ANY JP'S HERE?

[Skyryder]

My wifes a Justice of the Peace and as such she receives the Justices Quarterly.

In the current issue June 05 Volume 74 Number 2 there is a section on New Road Rules page 9. I'll quote the relevent information.

* Drivers must give way to pedestrians on both sides of a pedestrian crossing, unless that crossing is divided by a raised traffic island.

* Only cyclists are allowed to use cyclist lanes; only cyclists, motorcyclists, and busses are allowed to use bus lanes, and no vehicle can park in a sspeacial vehicle lane (unless a sighn permits it)

There's a bit about towing trailor speeds etc that I will not write up.

* Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit.


This little mag is intended to educate Justices of the Peace the current law as it stands. There was a time when you had to give way to anyone on a pedestrian crossing and it now looks like that is back in force. But what got my attention was bit about not having to indicate when going straight ahead on a roundabout.

Skyryder

[Jeremy]

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead"

-> "Drivers entering a roundabout going straight do not need to indicate"

This is true. You however must always indicate when you are leaving a roundabout.

[Skyryder]

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead"

-> "Drivers entering a roundabout going straight do not need to indicate"

This is true. You however must always indicate when you are leaving a roundabout.

That's not what it says. This is a publication to inform JP's of the current law. The pulication states that "It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead." I just can't wait for some cop to ticket me on this one. I have a defence.

Skyryder

[Jeremy]

It's still talking about the previous line, which only deals with the entering of a roundabout. Anyway it's not a valid defence, as it's the wording of the law that is taken into account, not third party publications. Which is why all the AA publications and such have "this may or not be correct, consult a lawyer" on them.

[TonyB]

I've read several times that you must indicate left when leaving a roundabout- even when going straight ahead. Huge numbers of people seem to be really confused about this. Is it any wonder when you have in your possesion an official document that contradicts "official" adverts I've seen in the paper etc? Some of the things I've seen people doing since the law change beggar belief.

The powers that be need to get their collective act together and ensure that everyone has a decent chance to see and understand the new rules.... oh and it would help if they all said the same fricken thing!!!

[Skyryder]

I've read several times that you must indicate left when leaving a roundabout- even when going straight ahead. Huge numbers of people seem to be really confused about this. Is it any wonder when you have in your possesion an official document that contradicts "official" adverts I've seen in the paper etc? Some of the things I've seen people doing since the law change beggar belief.

The powers that be need to get their collective act together and ensure that everyone has a decent chance to see and understand the new rules.... oh and it would help if they all said the same fricken thing!!!

Me to Tony. In fact the since the publicity of this law and its enforcement roundabouts have become infinatley more dangerous. I've been caught in a two lane roundabout where I have been on the inside lane and a car on the right side just ahead of me indicated and then swerved over and cut me off. Said he saw my indicator lights and thought I was turning left. Lying prick. I never used them when going straight ahead but if he had of side swiped me it was his word against mine. Just one of the reasons this law is so bloody dangerouse. Cages believe that the law allows them to change lanes whie exiting a roundabout. Now if LTNZ or police were as zealous on incorrect lane changeing I for one just might have a bit more respect for them.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

It's still talking about the previous line, which only deals with the entering of a roundabout. Anyway it's not a valid defence, as it's the wording of the law that is taken into account, not third party publications. Which is why all the AA publications and such have "this may or not be correct, consult a lawyer" on them.

Don't mean to nit pick. But it is no more talking about the previous line as the last sentance in the para is talking about its preceeding line

The paragraph is talking about three different aspects of roundabouts

1 indicating when exiting to your left or right.

2 Going straight ahead

3 approaching and exiting on multilane roundabouts.

Incedently I believe the road code is also a third party publication. Just can't find the statute on this. Any ideas? Would like to see the actual wording on this.

Skyryder

[Gremlin]

Incedently I believe the road code is also a third party publication. Just can't find the statute on this. Any ideas? Would like to see the actual wording on this.

Skyryder
IIRC, you are correct, I think the road code says something inside the cover that it cannot be used in place of the statutes.

I think anything other than the actual law cannot be used in something like a court case. Partly I'm guessing because the legalese is translated, and paraphrased.

[Jeremy]

I might be missing something here but:

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit."

Doesn't say anything about indicating while exiting. It's of the same form as:

Drivers entering an intersection must indicate if they are intending to turn left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-line intersections you must be in the right lane.

Which would imply to me that the second sentence is following on the same original precept as the first as it impossible to derive any sense from the second sentence when it is isolated from the rest. Unless there's parts of the sentences you haven't quoted from the publication.

[WildBoarMouse]

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/new-road-rules/

It even has pretty pictures. :)

"If you're going straight ahead at the roundabout (eg halfway
around), you need to use any lane which is marked for that
purpose. You must signal a left turn as you pass the exit
before the one you intend to take."

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-safety/new-road-rules/gfx/roundabout-02.jpg

[What?]

It's a dumb-ass bit of ruling anyway - Imagine you are sitting at the top entry to the roundabout in the picture above. It's more than a good bet that you will not be able to see the left hand indicators on either of the cars, yet the purpose of their indicating a left turn is to inform you that they are exiting the roundabout.

[What?]

I just can't wait for some cop to ticket me on this one. I have a defence.

Skyryder
No you don't. It is a legal standard in NZ that "ignorance of the law is no defence" - what you have is an interpretation of the law (which you may have further interpreted), not the law itself.

[Skyryder]

So where is the actual wording the statue on this. I've looked and can not find it. Has anyone seen the actual wording of this or is it just some LTNZ PR ??


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I might be missing something here but:

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit."

Doesn't say anything about indicating while exiting. It's of the same form as:

Drivers entering an intersection must indicate if they are intending to turn left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-line intersections you must be in the right lane.

Which would imply to me that the second sentence is following on the same original precept as the first as it impossible to derive any sense from the second sentence when it is isolated from the rest. Unless there's parts of the sentences you haven't quoted from the publication.


This is the full quote from the Justices' Quarterly on roundabouts. The paragraph has three (3) sentances only. I have numbered them for clarity

(1)Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. (2) It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. (3) At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit.

Each of these three sentances are stand-a-lone.

Sentence #2 mentions nothing about entry or exit. It states no indication is neccessary when going straight ahead.

If as you suggest that #2 sentence is following on the same original precept as #1 sentence, then there is an assumption that JP's need to be told that when driving straight ahead it is not neccessary to indicate. I know of no other explanation if sentance #2 is to read in conjuction with #1. Most drivers and JP's know this and are not that dumb. So...............sentance #2 is a standalone sentance and means what it says. No indication is neccessary at roundabouts if driving through. Indication is neccessary when turning left or right.

Does anyone else have a copy of Justices' Quarterly and if so how do they interperet this paragraph?

Now I think I'll go and get pissed so I can understand what I have said. :drinkup: :drinkup:

Skyryder

[TonyB]

Bloody confusing isn't it. You have a statute that states that you need not indicate at all if going straight ahead. Yet the LTSA disagrees. Aint life grand.

[spudchucka]

So where is the actual wording the statue on this. I've looked and can not find it. Has anyone seen the actual wording of this or is it just some LTNZ PR ??


Skyryder
It won't be in the statute, try looking in the regulations.

[spudchucka]

Sentence #2 mentions nothing about entry or exit. It states no indication is neccessary when going straight ahead.
All this really shows is that JP's are just as thick headed as the rest of the great unwashed.

[spudchucka]

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/giving-way/roundabouts3.html

Print this page out and mail it to the editor of the Justices Quarterly with a nice note telling him or her what a dumb arse he or she is.

Its really very simple, I fail to see how anyone with half a brain could have problems getting to grips with the concept.

[scumdog]

It's a dumb-ass bit of ruling anyway - Imagine you are sitting at the top entry to the roundabout in the picture above. It's more than a good bet that you will not be able to see the left hand indicators on either of the cars, yet the purpose of their indicating a left turn is to inform you that they are exiting the roundabout.

Re above scenario: you would get fucked off waiting for them just to find out they were going straight ahead (i.e. turning off before they got to you).

I bet you WOULD see the indicators in enough time to let you realise you didn't have to sit there like a dummy for them.

[Ixion]

It won't be in the statute, try looking in the regulations.

I think it's actually a Road Rule. Sort of third level, made under Ministerial prerogative.

[spudchucka]

I think it's actually a Road Rule. Sort of third level, made under Ministerial prerogative.
It doesn't really matter where it is written, I posted a link from the road code and can't be arsed looking any further than that for it.

Its very simple and I think that anyone who is making a fuss over it is just plain thick or a shit stirrer.

[Skyryder]

It doesn't really matter where it is written, I posted a link from the road code and can't be arsed looking any further than that for it.

Its very simple and I think that anyone who is making a fuss over it is just plain thick or a shit stirrer.

I'm neither. And if it is so simple why are so many people confused. I had a guy the other day indicate to turn right then went straigt ahead. I think the police would be better employed ticketing drivers who change lanes without indicating. That seems to be far more dangerous than this law which is there for driver courtesyand not for safety reasons As I said once before there are enough confused drivers out on the roads as it is without me confusing them any further.

Skyryder

[Jeremy]

Extremely simple rule.

Always indicate left as you leave a roundabout.
Always indicate when you enter a roundabout in the direction you want to go.
Be in the correct lane before you get to the roundabout.

If you want to see people really confused see what happens at an intersection with 4 give-way signs. (only seen 2 of them so far, but there's probably more else where). I think they only exist when the roadworks guy screw up. It's all in the road code as what you do in that situation yet it appears that 90% of people can't remember what's in it. Maybe everyone should have to pass the theory part every year. And since they allready know how to drive they should be allowed any errors at all.

[What?]

Re above scenario: you would get fucked off waiting for them just to find out they were going straight ahead (i.e. turning off before they got to you).

I bet you WOULD see the indicators in enough time to let you realise you didn't have to sit there like a dummy for them.
Not really - the fact is that at many roundabouts I can not see the left hand indicators of cars exiting at the point before the one I am waiting at. Not that it really matters , coz I never trust other peoples indication anyway - too common for it to not match their actions. Better to be alive and wrong than dead right, eh?

[spudchucka]

And if it is so simple why are so many people confused. Have a good look at the little pictures on the road code site, read their explanations and tell me what is so confusing about it.

I think the fact that some people can't figure it out says a lot about the mental ability of those people, JP's included.

[Gremlin]

Re above scenario: you would get fucked off waiting for them just to find out they were going straight ahead (i.e. turning off before they got to you).
Yep, agree there, one particular corner on my run into the city, where the road does a 90 degree turn to the right, road intersects on the outside of the corner (I'm on that road), the number of cars that don't indicate to turn "left"....

All very well to look at it from the inside, but try being the person trying to mind read you.

[festus]

The people in my town are hopeless at indicating, half of them are in a dream world, and hardly use there indicators, bloody frustrating. The other half don't have a clue how a round about works, they just sit there till the road is clear 1 kilometer down the road before entering the round about, instead of merging........shockers!

[Skyryder]

Have a good look at the little pictures on the road code site, read their explanations and tell me what is so confusing about it.

I think the fact that some people can't figure it out says a lot about the mental ability of those people, JP's included.

I'm not confused. Never have been. Just everybody else is that I come across on roundabouts. Just think it's a dumb rule having to indicate when not turning or changing lanes. I notice that the picture shows that you should indicate once past the left or right exits. Perhaps in your wisdom you can convey to me how this rule makes driving safer for us on bikes. Because I'm fucked if I can see.
Next time you need a JP to autherize a search warrent I'm sure you will convey your sentiments.

As a matter of interest do the police in general have a poor opinion of JP;s or is it just you??

Skyryder

[Lou Girardin]

* Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit.

Skyryder

This only refers to ENTERING the roundabout. Like legislation, it has to be interpreted as to what it actually says, not what you'd like it to say.

Maybe we should start a petition for the terminally confused to make indicating optional.

[spudchucka]

'm not confused. Never have been. Just everybody else is that I come across on roundabouts. Like I said before, it says a lot about the attitudes and brain power of the average Kiwi motorist. Too stupid or too arrogant to follow simple rules.


Perhaps in your wisdom you can convey to me how this rule makes driving safer for us on bikes. Because I'm fucked if I can see. I'm not wise but I can figure out when I have to indicate at a round-a-bout and therefore at least I'm not thick. I'm not commenting on the rules impact on safety, just the inability of people to grasp a very simple concept.


Next time you need a JP to autherize a search warrent I'm sure you will convey your sentiments.Generally I never go to JP's for search warrants unless it is an after hour emergency.


As a matter of interest do the police in general have a poor opinion of JP;s or is it just you??I have nothing against JP's most of them are excellent at what they do. There are some who are completely hopeless but you get that in all professions, (as is pointed out ad nauseum on this very forum).

However, if JP's can't even understand this very simple road rule then they are bordering on being utterly stupid along with the rest of the half wits that can't get it right.