Road rule change: an unclear area

[Badjelly]

I'm 100% in favour of the forthcoming road rule change, but I'm not trying to start another argument about that, I'm just trying to clear up something.

Consider the intersection shown in the picture (Ruahine Rd and Wellington Road in Wellington).

255979

There's an orange car coming from the north and turning right, and three cars waiting coming from the southwest and waiting at the Give Way sign. (A very common situation: the intersection's a real bugger.)

OK, so let's say there was a green car coming from the east and turning left. (You'll have to imagine it.) Under the current rules, the green car gives way to the orange car, no problem. Under the new rules the orange car would have to give way. But hang on, there's a traffic island, a small concrete one in a larger triangular painted area. Does this mean that the place where the orange and green cars would meet is a separate intersection? If it does then the orange car is travelling straight ahead at the point where they would meet, so the green car gives way.

To my mind it's all one intersection, but my experience in New Zealand pre-1979 and recently in Australia is that the orange car does invariably assume right of way.

And what if the island's bigger than this one? Or smaller? And do the dotted lines on the road (partially obscured by the tree at the bottom of the picture) make a difference in law? Or in practice? I drive through this intersection most days (on a blue bike, not a green car) and I'm going to be very careful until people have sorted this one out!

[riffer]

If it's marked GIVE WAY, you must give way. Otherwise, obey the road rules.

Why is it so hard?

[Badjelly]

If it's marked GIVE WAY, you must give way. Otherwise, obey the road rules. Why is it so hard?

Have you read the post you're replying to?

[riffer]

Have you read the post you're replying to?

Okay... firstly, the orange car is in front of where he should have stopped - the line's quite clear. As he's technically turning right, he will have to give way to all traffic approaching from his left under the new rules.

Traffic islands don't come in to it.

Look at the law in it's purest form. Give way to all traffic approaching from your left unless they are controlled by a give way sign in which case that takes precedence.

[Scuba_Steve]

If it helps they have plans to change that fuckup of an intersection :yes:

[Badjelly]

Okay... firstly, the orange car is in front of where he should have stopped - the line's quite clear. As he's technically turning right, he will have to give way to all traffic approaching from his left under the new rules.

Traffic islands don't come in to it.

Look at the law in it's purest form. Give way to all traffic approaching from your left unless they are controlled by a give way sign in which case that takes precedence.

I agree with your interpretation: an intersection is where two roads meet; traffic islands don't come into it; the orange car gives way. (But what if it were a really big traffic island?) But I think in practice it will turn out otherwise.

BTW, don't be too hard on the orange car, I think it was probably moving at the time Google Earth took the photo.

[Badjelly]

If it helps they have plans to change that fuckup of an intersection :yes:

That's great news! (For those who aren't familiar with it, there's often a continuous stream of traffic coming from the east and going round to the north towards Mt Vic Tunnel. Gaps are few and far between and have to be taken quickly. Going through with Mrs Jelly at the wheel is a life-changing experience.)

[oneofsix]

Okay... firstly, the orange car is in front of where he should have stopped - the line's quite clear.
The line is only a guide. Providing the orange car is clear of other traffic (which they are) and in a position they can if the way is clear then they are where they should be. I have experienced intersections where you can't see from behind or on the line in whihc case to have stopped there would have been wrong.


As he's technically turning right, he will have to give way to all traffic approaching from his left under the new rules.

Traffic islands don't come in to it.

Look at the law in it's purest form. Give way to all traffic approaching from your left unless they are controlled by a give way sign in which case that takes precedence.

Interesting concept. I follow your argument but can also see Badjelly's point, especially given the definition of an intersection. Can you buy shares in Law firms?

and Scuba_Steve, given we have councils that put give ways in the middle of round abouts, don't hold your breath.

[Scuba_Steve]

and Scuba_Steve, given we have councils that put give ways in the middle of round abouts, don't hold your breath.

Yea I submitted on it, can't remember the plan too well now but I think they plan those "wonderful" pretty coloured lights to tell everyone what to do

[MSTRS]

Looking at that particular intersection, the red car is in a turn bay, NOT on a Give Way, but the line of 3 are (note the triangles painted on the road). As would be any car on their left, that was turning left. All other lanes are effectively through roads, free of encumbrance. So....
The cars coming from the north and going straight through - do so.
That grey car that came from the west would give way to anyone coming straight through from the east, but not to anyone else.
The red car turning right, gives way to any coming from the east, but not the line of 3. Nor should he need to give way to any car from the east that is turning left - they are each supposed to turn into the lane nearest to them. The tree does block a proper view, but if there is just the one lane then I think the 'merge like a zip' would apply? ie use courtesy.
The line of 3 give way to the red car AND to any car coming from the east. Further - once across the lane from the east, they should give way to anyone from the north going straight through.
At least that is how I understand it...now and after the rule change.
Just like now, it will really only be uncontrolled T intersections that are affected.

[Badjelly]

The red car turning right, gives way to any coming from the east, but not the line of 3. Nor should he need to give way to any car from the east that is turning left - they are each supposed to turn into the lane nearest to them. The tree does block a proper view, but if there is just the one lane then I think the 'merge like a zip' would apply? ie use courtesy.

There is just the one lane for cars coming from the east and turning left. The distances involved are quite short, so you don't really have room to line up your zip before merging.

I'm all for courtesy, really I am, but this intersection is dreadful, for the cars behind the Give Way signs, particularly. Regulars know that people who "courteously" wait for others when they don't need to are just wasting opportunities & holding up those behind them.

If I'm coming from the east and turning left, I expect I will continue to do what I do now: wait for the red/orange car until it's clear he's not going to move.

[Badjelly]

By the way, on the courtesy thing, my attitude to road rules changed completely through living in Fort Collins, Colorado, for four years (1984-1988). They have lots of intersections with four-way Stop signs there and the rules that apply in practice are: take turns; be nice. It worked a treat. You won't find those rules in their road code.

[MSTRS]

There is just the one lane for cars coming from the east and turning left.
If I'm coming from the east and turning left, I expect I will continue to do what I do now: wait for the red/orange car until it's clear he's not going to move.

You would be wrong.
Now - you give way to your right.
But after the change, and because you say there's no room to do the zip-thing, left turning vehicles will have right of way over those turning right.
Essentially, this intersection is simply a T, but with some aspects controlled and some not.

[Badjelly]

If I'm coming from the east and turning left, I expect I will continue to do what I do now: wait for the red/orange car until it's clear he's not going to move.


You would be wrong.
Now - you give way to your right.
But after the change, left turning vehicles will have right of way over those turning right.
Essentially, this intersection is simply a T, but with some aspects controlled and some not.

I would be wrong, yes. But that is what I expect I will do.

[MSTRS]

I would be wrong, yes. But that is what I expect I will do.

No one could fault you for that...

We have a similar intersection in HB. Where SH2 meets SH5. It too, has the same issues of short merge lanes etc. Exacerbated by 2 being 100kph.
Anyone veering left from 2 into 5 is prolly doing 80-oddkph, but they are supposed to give way to anyone who turned right from the north yet are doing maybe 15kph. At least the new rule will 'fix' that.

[BoristheBiter]

And TPTB think that changing this rule will stop accidents.....tui ad anyone?

[bogan]

New rules; red car gives way to somebody coming east to north, or east to south-west (in which case there is possibly enough room to cross the east to north lane, but stop and wait for east to south-west traffic to clear).

But of course knowing that it is new rules (and good practice in general), I'll only take right of way if I'm pretty sure the other guy has/will concede it!

[Berries]

Now - you give way to your right.
But after the change, and because you say there's no room to do the zip-thing, left turning vehicles will have right of way over those turning right.
Essentially, this intersection is simply a T, but with some aspects controlled and some not.
Eh? The imaginary green car is using a slip lane to join the lane the orange car will be in after it turns right, so, because of the continuity lines, should give way to the orange car. Nothing will change under the new rule. If that left turn lane wasn’t there then things would be different. They might have to stick a give way sign up under the tree to show the green car that he has to give way as he effectively joins the main road. In fact, I am surprised they have not done that already.

It is essentially a simple T intersection with one big difference, the left turn lane. Any vehicle coming from this left lane has to give way to vehicles that have already turned right.

[MSTRS]

:facepalm: :thud: Well oil beef hooked.
You're right.
Bloody continuity lines...
Had the same issue at 2/5 intersection. the fecking cont lines favour the slow-moving, right turning vehicle over the fast-moving, left turners. I hope they change them after the law change...

[Hopeful Bastard]

Eh? The imaginary green car is using a slip lane to join the lane the orange car will be in after it turns right, so, because of the continuity lines, should give way to the orange car. Nothing will change under the new rule. If that left turn lane wasn’t there then things would be different. They might have to stick a give way sign up under the tree to show the green car that he has to give way as he effectively joins the main road. In fact, I am surprised they have not done that already.

It is essentially a simple T intersection with one big difference, the left turn lane. Any vehicle coming from this left lane has to give way to vehicles that have already turned right.

This person speaketh the truth. Case closed. :)

[Badjelly]

Here's another one just down the road, much like thousands of other intersections around NZ
255993
Cobham Drive (east-west, 2 lanes each way plus right-turn only lanes at the intersection) meets Evans Bay Parade (north-south, one lane each way).

Consider traffic turning right from Cobham Drive into Evans Bay Parade (only allowed on a green arrow) meeting traffic coming the other way along Cobham Drive and turning left into Evans Bay Parade (free left turn, not controlled by lights).

Same principles, then: It's a single intersection, traffic islands notwithstanding; the lights don't affect priority as long as they're green. So under the new rules right turning traffic will give way to left turning traffic. Simple.

I really don't think this is what people expect. It's not what the drivers in Australia do under similar rules.

I wonder if the roading authorities will be slapping Give Way signs on every free left turn.

[sinned]

I expect that (hopefully) many roadmarkings, signs, light sequences will be changed at the time the new rule is effective.

[Berries]

Same principles, then: It's a single intersection, traffic islands notwithstanding; the lights don't affect priority as long as they're green. So under the new rules right turning traffic will give way to left turning traffic. Simple.
Not that simple. If there was no left turn lane then you'd be correct, the right turner would give way to the left turner. When the right turner turns right though there is no conflicting left turning traffic to give way to. They have already fully completed their right turn prior to meeting the traffic that is turning left. Look at it as a big crossroads and on each approach there is a little offset T intersection. The left turners are coming up to the T, shown by the dotted white lines, therefore must give way to traffic coming from their right. So as before, no change at this intersection with the new rule.

Next.

[bogan]

Not that simple. If there was no left turn lane then you'd be correct, the right turner would give way to the left turner. When the right turner turns right though there is no conflicting left turning traffic to give way to. They have already fully completed their right turn prior to meeting the traffic that is turning left. Look at it as a big crossroads and on each approach there is a little offset T intersection. The left turners are coming up to the T, shown by the dotted white lines, therefore must give way to traffic coming from their right. So as before, no change at this intersection with the new rule.

Next.

What about the north to east turn? no dotted lines there

[steve_t]

What about the north to east turn? no dotted lines there

Isn't there a give way sign there already?

[bogan]

Isn't there a give way sign there already?

Looks like a single line, I thought give ways were two thick white lines.

[steve_t]

Looks like a single line, I thought give ways were two thick white lines.

Not any more. They stopped doing that quite some time I ago.

Edit: Found this:

Note: double yellow lines at Stop signs and double white lines at Give Way signs and traffic signals are in the process of being replaced with single lines. Also, at Give Way intersections, the words 'Give Way' painted on the road will be replaced by a white triangle.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-driving/giving-way-at-controlled-intersections.html

[Berries]

Isn't there a give way sign there already?
I thought there could be signals on that leg but the footpath doesn't match. I am guessing there is a big white triangle under that car and it is a give way.

Many of these nominally 'free left turns' are put in so that left turners are not held up unnecessarily by the signals. Most of them, at least down my way, do have give way signs. Say the lights are red, you are going to get people going straight through on a green from your right who you have to give way to. The confusion in this thread, by bikers who are supposedly more au fait with the rules than everybody else, suggests that a shit load more of those give way signs are going to have to be erected. It's going to be fun on the 25th, I've already found an intersection I'm going to sit at to have a bloody good laugh.

[swbarnett]

Total non-issue under either rule. The road that the orange car is turning into has two lanes. Neither car has to give way.

[Badjelly]

Look at it as a big crossroads and on each approach there is a little offset T intersection. The left turners are coming up to the T, shown by the dotted white lines, therefore must give way to traffic coming from their right. So as before, no change at this intersection with the new rule.

I'm pretty sure that's how people will look at it. That's how people look at it in Australia, judging by the way they drive. IIRC that's how NZers looked at it pre-1979. I'm not sure that the road rules actually say that though: they're a bit unclear in my opinion, which is why I started this thread.

[Badjelly]

I expect that (hopefully) many roadmarkings, signs, light sequences will be changed at the time the new rule is effective.
There should be a bit of that, not necessarily to clear up confusion, just to make some intersections work better with the new priorities. But it's potentially a big job and it ain't going to happen overnight.

[Hopeful Bastard]

Total non-issue under either rule. The road that the orange car is turning into has two lanes. Neither car has to give way.

Bloody dorklanders... Street View it then.


The road has a slip road to enable car turning left an easy entrance onto the road. He still, However, Has to give way to the right hand side as the car turning right, Has right of way.

Berries stated it rather one in one of their posts...


Edit: Berries post...


Eh? The imaginary green car is using a slip lane to join the lane the orange car will be in after it turns right, so, because of the continuity lines, should give way to the orange car. Nothing will change under the new rule. If that left turn lane wasn’t there then things would be different. They might have to stick a give way sign up under the tree to show the green car that he has to give way as he effectively joins the main road. In fact, I am surprised they have not done that already.

It is essentially a simple T intersection with one big difference, the left turn lane. Any vehicle coming from this left lane has to give way to vehicles that have already turned right.

[Badjelly]

What about the north to east turn? no dotted lines there


Isn't there a give way sign there already?

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.

I can't see what the problem is.

These intersections will stay the same as the left turning cars, as has already been pointed out, have their own lane.

There is no need for confusion, it is an easy road to read. If you still have problems with the road rules please hand your licence into the nearest branch of the AA (automobile association or alcoholic's anonymous it doesn't matter).

[Badjelly]

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.


I can't see what the problem is.

These intersections will stay the same as the left turning cars, as has already been pointed out, have their own lane.

There is no need for confusion, it is an easy road to read. If you still have problems with the road rules please hand your licence into the nearest branch of the AA (automobile association or alcoholic's anonymous it doesn't matter).

You quoted me, but what does your post have to do with the quote? Someone asked if there was a Give Way sign. There is.

[BoristheBiter]

You quoted me, but what does your post have to do with the quote? Someone asked if there was a Give Way sign. There is.

You are getting confused about an intersection where nothing will change.
I just could be bothered to quote the first post.

[swbarnett]

Bloody dorklanders... Street View it then.


The road has a slip road to enable car turning left an easy entrance onto the road.
Makes no difference. On initial entry in to the side road there are two lanes i.e. no give way necessary. At the end of the slip road the normal merge laws apply. We have roads exactly the same in Auckland and this is how the majority of the traffic treats them. It works very well.

[MSTRS]

Makes no difference. On initial entry in to the side road there are two lanes i.e. no give way necessary. At the end of the slip road the normal merge laws apply. We have roads exactly the same in Auckland and this is how the majority of the traffic treats them. It works very well.

There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.

[swbarnett]

:o
There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.
I just had a good look at Google street view and what seemed obvious to me in fact wasn't. I was assuming that the dotted line ended in the middle of the road. It doesn't. It in fact ends on the kerb. My apologies to all for making an assumption based on the original, obscured, picture :facepalm:.

Now to comment on the actual road layout. The car turning left should give way to the car turning right (the orange one) because at the end of the dotted line (as I now see it from Google Maps) the orange car is completely on the side road but the other one isn't. Effectively rendering this as two intersection, not one. Once the law changes it would be good to see intersections like this repainted to give the left turning car the full lane instead. Thus removing any potential confusion (I'm not at all sure that my interpretation would hold up in court. Especially considering that merging on to a motorway has a similar layout and the merging car has right of way).

[rastuscat]

There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.

+1

Got it in one.

[rastuscat]

Just a thought.

Criticizing a law which has to deal with thousands of intersections based on a poorly designed intersection that 98% of the population won't drive through is a little harsh.

Certainly there will be anomalies created by all laws intended to have universal application.

My guess is that the new law will work perfectly well 99% of the time.

Lets not spend too much of our time stressing about the 1%.

Just my thoughts.:wings:

[MSTRS]

My guess is that the new law will work perfectly well 99% of the time.



As did the 'old' law...

[BoristheBiter]

the car that was turning right has already turned, they are now heading straight.
so as per the rule all turning traffic has to give way to all straight though traffic.

[Badjelly]

On the one hand...


Traffic islands don't come in to it.


Essentially, this intersection is simply a T, but with some aspects controlled and some not.

But on the other...


Look at it as a big crossroads and on each approach there is a little offset T intersection.


Effectively rendering this as two intersection, not one.

This is the key. Does each traffic island create a separate mini-intersection? Riffer and MSTRS say no, Berries and Swbarnett say yes. (Apologies if my selective quoting has misinterpreted what anyone said. Let's not get stuck on that if I have. The point is there are two possible interpretations.) I don't think the road code is very clear about this, but I think the sensible answer is yes.

And, no, I don't think I'm confused. But I may be getting a bit tedious, so I'll give it a rest now.

[MSTRS]

Does each traffic island create a separate mini-intersection? Riffer and MSTRS say no, ...

I'm not sure that I meant that exactly. I would go so far as to say that some parts of an intersection like this one are a controlled T, and some parts (because of the slip-lane design) actually become separate and uncontrolled T intersections. Yet the normal give way rules still don't apply, because of the continuity lane markings.

[Berries]

If there were no slip lanes then the point where one vehicle has to give way to another is obvious. In this example the left turner has been taken out of the equation, right turners just have to give way to straight through traffic. Then, once they have completed their turn they come to the slip lane, or what is in fact a side road, on their left. Here they have priority. They are not turning and the markings indicate the through route. Therefore those vehicles that have turned left at the intersection have to give way to vehicles here, which could just of easily come straight through the intersection from the other direction. Merging is a bit of a red herring as this implies those with priority have to let them in, in this example they don't.

[Badjelly]

Over the last few months, Give Way signs have been popping up on a lot of the free left turn lanes that were previously uncontrolled. This makes it quite clear that traffic using those lanes has to give way to all traffic coming from the right. A good move IMHO.

[Berries]

And you are going to see a shit load more going up over the next ten days. The only problem is that there will be intersections that look exactly the same from above, some will have new give way controls, others will be the same as they are now. There is quite a bit of confusion as to who should do what when there is no give way sign but some separation, as evidenced by this thread and my own conversations with NZTA and the Police. As a bike rider I'll just treat all intersections the same as I have ever done, I know what to do but will assume the other person is an idiot and doesn't.

Should be interesting.

[MSTRS]

Should be interesting.

That is scarily close to the old Chinese curse...

[oneofsix]

And you are going to see a shit load more going up over the next ten days. The only problem is that there will be intersections that look exactly the same from above, some will have new give way controls, others will be the same as they are now. There is quite a bit of confusion as to who should do what when there is no give way sign but some separation, as evidenced by this thread and my own conversations with NZTA and the Police. As a bike rider I'll just treat all intersections the same as I have ever done, I know what to do but will assume the other person is an idiot and doesn't.

Should be interesting.

Just pay extra attention to your rear as well. The driver behind you will have made assumptions about what you will do based on what they think you should do and what they think the other person is doing.

I wonder if I am more afraid of the possibilities than the reality, :no: the drivers NZ is cursed with you know they aren't going to indicate and they are going to try and force their right as they perceive, which in a lot of cases is that it is all about them and screw the law because they have the SUV. :shit: you only have to look at the reasons most of these self centred retards buy the SUV in the first place.

Werther we like it or not we are doomed to live in interesting times, especially on the road on a bike.

[Badjelly]

I predict that the change will go ahead with very little confusion and in a month's time we'll all be wondering why we stuck with the old rules for so long.

But you know what Yogi Berra/Albert Einstein/Mark Twain/Groucho Marx said about predictions :confused:

http://www.larry.denenberg.com/predictions.html

[Clockwork]

And I predict a lot of people are going to find it a whole lot harder to make right turns.