Give Way rule date changed [Archive]

PrincessBandit

10th November 2011, 06:42

Oh how I had to laugh when I read that April 1st will now not be the change over date for the give way rule. Steven Joyce was concerned that despite it being a memorable date people would think it was an April Fool's Day joke.

hahahahahahaha

'Tis now March 25th so it will be interesting to see the ensuing chaos!

Lesson for those on 2 wheels: stay vigilant! only you are interested in your best interests and survival on the road. Keep those eyes and ears open on the look out for all those fools who have no idea of road rules anyway (especially in relation to who is meant to give way to who) Plenty of road users out there who surely got their licences out of a weetbix packet.

oneofsix

10th November 2011, 06:45

JakeTehMuss

10th November 2011, 07:49

oneofsix

10th November 2011, 07:53

Here Is a Linky to the NZTA website (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html) for more info.
Interesting to see the Current rules regarding Uncontrolled T-intersections :facepalm:

yeah the current rule is you give way to the right, no if's but's or maybe's. Are you saying you didn't understand this? Funny how some people like things to be complicated, oh well the new rules should keep them happy having to work out when to give way to the right and when to give way to the left.

SMOKEU

10th November 2011, 08:03

I'm going to stop driving for a while after these new rules come into effect. I wonder how many crashes are going to happen, and insurance premiums are likely to go through the roof.

iYRe

10th November 2011, 08:11

omg.. what a stupid thing.

bogan

10th November 2011, 08:14

I'm going to stop driving for a while after these new rules come into effect. I wonder how many crashes are going to happen, and insurance premiums are likely to go through the roof.

Nah, do the opposite, as everyone will be confused, and much more hesitant at intersections while it is new. If you come in later and have a momentary lapse when people aren't confused and hesitant, bam!
Might be a good excuse to get a stebel though, my pissy little stock horn does nothing.

iYRe

10th November 2011, 08:16

Might be a good excuse to get a stebel though, my pissy little stock horn does nothing.

or a volvo?

bogan

10th November 2011, 08:18

or a volvo?

I didn't think volvo made bikes? :confused:

iYRe

10th November 2011, 08:28

I didn't think volvo made bikes? :confused:

well, I coulda said Kenworth..

A big inflatable car proof bubble would be great..

MSTRS

10th November 2011, 08:51

It could be said that this will be a good thing...
Currently, the rules are simple. So people don't have to work out who should do what. Therefore they don't think. Which leads them to do the most stupid things.
The change may just force them to think in order to work out who does what. N'est pas?

The whole problem could have been fixed years ago, by explaining the right hand rule in terms of "If YOUR driver's door can be hit, YOU give way"

sil3nt

10th November 2011, 10:22

I think the new rule is stupid and will cause more problems than it will solve.

Daffyd

10th November 2011, 10:42

oneofsix

10th November 2011, 11:02

Funny how things change... I grew up with the old system, (the one that's about to be re-introduced), and all the comments on here are the same as we all made when they changed it to the present system. I guess it's all a matter of what you're used to. Besides, every other RHD country uses the "new" system.

I had just recently got my licence when they decided to change it way back when. I remember think F%$%^ I had had to learn the 5 (I think) exceptions to the so called give way to the right rule and then they go and make it a true give way to the right rule with out exceptions. grrrr
Now they start to introduce the exceptions again.

willytheekid

10th November 2011, 14:00

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5939338/Give-way-rule-change-gives-way-to-April-Fool

This is going to be interesting!

My concern...is that we motorcyclists are going to be the ones hurt from a general lack of understanding regarding the new rules.
Its alright for a car v car to get caught out by the new rule...after all, they will usually just get panel damage from the "learning curve".....but a bike v car (Or truck!) :sick:

I truly hope EVERY rider on KB is already aware of this coming change, and is preparing for the worst....come 25th of march....your lack of understanding and preperation for other road users not learning or fully understanding the new rules...could sadly....be fatal!

So start reading up KBers....and remember, next year...be prepared for some mistakes to be made from other road users...and be ready to put those evasion skills to the ultimate test!.

There panel damage...could be our life!

Ride safe & Ride smart KBers :love:

bogan

10th November 2011, 14:10

I truly hope EVERY rider on KB is already aware of this coming change, and is preparing for the worst....come 25th of march....your lack of understanding and preperation for other road users not learning or fully understanding the new rules...could sadly....be fatal!

Some are already more aware (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/143874-Give-Way-rule-date-changed) :shifty: ;)

steve_t

10th November 2011, 14:13

Some are already more aware (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/143874-Give-Way-rule-date-changed) :shifty: ;)

:niceone::rofl::rofl:

Deano

10th November 2011, 14:15

It pays to treat every vehicle like they are out to get you......or at least as if they *have* right of way, regardless of who's in the right.

That's not to say give way to every vehicle, but be prepared for them to not give way.

george formby

10th November 2011, 14:17

TBH I have regarded the give way rule as a lottery for as long as I have lived here, a blend of tourists & blind or ignorant drivers keeps me on my toes & lacking assumptions. If in doubt..

blackdog

10th November 2011, 14:24

Lunchtime today I watched a retard indicate right to go straight ahead at a roundabout. If people can't work out simple indicating procedures I predict carnage in March.

steve_t

10th November 2011, 14:33

Lunchtime today I watched a retard indicate right to go straight ahead at a roundabout. If people can't work out simple indicating procedures I predict carnage in March.

I see that every day. The one that pisses me off most is where wankers don't indicate when they turn left. What a waste of time stopping and giving way to them when you don't have to. All they need to do is flick their indicator on!

george formby

10th November 2011, 14:33

Lunchtime today I watched a retard indicate right to go straight ahead at a roundabout. If people can't work out simple indicating procedures I predict carnage in March.

I hope that even though we are aware of these changes we continue to ride in a defensive manner & not let "rightfulness" put riders at risk. The way road rules are followed now is loose at best, this change of one rule should not create any change to our attitudes towards personal safety, if anything they should be heightened knowing confusion will happen.

2Seat_Terror

10th November 2011, 14:57

Makes little difference to me. It's always me vs an unpredictable everyone else everyday anyway. I don't expect to be seen, and even if I am, I expect them to do something stupid (and am oft rewarded).

More road-rules changes = more stupidity on our roads. More of the same.

Haggis2

10th November 2011, 15:13

No good being in the right when you're the flat one :facepalm:

jasonu

10th November 2011, 16:10

I think the new rule is stupid and will cause more problems than it will solve.

No, people like you are fucking stupid. This rule is in use here (and has been forever) and it works just fine. It certainly doesn't leave you stranded in the middle of the road for no good reason just begging to be arse ended like the current right hand rule does.

sil3nt

10th November 2011, 16:25

It certainly doesn't leave you stranded in the middle of the road for no good reason just begging to be arse ended like the current right hand rule does.Ah yes it does. Now cars turning right have to block the road waiting for all oncoming traffic to clear. I can think of several places where this is going to be a major pain in the ass. It works overseas because they have roads designed for it. There are several intersections in Hamilton where the only chance you get to turn across traffic are cars turning left.

If the roads were built properly this wouldn't be an issue.

Scuba_Steve

10th November 2011, 16:52

No, people like you are fucking stupid. This rule is in use here (and has been forever) and it works just fine. It certainly doesn't leave you stranded in the middle of the road for no good reason just begging to be arse ended like the current right hand rule does.

:rofl: angry little retard aint ya :stupid:

F5 Dave

10th November 2011, 17:00

Gotta say I'm doing a mind funk over it. A ways back I changed my mind about this rule. The old one was only brought in because of Trams apparently.

Ok so maybe it makes sense to change it back. But I'm not sure I'm mentally agile enough in my dotage (43) to not slip back into the only way I have known. Fuk knows how my Dad will cope.

paturoa

10th November 2011, 17:16

I'm planning to take the bus for a couple of days and see how bad it is.

Oleg

10th November 2011, 17:44

No matter how much a hate the high viz jackets, Im getting one.
Here is my little logic on it. Now that people know that no one will give them way, they will try to sneak in there as quick as humanly possible, without paying much attention to the traffic.
Will take the cage for a few weeks before everyone gets used to it.

bikerdan

10th November 2011, 18:09

I live in a small town full of bad drivers.... There gonna be some funny sights to see...

Talking about funny some old man on a mobility scooter tried to end it on the nose of my work truck today
He just kept heading out into traffic to cross the road. Never stopped just left every one else to do the right thing...

Laava

10th November 2011, 18:14

No doubt in March they will be advertising the imminent change hard out. I hope they have a memorable jingle! Ah, good times!!!!!!

Pedrostt500

10th November 2011, 21:21

There is only one rule that all motorcyclists need to remember, Rule 1, Every other fucker is out to kill you, Rule 2, Every other Fucker is out to kill you.
And my advice pertaining to rule 1, is treat every other motorist as if they are a murdering Idiot, and in this way they will have no surprises for you.

warewolf

10th November 2011, 22:22

I'm just quoting SMOKEU for some context.

I wonder how many crashes are going to happen, and insurance premiums are likely to go through the roof.You people are woefully ignorant on this matter.

The Aussie state of Victoria introduced this rule in the late '60s early 70's because they were the last Aussie big city to run trams down the middle of the road. Then NZ adopted it, like they adopt every other stupid thing Victoria does: motorcycle safety levy, anyone?! Victoria figured it was a bad thing, and got rid of it in the late '80s. Now, it is well known that when you change the road rules, the ensuing chaos causing an upward spike in the accident rate while everyone adjusts. This rule is so bad, that it has become renowned throughout the traffic management industry world-wide, because when it was changed back to the normal, usual, sensible way that most of the world uses, there was no upward spike in the accident rate, but rather intersection crashes immediately reduced.

Get over yourselves Kiwis! You didn't invent it, so don't act like it is some ingrained part of your karma that shouldn't be changed. Just because you are used to it doesn't mean it isn't strange or weird or unusual in the grander scheme of things. Everybody else has problems with narrow roads, traffic densities etc whilst waiting to turn right, too. Deal with it.

Berries

10th November 2011, 23:33

It's official, KB has gone softcock. Going to catch the bus/walk/drive indeed. Anyone would think that every person out there obeys the rules now.

There is only one rule that all motorcyclists need to remember, Rule 1, Every other fucker is out to kill you, Rule 2, Every other Fucker is out to kill you.
And my advice pertaining to rule 1, is treat every other motorist as if they are a murdering Idiot, and in this way they will have no surprises for you.
Wot he said.

ellipsis

11th November 2011, 00:19

...wot fuckin rules are you all talkin about...who's fuckin who and who's not payin'....

F5 Dave

11th November 2011, 08:36

I'm just quoting SMOKEU for some context.
You people are woefully ignorant on this matter.

The Aussie state of Victoria introduced this rule in the late '60s early 70's because they were the last Aussie big city to run trams down the middle of the road. Then NZ adopted it, like they adopt every other stupid thing Victoria does: motorcycle safety levy, anyone?! Victoria figured it was a bad thing, and got rid of it in the late '80s. Now, it is well known that when you change the road rules, the ensuing chaos causing an upward spike in the accident rate while everyone adjusts. This rule is so bad, that it has become renowned throughout the traffic management industry world-wide, because when it was changed back to the normal, usual, sensible way that most of the world uses, there was no upward spike in the accident rate, but rather intersection crashes immediately reduced.

Get over yourselves Kiwis! You didn't invent it, so don't act like it is some ingrained part of your karma that shouldn't be changed. Just because you are used to it doesn't mean it isn't strange or weird or unusual in the grander scheme of things. Everybody else has problems with narrow roads, traffic densities etc whilst waiting to turn right, too. Deal with it.

Well that told us. Thanks for that. best we get over ourselves like you say. Glad to be in presence of such an advanced enlightened being.

I had acknowledged that it made sense to change it. But I'm just saying that I will be questioning my inbuilt 'I know I'm right about the give way rule' subroutine for some years.

MSTRS

11th November 2011, 08:57

Gotta say I'm doing a mind funk over it. A ways back I changed my mind about this rule. The old one was only brought in because of Trams apparently.

The Aussie state of Victoria introduced this rule in the late '60s early 70's because they were the last Aussie big city to run trams down the middle of the road. Then NZ adopted it, like they adopt every other stupid thing Victoria does: motorcycle safety levy, anyone?!

Don't know about trams...they were LONG GONE when the current rule was brought in here in the mid/late 70s. I understood the idea behind it to be 'give way to the right - no exceptions'.

Scuba_Steve

11th November 2011, 09:16

steve_t

11th November 2011, 09:42

Well I see why we're bringing it in, along with being an illogical & stupid rule (the sort we like to adopt) I see it's also continuing the trend of dumbing down drivers.
"right turning cars give way to traffic turning left into the same road, which would give drivers less to think about." - Steven Joyce

I think I may have said this previously but again, currently, turning left is too complicated for the average driver. You need to check to your left as you move over to make sure there's no pedestrian about to step out or scooterist trying to duck up the inside. You need to look ahead to see if there is someone turning right into the same road as you, in which case you have to give way. You then need to look in your rearview mirror to see if the vehicle behind you is going straight. If it is, you then don't give way to the car turning right but proceed.

The new rule makes things simpler and also brings us into line with international convention. I wonder if the world will ever get to the stage of traveling on the same side of the road, be it left or right.

Scuba_Steve

11th November 2011, 10:09

I think I may have said this previously but again, currently, turning left is too complicated for the average driver. You need to check to your left as you move over to make sure there's no pedestrian about to step out or scooterist trying to duck up the inside. You need to look ahead to see if there is someone turning right into the same road as you, in which case you have to give way. You then need to look in your rearview mirror to see if the vehicle behind you is going straight. If it is, you then don't give way to the car turning right but proceed.

The new rule makes things simpler and also brings us into line with international convention. I wonder if the world will ever get to the stage of traveling on the same side of the road, be it left or right.

I think your overcomplicating it. You don't need to do a full check left (tho your same argument could be used for the new/old rule), you don't need to look behind (you go round as they pass) you just have to watch the person to your right, couldn't be simpler & the current rule gives allowance for that person on your right to turn, whereas this new/old one could have them sitting for quite the while

F5 Dave

11th November 2011, 10:24

I think your overcomplicating it. . . . . or that person on your right to turn, whereas this new/old one could have them sitting for quite the while

I think you're under-complicating the grammar involved. Your first use of 'your' is incorrect, whilst the 2nd is just fine. Thank you, no problem.

MSTRS

11th November 2011, 10:29

I think you're under-complicating the grammar involved. Your first use of 'your' is incorrect, whilst the 2nd is just fine. Thank you, no problem.

Only fully paid-up members of the BDOTGNZA may issue admonitions re poor use of English written grammar. I do hope you got your subs in on time...
Mind you, there was a recent resolution passed by the full council to allow non-financial associates to point out inaccuracies. So technically you are not in breach of the rules.
:laugh:

Scuba_Steve

11th November 2011, 10:44

I think you're under-complicating the grammar involved. Your first use of 'your' is incorrect, whilst the 2nd is just fine. Thank you, no problem.

:laugh: you're right, I keep forgetting the "other" your

F5 Dave

11th November 2011, 11:02

I do that two.

MSTRS

11th November 2011, 11:08

Four sum its not to big of a problem...

jasonu

11th November 2011, 12:30

Don't know about trams...they were LONG GONE when the current rule was brought in here in the mid/late 70s. I understood the idea behind it to be 'give way to the right - no exceptions'.

In those days Auckland (for one) still had the electric busses that had to follow the overhead lines.

bluninja

11th November 2011, 12:51

:laugh: you're right, I keep forgetting the "other" your

not forgetting the yore of times gone by :)

rainman

11th November 2011, 21:27

I think I may have said this previously but again, currently, turning left is too complicated for the average driver. You need to check to your left as you move over to make sure there's no pedestrian about to step out or scooterist trying to duck up the inside. You need to look ahead to see if there is someone turning right into the same road as you, in which case you have to give way. You then need to look in your rearview mirror to see if the vehicle behind you is going straight. If it is, you then don't give way to the car turning right but proceed.

The new rule makes things simpler and also brings us into line with international convention. I wonder if the world will ever get to the stage of traveling on the same side of the road, be it left or right.

What he said. The current rule is absolutely idiotic and I can't wait until it's gone.

rainman

11th November 2011, 22:04

you don't need to look behind (you go round as they pass)

Ah but you do - you can only "go round" if there is someone behind you who is going straight, so you (the left turner) have to look from the person turning right, who would have right of way, to the person behind you who by that stage is on your tail and you can't see if they're indicating left (meaning you have to give way) or going straight (meaning you must turn). To make things worse the right-turner can't see if the person behind you is indicating left or not either, so ha no information with which to make a decision.

It's a completely rubbish rule, and the rest of the world thinks you're at best quaint (and at worst crazy) for keeping it so long.

pzkpfw

12th November 2011, 11:56

Ah but you do - you can only "go round" if there is someone behind you who is going straight, so you (the left turner) have to look from the person turning right, who would have right of way, to the person behind you who by that stage is on your tail and you can't see if they're indicating left (meaning you have to give way) or going straight (meaning you must turn). To make things worse the right-turner can't see if the person behind you is indicating left or not either, so ha no information with which to make a decision.

It's a completely rubbish rule, and the rest of the world thinks you're at best quaint (and at worst crazy) for keeping it so long.

Well, I think the give way ought to be decided by who's facing you, not who's behind them. If the left turner has to stop (under the current rule) to let the right turner go, then the person behind the left turner ought to stop, too. Tough luck if they are going straight. They shouldn't be going around.

The point of the current rule was to let the right turner get on, and not be stuck in the middle of the road. The only confusion is when people play this guessing game of letting the left turner go, because they see someone going straight (maybe), behind the left turner. It's that guessing game that needs to be got rid of, not the current rule.

(The pictures they show in the road code, etc, never show what's going on behind the "red and blue" cars; so they've left it up to people to figure it out, instead of making it clear.)

Pissing into the wind, though. The change is coming...

Scuba_Steve

12th November 2011, 12:31

steve_t

12th November 2011, 12:53

think you should read my bit in the brackets again (you go as they pass)

the rule as stands is logical & intelligent (with exception to unmarked intersections) the old/new rule is illogical & in all honesty retarded (with again exception to unmarked intersections).

So the left turning person still has to look to their right to see the car going past. What if there's not enough space on the right for the car to get past?

Have you driven in Australia? The new rule makes heaps of sense, we might end up getting some of those Hook Turns in some areas though due to our road design.

rainman

12th November 2011, 14:57

think you should read my bit in the brackets again (you go as they pass)

So the left turning person still has to look to their right to see the car going past. What if there's not enough space on the right for the car to get past?

Have you driven in Australia? The new rule makes heaps of sense, we might end up getting some of those Hook Turns in some areas though due to our road design.

I was going to say to Suba_Steve "What if there is not enough room for them to pass because the left-turner has stopped to let the right turner through?", but yeah, what you said.

Dunno about hook turns, but the use of those little mini-offramp type lanes to the left on bigger intersections might be the thing we need.

Pseudonym

13th November 2011, 05:30

I’m not sure if you may have noticed, but THEY DON”T FUCKING GIVE WAY NOW!
What will change for us is they now won’t give way from the other direction.
HiVis vest? You could ride naked, painted pink, standing on your head with fireworks coming out of your arse and they won’t see you.

The change will bring us inline with the rest of the world, and that will be better for those new to the country.
Why we adapted the stupid rule in the fist place is beyond me, yea I know the reasons but it was unnecessary.
Like the roundabout “clarification” it’ll be the same deal where people come to an intersection, fart their brains out their ears and just go for it.

If it’s bigger than me I’m letting it go, it’s worked up to now.
A moral victory with a missing leg? Na I’ll pass thanks.

Note: I live in South Auckland and work in Auckland so I am amongst some of the best world class drivers you could ever hope to find…

Voltaire

13th November 2011, 05:53

I learnt to drive under the 'old' rule and I don't remember any issues on the change to the current stupid rule....but then we didn't have the internet or what passes as 'news' on TV then. Probably be like the Y2K bug.....much ado about nothing.
The cars overtaking from behind left turning cars when the driver of the left turning car is waiting for you to turn and ofter even waving you thru make the current rule a joke.
I've ridden/driven overseas and its up there with Frances give way to vehicles coming out of side roads on the right and Spains give way at the end of over taking lanes.

Scuba_Steve

13th November 2011, 17:38

So the left turning person still has to look to their right to see the car going past. What if there's not enough space on the right for the car to get past?

Have you driven in Australia? The new rule makes heaps of sense, we might end up getting some of those Hook Turns in some areas though due to our road design.

I was going to say to Suba_Steve "What if there is not enough room for them to pass because the left-turner has stopped to let the right turner through?", but yeah, what you said.

well thats pretty simple, isn't it??? you don't need to be a genius to work it out. On the very rare occasion there is no room to pull over (the straight through is blocked) so the right turn gets his chance to go & everyone carries on.

And no I haven't driven in Australia but that still doesn't change the fact current law is logical & is best for traffic flow & getting cars off the road.
If that left turn car has nowhere to pull over chances are that right turn car is holding up traffic. Under new/old law he'll just be holding up traffic for much longer & could even be reliant on "courtesy" before he is able to move & free up traffic flow again. Given NZ's current state of "courtesy" I wouldn't put 5min holdups out of the question.

rainman

13th November 2011, 20:08

well thats pretty simple, isn't it??? you don't need to be a genius to work it out. On the very rare occasion there is no room to pull over (the straight through is blocked) so the right turn gets his chance to go & everyone carries on.

But that's not how it works in practice, at least where I am. Far more likely the left-turner just takes the turn and the going-straight car does exactly that. I don't have a road code handy to check but I don't think it makes it clear what to do in these cases - the examples are only one car deep. That you and I have differing views of how best to handle the circumstance only confirms that there is a problem to fix...

the fact current law is logical & is best for traffic flow & getting cars off the road.

You keep saying that but we'll just have to disagree: me and the rest of the world over here, and you over there... :)

superman

14th November 2011, 01:17

Under new/old law he'll just be holding up traffic for much longer

Currently it's holding up cars behind the left turners... soon it'll be holding up cars behind the right turners (in narrow road situations). How will it be holding up traffic for longer? If anything it'll be less hold up because left turners can just go with no worries, while at the moment right turners must watch out, left turners must watch out, and then decide. In the new rule all responsibility is put on the right turner. (and I seem to remember somewhere that if conducting a right turn and straight flowing vehicles are behind you, you are supposed to pull over to the left and let them pass first... like that'd ever happen here)

Berries

14th November 2011, 06:36

(and I seem to remember somewhere that if conducting a right turn and straight flowing vehicles are behind you, you are supposed to pull over to the left and let them pass first... like that'd ever happen here)
Ahh, the old Cockies Rule as I call it. Some people think that you are required to do this. The Rule says (2.5.3) that you aren't committing an offence by doing it, so it isn't really promoted. Makes sense sometimes I guess if there is a lot of traffic coming towards you and you are turning right after a blind crest. Where it falls down is with the bullshit NZ practice of sitting there with your indicator on and not doing anything making everyone think you are about to pull out. Numbnuts.

Scuba_Steve

14th November 2011, 07:55

Currently it's holding up cars behind the left turners... soon it'll be holding up cars behind the right turners (in narrow road situations). How will it be holding up traffic for longer? If anything it'll be less hold up because left turners can just go with no worries, while at the moment right turners must watch out, left turners must watch out, and then decide. In the new rule all responsibility is put on the right turner. (and I seem to remember somewhere that if conducting a right turn and straight flowing vehicles are behind you, you are supposed to pull over to the left and let them pass first... like that'd ever happen here)

the 1st 2 left turners as a general rule will always have a place to pull into the kerb, the right hand turner has nowhere to pull over, that "pulling left" example is given in country, in city there is either parked cars on a T intersection or a street on cross intersection so nowhere for them to "pull left" and doing so would make their trip even worse they might as well get out & walk the rest da way as they would have to deal with 2 sets of straight traffic as well as left turn traffic.

If your turning left & holding cars up on a standard road, learn how to drive!!!

steve_t

14th November 2011, 08:13

If your turning left & holding cars up on a standard road, learn how to drive!!!

That's the problem. There are too many people that struggle with the rule as it is, as well as tourists from other countries, that it makes sense to change it. 'Learn how to drive' doesn't work because the population contains too many retards

oneofsix

14th November 2011, 08:15

That's the problem. There are too many people that struggle with the rule as it is, as well as tourists from other countries, that it makes sense to change it. 'Learn how to drive' doesn't work because the population contains too many retards

You must be deluded. If they can use that excuse for 30 years changing the rule again just gives them another chance to play dumb or dead man's bluff with other road users, especially bikers.

Parlane

14th November 2011, 08:19

bogan

14th November 2011, 08:25

With the rule change, here nothing changes, correct ?

As the red car is at a give way anyway so the right turning traffic in blue only has to watch out for straight traffic. I love this intersection, right turning traffic in blue manages to take out at least one of the lanes on this two lane road.
250638

The red only has to give way if the blue car is indicating that they will move into the left lane, otherwise they just take the left and right hand lanes respectively. But a lot of cagers don't seem to grasp the concept of apexes, so it is wise to leave a bit of space!

Parlane

14th November 2011, 08:38

The red only has to give way if the blue car is indicating that they will move into the left lane, otherwise they just take the left and right hand lanes respectively. But a lot of cagers don't seem to grasp the concept of apexes, so it is wise to leave a bit of space!

At what point should the blue car indicate to show that it wishes to be in the left lane. You can't change lanes in an intersection afaik ?

bogan

14th November 2011, 08:40

At what point should the blue car indicate to show that it wishes to be in the left lane. You can't change lanes in an intersection afaik ?

not sure, I do it about half way through the turn, but only when there are no other cars coming through from the left anyway

MSTRS

14th November 2011, 08:47

not sure, I do it about half way through the turn, but only when there are no other cars coming through from the left anyway

FFS!!!!
No wonder there is sooooo much trouble with the turn rules.
Neither give way to the other in this situation. You are SUPPOSED to turn into the lane closest to you. So the red car turns left into the left of the two available lanes and the blue turns right into the right of the two lanes. Change lanes down the road if you need to.
Mr Blue Car - see the dotted lines curving to your right? Keep those fuckers on your left as you proceed through your turn.

steve_t

14th November 2011, 09:12

You must be deluded. If they can use that excuse for 30 years changing the rule again just gives them another chance to play dumb or dead man's bluff with other road users, especially bikers.

The other GREAT thing about the law change is that if a biker happens to accidentally leave their left indicator on and pass a road on their left but they intend to go straight, they're no longer going to get mashed!

steve_t

14th November 2011, 09:12

superman

14th November 2011, 09:30

in city there is either parked cars on a T intersection or a street on cross intersection so nowhere for them to "pull left" and doing so would make their trip even worse they might as well get out & walk the rest da way as they would have to deal with 2 sets of straight traffic as well as left turn traffic.

I'm trying to understand the situation you are talking about... a really busy road with lots of straight traffic, but it's narrow with no median to turn right, and no lights for an intersection, in a city? Sounds far too fantastical to be true.

Parlane

14th November 2011, 09:35

FFS!!!!
No wonder there is sooooo much trouble with the turn rules.
Neither give way to the other in this situation. You are SUPPOSED to turn into the lane closest to you. So the red car turns left into the left of the two available lanes and the blue turns right into the right of the two lanes. Change lanes down the road if you need to.
Mr Blue Car - see the dotted lines curving to your right? Keep those fuckers on your left as you proceed through your turn.

If you read, bogan understands that each vehicle has it's own lane to turn in to. What bogan was referring to is if the blue car wants to be in the left lane and not the right. And at what point can the blue car move in to that left lane.

MSTRS

14th November 2011, 09:41

If you read, bogan understands that each vehicle has it's own lane to turn in to. What bogan was referring to is if the blue car wants to be in the left lane and not the right. And at what point can the blue car move in to that left lane.

But the law is that each must turn into their respective lanes. Pity that so few seem to understand this and it's seldom, if ever, policed.
Even if I did (slightly) misread Bogan's post, how is the blue car going to indicate he wants to turn into the left lane? He should be indicating his right turn...

Parlane

14th November 2011, 09:46

But the law is that each must turn into their respective lanes. Pity that so few seem to understand this and it's seldom, if ever, policed.
Even if I did (slightly) misread Bogan's post, how is the blue car going to indicate he wants to turn into the left lane? He should be indicating his right turn...

Exactly! How..

In regards to the respective lanes. I have an old car that I would love to be written off. I teach drivers the rules all the time! Except buses and trucks obv... As they have no choice.

edit: obv I won't ever purposefully crash in to someone. It was said in jest.

bogan

14th November 2011, 10:01

But the law is that each must turn into their respective lanes. Pity that so few seem to understand this and it's seldom, if ever, policed.
Even if I did (slightly) misread Bogan's post, how is the blue car going to indicate he wants to turn into the left lane? He should be indicating his right turn...

What if the first driveway on the left after the right turn is where you want to go? Circle the block?

Or what if you are on a slow electric vehicle (but excellent on fuel economy), and want to leave the right hand lane for faster traffic, which would otherwise immediately (and without any indicating) swap to the left if the right was occupied by said electric vehicle. I get 1-2secs of indicating in before the change into the empty (verified) lane, by indicating left after I have made the first 1/3rd of the right hand turn.

Scuba_Steve

14th November 2011, 10:02

I'm trying to understand the situation you are talking about... a really busy road with lots of straight traffic, but it's narrow with no median to turn right, and no lights for an intersection, in a city? Sounds far too fantastical to be true.

you don't travel much do you??? In NZ there are quite a few places like that, admittedly city was the wrong word to use (I was using it in generic sense) while they do appear occasionally in cities you are more likely to find them in towns.
Leave your country (Auckland) once & awhile come to NZ, head out to some of our smaller towns you'll find the problem soon enough (especially in peak).

I have spent half my driving life, driving for a living or as part of my living. I have spent ALOT of time on NZ roads, I could tell you most the things wrong with NZ roads & NZ drivers & this current give-way rule aint 1 of them, it is logical & best for traffic flow there is nothing wrong with it.

MSTRS

14th November 2011, 10:04

Like a lot of things on the road, what 'you' want to do is your problem. What the law says you must do is the important factor...

superman

14th November 2011, 10:06

(especially in peak).

I can't imagine peak being an issue, any busy intersection should be wide. That's pretty general road design. If an intersection fails terribly under the new law I'm sure they'll get around to widening and allowing right turners to have a median in busy places.

Peak out of Auckland... :clap:

MSTRS

14th November 2011, 10:16

Peak out of Auckland... :clap:

See...that is why the rest of the country has such a problem with Aucklanders...it's the attitude.
:hitcher: Just for your info, anywhere that has intersections and times of greatly increased traffic flow will experience problems just like those in Orks.
Don't shoot the messenger :no::laugh:

bogan

14th November 2011, 10:25

Another point in favour of the new laws, is less room for abuse. I've had a few who see me waiting and indicating to turn right, who just don't indicate and turn left quickly; low chance of an accident cos there is no time for me to try and turn, but it pisses me off! Especially when they look right at me before turning :nono:

oneofsix

14th November 2011, 10:26

superman

14th November 2011, 10:29

See...that is why the rest of the country has such a problem with Aucklanders...it's the attitude.
:hitcher: Just for your info, anywhere that has intersections and times of greatly increased traffic flow will experience problems just like those in Orks.
Don't shoot the messenger :no::laugh:

Lol, I live 50km from the CBD, I hardly feel like an Aucklander. But you have to actively portray your stereotype otherwise people won't know what to do with themselves.

I'm just trying to think of places even here where the issue would arise, almost all the intersections where peak problems could occur have roundabouts which tend to self regulate quite well.

bogan

14th November 2011, 10:32

So it will mean no change for you, you will still be stuck in the middle of the road waiting to turn right.

Be less angry though :whistle:

oneofsix

14th November 2011, 10:37

Be less angry though :whistle:

That I can relate to.

Called the bluff on one old fuka in a falcon in Palmy once, he was determined to turn left and not give way. He got rather pissed when he found me right beside him. We were going in different direction at the next intersection so he pulls up beside me and starts yelling about how his car was bigger than my bike and the risk I took. An obvious bully mentality but i had managed the risk to me, figger he was more concerned about the risk to his shiny metal. He knew the rules, just didn't want to obey them. If he still survives I guess the next change will just give him another excuse to pretend he doesn't understand however, as you have pointed out, he will now be the one disadvantaged by the width of a lane if he tries to turn right without giving way to a left turner.

MSTRS

14th November 2011, 10:49

...almost all the intersections where peak problems could occur have roundabouts which tend to self regulate quite well.

Oh really? You need to dust off your passport and check out NZ...

oneofsix

14th November 2011, 10:56

. If an intersection fails terribly under the new law I'm sure they'll get around to widening and allowing right turners to have a median in busy places.

Oh come on, no ones has picked him up on this piece of Squawkland thinking. If there is a roading problem in Squawkland they expect the government will fix it pronto. In the rest of NZ there are places that are still waiting on intersection changes from the law change 30 years ago.

steve_t

14th November 2011, 10:57

Oh really? You need to dust off your passport and check out NZ...

:laugh::laugh::laugh: What if Superman hasn't got a passport? :Pokey:

steve_t

14th November 2011, 11:01

Oh come on, no ones has picked him up on this piece of Squawkland thinking. If there is a roading problem in Squawkland they expect the government will fix it pronto. In the rest of NZ there are places that are still waiting on intersection changes from the law change 30 years ago.

What changes were needed and where are these intersections?

superman

14th November 2011, 11:04

Oh come on, no ones has picked him up on this piece of Squawkland thinking. If there is a roading problem in Squawkland they expect the government will fix it pronto. In the rest of NZ there are places that are still waiting on intersection changes from the law change 30 years ago.

I thought local councils pay for road works etc, government only does motorways/highways doesn't it?

Parlane

14th November 2011, 11:19

almost all the intersections where peak problems could occur have roundabouts which tend to self regulate quite well.

This roundabout is completely contrary to the above:

http://g.co/maps/fns3e

90% of traffic comes from the north in one huge line with almost no gaps and either goes south or west. Traffic trying to come from the east has almost no oppurtunity to go through. I have experienced this first hand, the conclusion is to never go that way...

superman

14th November 2011, 11:59

This roundabout is completely contrary to the above:

http://g.co/maps/fns3e

90% of traffic comes from the north in one huge line with almost no gaps and either goes south or west. Traffic trying to come from the east has almost no oppurtunity to go through. I have experienced this first hand, the conclusion is to never go that way...

Well it could do with buffering lights going into the roundabout then, so that a pressure sensor under the coming from east lane sets off a red light on the north queue every now and again.

The round about below has such a system, where the north eastern lane can often have way too much traffic to allow others through. So it has a light dependent upon traffic volume.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitford+rd,+botany&hl=en&ll=-36.921157,174.932969&spn=0.001182,0.002411&sll=40.809392,-77.8335&sspn=0.074709,0.154324&vpsrc=6&hq=whitford+rd,+botany&radius=15000&t=h&z=19

Parlane

14th November 2011, 12:08

Well it could do with buffering lights going into the roundabout then, so that a pressure sensor under the coming from east lane sets off a red light on the north queue every now and again.

The round about below has such a system, where the north eastern lane can often have way too much traffic to allow others through. So it has a light dependent upon traffic volume.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitford+rd,+botany&hl=en&ll=-36.921157,174.932969&spn=0.001182,0.002411&sll=40.809392,-77.8335&sspn=0.074709,0.154324&vpsrc=6&hq=whitford+rd,+botany&radius=15000&t=h&z=19

I have been through that roundabout dozens of times and have never come from the direction that has the lights. Crazy! That is pretty cool. And yes that system would be well deserved in the linwood roundabout.

Auckland is well prepared for the change in laws when it comes to it's traffic light systems. Christchurch is the absolute opposite, all intersections seem to be designed to abuse the left turning give way to right turning rule. There are already intersections in CHCH that are in desperate need for right turn arrows ATM, and are set to get even worse!

I learnt to drive in Auckland and spent a good few years there, so I can compare them :)

Berries

14th November 2011, 16:57

But the law is that each must turn into their respective lanes. Pity that so few seem to understand this and it's seldom, if ever, policed.
It gets policed on the wonderful one way system in Dunedin. It would be better giving tickets to the left turning dickheads who sit and wait for all the right turners to go than pinging people for turning in to the 'wrong' lane when there isn't another vehicle in sight. IMHO.

PrincessBandit

14th November 2011, 18:01

or a volvo?

Oh, a VOL-vo. I almost read it as a similar work (with identical consonants but different vowels). Reckon that one of those might work too as those of us who come with one of them already don't ride thinking with balls...

FJRider

14th November 2011, 18:15

Regardless of whom actually has legal "right of way" ... the ones I hate are the silly twats (those that either are one, or have one) that have NO IDEA who should have right of way ... so they stop in the middle of the road and give way to everybody ...

warewolf

14th November 2011, 20:42

What if the first driveway on the left after the right turn is where you want to go? Circle the block?Yes, absolutely. One of my bugbears with kiwi drivers is that they seem to think it is ok to do dangerous, stupid and illegal manoeuvres rather than be slightly inconvenienced by taking the safe but slightly longer route. Pull that kind of stupid shit in Sydney and you'll have not one car hit you, but probably six. Traffic densities here are low enough that you can get away with breaking the rules - and common sense - quite often, but that's no excuse, is it? Especially not for the supposedly enlightened and better class of motorist: the motorcyclist.

I live one block from - and every morning have to travel through - the worst black spot intersection in this district, which is not unexpectedly on a very busy road. I see some really crazy shit, like people trying to turn right across two merge-to-one lanes and one-split-to-two lanes to then turn left, rather than make the easy and safe turn left into one lane only, then use the right turn lane 200m away and go round the block next right and then left back on to the same target street - where round the block has almost no traffic and is only 2x 200m longer. Ditto people trying to turn right from the main road at that intersection without a right turn lane, which can conflict with right turners in to the main road which has a turn destination lane, when it is much safer for the former to turn right a block earlier at the right turn lane. I always plan ahead and take the easiest which is usually the safest option; but then I spent years commuting by bicycle in Sydney and studiously avoiding dangerous traffic situations. You're even less noticed and protected on a bicycle.

bogan

14th November 2011, 21:01

Yes, absolutely. One of my bugbears with kiwi drivers is that they seem to think it is ok to do dangerous, stupid and illegal manoeuvres rather than be slightly inconvenienced by taking the safe but slightly longer route. Pull that kind of stupid shit in Sydney and you'll have not one car hit you, but probably six. Traffic densities here are low enough that you can get away with breaking the rules - and common sense - quite often, but that's no excuse, is it? Especially not for the supposedly enlightened and better class of motorist: the motorcyclist.

In my examples, it was only illegal (and I've never heard of anyone actually taxed for it), and far from dangerous or stupid. I look at it as the road rules are there primarily to keep us safe, and secondly to create efficient transport. So if you can bend one law, with absolute certainty of it being safe to do so, I got no problem with that. But I guess the current focus of society is to swap personal responsibility, for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Pity that, as it won't increase safety, and will decrease efficiency.

warewolf

14th November 2011, 21:17

In my examples, it was only illegal (and I've never heard of anyone actually taxed for it), and far from dangerous or stupid. I look at it as the road rules are there primarily to keep us safe, and secondly to create efficient transport. So if you can bend one law, with absolute certainty of it being safe to do so, I got no problem with that. But I guess the current focus of society is to swap personal responsibility, for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Pity that, as it won't increase safety, and will decrease efficiency.Rubbish. We were discussing "what if" there was someone turning left in to the left lane at the same time a right turner was turning in to the right lane. By law, and common sense, there is no conflict, it is safe, and it is most efficient at keeping both of those turns flowing. An improper lane change mid-intersection in order to get to a driveway accessed from another lane you can't otherwise reach is dangerous and stupid, in my book.

No-one would ever get taxed for it unless they waz also speeding, as dangerous driving doesn't really count if it's under the posted limit.

bogan

14th November 2011, 21:28

Rubbish. We were discussing "what if" there was someone turning left in to the left lane at the same time a right turner was turning in to the right lane. By law, and common sense, there is no conflict, it is safe, and it is most efficient at keeping both of those turns flowing. An improper lane change mid-intersection in order to get to a driveway accessed from another lane you can't otherwise reach is dangerous and stupid, in my book.

No-one would ever get taxed for it unless they waz also speeding, as dangerous driving doesn't really count if it's under the posted limit.

It was a follow on from a previous post, I meant you would only ever bend the rules if the other lane was definitely clear. But it's a big thread, I'll forgive you for skipping a few posts.

p.dath

15th November 2011, 17:41

It's common-sense really, you should never place yourself in danger to comply with a road regulation.

And the land transport rule explicitly allows you to break any road rule to avoid immediate danger to human life, immediate risk of injury, or immediate risk of property damage provided you are not the cause of the danger.

rastuscat

10th December 2011, 20:17

MyGSXF

17th January 2012, 17:23

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html

Virago

17th January 2012, 17:28

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/143874-Give-Way-rule-date-changed

Guided_monkey

17th January 2012, 17:30

Stand-by for traffic carnage.

The cagers can't use the current rules correctly......:wacko:

You can imagine two cagers spending 30secs to figure out who gives way as the traffic builds up behind.

5150

17th January 2012, 18:03

I think i will park my bike up for few weeks untill the carnage dies down :shit:

Oakie

17th January 2012, 18:09

Both good changes. Carnage shouldn't be too great as the changes are pretty simple really ... as long as both parties are up with the changes.

BMWST?

17th January 2012, 18:59

i think the change from left turner give way to right turners is pretty straight forward...but the T intersection one will confuse many.Is good though in that he "main road" gets the flow.I guess in many urban areas many such intersections are already controlled with give ways.That (change)rule is the most dangerous for motorcyclists I reckon...

merv

17th January 2012, 20:38

Being one that had long been riding when the current rules came in during 1977 I thought they were incredulous then and have been wishing for a change back ever since. This will be a big improvement.

Kendog

17th January 2012, 21:07

Stand-by for traffic carnage.

The cagers can't use the current rules correctly......:wacko:

You can imagine two cagers spending 30secs to figure out who gives way as the traffic builds up behind.
The thinking for 30 seconds is why intersection crashes have historically reduced in the period just after a rule change like this.

pzkpfw

17th January 2012, 21:28

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html

They miss an opportunity. Picture D could show a second example where both left and right turners have their own lane to turn in to (i.e. they are turning into a multi-lane road).

At least it's good they say what doesn't change. I had one friend tell me he thought someone turning left onto a roundabout would have right of way over someone coming from their right. J.H.Christ!

ukusa

17th January 2012, 22:18

I think i will park my bike up for few weeks untill the carnage dies down :shit:

good idea, personally I had no problems understanding the current law. Unfortunately several idiots will still have problems with the new law :facepalm:

superman

17th January 2012, 22:30

I wonder how raped we are going to get by the media about this, every ad break, every news session leading up to the 25/03... It's going to be the RWC À la Traffic Rules!

SMOKEU

17th January 2012, 23:34

It's going to be pretty buzzy having to deal with these new rules. What a waste of time.

Jantar

18th January 2012, 00:07

Don't look at them as new rules, look at the situation as reverting to the old rules and you'll be pretty close. :yes:

Swoop

18th January 2012, 07:48

Why worry about the rule change?

There will have to be a massive media campaign* closer to the time and that will ensure everyone is equally confused.

Hopefully I will be overseas when this happens. With the demonstrated skills of kiwi drivers, the traffic jams will be quite large.

* Presumably from the same marketing retards that brought us "mantrol".

slofox

18th January 2012, 07:53

Being one that had long been riding when the current rules came in during 1977 I thought they were incredulous then and have been wishing for a change back ever since. This will be a big improvement.

Yep - right on. I have never trusted the current rules, even after 30+ years of them being in place. I'll be happy to revert to the "old" way. And I'll not trust the new situation much for yonks either...

Tigadee

18th January 2012, 08:05

I was taught that whoever was closest to the turning point had the right of way... till I came to NZ.

Rosie

18th January 2012, 08:20

...but the T intersection one will confuse many.Is good though in that he "main road" gets the flow.I guess in many urban areas many such intersections are already controlled with give ways.That (change)rule is the most dangerous for motorcyclists I reckon...

Unusually, I live in an entire suburb of uncontrolled T intersections. Because there aren't many uncontrolled T intersections out there in the world most people seem to have no idea what the current give way rules are. As a result, people tend to stop, stare at each other for a while, then generally go with the new give way rule (which is kind of intuitive, compared to the current one).
Some public education, along with a law change that reflects what people are currently doing should be a good thing IMHO.

Sliver

18th January 2012, 13:07

Few People gonna be bowled...

cheshirecat

18th January 2012, 16:35

'bout time too.

Will be still checking my wing mirror for those overtaking while I'm turing left, avoiding oncomming vehicles crossing the centerline turning in front of me whilst all the same time checking where I'm turning including peds who deliberately walk out in front of you whilst entering a supermarket car park, not to mention figuring out if any of the vehicles around me actually understand the existing rules or don't give a damm or have seen me and still don't give a damm.

_Shrek_

18th January 2012, 21:25

nothing like pissing off the same generation twice in one life time :angry2: it only took 35 years to relise they had cocked up or woke up to the fact :facepalm:

nerrrd

18th January 2012, 21:53

Regarding the supermarket carpark, I'm pretty sure that a pedestrian DOES have the right of way on a driveway crossing a footpath ie at the entrance to the carpark.

Not sure if you were talking about that or within the carpark itself...obviously any pedestrian would be wise to make sure they don't step out in front of a car regardless of the rules (a bit like motorcyclists.)

They should be running ads about the coming give way rule change already IMHO, although I guess people might start applying the new rule too soon, which would just add to the overall confusion.

SMOKEU

19th January 2012, 00:02

I've driven in South Africa before, and apparently whoever gets to the stop sign first, has the right of way.

Gremlin

19th January 2012, 01:06

Regarding the supermarket carpark, I'm pretty sure that a pedestrian DOES have the right of way on a driveway crossing a footpath ie at the entrance to the carpark.

They should be running ads about the coming give way rule change already IMHO, although I guess people might start applying the new rule too soon, which would just add to the overall confusion.
Yep, the link in the first post details that pedestrians/cyclists still have right of way on a footpath across the driveway.

And yes, they are not running the ads yet because they might start applying the new rules too soon. NZTA even tries to stress how important it is for everyone to switch at the same time.

I kinda liked USA's 4 way stops. It cycles around, each side getting a turn. Everyone is quite corteous, checking for others. Only gets a bit annoying when there is a lot of traffic piling into one.

dangerous

19th January 2012, 05:03

Being one that had long been riding when the current rules came in during 1977 I thought they were incredulous then and have been wishing for a change back ever since. This will be a big improvement.

as for me... I dont get it, ok standadising world wire BUT... now you will have to sit with your arse in the firing line as cars, trucks etc come roreing up behind you, with the dosy kiwi driver a rear end colision is imenent... mean while the car tucked nicely to the curb out of the way gets to go :facepalm:

cheshirecat

19th January 2012, 07:21

jim g

20th January 2012, 21:43

I'm looking forward to the change in some ways, most new laws stop us from thinking, all road users will have to wake up for a change, start thinking, there will be more interaction, some bad but all enlighting, it may even bring motorists closer together,sorry, l didn't mean literally, we'll have to work together, l like that. Ok, l'm some sort of a romanticist. Anyway, what should happen at the same time as the law change is that if you are turning left and it is red once you have stopped you should be able to proceed at your own call, even if still red. This will cut down congestion, cut down pollution, save fuel BUT MOST OF ALL give motorists some responsibiliy, they will in fact have to interact with other motorists. They do this in other countries and l confess l do it here, not so much now however, few too many demerits.

Edit Post Reply With Quote Blog this Post

Ollie.T

20th January 2012, 21:44

Anyway, what should happen at the same time as the law change is that if you are turning left and it is red once you have stopped you should be able to proceed at your own call, even if still red. This will cut down congestion, cut down pollution, save fuel BUT MOST OF ALL give motorists some responsibiliy, they will in fact have to interact with other motorists. They do this in other countries and l confess l do it here, not so much now however, few too many demerits.

Sounds nice, but I reckon it would lead to a whole lots SMIDSYs - I would always be paranoid approaching green lights that someone is going to pull out on me.

jim g

20th January 2012, 22:25

Well thats sort of what l mean,you will have to stay awake, a traffic light won't necessarily stop you from having an accident, you have to do that yourself. l like the idea of all road users having to be more aware of what they are doing than what is expected of them at present. I believe there is a town in Europe that they removed all traffic lights and other stuff and the accident rate more or less stopped, road users had to think and interact, as l said, maybe l'm a dreamer.

slofox

23rd January 2012, 17:16

I kinda liked USA's 4 way stops. It cycles around, each side getting a turn. Everyone is quite courteous, checking for others. Only gets a bit annoying when there is a lot of traffic piling into one.

Which is why it wouldn't work in EnZed, eh!

scumdog

23rd January 2012, 18:13

as for me... I dont get it, ok standadising world wire BUT... now you will have to sit with your arse in the firing line as cars, trucks etc come roreing up behind you, with the dosy kiwi driver a rear end colision is imenent... mean while the car tucked nicely to the curb out of the way gets to go :facepalm:

Yee-ferkin'-ha, exactly what I've been trying to tell a lot of you. (Not quite in the same language though...)

And the benefit of the 'new' law will be????:confused:<_<

FJRider

23rd January 2012, 18:18

And the benefit of the 'new' law will be????:confused:<_<

Fewer of our overseas "guests" ... bringing in lots of "overseas $$$" will get it wrong ...

(They'll STILL drive on the WRONG side of the road though)

superman

23rd January 2012, 18:22

Yee-ferkin'-ha, exactly what I've been trying to tell a lot of you. (Not quite in the same language though...)

And the benefit of the 'new' law will be????:confused:<_<

If you have people behind you (and scared), if you aren't going to be able to turn right due to oncoming vehicles isn't the convention to pull over to the left until traffic has passed and then turn right? Or is it more logical to hold up straight through traffic before turning right down a side road? :innocent:

scumdog

23rd January 2012, 18:32

If you have people behind you (and scared), if you aren't going to be able to turn right due to oncoming vehicles isn't the convention to pull over to the left until traffic has passed and then turn right? Or is it more logical to hold up straight through traffic before turning right down a side road? :innocent:

Not in town (that I've noticed) and if you did pull over to the left it would now mean you have TWO lanes to cross when you wanted to make a left turn.

Most places I've seen the straight through traffic just loops around any traffic in the centre waiting to turn right HOWEVER I know of at least one situation whered if you have a slew of people queing up on a painted island, all waiting to turn right they will back up to where the flow will likely stop.

At present the left-turners have plenty of room to move to the left out of the traffic flow.

MSTRS

23rd January 2012, 18:37

Yee-ferkin'-ha, exactly what I've been trying to tell a lot of you. (Not quite in the same language though...)

And the benefit of the 'new' law will be????:confused:<_<

Eggsakery.
Changing it to 'the same as the rest of the world' is bullshit. The rest of the world should change to what we still have.
The whole thing is covered by "If your driver's door (right leg) can be hit - YOU give way". No having to think whether it's you or that other guy.
Although there is something to be said for 'forcing' drivers to actually think about what they are about to do...or am I dreaming?

superman

23rd January 2012, 18:45

Not in town (that I've noticed) and if you did pull over to the left it would now mean you have TWO lanes to cross when you wanted to make a left turn.

Most places I've seen the straight through traffic just loops around any traffic in the centre waiting to turn right HOWEVER I know of at least one situation whered if you have a slew of people queing up on a painted island, all waiting to turn right they will back up to where the flow will likely stop.

At present the left-turners have plenty of room to move to the left out of the traffic flow.

I know of plenty of places where left handers hold up large amounts of traffic when right turners are coming through. As soon as the new law comes through new intersections will be planned with this in mind, and old ones will be tweaked by councils if congestional issues occur, perhaps introducing medians, giving left turners a stop sign. Or dreaded new lights.

No matter what it will sort itself... people just like to whinge and complain when really the new law will improve traffic flow. No longer will I sit at right turns seeing a car approaching and waiting... waiting... waiting... oh look he's put on a left indicator NOW I can go. Instead you simply give way to all oncoming cars. How logical?

scumdog

23rd January 2012, 18:47

I guess it's a case of 'watch this space' eh...

GingerMidget

23rd January 2012, 18:48

Fewer of our overseas "guests" ... bringing in lots of "overseas $$$" will get it wrong ...

(They'll STILL drive on the WRONG side of the road though)

It's not just the overseas drivers on the wrong side of the road! Pillion with my uncle this afternoon, got scared silly by some twat in some pile of arse that came flying up Rintoul Street in the middle of the road. What. A. Twat.

personally, I'm staying the hell of the road from 25/3 til at least May. Hopefully by then people will have sorted their issues out. A little.

MSTRS

23rd January 2012, 18:52

personally, I'm staying the hell of the road from 25/3 til at least May. Hopefully by then people will have sorted their issues out. A little.

Love it! An optimist. How quaint...

Bassmatt

23rd January 2012, 18:56

I'm looking forward to the change in some ways, most new laws stop us from thinking, all road users will have to wake up for a change, start thinking,
t

So now they want us to think??:gob:
All the double yellow lines and fucken signs everywhere suggest otherwise. I thought they just wanted us to obey.

Sliver

24th January 2012, 11:55

Good to know cheers.

jim g

24th January 2012, 21:11

Anyway, l'm looking forward to it, l think. l enjoy riding/driving and l enjoy interaction on the road and working in with other road users. Regarding the congestion, we must be able to turn left at our own choice, even on red, that gets rid of the congestion and if anyone has a problem with that they shouldn't be driving/ riding. We need people thinking more on the roads not less.

9rider

25th January 2012, 18:05