessary

Changed, it will be like the old days- stuck on the centre line, with traffic rocketing by on either side a couple of inches from your elbows, waiting for a gap in the left turning traffic. Not a nice place to be.

[avgas]

I agree with Ix here. If I have to give way to block the straight bit of road to let someone turn in...........to me that is just no common sense.
I also see a few pedestrians getting taken out by someone 'diving left' into the corner to the horror of the guy watching the whole thing as he had to give way.

[kwaka_crasher]

It's wrong to change this. What would be right would be to start hammering the fuckwits who refuse to follow the current rule. Just like the many others like turning into the correct lane of a multilane road and into a public carpark.

[R6_kid]

Makes sense, the T-intersection one doesn't happen so much anyway because most T-intersections have a give-way/stop on the joining road anyway, the "current" rule stands where there are no road markings, and I remember reading it when I sat my licence and thinking WTF that doesn't make sense.

[Dim]

Half the giveway rules aren't even followed at the mo' so they're obviously confusing a few people.

I must admit there's a certain elegance in having a system so confusing and counter intuitive that people just stop at an intersection instead of having traffic flow in a safe(r) manner. Especially seeing as there car turning right has to stop in the middle of the road half the time anyway (i've never had a porblem with just going around the left).

[McJim]

Typical. Now that I decide to sell the bike they're finally gonna make the roads safer. Timing or what?

[pzkpfw]

I like it the way it is. That some people don't understand it just means the training and enforcement is missing the mark.


One thing I wonder, is what "jingle" they'll teach the numpties. The "(pretty much always) give way to the right" or "if your drivers' door would be hit, you're in the wrong" messages are quite simple.

What's the simple way to describe the "new" (same as it was before 1977) way?

[Motu]

I'm one of the old farts who has never learned the ''new'' system,even though I've been using it far longer than the old way.I'd be really happy to go back to what makes sense....but I'm sure I'll never adapt,and keep going back to the system I never figured out....

[kwaka_crasher]

Now, call me stupid but...

on 3NEWS tonight, Jane Luscombe said the proposed change will cost around $2M on an education campaign and "a further $1M to change signs and road markings.".

Huh? The GIVE WAY RULE is for uncontrolled intersections! There are no road signs and markings that need changing. That's the whole fucking point of it!

I despair at the outright stupidity that masquerades as journalism in this country. I really do.

[Laxi]

here here i just turn the corner when on the bike,if they dont like it im gone anyway

yep! 1 way or another :lol:

[scumdog]

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. And a bike giving way at a left hand turn is in a safe position to the left of the road, can wait safely there as long as necessary

Changed, it will be like the old days- stuck on the centre line, with traffic rocketing by on either side a couple of inches from your elbows, waiting for a gap in the left turning traffic. Not a nice place to be.

It must be an age thing that means you and I at least can see the advantage of the present system.

All those that think it is NOT good have probably not thought of the advantages of it.

Think of it - now the right turning guy can make his turn with a minimum of delay - while the guy wanting to turn left can pull over out of the was near the kerb.

If they change it???hmm, lotsa probs.

Of course not living in a city means I could be blowing hot air outa my ass....

[kwaka_crasher]

It must be an age thing that means you and I at least can see the advantage of the present system.

All those that think it is NOT good have probably not thought of the advantages of it.

Are you calling me old? Them's fighting words!

I completely agree. It's about the person with only one lane to cross giving way, and in most cases on narrow roads also shelter and opportunity, to the person who has to cross two lanes!

[BMWST?]

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. And a bike giving way at a left hand turn is in a safe position to the left of the road, can wait safely there as long as necessary

Changed, it will be like the old days- stuck on the centre line, with traffic rocketing by on either side a couple of inches from your elbows, waiting for a gap in the left turning traffic. Not a nice place to be.

go up the INSidE? of cars about to turn left....?You wouldnt have room in welly!

[Jantar]

About time you guys changed to the proper way of doing things :yes: (disclaimer: I'm from Aus :blink: )......
It is simply going back to the way it used to be. So simple to remember: If you're turning right give way to everyone. Give way to anyone approaching from your right. Otherwise you have the right of way.

[Cynic]

Personally I think the change is over due. The number of 50/50 calls on the present system is a worry. With people diving out from behind a left turning car it can leave you in a rather vulnerable spot, unbalanced and turning across a lane infront of a clearly un-observant driver (or they wouldn't be doing a late dive and their intentions would have been clear). The present system can turn a fogotten indicator into a killer. Left indicator, crap road position and no intention to turn can leave you making a bad call. Admittedly, this seems more prevalent in Chch than other cities in NZ I have lived. Due to the number of intersections here I guess, we have millions it would seem. Worst one for me is Wigram vs Awatea, I imagine those in Chch that use it would know what I mean. I do the right turn into Awatea from Wigram and it is an arse.....

[Berries]

Of course not living in a city means I could be blowing hot air outa my ass....

Dunedin is a good one. You want to turn left at signals. The lights go green, you have to wait for all the pedestrians (that's even more stupid and unsafe but off topic), and while you wait all the straight through traffic behind you goes through. So the peds clear, then you have to give way to all the opposing right turners. The lights go red and the right turners keep going leaving one left turning vehicle to get through per cycle. A bollocks rule if you ask me. There is too much indecision to be able to assume you know what the other person is thinking so in the end we are all worse off.

[pzkpfw]

The lights go red and the right turners keep going leaving one left turning vehicle to get through per cycle.

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

[kwaka_crasher]

A decent amendment would be to allow vehicles to turn left on a red light if it's safe. We used to have free turns but they disappeared. I guess people got more stupid though so perhaps they can't be trusted now.

[Dim]

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

Having come from the *proper* system the timing of traffic lights fixes this problem. Or if its really an issue the hook turn (as is used in Victoria/Melbourne after the rules were changed) could be introduced, then again best not to confuse you guys too much :P http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Licences/NewToVictoria/InformationForTourists.htm

[kwaka_crasher]

We've just introduced hook turns for cyclists (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM2510800.html).

[Dim]

We've just introduced hook turns for cyclists (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM2510800.html).

How does this work with the give way to the right rule? Cars turning right have to give way to the cyclists so they can preform the first part of the hook turn (going across and stopping in front of the traffic thats about to go in the direction intended to be traveled) while the cars turning left are trying to give way to the cars turning right, but cant go first because they'd run over the cyclist? Or does the cyclist just get squished and everyone goes home happy (except for the cyclist)?

[avgas]

Typical. Now that I decide to sell the bike they're finally gonna make the roads safer. Timing or what?
199238
Sorry man - it was on the list........

[avgas]

Having come from the *proper* system the timing of traffic lights fixes this problem. Or if its really an issue the hook turn (as is used in Victoria/Melbourne after the rules were changed) could be introduced, then again best not to confuse you guys too much :P http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Licences/NewToVictoria/InformationForTourists.htm
Come on call it what it is - "Tram dodging" was laughed at in NSW :P

[MSTRS]

I'm with those that think the current rule is a good one. The only situation that it doesn't work well is at the likes of supermarket carpark entry/exits. Most don't have give way signs for the traffic leaving, so the guy turning right to enter has to wait for the guy turning right to leave. That always struck me as stupid (blocks the through lane)

[Ixion]

If you're turning right give way to everyone. Give way to anyone approaching from your right. Otherwise you have the right of way.
WHich is so much simpler than f you're turning left give way to everyone. Give way to anyone approaching from your right. Otherwise you have the right of way

[Ixion]

go up the INSidE? of cars about to turn left....?You wouldnt have room in welly!

What do you imagine they build footpaths for (auxiliary motorcycle lanes, as they should be called)

[Ixion]

It must be an age thing that means you and I at least can see the advantage of the present system.

All those that think it is NOT good have probably not thought of the advantages of it.

Think of it - now the right turning guy can make his turn with a minimum of delay - while the guy wanting to turn left can pull over out of the was near the kerb.

If they change it???hmm, lotsa probs.

Of course not living in a city means I could be blowing hot air outa my ass....

Actually, the proposed system works best in cities - prolly why Poms love it so, all from big cities. In a city, mostly right turning traffic will have it's own right hand turn lane, or at least a painted median. Which is not so bad. But out in the country, we do get country roads, small towns with a lot of traffic at times. And that traffic may be moving fast (100+ kph) . With no luxuries like special turning lanes or painted medians.

That's why the present system was introduced. Because there was a spate of very serious accidents, when a vehicle waiting in the centre of the road was cleaned up by through traffic. I recall one of them, the turning vehicle, a vehicle coming toward him, and a vehicle coming from behind him ALL got totalled,several died.

[Badjelly]

I have expressed my views on this subject before, at great length and in the face of considerable opposition. I strongly support having vehicles turning right from the terminating road at a T intersection give way. I also support (but less strongly) having right turning vehicles giving way to the left-turning vehicles. I am resigned to the fact that I will never convince Ixion.

To quote the captain from the Hunting of the Snark, "Now you have stated the whole of your case, more debate would be simply absurd." We need a poll:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/119805-Changes-in-intersection-rules

[neels]

If nothing else, it removes the uncertainty that exists at the moment. A left turning driver gives way to a right turning driver, unless there is straight through traffic in which case the right turning driver gives way to the straight traffic etc etc. Or the driver turning right into a road gives way to the driver turning right out of the same road unless there is straight through traffic etc etc.

At least with the rule change the right turning driver gives way to the straight through and other turning traffic so removes the judgement call about what the straight through traffic is doing.

[Ixion]

I am resigned to the fact that I will never convince Ixion.



If we at present had a "right turning traffic gives way" rule, I'd be equally opposed to changing it.

Why change what isn't broken. If someone argues that they are too stupid, obstinate, or lazy to undersatnd and implement the present rule, changing the rule won't help. They'll be too lazy, obstinate or stupid to understand and implent the new rule.

And the proposed rules are considerably more complex than the present ones.

[Badjelly]

And the proposed rules are considerably more complex than the present ones.

Yes, but I expect that people will understand and follow them more consistently. Lack of complexity is a good thing in a road rule, but it's not the only thing.

[Ixion]

If they cannot, or will not, follow the present rules, why do you suppose they will follow new ones? Lead a horse to water and all that.

[avgas]

Yes, but I expect that people will understand and follow them more consistently. Lack of complexity is a good thing in a road rule, but it's not the only thing.
No offence but the old rule actually not that difficult. Many years ago when I was a learner someone said something wise to me.
Stop > Give way > Danger
and
Give way to everything going straight through and on your right.

Now at an intersection - as described below, both cars have to give way to each other, however 1 is in real danger of being hit in the rear and going into oncoming traffic. There for the car turning right has priority to get out of the way first. Worst case scenario the car turning left with be rear-ended and sent down the road.

This also clears up the fact that the guy turning right may or may not have their indicator on by accident. Which means everyone should give way to them as the assumption is they 'may be' going straight.

[BoristheBiter]

I can't see what is wrong with the system as it stands now. if you don't know the give way rules you shouldn't have a licence and changing them will make no differance.
If you want to drive like the rest of the world then we should change it to driving on the right side of the road.
The road rules are fucked up but dicks who don't know how to drive in the first place and they should get these off the road so we can ride in peace.

[BoristheBiter]

I have expressed my views on this subject before, at great length and in the face of considerable opposition. I strongly support having vehicles turning right from the terminating road at a T intersection give way. I also support (but less strongly) having right turning vehicles giving way to the left-turning vehicles. I am resigned to the fact that I will never convince Ixion.

To quote the captain from the Hunting of the Snark, "Now you have stated the whole of your case, more debate would be simply absurd." We need a poll:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/119805-Changes-in-intersection-rules

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

[Mikkel]

The biggest drawback of the current rule has nothing to do with traffic flow and everything to do with over-taxing the average driver's situational awareness.

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

And at T-intersections it is even more ridiculous, because you have to check whether the guy waiting to turn right is governed by a give-way sign or not. And the road-markings quite often makes this even more confusing than it should be (e.g. putting a give-way sign at the tributary-road while also putting in a "give way"-line across the turning lane at a position that would suggest that you should give way.).


I have expressed my views on this subject before, at great length and in the face of considerable opposition. I strongly support having vehicles turning right from the terminating road at a T intersection give way. I also support (but less strongly) having right turning vehicles giving way to the left-turning vehicles.

No surprise, we have already established that you are a reasonable person.


This also clears up the fact that the guy turning right may or may not have their indicator on by accident. Which means everyone should give way to them as the assumption is they 'may be' going straight.

The same is equally true for anyone who's left their left-hand indicator on. Except, if a bad call is being made in that regard - as the rule stands now - you could end up with a hairy situation with a guy crossing in front of straight-ahead traffic causing a major pile-up. That situation can never occur if the revised give-way rule is observed.


I can't see what is wrong with the system as it stands now. if you don't know the give way rules you shouldn't have a licence and changing them will make no differance.
If you want to drive like the rest of the world then we should change it to driving on the right side of the road.
The road rules are fucked up but dicks who don't know how to drive in the first place and they should get these off the road so we can ride in peace.

Lots of people on NZ's roads shouldn't have a license - that far we agree - but not just because they don't know the give way rules. There's no reasonable excuse for making the rules excessively convoluted with potential for fatal errors.

Also, as far as I am aware NZ is the only country in the world where you drive on the left and give way to the right. And I have no knowledge of any country where you drive on the right and give way to the left. Furthermore, about one third of the world's population drive on the left.

[BoristheBiter]

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

And at T-intersections it is even more ridiculous, because you have to check whether the guy waiting to turn right is governed by a give-way sign or not. And the road-markings quite often makes this even more confusing than it should be (e.g. putting a give-way sign at the tributary-road while also putting in a "give way"-line across the turning lane at a position that would suggest that you should give way.).




sorry.
I have been driving for the last 25 years here and in a few other countries where they drive on the right.
I check what the road rules are and stick to them. if i find it is hard to drive because i don't know the area/driving practices are like i get a taxi/bus. if people can't give way then how did they get their licence in the first place?

there are pros and cons for both systems but to change them for the reasons that have been given are just wrong.
everyone knows the rules and like other rules of the road choose to ignore them (we could start a speeding thread here) so changing the give way to the right is just dumb.
and as for looking out for bikes that will get worse because they will just turn left without looking as they don't have to stop to give way.

Yes the uncontrolled intersection is a dumb rule as it applies to carparks and driveways..
Treat everyone as an idiot, you will never be dissapointed.

[avgas]

The same is equally true for anyone who's left their left-hand indicator on. Except, if a bad call is being made in that regard - as the rule stands now - you could end up with a hairy situation with a guy crossing in front of straight-ahead traffic causing a major pile-up. That situation can never occur if the revised give-way rule is observed.
Ah but that's were your wrong thinking it is equal. While I agree the accident could happen if someone left their left indicator on. Who is to blame is very easy.
You give way to ALL traffic to your right. If your left indicator is on. So if you accidentally leave it on and someone drives into you.....you are at fault.
However change the system, and that all goes to hell. Finger pointing will be interesting then.

Common practise actually states that both parties stop before deciding who goes first - however I hear common practise is on holiday with common sense.

[scumdog]

People bleat on about the rules should be changed so NZ is 'like the rest of the world' - that being the case when ARE we changing to driving on the right-hand side of the road...:whistle:

[R-Soul]

I'm one of the biggest supports of improved driver education. It's better to educate from the start then to try and discipline bad behaviour (e.g. driving like a dick head, not be courteous to other drivers) but some of the driving instructors are plain daft. .

I have heard that Germany has the worlds best drivers, but also the most fearsome -and expensive -training requirements before you are allowed to get your license. It makes sense really.

To my mind, any law that requires others to have to rely on other's attentiveness is looking for trouble. People work best when they are looking out for themsekves, nt others. i.e. looking for a gap in traffic to trun right. Not looking out for others to be kind to them. Getting rid of that law makes sense.
Also, many cars turning right may not see a bike (or cyclist) that is passing the car turning left that has kindly given way. Any law that allows a car to turn across the path of others should be looked at very carefully.

[R-Soul]

The general rule of thumb should be that whoever is on the straight lane has right of way. Anyone wanting to join or cross a straight lane (such as turning across it) must give way until there is a space for them. Straight. Make peoples driving instincts simlar to their survival instincts and there will be no fuck ups.

[R-Soul]

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

Your thoughts are flawed, as this this holding up of cars behind the car wanting to turn right would only apply at busy intersections. And roads that have busy intersections very rarely only have a single lane width. And if its busy, its normally busy both ways and there would be lots of cars behind the car currently giving way, so he would not do it.

And if its a small road, and an isolated incident where three cars happen to be behind the car in front - let them get over it, slow down (they should not be speeding anyway) and have some patience.


The enormous targedy that can be caused by a person doing something as simple as leaving their indicator on, just rules this law out from the start.

[Badjelly]

If someone argues that they are too stupid, obstinate, or lazy to undersatnd and implement the present rule, changing the rule won't help. They'll be too lazy, obstinate or stupid to understand and implent the new rule. And the proposed rules are considerably more complex than the present ones.


Yes, but I expect that people will understand and follow them more consistently. Lack of complexity is a good thing in a road rule, but it's not the only thing.


If they cannot, or will not, follow the present rules, why do you suppose they will follow new ones? Lead a horse to water and all that.

We are all agreed, I think, compliance with and awareness of the current rule for the case of two right-turning vehicles is abysmal. About 20-30% of drivers even attempt to obey this rule, some of the time. It's not so bad for the right-turning vs left-turning case.

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.

The fact is that the majority of people do follow a consistent rule in this case. It's just unfortunate that it's not the rule specified in the law.

NB: I mentioned main roads and side roads. These are not well-defined terms and I expect the new road rule will refer to continuing and terminating roads at a T intersection, as the Victorian ones do.

[avgas]

People bleat on about the rules should be changed so NZ is 'like the rest of the world' - that being the case when ARE we changing to driving on the right-hand side of the road...:whistle:
When Japan and Korea do..........:whistle:

[BoristheBiter]

Your thoughts are flawed, as this would holding up of cas behind the car wanting to turn would only apply at busy intersections. And roads that have busy intersections very rarely only have a single lane width. and if its busy, its normally busy both ways and there would be lots of cars behind the car currently giving way, so he would not do it.

And if its a small road, and an isolated incident where three cars happen to be behind the car in front - let them get over it, slow down (they should not be speeding anyway) and have some patience.


The enormous targedy that can be caused by a person doing sometghing as simple as leaving their indicator on is just rules this law out from the start.

I think i get what you mean but you know this is NZ right.
Ask the guy in the ute that was run over by a truck at the greens road/sh17 intersection because the truck driver failed to see the car indicate. if it would change the outcome.
it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.

[Leyton]

I just looked a the new rules and I do not understand it. :(

I have always worked under the rule of thumb "If you can put a nasty dent in the passenger door, Go for it!" Now it looks like.. "If we can get nailed in the drivers door, Go for it!" whats up with that ? :P

I also note that they are making it so, independent of a stop or give way at a t-intersection, one still has to give way but now to the left.

Why change the give way rules, a large portion of drivers have no fricken clue regarding correct roundabout indicative procedure. I can not count the times in the day when I had missed a entry opportunity because some twat signals right to go straight ahead only to indicate right on the exit point.

I think the answer for some motorists to just get bigger cars, and drive even more quicker out of ignorance for the rules as no one follows most of them anyway :P Oh I am feeling really old right now!

[cowboyz]

I think of the amount of people who indicate when going striaght through roundabouts.. indicate left to turn right at a roundabout Generally not getting it and shudder. This rule change will mean you have to be very aware of everything around you.

[Berries]

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

Yes. Right turning traffic is crossing the path of straight through traffic so should expect to wait. Because left turners often don't look behind them to see that there is no straight through traffic they can sit and wait to give way when there is no need, causing frustration and general gibbledeness. Hey, I just made a new word. After 14 years in NZ I understand the rule, I just don't understand the point of it.

[kwaka_crasher]

it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.

Spot on.


I think of the amount of people who indicate when going striaght through roundabouts.. indicate left to turn right at a roundabout Generally not getting it and shudder. This rule change will mean you have to be very aware of everything around you.

It's scary that we share the roads with these cabbages.

[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]

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

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

[MaxB]

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! :done:

[Usarka]

Why not break something if it's not changed! :done:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BoristheBiter]

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.

Als

that all should happen now but it doesn't and it not because of the give way rule.
You should know how bad NZ drivers are by now and changing a give way rule will do nothing to mke it safer

[MSTRS]

... you have to be very aware of everything around you.Pity THAT couldn't be made a 'rule'...


Because left turners often don't look behind them to see that there is no straight through traffic they can sit and wait to give way when there is no need, causing frustration...
Whilst not agreeing that the present rule needs changing, I do have to say that this is a problem. It's not necessarily the lack of looking, but rather with the vehicle partially turned, the mirrors don't look back at an angle that allows the driver to see what's behind them. True, they could turn their head to look, but that means they have to think for themselves. When instructors teach that mirrors are only a backup device, then we might see changes in that area.

[R-Soul]

The biggest drawback of the current rule has nothing to do with traffic flow and everything to do with over-taxing the average driver's situational awareness.

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

Yup, now throw in the left hand turning drivers other tendency to be applying lipstick, texting and lip synching with music, and teh fact that they are 15 and got their license yesterday, and where does that leave you?

[BoristheBiter]

Yup, now throw in the left hand turning drivers other tendency to be applying lipstick, texting and lip synching with music, and teh fact that they are 15 and got their license yesterday, and where does that leave you?

and again changing the rule will stop this how?

[R-Soul]

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

BUT a person generally can be expected to pay attention to a car in front of them who has indicated and who is slowing down because it is their own survival and a single point of focus. Can a person be expected to pay the same level of attention to anothers needs to turn right while focussing on their need to turn left, the possibility of pedestrians, the number of cars behind them, and the timing of the situation?

[R-Soul]

I think i get what you mean but you know this is NZ right.
Ask the guy in the ute that was run over by a truck at the greens road/sh17 intersection because the truck driver failed to see the car indicate. if it would change the outcome.
it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.


but your argument that "cars may not see the indicator" works both ways for both scenarios? its just that in one scenario, the truck misses the indicator that is right in front of them. In the other, the driver of teh left turning car misses the indicator of a car in the opposite lane on his right, while he is looking for pedestrians to the left of him, cars behind him, and downshifting gears.

Also, if you are the car behind the car turning right, you have certainty - you know teh car wont turn right because there is an oncoming car - REGARDLESS of whether teh oncoming car is turning or not. If its there, the car turning right wWILL stop. So you slow down.

Currently the car behind the car turning right has to change plans depending on whether there is an oncoming car, and whether the oncoming car has its indicator on, AND whether it will actually give way - thats a lot of planning and/or/if's...

[BoristheBiter]

BUT a person generally can be expected to pay attention to a car in front of them who has indicated and who is slowing down because it is their own survival and a single point of focus. Can a person be expected to pay the same level of attention to anothers needs to turn right while focussing on their need to turn left, the possibility of pedestrians, the number of cars behind them, and the timing of the situation?

so now you make the car turning right take more of chance by making him stop in the middle of the road hopeing like hell the guy doing 100kph behind him has seen that he is turning, or will the driver try and risk the turn before the left turning car gets there.

[BoristheBiter]

but your argument that "cars may not see the indicator" works both ways for both scenarios? its just that in one scenario, the truck misses the indicator that is right in front of them. In the other, the driver of teh left turning car misses the indicator of a car in the opposite lane on his right, while he is looking for pedestrians to the left of him, cars behind him, and downshifting gears.

Also, if you are the car behind the car turning right, you have certainty - you know teh car wont turn right because there is an oncoming car - REGARDLESS of whether teh oncoming car is turning or not. If its there, the car turning right wWILL stop. So you slow down.

Currently the car behind the car turning right has to change plans depending on whether there is an oncoming car, and whether the oncoming car has its indicator on, AND whether it will actually give way - thats a lot of planning and/or/if's...

So why change the rule if it not going to change the reason for crashes due to failure to give way or pay attention to the road ahead?

[R-Soul]

and again changing the rule will stop this how?

Reducing the number of things to check per driver.

Car truning left only has to look for pedestrians and bicycles.

Car turning right must just look for a gap.

Car behind car turning right must just look for an indictaor, and if there is an oncoming car.

Car behind car turning left must just slow a little to allow the car turning left to get out of the lane.

Every one follows the principle that the car going straight has right of way, and the car crossing a straight lane yields to all. Simple principles, no decision screw ups.

[R-Soul]

?? I think you have been missing what I have been saying.

It wont change the reason for crashes (if a person is an inattentive driver, he will probably off himself or someone else sometime) , but it will change the number of crashes because there are LESS things for that inattentive driver to pay attention to and make decisions about - so he has a better chance of doing it right.

[BoristheBiter]

Reducing the number of things to check per driver.

Car truning left only has to look for pedestrians and bicycles.

Car turning right must just look for a gap.

Car behind car turning right must just look for an indictaor, and if there is an oncoming car.

Car behind car turning left must just slow a little to allow the car turning left to get out of the lane.

Every one follows the principle that the car going straight has right of way, and the car crossing a straight lane yields to all. Simple principles, no decision screw ups.

I think we will go around i circles all day on this.:argue: so i will leave it there.

[Usarka]

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



... Really.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[R-Soul]

so now you make the car turning right take more of chance by making him stop in the middle of the road hopeing like hell the guy doing 100kph behind him has seen that he is turning, or will the driver try and risk the turn before the left turning car gets there.

If the car doing 100km/hr does not see a car stopped, then why would he see the same car slowing? He would ram the car turning right anyway wouldn't he?

[R-Soul]

that all should happen now but it doesn't and it not because of the give way rule.
You should know how bad NZ drivers are by now and changing a give way rule will do nothing to mke it safer

You seem to be more worried about the effect of the changing of the rules (i.e. in the transition period) than of the actual new changed rule.

[avgas]

Wanna know the really scary thing.
When I lived in Aussie......I gave way as if I was still driving in NZ.........and NO accidents happened.
Not only that, but people must have thought I was the nicest person on the road - they even stopped to let me through.

Goes to show don't it - rules are ok, but common courtesy is by far superior.

[Badjelly]

Reducing the number of things to check per driver.

Car truning left only has to look for pedestrians and bicycles.

Car turning right must just look for a gap.

Car behind car turning right must just look for an indictaor, and if there is an oncoming car.

Car behind car turning left must just slow a little to allow the car turning left to get out of the lane.

Every one follows the principle that the car going straight has right of way, and the car crossing a straight lane yields to all. Simple principles, no decision screw ups.

Very well said. You're a bit optimistic saying "no decision screw ups", but fewer, certainly.

[MSTRS]

What's all this stuff about having less to look for? The only thing a left-turning driver has to look for (at present) is whether ther is someone just across the way wanting to turn right. If there isn't, only then need he be aware of what is around the corner to his left.

[Scuba_Steve]

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.

but right here is my point you just pointed out its the driver NOT the rule, the left turners should be pulling into the curb (there is always a gap by law for this) which lets the straight through drivers/riders a clear path through, which also provides a block so the left turning vehicle can "shadow turn" as someone once put it & thus we have better traffic flow and less road rage with less chance of a right turning driver getting too impatient & trying their luck with the giant wheel on TV, as for cyclists on the left, well undertaking's been illegal for awhile now despite the fact alot of us do it and if you pulled into the curb like your supposed to there is no room for them to undertake anyways.

[jaykay]

Supporters of the present rules should ask themselves why no other country in the world is arguing to change - drive left, drive right - the question doesn't even arise.

Why would it?

There is a minority of occasions where the rule is useful, but it is far outweighed by the frequent times it is dangerous or just plain stupid.

Add to the fact that many drivers give way when they should be turning into lane shows that the present rules are crap.

The give way to the right rule has to go sometime, why wait any longer?

[Ixion]

Supporters of the present rules should ask themselves why no other country in the world is arguing to change - drive left, drive right - the question doesn't even arise.

Why would it?

There is a minority of occasions where the rule is useful, but it is far outweighed by the frequent times it is dangerous or just plain stupid.

Add to the fact that many drivers give way when they should be turning into lane shows that the present rules are crap.

The give way to the right rule has to go sometime, why wait any longer?

Well, since most of the world drives on the left, so that their left turn is our right turn and vice versa, it stands to reason that most of the world must in fact be doign as we are now. It is only UK and Australia that are out of sync. The rest of the world, and NZ are the same ,except that the opposite side steering wheel reverses the direction. So unless we are planning to change to keep right, then a change actually makes us aberrational not he reverse

[R-Soul]

Well, since most of the world drives on the left, so that their left turn is our right turn and vice versa, it stands to reason that most of the world must in fact be doign as we are now. It is only UK and Australia that are out of sync. The rest of the world, and NZ are the same ,except that the opposite side steering wheel reverses the direction. So unless we are planning to change to keep right, then a change actually makes us aberrational not he reverse

Actaully that assumption is incorrect.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic

Most of the world has right hand side traffic. Only Birtain, ex-British colonies and Japan has left side traffic.

[Ixion]

Precisely so. We are told that we are the only people where left turning traffic gives way. Here, left turning means traffic turning into the nearside. But most of the world , their nearside turn would be a RIGHT turn. Which , we are told is what they do. Their nearside (right) turning traffic gives way. If all the kepe right countries did as is proposed for NZ they would in fcat be giving way when turning left. Which we are assured they are not.

[Pixie]

Controlled Chaos
European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

By Matthias Schulz

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there, make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser. Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the country.

Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow.

"Unsafe is safe"

The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.

It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy, relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.

But one German borough is already daring to take the step into lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500 inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.

The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains. "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood.


I suspect it wouldn't work in NZ -too many smallcocks

[Ixion]

IU think it would work. ever noticed how much better traffic flows when power cuts take all the traffic lights out? OK, there will be pointsmen on a few of the intersections - but only a very few. I suspect that most of the regulation is counter productive - the result of the ever present control freak mind set of the bureaucrat.

[Pixie]

IU think it would work. ever noticed how much better traffic flows when power cuts take all the traffic lights out? OK, there will be pointsmen on a few of the intersections - but only a very few. I suspect that most of the regulation is counter productive - the result of the ever present control freak mind set of the bureaucrat.

Ok Ixion it's decided.We go for the Kontrolled Kaos option.

I would also like to remove all airbags in cars and connect the remaining trigger circuitry to fragmentation grenades for that extra bit of motivation.:devil2:

[Ixion]

An excellent proposal. the only way to reduce the road toll is to break the mind set of so many road users, which says "OK, I'm going to crash, happens to everyone. But it's OK, I don't speed, and I have magic gear/air bags (fill in according to transport modality), so I'll be OK. Let's go". And replace it with one that says "EEKK - I **MUST** not crash. "

[cheshirecat]

As a foreigner to these fair shores i think the current system is just so consistant with the other road quirks - why change?. Spreading ball bearing gravel on the road after a reseal and not sweeping it off, that bridge outside Greymouth in the wet, Homer tunnel, gravel roads, all carefully positioned on principal state highways.

[Dim]

Controlled Chaos
European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

By Matthias Schulz

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there, make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser. Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the country.

Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow.

"Unsafe is safe"

The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.

It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy, relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.

But one German borough is already daring to take the step into lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500 inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.

The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains. "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood.


I suspect it wouldn't work in NZ -too many smallcocks

A similar thing was suggested in Australia too (well tasmania at least). The downside being that although the number of major accidents decreases the number of minor accidents increases...read for people on motorbike and bicycles the number of major accidents increases.

[pzkpfw]

Yes. Right turning traffic is crossing the path of straight through traffic so should expect to wait. Because left turners often don't look behind them to see that there is no straight through traffic they can sit and wait to give way when there is no need, causing frustration and general gibbledeness. Hey, I just made a new word. After 14 years in NZ I understand the rule, I just don't understand the point of it.

I think that's part of the problem.

The straight-through traffic behind the left turner ought to be stopping - blocked by the left turner.

Then the right turner get's to go. Otherwise, on a very busy road they'd have to wait for ages - stuck in the middle of the road.

Around here (Tawa) if someone turning left to give way to a right turner stops in front of a straight-througher, the straight througher just drives around them, into the fliush median if they have to, to go past (ironically, getting close to the right tuner). I don't think they should be doing that. (No wonder some folk get confused, having to worry about the guy behind the guy they are giving way to, or being given way by).


I'd be interested in a legal opinion on that (i.e. the real law). That is, someone turning right has right of way over someone turning left - but does the fact that the left turner has someone wanting to go straight, behind them (in the saem lane), change who has right of way?

i.e. when the left turner doesn't give way to the right-turner, because they see someone behind themselves going straight, are they actually doing the legal thing?

[kwaka_crasher]

Blue is not allowed to overtake if he has to cross the centreline to do so as he doesn't have 100m of clear road ahead. So that scenario doesn't play out.

[Berries]

...and you are not supposed to overtake on a flush median, unless turning yourself. I was thinking of a different scenario though - signalised crossroads with individual lanes for straight through and turning traffic. You'd think that as the left turn is the safest movement, ie crosses no other traffic, it should be the easiest but that's not the case having to worry about right turning traffic and whether straight through traffic behind you means you can go ahead of opposing right turners. All compounded by the totally unsafe NZ way of allowing pedestrians to cross with a shared phase for vehicles (not everywhere, but certainly in Dunedin). No wonder so many of them get bowled over.

[Pixie]

Blue is not allowed to overtake if he has to cross the centreline to do so as he doesn't have 100m of clear road ahead. So that scenario doesn't play out.

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.

[scumdog]

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.

AND leave enough gap between them and the bike they ae passing that a logging truck could drive between them, - WTF did they think was going to happen - the bike was going to suddenly swerve right and bump them off the road??:rolleyes:

[scumdog]

I'd be interested in a legal opinion on that (i.e. the real law). That is, someone turning right has right of way over someone turning left - but does the fact that the left turner has someone wanting to go straight, behind them (in the saem lane), change who has right of way?

i.e. when the left turner doesn't give way to the right-turner, because they see someone behind themselves going straight, are they actually doing the legal thing?


Yes they are doing the legal thing and normally that is what happens - common sense tells them: 'no way is that car going to be able to cut through all this straight-through traffick following behind me so I might as well whip around the corner'

Of course add the sight of a cop car to the scenario and the motorists brains go right out the window at time............

[pzkpfw]

Yes they are doing the legal thing and normally that is what happens - common sense tells them: 'no way is that car going to be able to cut through all this straight-through traffick following behind me so I might as well whip around the corner'

But if the straight through traffic has to wait behind the left turner, then there'd be no straight through traffic for the right turner to "cut through".

(In my scenario there's just one lane in each direction.)

Are you saying the left turner wouldn't be given a ticket for not giving way? (discretion)
or
Are you saying the left turner couldn't be given a ticket for not giving way? (it's legal)

[merv]

I look forward to the change back to left turn having right of way and it was a silly day in 1977 indeed when this changed to the "wrong" way.

However I'm not impressed with the idea that when two vehicles are turning right at a T junction the vehicle that has to drive right around in front of the other one will have right of way. It is much easier for the other vehicle to turn first and get out of the way.

Pre '77 the rule was if both vehicles are turning right courtesy prevailed which then meant people had to make the decision but it did allow for circumstance e.g. if a long truck wants to turn and it won't fit until the other vehicle gets out of the way, why say it has right of way.

[scumdog]

But if the straight through traffic has to wait behind the left turner, then there'd be no straight through traffic for the right turner to "cut through".

(In my scenario there's just one lane in each direction.)


Down here in hicksville the street always have enough room for the 'about to turn left' car to nick into against the kerb (except when some drongo from another part of the world parks right on the corner!) and let the cars behind him funnel past him - and if theres a car coming towards him that intends making a right turn across his bows he then doesn't HAVE to sit there like a dummy while a string of cars from behind him are heading straight through.


Never heard of anybody geting a ticket in those circumstances.

[BMWST?]

It is simply going back to the way it used to be. So simple to remember: If you're turning right give way to everyone. Give way to anyone approaching from your right. Otherwise you have the right of way.

it isnt the way it was.You will sse that some intersections will overturn the right hand rule,and the car turning off the main road will have right of way.....how are we gonna decide where that rule applies and where it doesnt?

[MSTRS]

Of course add the sight of a cop car to the scenario and the motorists brains go right out the window at time............

Ah...but most of them actually 'find' their brains when a marked car is in the vicinity.
Slight change of subject... the indicating is still utter crap, but the bastards at least stay within their lane in a roundabout, for instance.

[Badjelly]

Down here in hicksville the street always have enough room for the 'about to turn left' car to nick into against the kerb...

Up here in the capital city the roads are narrower than yours, the drivers tend to be a little more ... incisive [wrong word, try impatient], and a lot of people seem to think there's a road rule that says you must have 2.5 m clear road to your left at all times while making a left turn :rolleyes:, so the question of whether the left-turning car is blocking the straight-through car behind is a source of great entertainment.

[Badjelly]

Controlled Chaos - European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs


Interesting stuff, alright. Mind you, one of the benefits that the late Hans Monderman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman) claimed for his naked roads concept is that it slows traffic down.


A similar thing was suggested in Australia too (well tasmania at least). The downside being that although the number of major accidents decreases the number of minor accidents increases...read for people on motorbike and bicycles the number of major accidents increases.

Do you have any references I can look up for further info?

[avgas]

199687.......................................

[R-Soul]

Precisely so. We are told that we are the only people where left turning traffic gives way. Here, left turning means traffic turning into the nearside. But most of the world , their nearside turn would be a RIGHT turn. Which , we are told is what they do. Their nearside (right) turning traffic gives way. If all the kepe right countries did as is proposed for NZ they would in fcat be giving way when turning left. Which we are assured they are not.

Its not about right or left.
Yes they turn right into the nearside, but they are also turning from the right hand lane. it is a perfect mirror image of driving on the left. And they do not give way to cars truning left from the other side of the road.

Its about whether you give way to a car turning across your lane. Only NZ does it. ALL other countries say that the car travelling straight and which is not turning across a lane going straight has the right of way at a turn. And that other cars wanting to turn across a lane must simply wait until a traffic light say they can, or for a suitable gap in the traffic.

[Coldrider]

Down here in hicksville .....Hicksville was HASTINGS initially, at time the railway was being built.

[Coldrider]

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.Outside the town limits of the real 'ex-hicksville', signs indicate to motorists to leave a gap of 1.5metres from cyclist to car.

[inlinefour]

About time you guys changed to the proper way of doing things :yes: (disclaimer: I'm from Aus :blink: )

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt

Monkey see monkey do. If you cannot do this, then your going to have problems. If I see you going around the wrong way, that means I can squash you. with my new Merc van selfdrive vehicle. Well I might hit the brakes, if your on a decent bike.

[R-Soul]

Monkey see monkey do. If you cannot do this, then your going to have problems. If I see you going around the wrong way, that means I can squash you. with my new Merc van selfdrive vehicle. Well I might hit the brakes, if your on a decent bike.

The beauty of changing the law is that, if he follows it, you would not be able to squish anybody, since he will not be relying on your goodwill anymore - only his own eyesight....

[Bikemad]

the reality as i see it is you cant legislate against stupidity...........people will get it wrong either way whether it be thru ignorance,impatience,arrogance or distraction.
How about the two winkys in the susuki swift i saw today on the Mt Wellington Hway on the rail bridge at Sylvia Park Rd Intersection in the right hand lane...........parked up!!......... readin a map for fucks sake...........how do we legislate for that

[Coldrider]

the reality as i see it is you cant legislate against stupidity...........people will get it wrong either way whether it be thru ignorance,impatience,arrogance or distraction.
How about the two winkys in the susuki swift i saw today on the Mt Wellington Hway on the rail bridge at Sylvia Park Rd Intersection in the right hand lane...........parked up!!......... readin a map for fucks sake...........how do we legislate for thatwhat is a winky?

[Bikemad]

an asian...........

[oldrider]

One only has to read this thread to see that there will be very little confusion on the day! :mellow:

[Coldrider]

an asian...........no need to legislate, Winston Peters will be on the case in 18 months time.

[inlinefour]

The beauty of changing the law is that, if he follows it, you would not be able to squish anybody, since he will not be relying on your goodwill anymore - only his own eyesight....

I dunno. From my experience being on the roads, both in a cage and a motorcycle. It only takes one poser and/or not paying attention and while that biker is trying to get the apex and/or get their knee down. They get it completely wrong, clip a catseye with their knee, or something else just as equally daft. Thats when they run the risk of getting hit by something and possibly something much bigger than my van. When this gets changed I wouldn't want to be the biker in that equation, considering what I know now.

[MSTRS]

To all those that are essentially saying that it is logical to change the current rule...when has logic ever played a part out there on our roads?

[Berries]

it isnt the way it was.You will sse that some intersections will overturn the right hand rule,and the car turning off the main road will have right of way.....how are we gonna decide where that rule applies and where it doesnt?

The right turn rule at T intersections only relates to those uncontrolled ones. If an intersection had a Stop or Give Way sign then traffic turning right out has always had to give way to traffic turning right in. There is no change there. The rule was for sites where there was no control - and that included supermarket car parks. Made no sense to me. Turning right in to a supermarket I wait for the vehicle that is sitting waiting to turn right in case he goes for it but they never do. To fix it up supermarkets suddenly started putting up give way signs which confused it even more for some people. This change will make it clear and more obvious. Probably.

[Bikemad]

no need to legislate, Winston Peters will be on the case in 18 months time.

are you tryin to wind me up coldy................thought we had seen the last of that lyin sack of shit

[Coldrider]

are you tryin to wind me up coldy................thought we had seen the last of that lyin sack of shitYou wait, 6months from election time.........jaws music............Winston

[Bikemad]

You wait, 6months from election time.........jaws music............Winston

noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
mind you.........they are all lyin sacks of shit if you ask me

[varminter]

I like the idea of no signs and no road rules, can we carry guns too??

[Scuba_Steve]

I like the idea of no signs and no road rules, can we carry guns too??

yes but nothing smaller than a 50cal :lol:

[R-Soul]

yes but nothing smaller than a 50cal :lol:
Guns, no rules and no signs.

Throw in no roadworthy vehicles and you have Johannesburg...
:shit:

[Balding Eagle]

One thing that would improve movement vehicles on our clogged up roads would be the ability to turn left on Red lights so long as there was no traffic to impede that move. (Treat it as a STOP sign.) The Americans have been doing it quite successfully for at least 40 years. I heard it suggested to a Minister of Transport some 25 or so years ago and the dickwit thought that the NZ driver could not cope with it. Was probably thinking about himself as usual. Even the Mexicans in the US of A can get it right most of the time so why shouldn't we.

[howdamnhard]

About time you guys changed to the proper way of doing things :yes: (disclaimer: I'm from Aus :blink: )

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt

It's a good idea and is what I was used to, unfortuneatly it's going to be carnage until everyone adjusts to it. Not good when your already more vulnerable on a bike and cage drivers already are pretty clueless at intersections-Yay !

[kwaka_crasher]

One thing that would improve movement vehicles on our clogged up roads would be the ability to turn left on Red lights so long as there was no traffic to impede that move. (Treat it as a STOP sign.) The Americans have been doing it quite successfully for at least 40 years. I heard it suggested to a Minister of Transport some 25 or so years ago and the dickwit thought that the NZ driver could not cope with it. Was probably thinking about himself as usual. Even the Mexicans in the US of A can get it right most of the time so why shouldn't we.I'm with him. NZers are not capable of making sound choices.

Since this thing erupted (again) I've been paying special attention to the what/where/how/why of uncontrolled intersections to see what the problems are. My conclusions are that the only problems are caused by:

drivers not turning left from the left side of the lane, but from the middle or
drivers not turning right from the right side of the lane, but from the middle or
ignorance of the GIVE WAY rule
drivers not indicating early enough

which basically amounts to drivers being in the wrong place on the road for the manouvre and not being clear about their intentions. So it comes back to driver training. Nothing else. Drivers that are completely oblivious to anything other than their own little world and no awareness of other vehicles on the road until it's too late.

No amount of road rule changes will fix that.

[Mom]

It's a good idea and is what I was used to, unfortuneatly it's going to be carnage until everyone adjusts to it. Not good when your already more vulnerable on a bike and cage drivers already are pretty clueless at intersections-Yay !

I sat behind a driver this morning that was confused about the give way rules as they stand now. His incompetence held up a huge number of vehicles while he provaricated about who actually had the right of way. No one was prepared to move while he sat there creeping forward then braking hard from time to time. Eventually he made his mind up as to who had right of way and hauled out into the path of a friggen truck! He got it wrong. Thankfully no one hurt, but a few people were left shaking their heads and I am picking that the truck driver may well have required a change of underwear when he got back to base. As bikers we have enough issues around being seen anyway. It is not going to be anybetter if a rule change happens. We are going to be even more vulnerable than we are now.

I dont think they should change it. Sure we are "special" and the only country that has this left turn give way rule, but it was brought in for a reason. There were some terrible accidents on open roads where a car that was turning right off a road had to give way to one turning left, getting hit from behind.

[Berries]

I dont think they should change it. Sure we are "special" and the only country that has this left turn give way rule, but it was brought in for a reason. There were some terrible accidents on open roads where a car that was turning right off a road had to give way to one turning left, getting hit from behind.

If a rural intersection is busy enough that you have two cars wanting to turn in at the same time then it should have localised widening to allow vehicles to pass those waiting. In an ideal world that is. While the rule may have originally been brought in for the reasons stated all it did was change who was going to get hit from behind. Now the left turner is at risk while he gives way to the right turner, who may have to wait anyway for oncoming traffic not turning, so the left turner is actually at risk for a longer period of time. I can only see benefits, on both urban and rural roads.

Those confused now will be the same people who will be confused when the rules change. Motorbikes will always be vulnerable at intersections. Never trust the bastards.

[Badjelly]

There were some terrible accidents on open roads where a car that was turning right off a road had to give way to one turning left, getting hit from behind.


As opposed to the terrible accidents on open roads where a car that was turning right off a road had to give way to one going straight through, getting hit from behind?

[Badjelly]

One thing that would improve movement vehicles on our clogged up roads would be the ability to turn left on Red lights so long as there was no traffic to impede that move. (Treat it as a STOP sign.) The Americans have been doing it quite successfully for at least 40 years. I heard it suggested to a Minister of Transport some 25 or so years ago and the dickwit thought that the NZ driver could not cope with it. Was probably thinking about himself as usual. Even the Mexicans in the US of A can get it right most of the time so why shouldn't we.

I dimly recall there was a trial of it in the late 1980s. Perhaps not. At the time it was discussed (or tried) I had just come back from 4 years in Colorado, so I was pretty familiar with it. I wasn't that keen on it, actually. It does create problems for cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists because when you're going straight ahead and you stop to the right(*) of the other traffic you're obstructing the right(*) turners, who tend not to like it. Pedestrians if you're crossing in front of the right(*) turners, they should give way to you, but often don't. Just my US$0.02 worth.

(*) left here

[Bikemad]

yes you are correct badjelly..................trialed here in the 80s............dont know why it wasnt adopted full time

[R-Soul]

I had a bit of an experience last sunday on the regular sunday ride north of auckland. A car was approaching and had its indicator on. I started turning in front of it, as it was slowing down. It then hooted and flashed its headlights at mas if I was doing something wrong.

One of the other riders told me afterwards that there is a second left turn soon after that the car was probably indicating for. Now some will say that I should have seen this. But it begs the question: How do you know a car is turning left THERE, and not into a driveway after it, or a dairy car park or something?

Now in my opinion, any law that requires mind-reading to avoid an accident is a non-starter. How the hell it even made it into the boooks is beyond me...


And as for the using teh left turn at a traffic light as a stop sign - the cars would still stop an have to look for cyclists anyway, so it would be safer than at a green light where the dont stop, they just turn....

[Sentox]

With that picture came the horrifying realisation that I've had the wrong idea about T-intersections for a long time now :shit: I guess it doesn't come into play much because most of them have give-way signs from the offroad that take precedence, but still. I've always waited from the car to turn off the main road in front of me, and I've never seen a car that will wait for you to turn onto the main road first on any unmarked T. Weird.

[quickbuck]

With that picture came the horrifying realisation that I've had the wrong idea about T-intersections for a long time now :shit: I guess it doesn't come into play much because most of them have give-way signs from the offroad that take precedence, but still. I've always waited from the car to turn off the main road in front of me, and I've never seen a car that will wait for you to turn onto the main road first on any unmarked T. Weird.
So, it's you!!!
You are the one who I sit there for bloody ages for you to move.... then I go anyway, thinking "What a Muppet".
Na, jokes.

You are not the only one there Sentox, it is one of those rules that is poorly understood.
Also, as there is a large portion of people who don't understand, it ends up being the one with the most balls wins.... Or, might has right....
A careful motorcyclists ends up waiting until full eye contact is made and body language understood before proceeding, regardless of the rules in this case.

[Badjelly]

So, it's you!!!
...You are not the only one there Sentox, it is one of those rules that is poorly understood.

But several KBers keep telling us that the rules in question are so simple (which they undeniably are) that they must be easy to understand (which they apparently aren't).

My new theory: people don't think in terms of rules when they're driving so much as patterns. It's only when the patterns have been disrupted (and often not even then) that they go back to the rules to try to figure things out. And they get it wrong.

[bogan]

But several KBers keep telling us that the rules in question are so simple (which they undeniably are) that they must be easy to understand (which they apparently aren't).

My new theory: people don't think in terms of rules when they're driving so much as patterns. It's only when the patterns have been disrupted (and often not even then) that they go back to the rules to try to figure things out. And they get it wrong.

Yeh theres a number of situtaions that people don't seem to manage (i spose these are out of the normal patterns), unmarked T intersections, turning right at dual laned intersections, turning right from a give way onto T intersection after a flush median on the open road (I dont actually know what the law is there), indicating before lane changing, stopping at orange lights....

[MSTRS]

You forgot Roundabouts...

[bogan]

and when the lights go fucked and stay orange, nobody can figure out how to turn right! so i thank the gods i'm on my bike and just split through and show them :D

[quickbuck]

My new theory: people don't think in terms of rules when they're driving so much as patterns. It's only when the patterns have been disrupted (and often not even then) that they go back to the rules to try to figure things out. And they get it wrong.


I had a think about this while riding through Palmy today.
I think you are right by gum!

A couple of weeks ago I was waiting at the intersection of Rangitikei and Tremain, and a Mitsubishi (Probably Diamante) turned right in front of me from the other side of the road as soon as my light went green! There were two vehicles facing him. Me and a little hatchback thing beside me.
If i was in my early 20's and wanted to demonstrate to the hatchback what 100HP does to a 300kg (all up) missile, then I would have most certainly changed the shape of the Mitsi.

I rode off, thinking What an idiot. Lucky I didn't hammer it......

Today while riding through town, I was analysing the light sequence of all the lights.
It's those STUPID Green Arrows!
MOST of them give all lanes (including the right turning lane) the go ahead, before the red arrow stops the right turning traffic, and then makes it wait for the cue across the road to finish crossing....
EXCEPT the lights on the intersection in question.... as far as I could make out.
It was a pattern this driver was familiar with. However when the pattern changed, he may well have been confused as to why a motorcycle and a car started coming towards him!

Quite possible this driver actually did a LOT of driving in the city, not Stuff all like I originally thought.....

So, the pattern theory is most likely how many drive....

[bogan]

never had a problem with the lights in question, the guy probly just ran a really late orange or red, happens pretty often round here

[kwaka_crasher]

It's those STUPID Green Arrows!

Even worse than those are the red arrows. Sure, they have their place at SOME intersections but they're every-fucking-where now. I get sick of waiting at the lights on a red arrow when the way is clear so I just ignore them now.

[quickbuck]

Even worse than those are the red arrows. Sure, they have their place at SOME intersections but they're every-fucking-where now. I get sick of waiting at the lights on a red arrow when the way is clear so I just ignore them now.

Yup, same effect...
They make all drivers Morons who don't have to think, or make a decision......

Truth be told though, if you let a human make a decision there is a chance they will get it wrong.......

[quickbuck]

never had a problem with the lights in question, the guy probly just ran a really late orange or red, happens pretty often round here

Nope, he was stationary for a long while....
I was sitting there ensuring i had good situational awareness, and making sure there were no runners on Tremain.... The most likely way to get taken out at an intersection with lights....

You're quite right though, Palmy drivers are as bad as the drivers of Waihanae, it is just that the speed in Palmy is twice that of Waikanae.

[R-Soul]

I sat behind a driver this morning that was confused about the give way rules as they stand now. His incompetence held up a huge number of vehicles while he provaricated about who actually had the right of way. No one was prepared to move while he sat there creeping forward then braking hard from time to time. Eventually he made his mind up as to who had right of way and hauled out into the path of a friggen truck! He got it wrong. Thankfully no one hurt, but a few people were left shaking their heads and I am picking that the truck driver may well have required a change of underwear when he got back to base. As bikers we have enough issues around being seen anyway. It is not going to be anybetter if a rule change happens. We are going to be even more vulnerable than we are now.

I dont think they should change it. Sure we are "special" and the only country that has this left turn give way rule, but it was brought in for a reason. There were some terrible accidents on open roads where a car that was turning right off a road had to give way to one turning left, getting hit from behind.

But THAT is what the problem is with the rule - it actually allows, no demands that drivers pull out in front of other cars and truck, relying solely on their knowledge of the law. Whereas if that rule was abolished, drivers would pull out when there is a gao, relying solely on their insticts for self preservation. A much more accurate barometer.