Give Way rule change

[rastuscat]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

[onearmedbandit]

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?


No they can't. After being abused numerous times for 'not knowing my fucking road code' after turning into the closest lane, I'll never trust that despite having legal right of way I'm safe to do so.

[Gremlin]

There would need to be a period of reminder first I think.

A ref: http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=victoria+st+west+and+hobson+st&hl=en&sll=-36.848423,174.761909&sspn=0.003473,0.008256&hq=victoria+st+west+and+hobson+st&t=m&z=18

Turning left from Victoria St West (approaching from east) into Hobson St (it's one way south - 4 full time lanes) there are two lanes turning left (but the right one also goes straight). Counting from left, legally, left lane turns into lane 1, right lane would turn into lane 2 (allowing the others to turn right into Hobson from Victoria St - except the lights do not allow this). In practise, this would be suicide. Left lane usually uses first two lanes, right lane uses the second two lanes.

I've turned from the right lane, left into Hobson St, and had a car on my inside turn into lane 3 (counting from left), and I've had to avoid them, beep at them etc.

So for my health (if you can understand what I've tried to explain) I won't be following the rule any time soon and I'll consider my health first.

ps... this isn't going to be one of those epic threads is it? :crazy:

[Hopeful Bastard]

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

I'd be annoyed, But at least i would've learnt me lesson...



Furthermore on this, Many many MANY of times there has been dual lanes exiting the traffic lights. I know to turn into the lane closest to me (If turning right, Right lane. If turning left, Left lane) but other road users dont seem to think I am in the right. They want to use up ALL the road.

There totally needs to be more awareness of what to do in such circumstances as at the moment, I feel safer waiting at the lights to turn left holding traffic behind me up than I do continuing on my way.

If you were to watch EVERY set of traffic lights in NZ for a week or 2 and pull those that are either ignorant of the rules Or just plain f*cking dumb to the side of the road and have a chat... Then sure. Ticket them.

[Kickaha]

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

New law? I thought it's always been like that, just the ignorant cunts always ignore it, unfortunately driving a sign written vehicle I'm not allowed to yell abuse and use rude gestures

Fucking good job, you should get your daily <s>quota</s> KPI within minutes but I think I will still be looking out to be cut off every time I'm turning left

[Berries]

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?
The old law said the same thing so there is no change whatsoever. Turning on to the one way system in Dunedin is a classic example as every intersection has two lanes to turn in to but people piss around waiting so long to see what the other person is going to do. The law has not been enforced or advertised for so long that left turners are made to feel guilty for doing what they are meant to do.

Where you will run in to PR problems is where you enforce it when there is no other traffic around. Yes, yes, education through the wallet for some, but even further revenue gathering comments from others. Any demerits on this offence?

And the old problem, what if someone wants to turn left and them immediately right, or right then immediately left as I do on the way to work. Not enough time to signal the lane change so if there is no traffic I will turn in to the 'wrong' lane. Will continue to do so and will be pissed if I get ticketed for doing it. Which I probably will because this is exactly the type of intersection where spotters will be employed as it is easier to park than some of the others where it may be more of an issue.

Before going out and issuing tickets though I would spend a few months getting your own staff up to speed with the road rules, existing and new. And of course, you could approach road controlling authorities beforehand and see whether they want to paint some lane lines through the intersection to guide people in to the correct lane. The problem here is that this may achieve high compliance with the Rule and thus not be a great revenue earner. Not sure how that could be balanced against the massive social cost and trauma caused by this particular high risk practice, as against something like red light runners for example.

[merv]

Very happy that you would apply some "education" (by way of ticketing the dumbarses) to get them to understand what they are meant to do.

The next one you could then concentrate on for me is to get everyone to keep left when they aren't passing anyone. The annoying ones are those that just block the right lane like a pace car and sit just a few annoying metres behind the vehicle that they should either be passing or accepting they should pull in behind it and let the traffic trying to go legal speed to go by.

[MSTRS]

New law? I thought it's always been like that, just the ignorant cunts always ignore it, unfortunately driving a sign written vehicle I'm not allowed to yell abuse and use rude gestures

Fucking good job, you should get your daily <s>quota</s> KPI within minutes but I think I will still be looking out to be cut off every time I'm turning left

+1

Hammer the fuck out of the ignorant coonts.
Revenue-gathering in the name of safety that we can all understand...

[Lelitu]

while the new give way rules have no effect on the rules governing which lane to turn into, it's about time that those rules were actually enforced for once. I see people ignoring it all the time, and making extremely hazardous lane shifts.

it's as good a time as any to start enforcing them.
an while $150 is bloody painful for me as a student, it's not a bad idea, though it should come with attached demerits for the dangerous driving.

[Scuba_Steve]

I say skip the 150$ this comes down to ignorance (mostly), so just inform them to start.
I would like to see NZTA run ads informing people of the rules like this, keep left unless overtaking, don't impede the flow of traffic etc but they refuse to as it ain't the money makers. So despite the fact people should know, most are driving on ignorance & just need to be told rather than inforced (to start with anyways)
Also as mentioned the new rule changes nothing from old in this instance, I hope you weren't ignorant of this fact? It's hard to tell from your writing if you were ignorant or just pointing out that the left turners will have the "assumed" right of way under new law?

[Usarka]

Can you also do a blitz on giving way at uncontrolled intersections? If you sat outside my local supermarket you'd make 20x your quota in 1/2 hour.

[steve_t]

What's the best way to turn right into a dual lane road where you want to go into the first driveway on the left (which is about 15m from the intersection?

If there's going to be an advertising campaign, please remind people of how to indicate properly on roundabouts and that it is important to indicate. Thanks

[steve_t]

Can you also do a blitz on giving way at uncontrolled intersections? If you sat outside my local supermarket you'd make 20x your quota in 1/2 hour.

But that changes in 7 weeks time...

[Usarka]

But that changes in 7 weeks time...

Heh I didn't know that bit was changing, everything I've seen and heard has only been about the turning left into a side street..

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html?gclid=CM3_lb3I860CFaFMpgodmw58tA

Edit: Even more reason for the coppers to blitz it now. That'll really fuck with peoples heads :lol:

[steve_t]

Heh I didn't know that bit was changing, everything I've seen and heard has only been about the turning left into a side street..

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html?gclid=CM3_lb3I860CFaFMpgodmw58tA

Edit: Even more reason for the coppers to blitz it now. That'll really fuck with peoples heads :lol:

LOL. Yeah, a carpark entrance is currently classified as an uncontrolled T intersection so scrolling down your link page to "Change 2:" means that it'll change to what everyone (most people) already does. Whenever I stop short of the entrance and let the person out, as per the current rule, I get weird looks. This change will be good.

[roogazza]

Lets hope the rule change gets Ads hammering the change.
Well as much as the Ad for driving while 'baked' that we're getting at the mo.

[Usarka]

As it's a massive change that carries some real physical risk to the polpulation I'm assuming I'll be receiving some mail outlining the change and they won't just rely on TV ads (i don't watch much telly). Will believe that when i see it....

I'm setting my alarm clock early that day. I want to be on the road at 04:59.

[p.dath]

As it's a massive change that carries some real physical risk to the polpulation I'm assuming I'll be receiving some mail outlining the change and they won't just rely on TV ads (i don't watch much telly). Will believe that when i see it....

I'm setting my alarm clock early that day. I want to be on the road at 04:59.

You can be certain there will be wide spread advertising about it. Probably TV, radio and print. You can be sure it will be discussed on here as well.

[Usarka]

You can be certain there will be wide spread advertising about it. Probably TV, radio and print. You can be sure it will be discussed on here as well.

My point is that a lot of people myself included actively ignore advertising and/or the medium in which it is delivered. I don't watch TV much, and I switch radio stations when ad's are on. Not everyone in the country is a brain dead TV watcher that also sits through 10 minutes of mindless adverts on The Rock driving to work in the morning and reads The SUNday Herald.


The electoral referendum was important enough to post to everyone in the country, I would expect that this at least of equal importance....?

[p.dath]

My point is that a lot of people myself included actively ignore advertising and/or the medium in which it is delivered. I don't watch TV much, and I switch radio stations when ad's are on. Not everyone in the country is a brain dead TV watcher that also sits through 10 minutes of mindless adverts on The Rock driving to work in the morning and reads The SUNday Herald.


The electoral referendum was important enough to post to everyone in the country, I would expect that this at least of equal importance....?

I suspect the cost of wide spread advertising would be much less than posting a letter to every registered vehicle's address. I personally would prefer we didn't spend the extra money actually posting out bits of paper. Worse still, posting would only target registered vehicle addresses, rather than the drivers themselves.

And it is the kind of thing people talk about. So as long as someone you know has seen the advertising, chances are they'll talk to their mates about it.

[Drew]

I don't think that's any change on the existing law is it?

It's always being illegal to change lanes in an intersection, ticketing people for it would raise awareness. I'm all for it.

I've always been irked at two lane round-a-bouts, where you can only be safe by waiting for people in the inside lane to go past before entering, as they seem to think that haveing their left indicator on, means they can exit the round-a-bout and swap lanes at the same time.

[yungatart]

Do eeet!
Ticket them all, no warning necessary, the rule has been in place for forever, adn people should know it.

My only question is why has it taken so long for TPTB to decide to enforce it?

[Lelitu]

just had a fun little demonstration of why this rule needs to be enforced more
on the way home from the market this morning, I was damned near witness to a slow speed crash because the driver in front of me didn't turn into the right lane.

intersection in question (http://g.co/maps/dstcz)

I was behind a cage, heading north from willis, turning right into hunter street
there was an oncoming vehicle headed south along customhouse, turning left into hunter street.

hunter street is one way, as marked in the map.
the cage in front of me tried to turn into the leftmost lane at the same time as the oncoming cage.
cue emergency braking from both cages. (no Rastus, I didn't get their plates, was rather more interested in not running up their arse.)
left me plenty of room to duck inside and complete my turn, but still a stupid move on the part of the right turner.

it's caused partly because a lot of people need to be in the leftmost lane right quick after turning in, but going a block further on will get you where you want just fine.

[MSTRS]

On second thoughts - don't just hammer the lane ignorant.

Whatever the rule/s are, following them at intersections = no prangs/close calls/etc.

Strangely enough, (most) motorists know the rules when there's a snake about. I guess that's why no real attempt is made to target the kind of bullshit that goes on ??

One of my pet peeves is the treadlies that come up the left side of a left indicating vehicle, when said treadlie intends on going straight ahead. What's with that most stupid of manoeuvres?

[Usarka]

My only question is why has it taken so long for TPTB to decide to enforce it?

They did a blitz on this in CHC a couple of years ago. It was on the news - i suspect intentionally - and a lot of people were unhappy about being ticketed for not knowing the road rules. Hahahaa muppets.

[scumdog]

Strangely enough, (most) motorists know the rules when there's a snake about. I guess that's why no real attempt is made to target the kind of bullshit that goes on ??

Dead right most of the time.

But I've been sitting in a marked 'work' car at a Stop sign planning on going traght ahed and a car with right of way approaching from my left has stopped in the middle of the intersection, waiting for me to drive across the intersection on front of them. And have had this happen more than once..:facepalm:

Some people go into instant brain-freeze as soon as they see a cop car near them, it's like "Oh my Myrtle, what am I MEANT to be doing" is the thought flitting through their brain.:blink:

[Kickaha]

What's the best way to turn right into a dual lane road where you want to go into the first driveway on the left (which is about 15m from the intersection?

I'd be interested in that one as to access one of our sites I do exactly that, although normally (but not always)on a right turn arrow

[Scuba_Steve]

Dead right most of the time.

But I've been sitting in a marked 'work' car at a Stop sign planning on going traght ahed and a car with right of way approaching from my left has stopped in the middle of the intersection, waiting for me to drive across the intersection on front of them. And have had this happen more than once..:facepalm:

Some people go into instant brain-freeze as soon as they see a cop car near them, it's like "Oh my Myrtle, what am I MEANT to be doing" is the thought flitting through their brain.:blink:

it's probably just the shock surprise of seeing an naked policeman driving round :innocent:

[FJRider]

Some people go into instant brain-freeze as soon as they see a cop car near them, it's like "Oh my Myrtle, what am I MEANT to be doing" is the thought flitting through their brain.:blink:

And some people have no idea WHO they should give way to ... or where they HAVE right of way. So they give way to EVERYBODY ... which when it is at a busy intersection ... :facepalm:

[Lelitu]

Dead right most of the time.

<snip>

Some people go into instant brain-freeze as soon as they see a cop car near them, it's like "Oh my Myrtle, what am I MEANT to be doing" is the thought flitting through their brain.:blink:

that.. is kinda scary, and demonstrative of a serious problem in NZ driving.
a cop should not alter your driving in any way, unless they're directing traffic.

you shouldn't *need* to change your driving, and if you do, it's pretty much conclusive proof that you
do know the rules, and choose to ignore them in the absence of believable threat of punishment.

a person's true character is revealed not when under threat of punishment, but when there are no consequences

[scumdog]

you shouldn't *need* to change your driving, and if you do, it's pretty much conclusive proof that you
do know the rules, and choose to ignore them in the absence of believable threat of punishment.




Yup, indicators work, Stop signs work and speed limts work a lot better when a cop car is visible, hell even seat-belts go on a lot more when there's a cop car around.

(Been tempted to get some tiny stick-on vinyl cop-car images to hand out to non-seat-belt-wearing types for sticking onto the inside of their windscreen since the sight of a cop car seems to remind them so much - "Aw I was just about to put it on when I saw you boss...:laugh:)

[tigertim20]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

I say you could easily fulfil your 'performance targets' on this alone. and I for one would welcome it. I never go through an intersection with the mentality that its my RIGHT to do what the road rules say I can, rather I proceed cautiously, because fuckall people seem to know this rule. either that or they dont give a fuck.

A few more people getting a ticket for such a thing might make them more inclined to do it right the next time.
bring it on.

[scumdog]

I dare say the first week will go nice and politely.

Then the gold-fish mentality of a lot of drivers will mean they revert to square 1.

If they even remember square 1...

Constant reminders via media/tickets will be the thing that will help them remember.

[jaykay]

Presumably the OP is a policeman in and around Rangiora -

I fail to understand why the Police have this naive faith that they can ticket their way to safety, or that drivers are somehow grateful for being given a ticket.

Far better to educate, and attack genuine poor driving rather than sit near a Stop sign and hand out fines.

Hopefully the law change on the 25th will perhaps encourage drivers to take the correct lane when appropriate (ie the nearside) - and perhaps police patrols could sit at the end of the Christchurch northern motorway and chat to people who fail to keep left - someone who can't pay attention and drive in the correct lane is far worse than someone doing 112kph.

[FJRider]

I fail to understand why the Police have this naive faith that they can ticket their way to safety, or that drivers are somehow grateful for being given a ticket.

Far better to educate, and attack genuine poor driving rather than sit near a Stop sign and hand out fines.

Hopefully the law change on the 25th will perhaps encourage drivers to take the correct lane when appropriate (ie the nearside) - and perhaps police patrols could sit at the end of the Christchurch northern motorway and chat to people who fail to keep left - someone who can't pay attention and drive in the correct lane is far worse than someone doing 112kph.

It may supprise you how many people say thank you after getting a ticket (ask any cop)

So ... not stopping at a stop sign ISN'T poor driving ... ??? those knowing the rules, are NOT always obeying the rules ...

Drivers dont take the correct lane if it is not "convenient" NOW ... how will a law change make ANY difference to them ... ???

[Berries]

It may supprise you how many people say thank you after getting a ticket (ask any cop)
Any other options that won't get you in to trouble?


So ... not stopping at a stop sign ISN'T poor driving ... ???
Not necessarily. If a stop sign actually met the requirements for having one, ie such poor visibility that you have to stop to make sure the way is clear then yes, not stopping may be an indication of poor driving. Where the stop sign has been put up to placate residents or because of crashes when it was a give way sign then no, I don't think it is indicative of poor driving. Somebody can quite safely see that there is no oncoming traffic and quite safely enter the main road without coming to a complete stop. Even more of an issue on a bike where the riders eye height is quite a bit more than the height used to measure visibility so they may not be affected by whatever the issue is, if in fact there is one.

A judge would simply say that it is a stop sign and you failed to comply therefore the ticket is valid. We all know where we stand with that but really, if the sign is non compliant with the relevant rules then the ticket should be invalid and the sign changed to what it should be. Otherwise you get low compliance and thus a fishing spot. Dunedin riders will know the stop sign at the end of the Fairfield off ramp. Bastards.

[tigertim20]

I understand your line of thinking re: if you can easily see that the way is clear, then a stop sign may not be necessary.
however If a stop sign has been put up to 'placate residents' or 'as a response to accidents' - then isn't it fair to assume that there are other hazards that might not be immediately noticeable?
If its to placate residents, it probably means there is a school, or alot of children in the area, or a hidden side street. Not every hazard is a road based one. children, animals, cyclists, areas bad for black ice and bad frost, or poor road surface could all be factors too, its not just about whether or not a car is coming, the stop sign has been put there to tell you that you need to stop and make an assessment.
secondly, if the sign is due to crashes, its likely that crashes have been caused by people not making accurate assessments, and not seeing potential hazards, thus the stop sign would be entirely justified.

The issue with your perspective is that you are suggesting we can ignore road signs if we think we know better. Imagine the carnage if every road user decide to ignore the signs, and proceed as they felt like doing.

[Berries]

Poor visibility is 24 hours a day, every time you come up to an intersection. All the hazards that you mentioned are temporary in nature and there are other methods of warning people about them. None of them justify the use of a stop sign.


The issue with your perspective is that you are suggesting we can ignore road signs if we think we know better. Imagine the carnage if every road user decide to ignore the signs, and proceed as they felt like doing.
I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

[tigertim20]

Poor visibility is 24 hours a day, every time you come up to an intersection. All the hazards that you mentioned are temporary in nature and there are other methods of warning people about them. None of them justify the use of a stop sign.


I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

if the hazards are temporary and the hazards that exist change from one day to another, then isnt that even more reason to put a stop sign in, to indicate the need for motorists to assess the situation before continuing?
what other methods would you suggest, that are as (or more) cost effective as putting up a permanent stop sign?

[FJRider]

I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

The requirements were met ... then they were installed. Those that choose NOT to obey the signs requirements in law ... know where they stand if they get get caught.

Belief in the message (or the law) is NOT required. Obedience IS ...

[Berries]

The requirements were met ... then they were installed. .
Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.


if the hazards are temporary and the hazards that exist change from one day to another, then isnt that even more reason to put a stop sign in, to indicate the need for motorists to assess the situation before continuing?
what other methods would you suggest, that are as (or more) cost effective as putting up a permanent stop sign?
It really depends on what the issue is. I would have thought most of them (kids, ice, surface etc) would be an issue before you came up to the intersection and should be signed accordingly. Those hazards don't occur specifically at an intersection, unlike potential conflict with a vehicle. And anyway, surely a give way sign indicates the need to asses the situation at an intersection anyway?

[FJRider]

Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.

A good example why Give Way signs should be treated with a little more respect.

Locally there are a few intersections that have killed a few people due to them not taking care with their responsibility to give way. End result is a speed reduction to 80 kms/hr 500 metres either side of the intersection.

To continue to ignore the rules in place ... results in the rules getting toughened ...

A continual process ... and it's a process that covers the entire road transport act ...

[rastuscat]

The problem here is that this may achieve high compliance with the Rule and thus not be a great revenue earner.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't give a fat rats arse about the revenue. I don't get a cent of it, and my salary doesn't depend on it, so why would I care? Nobody in the Police counts the fine revenue, that's why I get so pissed off at being called a revenue collector. Still, nothing is going to change, so we just get on with trying to change crap driving by enforcing the rules.

I'm aware that the lane rule isn't changing. Someone on here has suggested I get my troops better educated. Don't worry, I live in a world where driving rules are flogged day in and day it, so I know the law. We don't enforce the road code, your mothers shopping list or your uncles neighbours idea of what the law says. We enforce legislation, so we get to know it fairly well.

On our daily intersection operations in ChurChur we see no more than 50% of vehicles being turned into the correct lane. Most times even less. Hell, some people turn into the wrong lane, then lane change into the lane they should have turned into, just coz that's where they want to be. Bizarre.

Education? Doesn't everyone know this rule? We spent 2 weeks a couple of years back (pre earthquakes, actually), stopping folk and giving warnings at particular intersections. Almost every one said they knew what the rule was, they just hadn't applied it.

For the record, the tickets we write for that are normally after someone has inconvenienced someone else by turning into the wrong lane. And there aren't too may written, as it's just never really been a priority for us. I'll cop the flack for that, as I know we should do more of it. Thing is, it feels harsh, fining someone $150 for turning into the wrong lane. We don't set the fines. If I had my way it would be $75 and 10 demerits. While I stand there writing the ticket, lots more people do exactly the same thing. It's a bloody disease here, and I suspect ChurChur isn't the only place.

Donuts.

[tigertim20]

Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.
No, they get ticketed because the sign is a STOP sign. its not a 'stop sometimes' sign, or a 'stop if theres a cop around' sign, or a 'just sllow down a bit, she'll be right' sign. If you cannot read the sign, and adhere to it, you probably shouldnt be on the road. If, at that same intersection, you were to get taken out by a car that rolled through the stop sign, Im sure your perspective would be different


It really depends on what the issue is. I would have thought most of them (kids, ice, surface etc) would be an issue before you came up to the intersection and should be signed accordingly. Those hazards don't occur specifically at an intersection, unlike potential conflict with a vehicle. And anyway, surely a give way sign indicates the need to asses the situation at an intersection anyway?
they could be an issue at any point, but most intersections are surrounded by buildings, fences, parked cars etc, thus you often cant see whats happening to the left or the right untill you are actually at the edge of the intersection. frost and ice etc would be an issue AFTER stopping, as thats when you get on the gas to leave, thus youd need to look out for it and drive accordingly.
If you are turning onto another street instead of continuing forwards, then again you should be stopping, and taking the time to look ahead to where you intend to be going as well, what hazards will there be further up the street? its not just about whats going on in a 20 metre radius of your vehicle, it gives you an opportunity to look further afield too

[superman]

Stop Signs are funny sometimes... it's illegal to slow down to 2 km/h for the last couple metres (taking 4 seconds) and then taking off. But to hoon up to it, slam on the brakes to a complete stop on the edge and flooring it to take off (with no loss of traction) is completely legal. Better keep it legal... :shifty:

[Kickaha]

Scuse me Mr Rastuscat sir but can we have an answer to this one from earlier "What's the best way to turn right into a dual lane road where you want to go into the first driveway on the left which is about 15m from the intersection?"

I will buy you a donut if you answer it

I make one turn like that to access a site, there isn't time to turn into the closest lane, then indicate the required three seconds to change and make the driveway unless I want to make a complete circuit around the block, sometimes (but not always) I am turning on a green arrow

[tigertim20]

Stop Signs are funny sometimes... it's illegal to slow down to 2 km/h for the last couple metres (taking 4 seconds) and then taking off. But to hoon up to it, slam on the brakes to a complete stop on the edge and flooring it to take off (with no loss of traction) is completely legal. Better keep it legal... :shifty:

actually you can came to the attention of the popo for 'excessive acceleration', a friend of mine was pulled up for that the other day. he didnt speed, was within the limit etc.
Theyd probably have an issue with screaming into the intersection and jamming on the anchors to. Theyd probably call it careless driving:sunny:

[cheshirecat]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you? Go for it. Tickets could also be issued for those dawldling at lights, gribbling to a halt approaching a perfectly clear roundabout, dithering at junctions, braking to 30 kph part way round a 70kph corner and that new law comming in stopping reversing out into a road/highway. Doughnut paradise I say.

[rastuscat]

Scuse me Mr Rastuscat sir but can we have an answer to this one from earlier "What's the best way to turn right into a dual lane road where you want to go into the first driveway on the left which is about 15m from the intersection?"

I will buy you a donut if you answer it

I make one turn like that to access a site, there isn't time to turn into the closest lane, then indicate the required three seconds to change and make the driveway unless I want to make a complete circuit around the block, sometimes (but not always) I am turning on a green arrow

Cool, donut incoming.

Wait until there is nothing coming, make the turn as necessary to get into your driveway.

Right, that's morning tea sorted.

Again, remember that for every rule there is always going to be an exception. In your case, it's coz you legitimately had to do it to get to where you were genuinely headed. The numpties that piss me off most are those that crowd into the wrong lane because they need to be in that lane to get into their driveway which happens to be 1467 metres further up the road.

Extra cinnamon please.

[rastuscat]

WoooooooooHooooooooooo..................I see the donut buyer is in Rangiora too.....................even better chance of it happening...........:woohoo:

[Scuba_Steve]

The numpties that piss me off most are those that crowd into the wrong lane because they need to be in that lane to get into their driveway which happens to be 1467 metres further up the road.

Extra cinnamon please.

Almost as good as the ones here that have to be in the right lane cause they're turning right...

... 15km away :facepalm:

[sinfull]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?
I say your breaking the law to be quick enough to catch me (for) doing that, I would also argue that the prick in front of me needs to learn how to merge or the new R/H rule when it comes in and that perhaps you should go and teach him before i drag him out of his car and give him a quick lesson ! As that's the only reason you'd have cause to ticket me for that shit !

Fuck that feels better !!! Road rage inabsentia !

Yeah ticket the fuck wits !

[tigertim20]

Scuse me Mr Rastuscat sir but can we have an answer to this one from earlier "What's the best way to turn right into a dual lane road where you want to go into the first driveway on the left which is about 15m from the intersection?"

I will buy you a donut if you answer it

I make one turn like that to access a site, there isn't time to turn into the closest lane, then indicate the required three seconds to change and make the driveway unless I want to make a complete circuit around the block, sometimes (but not always) I am turning on a green arrow

enter that road from a different intersection, giving you plenty of time to navigate your way across lanes and get to where you wanna go?

[sinfull]

enter that road from a different intersection, giving you plenty of time to navigate your way across lanes and get to where you wanna go?

You're from Gore aye ?

[Berries]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't give a fat rats arse about the revenue. I don't get a cent of it, and my salary doesn't depend on it, so why would I care? Nobody in the Police counts the fine revenue, that's why I get so pissed off at being called a revenue collector.

I was referring to the people who have asked you to hammer this particular law -

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road......,
Hardly for crash reduction purposes is it?

[steve_t]

Cool, donut incoming.

Wait until there is nothing coming, make the turn as necessary to get into your driveway.


Wait where? At the lights holding up all the traffic behind you? Or in the middle of the intersection?

[Berries]

No, they get ticketed because the sign is a STOP sign. its not a 'stop sometimes' sign, or a 'stop if theres a cop around' sign, or a 'just sllow down a bit, she'll be right' sign. If you cannot read the sign, and adhere to it, you probably shouldnt be on the road. If, at that same intersection, you were to get taken out by a car that rolled through the stop sign, Im sure your perspective would be different
You're missing my point. Stop signs also mean that (from memory) from 9m back from the limit line you can't see 1.2x the speed limit in distance, so 60m in a 50km/h area. My gripe is when they are put in where there is good visibility, against good practice recommendations, and then enforced rigidly. I don't generally agree with the revenue gathering comments, the law is the law and all that, but when signs, or speed limits for that matter, are put in place that are at odds with either good practice or legal requirements then I do have an issue with the enforcement of them.

[Kickaha]

enter that road from a different intersection, giving you plenty of time to navigate your way across lanes and get to where you wanna go?
It isn't really practical to do that, Id have to drive past our building and make another trip around a different block, the location is shyte

You're from Gore aye ?
Easy mistake to make, I think everyone south of Timaru is related

[Shadows]

The thing that worries me most about the upcoming change is that the munters will be concentrating so hard on the application of the new rule that they'll completely forget what give way signs are for.

[tigertim20]

You're missing my point. Stop signs also mean that (from memory) from 9m back from the limit line you can't see 1.2x the speed limit in distance, so 60m in a 50km/h area. My gripe is when they are put in where there is good visibility, against good practice recommendations, and then enforced rigidly. I don't generally agree with the revenue gathering comments, the law is the law and all that, but when signs, or speed limits for that matter, are put in place that are at odds with either good practice or legal requirements then I do have an issue with the enforcement of them.

I understand your point completely, but 1) visibility is not the only consideration for safety at intersections, and 2) the criteria you mentioned you will probably find is only a starting point, there will be other criteria used as well in deciding where they are put.

rightly or wrongly, if its there, adhere to it, or accept the consequences for choosing to ignore it - why is that so difficult for people to understand?

[cheshirecat]

The thing that worries me most about the upcoming change is that the munters will be concentrating so hard on the application of the new rule that they'll completely forget what give way signs are for. What they know already?

[Berries]

I understand your point completely, but 1) visibility is not the only consideration for safety at intersections,
But it is the only consideration when you decide to put in a stop sign over a give way sign. Or should I say 'should be' according to the regs.


rightly or wrongly, if its there, adhere to it, or accept the consequences for choosing to ignore it
I do. My only ticket is for failing to stop at a stop sign. A stop sign that does not meet the requirements for its installation because you can see quite clearly if there is any traffic coming. I accepted my ticket gladly at the time because I thought when I was being pulled over it was for something I did just before slowing down for the intersection. Nearly kissed the cop when I was told what I was being done for. Long walk home otherwise.

Back on topic. Ping the bastards. Although I don't believe Rangiora has any roads with two lanes in the same direction does it? Can they put markings down on gravel these days?

[Kickaha]

A stop sign that does not meet the requirements for its installation because you can see quite clearly if there is any traffic coming.

What are the requirements for stop sign installation?

[Berries]

What are the requirements for stop sign installation?
Part 1 of the TCD Rule is a bit vague, with Part 4 out later this year which should up date things. So at present, all guidance is contained with MOTSAM Part 1.


Policy: Subject to formal authorization by the controlling authority, RG-5 STOP signs should be erected:

(a) at blind intersections where lack of visibility makes it unsafe to approach the intersection at a speed greater than 10 km/h. Note: It is unsafe to approach an intersection at more than 10 km/h if, from a point 9 metres from the intersection limit line on a controlled approach, a driver cannot see a vehicle on an uncontrolled approach at a distance (metres) of 1.2 times the speed (km/h) exceeded by 15% of vehicles on the priority route,

(b) at intersections of an unusual layout or unusual traffic pattern where it is essential to give one ocntrolled approach priority over another controlled approach. NOTE: The Land Transport (Road User) Rule requires traffic at a STOP sign to give way to traffic from a GIVE WAY sign, and

(c) as part of the RG-32 sign at railway level crossings which are not controlled by automatic alarms or permanent crossing keepers. Refer to Part 9 of the Traffic Control Devices Manual.
And being picky, many Stop signs out there have never been formally authorised by the controlling authority.

[Owl]

Wait until there is nothing coming, make the turn as necessary to get into your driveway.

Classic here in Palmy is Featherston/Rangatikei St, where there's a McDonalds on the corner. People seem to think it's their God given right to to be able to cross lanes to get into McDonalds driveway.

I'm all for the $150 ticket!

[pzkpfw]

Might work as well as the campaign to make people indicate correctly at roundabouts.



(Me, I'd pay unemployed people to sit at intersections and video people. Plates would be used to send out letters. "You didn't indicate correctly", "you turned into the wrong lane", etc. To make sure people actually read the things, you make it a competition; they have to fill in some details and tick a multi-choice mini-test correctly (one about the offence they were seen commiting) and they have to send the letter back to be in to win something. Maybe do it on-line.)

[MSTRS]

...Thing is, it feels harsh, fining someone $150 for turning into the wrong lane....

I can understand that. I'm sure that most of us would feel the same.
Tell you what, here's a deal that all can relate to...

You and your buddies in the Farce stop ticketing speed, and you can be let off ticketing those dodgy lane manoeuvres. Will that help you feel better?

I know it'll help a whole lot of people who currently live in mortal fear of being caught doing 112kph on a straight, otherwise deserted SH...

[p.dath]

I've just read a couple of pages of posts about signs.

I don't get it. If there is a stop sign, why not simply stop? It seems really simple to me.

[Coolz]

You only have to stop if you believe the sign needs to be there,apparantly...

[rastuscat]

I can understand that. I'm sure that most of us would feel the same.
Tell you what, here's a deal that all can relate to...

You and your buddies in the Farce stop ticketing speed, and you can be let off ticketing those dodgy lane manoeuvres. Will that help you feel better?

I know it'll help a whole lot of people who currently live in mortal fear of being caught doing 112kph on a straight, otherwise deserted SH...

Oh God, here we go again.

For the record, my section doesn't write many speeding tickets. Like, about 2% of the tickets we write are for speed. That's going to change in the next couple of weeks, when we'll be doing the back to school programme, but generally we don't target speed.

I happen to agree with a lot of the comments on here about the over emphasis on speed, but I also think that if the paranoia it has created slows people down, the intersection crashes we have will be less serious. And that's my focus, decreasing both the number and the severity of crashes.

That's why we hammer seatbelts, traffic lights, cellphones, and turning and crossing offences.

Still, if it takes enforcement paranoia to slow the crashes down, so be it.

[rastuscat]

You only have to stop if you believe the sign needs to be there,apparantly...

Yeah, that's what I'm reading into these comments. Stop, make an informed, balance, educated assessment as to hetehr the sign is legitimate or not, then in future just roll on through if you think it's clear.

What about those folk (and it happens every day) who collide with things they didn't see coming? The whole point of stopping is that it gives people less chance of not seeing an oncoming vehicle.

Still, here we go again, defending the right to roll through stop signs then bitch about getting ticketed for doing it.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

[oneofsix]

Yeah, that's what I'm reading into these comments. Stop, make an informed, balance, educated assessment as to hetehr the sign is legitimate or not, then in future just roll on through if you think it's clear.

What about those folk (and it happens every day) who collide with things they didn't see coming? The whole point of stopping is that it gives people less chance of not seeing an oncoming vehicle.

Still, here we go again, defending the right to roll through stop signs then bitch about getting ticketed for doing it.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

Instead of bitching they can fight the ticket and if they can prove the sign invalid then it can be removed adn replaced with the correct sign. That will happen :yes: the sign would be changed if they can prove it doesn't meet the criteria for a stop sign? I mean it does cut both ways :yes: :corn:

[MSTRS]

Oh God, here we go again.

KA-CHOMP!!!



Sore spot?

In case you missed the point, and I'm not sure that you did, I was getting at the obvious targeting of speed (cos it's so simple to detect, not to mention a great little earner for tptb) when so many other things that drivers/riders get up to are often ignored...things that are way more dangerous than a slight overage on the open highway.
The point of traffic regs (and cops to enforce them) is safety, is it not?

[FJRider]

Instead of bitching they can fight the ticket and if they can prove the sign invalid then it can be removed adn replaced with the correct sign. That will happen :yes: the sign would be changed if they can prove it doesn't meet the criteria for a stop sign? I mean it does cut both ways :yes: :corn:

Apart from the obvious point that ... to fight it claiming the sign is "invalid" (whatever that means) ... is an adnmission you DID go through a stop sign. And subject to the appropriate fine for that offence. (and demerits) The judge will have NO authority to order the sign changed to Give Way.

[Scuba_Steve]

Apart from the obvious point that ... to fight it claiming the sign is "invalid" (whatever that means) ... is an adnmission you DID go through a stop sign. And subject to the appropriate fine for that offence. (and demerits) The judge will have NO authority to order the sign changed to Give Way.

think the "invalid" means it's only ever been registered as a give-way yet a stop has been placed there. Which would mean legally all they did was roll through a falsely advertised give-way.

However I haven't looked into how these sorts of things work so I'm not sure if they can falsely advertise a intersection?
I guess it's possible I mean all these "temp n km/h" signs we get are for while they go through the process of registering that road at the lower speed the sign displays.

[FJRider]

think the "invalid" means it's only ever been registered as a give-way yet a stop has been placed there. Which would mean legally all they did was roll through a falsely advertised give-way.

However I haven't looked into how these sorts of things work so I'm not sure if they can falsely advertise a intersection?
I guess it's possible I mean all these "temp n km/h" signs we get are for while they go through the process of registering that road at the lower speed the sign displays.

If a stop/go sign held at each end of a roadworks IS A LEGAL STOP SIGN ... how you figure, one bolted to a post IS NOT ... is beyond me ... :confused:

[Scuba_Steve]

If a stop/go sign held at each end of a roadworks IS A LEGAL STOP SIGN ... how you figure, one bolted to a post IS NOT ... is beyond me ... :confused:

because like the "temp" signs, special exemption has been applied for & granted by the NZTA for the road-workers to be able to display/use them. Without that exemption they are no more legal than you running onto the road & telling people to stop yourself

[scumdog]

I know it'll help a whole lot of people who currently live in mortal fear of being caught doing 112kph on a straight, otherwise deserted SH...

"Live in mortal fear"? (That ain't living...)

All I can say is: Fuck there must be a lot of paranoid tossers out there...:yes::rolleyes:

[nosebleed]

"Live in mortal fear"? (That ain't living...)

All I can say is: Fuck there must be a lot of paranoid tossers out there...:yes::rolleyes:

Yes, yes there are.
And it's days like today that they're out on the road doing 65kph in an 80 zone with queues of traffic lining up behind them, all because there's a rozzer parked on the side of the road.
The tossers get themselves all flustered and don't know what the hell to do, so they slow down, because that's what all the ad's on TV tell them to do.

Fuck being in a car.

[oldrider]

Very happy that you would apply some "education" (by way of ticketing the dumbarses) to get them to understand what they are meant to do.

The next one you could then concentrate on for me is to get everyone to keep left when they aren't passing anyone. The annoying ones are those that just block the right lane like a pace car and sit just a few annoying metres behind the vehicle that they should either be passing or accepting they should pull in behind it and let the traffic trying to go legal speed to go by.

Failure to stay within ones own legal space is the worst offence being committed on our roads throughout the country IMHO! :shifty::Police:

[Jantar]

...And it's days like today that they're out on the road doing 65kph in an 80 zone ....

Guilty. As soon as I see a cop, or my radar detector sounds, I cut the throttle as quickly as I can, then I check to see what speed my radar detector locked on (it has a built in GPS), then I check to see what speed I'm currently doing. Most times I was already legal on detecting the cop, and I have slowed down to way under the speed limit and now have to speed up again.

Paranoid? You bet.

[theseekerfinds]

a good (non-biker) mate of mine once jokingly said to an officer who was writing out a ticket that he thought that stop meant:

Slow
To
Optional
Pace
the officer laughed but continued writing out the ticket :rockon:

:innocent: I do not subscribe to that abbreviation, I drive to the way I was taught (99% of the time) which is to have stopped at a stop sign your car/bike must come to a standstill and allow the front suspension to rebound from compression and settle before moving away from the sign that says stop.. like P. Dath I just don't see why stopping isn't an option. :blink: and it's not like it takes forever to stop and move off again anyway..


I'm for ticketing the people who don't know how to turn, drive, stop, start, steer, put on seatbelts, use indicators, check where their kid's are before reversing, drive pissed, speed up in overtaking lanes to stop you passing, drive 20% below the posted speed limit for prolonged distances holding you and everyone else up... I'll stop there but you get my point :woohoo:

[rastuscat]

Back on topic. Ping the bastards. Although I don't believe Rangiora has any roads with two lanes in the same direction does it? Can they put markings down on gravel these days?

I live in Rangiora, but I work in ChurChur.

It's nice to leave the EQs behind at the end of each day.

[Scuba_Steve]

I drive to the way I was taught (99% of the time) which is to have stopped at a stop sign your car/bike must come to a standstill and allow the front suspension to rebound from compression and settle before moving away from the sign that says stop.. like P. Dath I just don't see why stopping isn't an option. :blink: and it's not like it takes forever to stop and move off again anyway..


Not a bad way to learn "Stop"
As for why not stop & not taking forever to move off again, thats vehicle dependent. Now before I carry on I do always stop. That being said however.
Close by theres an intersection I have to take, it is a stop but like Berries has mentioned it's one of these stops that just have no reason to & shouldn't exist, it should be a give-way no 2 ways about it. Now 2 of my vehicles, if it was a give-way, would have no problems they could coast through & keep up. However since it is a stop they must come to a stop, once they do taking off again is no quick action. By the time the car just appearing in the distance 500m away is upon me I am only at 2/3 speed, so I am now holding traffic up through no fault of my own (other then owning a couple of slow accelerating vehicles) which would not happen had this intersection been a give-way as it should be.
So yes when stop signs shouldn't exist I do get annoyed (like Berries) but probably nowhere near as annoyed as anyone unlucky enough to be the next vehicle along when I pull out.

[Usarka]

The thing that worries me most about the upcoming change is that the munters will be concentrating so hard on the application of the new rule that they'll completely forget what give way signs are for.

Give way signs are no longer required. Maybe it's a money saving initiative.. :sherlock:

[Berries]

Bringing it back on topic, here's a good story. The local community newspaper ran a story last week on the changes and what publicity there will be. They topped it off with a photo of two vehicles turning on to the Dunedin one way system where the change has no effect. Little things like this add to the confusion for those who don't understand the basic driving rules.

[FJRider]

Give way signs are no longer required. Maybe it's a money saving initiative.. :sherlock:

They will be replaced by STOP signs ...

[tigertim20]

think the "invalid" means it's only ever been registered as a give-way yet a stop has been placed there. Which would mean legally all they did was roll through a falsely advertised give-way.

However I haven't looked into how these sorts of things work so I'm not sure if they can falsely advertise a intersection?
I guess it's possible I mean all these "temp n km/h" signs we get are for while they go through the process of registering that road at the lower speed the sign displays.


because like the "temp" signs, special exemption has been applied for & granted by the NZTA for the road-workers to be able to display/use them. Without that exemption they are no more legal than you running onto the road & telling people to stop yourself

if its there, its legal, temporary or not.
fail to follow it for whatever reason and you are in the wrong.

I duno why people are still trying to debate something that is really quite clear to anybody with half an ounce of common sense - you abide by whatever sign is there whether you like it or not

[Kemet]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

keep it as it is. it works and makes sense. traffic flows better. of course not everyone knows how the rule works now as it is.

[Kemet]

Lets hope the rule change gets Ads hammering the change.
Well as much as the Ad for driving while 'baked' the we're getting at the mo.

+1

all changes should get this sort of high profile advertising

[pzkpfw]

"Live in mortal fear"? (That ain't living...)

All I can say is: Fuck there must be a lot of paranoid tossers out there...:yes::rolleyes:

Coming home from shopping tonight, I noticed a police car behind me from Porirua to half way through Tawa.

Yes I am occasionally a tosser, and yes, I'm often paranoid.

I made the needle stick to 50 so hard the officer must have been wondering what model of Suzuki Swift has cruise control.

Believe it or not, but average "normal" citizens do get paranoid, because people do get ticketed for things that "normal" citizens think were "not that bad".

When an officer is behind me, I am paranoid that I might accidentally get to 51 in a 50, and see the lights come on...

[Kemet]

I'd be interested in that one as to access one of our sites I do exactly that, although normally (but not always)on a right turn arrow

without knowing the specific routes you are talking about, would it not be easier to turn onto that road an intersection or two before so that you have heaps of time to get into the right lane?

[Berries]

if its there, its legal, temporary or not.
I don't want to jump in here but you are wrong, particularly when it comes to speed limits. There is a formal process that has to be followed, you can't just slap a sign up. Temporary speed limits are even worse. First they have to be approved by the road controlling authority, then they have to be set out in accordance with a proper plan. A lot aren't, and they aren't legal because of it. Which is stupid because it is the guys working on the site who are then put at risk.

[SPman]

And some people have no idea WHO they should give way to ... or where they HAVE right of way. So they give way to EVERYBODY ... which when it is at a busy intersection ... :facepalm: Ha ha - some years ago now, on Wairau Rd at the Target rd? traffic lights, had a car stop at a green light coming out of Target rd, and wave on the traffic on Wairau (on a red). Wife #1 says "what's that stupid prick doing....that's something I'd expect Uncle Bill to do".
Lights changed, drove past....sure enough.....'twas her Uncle Bill........:facepalm:

To the question, I'd say, give them a weeks grace, then ticket the pricks! The number of drivers who don't have a clue about intersection behaviour is scary - if they don't know, they shouldn't be on the road! The number of close calls I've had over the years must reach into the hundreds now.....and nearly all of them unnecessary if only the silly pricks paid some basic attention to lane procedure!

[p.dath]

...Close by theres an intersection I have to take, it is a stop but like Berries has mentioned it's one of these stops that just have no reason to & shouldn't exist, it should be a give-way no 2 ways about it....

Just been thinking about this. If you believe the rule for deciding when a stop sign should be installed has been incorrectly followed; why not call your local council (assuming it is not an NZTA road) and let them know you think there has been a mistake, and request the correct sign be installed?

[Scuba_Steve]

if its there, its legal, temporary or not.
fail to follow it for whatever reason and you are in the wrong.

As below

I don't want to jump in here but you are wrong, particularly when it comes to speed limits. There is a formal process that has to be followed, you can't just slap a sign up. Temporary speed limits are even worse. First they have to be approved by the road controlling authority, then they have to be set out in accordance with a proper plan. A lot aren't, and they aren't legal because of it. Which is stupid because it is the guys working on the site who are then put at risk.


Just been thinking about this. If you believe the rule for deciding when a stop sign should be installed has been incorrectly followed; why not call your local council (assuming it is not an NZTA road) and let them know you think there has been a mistake, and request the correct sign be installed?

It's a council to NZTA road intersection. My guess as to why it's a stop is because the right turn is (& should be a stop) so they probably decided it was just easier to make both a stop.
But I have another intersection I have to bitch about 1st anyways, one where it should be blocked off really or at the very least a give way, currently it's a merge & you legally have 5m to get from 50km/h to 100km/h, if anyone actually used it as a merge that could be some fun... tho if your wanting to collect insurance this could be a good intersection to use (recommended for cage only)

[Virago]

I've just experienced a potentially harmful situation, which would not happen under the new rule.

Sitting in the cage at traffic lights, waiting to turn right. A bike approaches from the opposite direction, left hand indicator going. I start to ease forward to make my turn, but the biker's speed and road position doesn't seem to suggest he's turning left, so I don't accelerate. He whizzes through going straight ahead, giving me a hard stare - oblivious to the fact that he's at fault.

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.

[MSTRS]

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.

Scenarios can always be found that are better under the new rule. Just as there are some that are better under the old rule. Can't keep everybody safe...
Your described scenario - who was really in the wrong, should there have been a meeting of vehicles?

[steve_t]

oblivious to the fact that he's at fault.

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.


Scenarios can always be found that are better under the new rule. Just as there are some that are better under the old rule. Can't keep everybody safe...
Your described scenario - who was really in the wrong, should there have been a meeting of vehicles?

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

[MSTRS]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Might not have been the best example, but you know what I meant...
A forgotten indicator is a dangerous thing.

[rastuscat]

of course not everyone knows how the rule works now as it is.


..................and that's exactly what the problem is. The rule that we have now would work perfectly well if everyone applied some sense and actually used it properly. Thing is, I reckon that at best, 60% of motorists know the rule and apply it.

Bugger all will change, as the same 60% will apply the new rule, and the 40% will continue to be totally ignorant, and apply whatever rule suits them.

[actungbaby]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

I got to say always anoyed me lazy drivers or riders that didnt do this already with out A law

In saying that as i always do i know already will law make it any diffrent . its just common sence know

For goodness sakes people dont even walk on the right side the pavent these days or in the malls

keep to the left keep to left people please... damm what up with people just dont care these days

Whats next fines for people not washing there hands after going to the toilet come on !!!!!!

NO NO NO to 150.00 fine thats stubid and just make people discrespect the law makers:laugh:

[actungbaby]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Common sence dictates that you do what u do to keep yourself safe insurance companys
Can spin on a spike for all i care as long you abey the general road rules your okay

Anything esle has to be proven Insurance compamy told my dad when claimed on my riding gear .
That helmet was okay didnt need replacing i told him thats rubbish as mentioned testing it yeah right
I told ad only way test it is destry it in a test < end result i got new helmet .

People that work at insurance companys you dealing with indivuals and 90 % the time you can reason with people

You just have to point out the facts or ask qwestions to find them out

[Virago]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Agreed - to a point. You can't automatically assume right of way on the basis of an indicator. But the hospitals and morgues remain full of people who were legally in the right.

The change of give way rule removes one situation where a forgotten indicator on a bike puts the rider at serious risk.

[Scuba_Steve]

The change of give way rule removes one situation where a forgotten indicator on a bike puts the rider at serious risk.

Does it??? you've only removed the right turning car, the guy waiting to come out of the side street's still there ready to pull out in-front of the bike

I suppose it does remove 1 chance but I'd say the "situation" still exists

[Virago]

Does it??? you've only removed the right turning car, the guy waiting to come out of the side street's still there ready to pull out in-front of the bike

I suppose it does remove 1 chance but I'd say the "situation" still exists

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Cars are always going to pull out in front of bikers who don't cancel their indicators. The elimination of one common scenario is not negated because others still exist. It can only be a good thing.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Cars are always going to pull out in front of bikers who don't cancel their indicators. The elimination of one common scenario is not negated because others still exist. It can only be a good thing.

yea I sorta miss read to start, but the final point was I'd call the intersection the "situation" & the law change will only decrease chance within the situation, not the situation itself... But it's more technicalities than an actual argument

[SPman]

..................and that's exactly what the problem is. The rule that we have now would work perfectly well if everyone applied some sense and actually used it properly. Thing is, I reckon that at best, 60% of motorists know the rule and apply it.

Bugger all will change, as the same 60% will apply the new rule, and the 40% will continue to be totally ignorant, and apply whatever rule suits them. 60%!
Jeez - you're getting generous in your old age.........

[swbarnett]

Believe it or not, but average "normal" citizens do get paranoid, because people do get ticketed for things that "normal" citizens think were "not that bad".
Surely this sums up what's wrong with the current traffic laws? Aren't laws supposed to reflect the philosophy of the majority of the population? If most average "normal" citizens think a law is bad (or at least badly implemented) surely this is a case to have it revoked (or at least reinterpreted to meet the majority viewpoint)?

[quickbuck]

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?


IF I were to do such a STUPID thing, then I would fully expect a bill for $150...... It must have been 1986 and i did just that during a driving lesson with the late Mr McLoud in Ashburton. He got me to pull over and gave me a lecture on Mansaughter charges, after I didn't give somebody on a C50 quite enough room.... Well, we didn't connect, BUT it was the lesson that needed to be given.

Never done it since, despite potentially being on the recieving end of such bad driving, if I hadn't been defencive/ self preserving.

[steve_t]

IF I were to do such a STUPID thing, then I would fully expect a bill for $150...... It must have been 1986 and i did just that during a driving lesson with the late Mr McLoud in Ashburton. He got me to pull over and gave me a lecture on Mansaughter charges, after I didn't give somebody on a C50 quite enough room.... Well, we didn't connect, BUT it was the lesson that needed to be given.

Never done it since, despite potentially being on the recieving end of such bad driving, if I hadn't been defencive/ self preserving.

LOL. "It's horribly STUPID... I remember when I did it" :laugh:

Now, imagine if you hadn't done it during your driving lesson (like I expect the vast majority of people haven't) and had the bolloxing, I'd imagine your view on the matter would have been different for at least many years after you got your licence.
I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary folk who would also do this STUPID thing, get pulled over by a cop and told that it's wrong, and never do it again. You were just 'lucky' because you had an early experience. Most people won't have been so 'lucky' :yes:

[quickbuck]

LOL. "It's horribly STUPID... I remember when I did it" :laugh:

Now, imagine if you hadn't done it during your driving lesson (like I expect the vast majority of people haven't) and had the bolloxing, I'd imagine your view on the matter would have been different for at least many years after you got your licence.
I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary folk who would also do this STUPID thing, get pulled over by a cop and told that it's wrong, and never do it again. You were just 'lucky' because you had an early experience. Most people won't have been so 'lucky' :yes:

Exactly mate.
That is why I believe EVERY Rider/ Driver should recieve professional instruction at some point in their licencing graduation.
This dad taught me, and he was taught by his dad, and his dad taught him in an Austin A30 cycle has to be broken as not all "dads" are very good instructors.
Incidently my dad was a great instructor. So great he realised that to be the best driver I could, i needed to spend a few lessons in a dual controlled car..... I had already been taught skid control in the car before these lessons, and rode the Farm Bike like Ivan Mauger from a very early age...

[merv]

Here's a visitors viewpoint about NZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783288

[BMWST?]

On second thoughts - don't just hammer the lane ignorant.

Whatever the rule/s are, following them at intersections = no prangs/close calls/etc.

Strangely enough, (most) motorists know the rules when there's a snake about. I guess that's why no real attempt is made to target the kind of bullshit that goes on ??

One of my pet peeves is the treadlies that come up the left side of a left indicating vehicle, when said treadlie intends on going straight ahead. What's with that most stupid of manoeuvres?

prolly the same brain dead manouvre that occurs just after a car passes a cyclist and then turns left...

[FJRider]

Surely this sums up what's wrong with the current traffic laws? Aren't laws supposed to reflect the philosophy of the majority of the population? If most average "normal" citizens think a law is bad (or at least badly implemented) surely this is a case to have it revoked (or at least reinterpreted to meet the majority viewpoint)?

I would have thought they were to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.

The effect of laws ... depends on how they are written ... AND ... how they are Policed.

It would seem that laws nowdays need to be quite specific ... as many interpret laws by what they DON'T say ...

There are bad laws ... and there are unpopular laws. (the latter ... is often refered/interpreted to being ... the former)

[FJRider]

prolly the same brain dead manouvre that occurs just after a car passes a cyclist and then turns left...

but ... but ... if you are in front ... everybody (else) behind must be able to stop in half the clear ...etc or it's their fault ... right ??? :innocent:

[FJRider]

... and rode the Farm Bike like Ivan Mauger from a very early age...

so the farm bike didn't have brakes either ... <_<

[quickbuck]

so the farm bike didn't have brakes either ... <_<

Nope... Broke those off the CT90 off in an accident... Well, the handle barr brakes anyway. Still had the rear, but that was only used to stop completly.

[swbarnett]

I would have thought they were to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.
Yes, but who defines what is safe? And what level of safety and risk is acceptable?


There are bad laws ... and there are unpopular laws. (the latter ... is often refered/interpreted to being ... the former)
Is this not supposed to be a democracy? Under a democracy is not a referendum a valid way to decide what laws should exist?

The "rightness" of a law is an opinion. The only opinion that counts in a democracy is that of the people i.e. the result of a referendum regarding said law.

[swbarnett]

but ... but ... if you are in front ... everybody (else) behind must be able to stop in half the clear ...etc or it's their fault ... right ??? :innocent:
Not if you were behind immediately prior. That's called an arrogant, ill-conceived overtake.

[FJRider]

Yes, but who defines what is safe? And what level of safety and risk is acceptable?

Is this not supposed to be a democracy? Under a democracy is not a referendum a valid way to decide what laws should exist?

The "rightness" of a law is an opinion. The only opinion that counts in a democracy is that of the people i.e. the result of a referendum regarding said law.

In a Democracy ... the elected goverment has the authority, to decide, what is a reasonable law .... [Sadly ... based (usually) on the lowest common denominator in (our) society] Or to change it if it is not. Using the due process, set in law ... to do this.
No rant in a "letter to the Editor" or on a public forum, will directly change that.

The outcome of a referendum is NO guarantee the goverment that initiated it ... will take ANY action to change anything .... if it is not in their interests ... or policy to do so.

[Scuba_Steve]

In a Democracy ... the elected goverment has the authority, to decide, what is a reasonable law .... [Sadly ... based (usually) on the lowest common denominator in (our) society] Or to change it if it is not. Using the due process, set in law ... to do this.
No rant in a "letter to the Editor" or on a public forum, will directly change that.

The outcome of a referendum is NO guarantee the goverment that initiated it ... will take ANY action to change anything .... if it is not in their interests ... or policy to do so.

NO, don't confuse what we have with a democracy. We have a party led dictatorship with advisors, (there is a actual name for it but I don't remember) we are NOT a democracy, you may be told we are, but we are not.

[FJRider]

Not if you were behind immediately prior. That's called an arrogant, ill-conceived overtake.

:killingme From the perspective of the "Overtaken vehicle" ... thats an easily understood, and agreed ... description.

From the perspective of the "overtaking vehicle" ... they are in front and don't care ... :shutup:

[swbarnett]

In a Democracy ... the elected goverment has the authority, to decide, what is a reasonable law .... [Sadly ... based (usually) on the lowest common denominator in (our) society] Or to change it if it is not. Using the due process, set in law ... to do this.[/qyote]
As Suba_Steve so rightly pointed out. This is not how a true democracy works.

[QUOTE=FJRider;1130250667]The outcome of a referendum is NO guarantee the goverment that initiated it ... will take ANY action to change anything .... if it is not in their interests ... or policy to do so.
I lived in a Switzerland for a time. My wife, being a citizen, received about four referenda per month in the post. She even got to vote on whether the proposed council budget for the next year was acceptable. The outcome of all was legally binding on the Government (federal or local depending on the context). This is far closer to a democracy than what we have i.e. "By the people." as the American founders intended.

[FJRider]

NO, don't confuse what we have with a democracy. We have a party led dictatorship with advisors, (there is a actual name for it but I don't remember) we are NOT a democracy, you may be told we are, but we are not.

It is the system we have in place. There ARE steps to CHANGE that system. Feel free to initiate such change. If NO change is possible ... it is not a democracy.

Even if change is difficult ... but possible ...

[JMemonic]

Cool, donut incoming.

Wait until there is nothing coming, make the turn as necessary to get into your driveway.

Right, that's morning tea sorted.

Again, remember that for every rule there is always going to be an exception. In your case, it's coz you legitimately had to do it to get to where you were genuinely headed. The numpties that piss me off most are those that crowd into the wrong lane because they need to be in that lane to get into their driveway which happens to be 1467 metres further up the road.

Extra cinnamon please.

Dam it and your logic, I was going to suggest this intersection

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Logie+Pl,+Bromley,+Ch ristchurch+8062,+Canterbury&amp;ll=-43.533801,172.673069&amp;spn=0.001412,0.002293&amp;t=m&amp;z=1 9&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Logie+Pl,+Bromley,+Ch ristchurch+8062,+Canterbury&amp;ll=-43.533801,172.673069&amp;spn=0.001412,0.002293&amp;t=m&amp;z=1 9&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

All to often the folks travelling east turn into Aldwins road the dive into either, Supercheap, Warehouse stationary or the real reason that car park is so full WINZ.

On a few moments reflection you might want to target that intersection, and load a couple of tow trucks into the car park, I reckon you could get a few tows in a day.

[FJRider]

I lived in a Switzerland for a time. My wife, being a citizen, received about four referenda per month in the post. She even got to vote on whether the proposed council budget for the next year was acceptable. The outcome of all was legally binding on the Government (federal or local depending on the context). This is far closer to a democracy than what we have i.e. "By the people." as the American founders intended.

In Switzerland ... that may be so.

Did you read the fine-print during the LAST election ... regarding the referendum ... ??? It was NOT so worded.

[Gremlin]

Did you read the fine-print during the LAST election ... regarding the referendum ... ??? It was NOT so worded.
Well, we're idiots. We voted for less people on the gravy train, but why on earth we ever thought they'd kick some of their mates off... I don't know.

[swbarnett]

Did you read the fine-print during the LAST election ... regarding the referendum ... ??? It was NOT so worded.
Indeed. We don't live in a true democracy even though our political system is claimed to be democratic.

[FJRider]

Indeed. We don't live in a true democracy even though our political system is claimed to be democratic.

Vote for ME ... I'll look after you ... :shifty:

[Berries]

Here's a visitors viewpoint about NZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783288
It's true. Courtesy is a rare commodity on the roads over here.

But then they were Yanks.

[Ocean1]

It's true. Courtesy is a rare commodity on the roads over here.


Perhaps. But if you take this:

The world's deadliest roads (2010)
1 Greece 113 deaths*
2 Romania 111 deaths
3 United States 106 deaths
4= Bulgaria, Poland 102 deaths
5 Latvia 97 deaths
6 Croatia 96 deaths
7 Lithuania 90 deaths
8 New Zealand 87 deaths
9 Portugal 79 deaths
10 Belgium 77 deaths
18 Australia 60 deaths
30 Great Britain 31 deaths

*Per million pop.

And divide it by this:




It seems to indicate that we're the safest drivers in the OECD

[swbarnett]

Vote for ME ... I'll look after you ... :shifty:
The way I see it, as long as you understand the basics of government, it shouldn't matter who's in power. All the big decisions (everything beyond what the politicians have for lunch) should be decided by binding referendum.

[Drew]

Yes, but who defines what is safe? And what level of safety and risk is acceptable?


Is this not supposed to be a democracy? Under a democracy is not a referendum a valid way to decide what laws should exist?

The "rightness" of a law is an opinion. The only opinion that counts in a democracy is that of the people i.e. the result of a referendum regarding said law.Oh yeah, try a philosophical argument. That'll work.

Absolutely right though, the people can vote on changes. As soon as an individual put together a petition to parliament. And gets a referendum happening. Should take about, 12 years to affect a change.

[Drew]

NO, don't confuse what we have with a democracy. We have a party led dictatorship with advisors, (there is a actual name for it but I don't remember) we are NOT a democracy, you may be told we are, but we are not.

Why don't you get into politics then? Because I for one am fuckin tired of you whinging about how anything in this country is.

Go and effect change here, or fuck off some place where you think the powers that be are onto it.

[FJRider]

The way I see it, as long as you understand the basics of government, it shouldn't matter who's in power. All the big decisions (everything beyond what the politicians have for lunch) should be decided by binding referendum.

The key word is highlighted ...

Without it ... it is merely a promise, with no promise of action ...

[BMWST?]

I was referring to the people who have asked you to hammer this particular law -

Hardly for crash reduction purposes is it?

its a great practise for good traffic flow when you have streets emptying into a multi laned arterial route,both sets of traffic can turn unimpeded.The alternative is the people turning left wait there like the idiots they are until the light goes red again...

[swbarnett]

The key word is highlighted ...

Without it ... it is merely a promise, with no promise of action ...
Indeed. That one simple change would fix a lot that's wrong with the NZ style of government.

[BMWST?]

Part 1 of the TCD Rule is a bit vague, with Part 4 out later this year which should up date things. So at present, all guidance is contained with MOTSAM Part 1.

Policy: Subject to formal authorization by the controlling authority, RG-5 STOP signs should be erected:

(a) at blind intersections where lack of visibility makes it unsafe to approach the intersection at a speed greater than 10 km/h. Note: It is unsafe to approach an intersection at more than 10 km/h if, from a point 9 metres from the intersection limit line on a controlled approach, a driver cannot see a vehicle on an uncontrolled approach at a distance (metres) of 1.2 times the speed (km/h) exceeded by 15% of vehicles on the priority route,

(b) at intersections of an unusual layout or unusual traffic pattern where it is essential to give one ocntrolled approach priority over another controlled approach. NOTE: The Land Transport (Road User) Rule requires traffic at a STOP sign to give way to traffic from a GIVE WAY sign, and

(c) as part of the RG-32 sign at railway level crossings which are not controlled by automatic alarms or permanent crossing keepers. Refer to Part 9 of the Traffic Control Devices Manual.


And being picky, many Stop signs out there have never been formally authorised by the controlling authority.

you missed one important word

[Scuba_Steve]

Why don't you get into politics then? Because I for one am fuckin tired of you whinging about how anything in this country is.

Go and effect change here, or fuck off some place where you think the powers that be are onto it.

bit of sand in your vagina today huh.

[chasio]

Perhaps. But if you take this:

-- The Herald table was here: Did the * indicate deaths per million of population for all countries. --

And divide it by this:

-- There was nothing there at all... --

It seems to indicate that we're the safest drivers in the OECD

That would surprise me, but perhaps not you! :)

Where's the chart from, Mr O?

[Ocean1]

That would surprise me, but perhaps not you! :)

Where's the chart from, Mr O?

Here: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/transport/vehicle-km-travelled/total-vkt/

It's old data, but I think if anything the latest distance numbers might be higher for NZ.

I'm always deeply suspicious of stat's where whole classes of variable are missing from a composite scale. Point is if overseas deaths per driver are lower than here isn't it natural to ask "how many kilometres do they travel to kill each one?"

We're no worse than most countries for driving behaviour, better data might show that in real terms we have less carnage.

[Drew]

bit of sand in your vagina today huh.Was having a crack at giving up smoking, which doesn't change what I think, just how I react.

We do live in a democracy by the way. You can tell, because if the likes of yourself or anyone else wanted badly enough to actually change stuff, they could start a political party, and get themselves voted in.

Don't try arguing this by telling me how hard it would be, because what I have said is absolute truth. Untill "hard", becaomes "impossible" at least.

[swbarnett]

We do live in a democracy by the way.
Yes and no.

Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1]

This certainly is not what we have in NZ. It would be more correct to say we have a parliamentary democracy where, unless you are an elected representative, you have no say in the day-to-day running of the country.

[1]Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

[FJRider]

Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1]

This certainly is not what we have in NZ. It would be more correct to say we have a parliamentary democracy where, unless you are an elected representative, you have no say in the day-to-day running of the country.



"Ideal forms" of democracy are rare ... and I would like to hear of one such country that has one.

Since few would argue ... that ALL citizens in THIS country ARE capable of making the necessary decisions, to ensure a harmonious ... and unaminous ... outcome. The people vote in representitives to make such decisions on their behalf. :yes:

If (any)one can't correctly choose ... or fully trust ... those elected to serve their interests ... one might argue they are not fit to make final political decisions in the first place ... :confused:

Perhaps a test on mental capacity/health ... before being allowed to vote ... :mellow:

[swbarnett]

"Ideal forms" of democracy are rare ... and I would like to hear of one such country that has one.
Agree, they are rare. The only complete one I know of is an autonomous Buddhist monestary. However, there are definitly countries that are closer than we are.


Since few would argue ... that ALL citizens in THIS country ARE capable of making the necessary decisions, to ensure a harmonious ... and unaminous ... outcome. The people vote in representitives to make such decisions on their behalf. :yes:
The problem with that is that you get to vote once every few years based on whatever issues are made topical by the parties and the rest get fogotten. Far better to have "governers" rather than politicians and give every political decision to those the people.


If (any)one can't correctly choose ... or fully trust ... those elected to serve their interests ... one might argue they are not fit to make final political decisions in the first place ... :confused:
You're kidding right?

Do you honestly trust our current batch of politicians to have our best interests at heart at all times? All they really care about is getting their own agenda progressed and getting re-elected.


Perhaps a test on mental capacity/health ... before being allowed to vote ... :mellow:
No, just encourage people not to vote if they truly don't care about the issue.

[FJRider]

You're kidding right?

:msn-wink:


No, just encourage people not to vote if they truly don't care about the issue.

In the last election .. about 50% voted ... too many, or not enough .... ??? :confused:

[Mully Clown]

I've got a great way of hitting home the importance of staying within your lane. It will cause a lot of paperwork, piss people off and probably annoy the insurance companies as well.


Take a typical intersection of this format (example (http://g.co/maps/4pbsr)):
Single (left turning) lane and opposing Double (right turn, right straight) lane road, both turning into a three lane road.


Put up a green left-turn arrow, green right-turn arrow and a green straight-ahead light. Wait for the mayhem.

[swbarnett]

In the last election .. about 50% voted ... too many, or not enough .... ??? :confused:
Depends. How many of those that voted actually had an opinion about the issues and weren't just voting the way they or their parents always have?

In Switzerland the turnout for a general election was (from memory) about 20%. I believe that those 20% actually knew what they were voting for.

[Drew]

In Switzerland the turnout for a general election was (from memory) about 20%. I believe that those 20% actually knew what they were voting for.That's an oxymoron. No one can know what they are actually voting for when it comes to politicians.

[MSTRS]

That's an oxymoron. No one can know what they are actually voting for when it comes to politicians.

Nah mate. They know exactly what they are voting for. The problem is that they don't know what they'll get.

[BMWST?]

Nah mate. They think they know exactly what they are voting for. The problem is that they don't know what they'll get.

fixt? 10 chars

[MSTRS]

Do you KNOW what you want, when you vote? Or only think you know?

[FJRider]

Depends. How many of those that voted actually had an opinion about the issues and weren't just voting the way they or their parents always have?



Who cares ... valid votes ... by registered voters ... were counted.

End result ... mandate to the incumbent political party given ... by the voting majority.

[swbarnett]

Who cares ... valid votes ... by registered voters ... were counted.

End result ... mandate to the incumbent political party given ... by the voting majority.
To my mind, for a vote to be valid the person casting it must at least believe that they understand the issues that led them to vote a particular way. Without that it's just a lottery.

Hence, the lower the voter turnout the higher the likelihood that a significant percentage of the votes cast will be cast by informed citezins.

[FJRider]

To my mind, for a vote to be valid the person casting it must at least believe that they understand the issues that led them to vote a particular way. Without that it's just a lottery.

They are abiding by their democratic right, to vote in any way they deem is the correct/desired choice .... for them.

[Virago]

To my mind, for a vote to be valid the person casting it must at least believe that they understand the issues that led them to vote a particular way...

So who is to decide whether a person's understanding is satisfactory?

[BMWST?]

Do you KNOW what you want, when you vote? Or only think you know?
I voted but i underestimated the following gained by ACT and NZ first.Whilst i thought John Banks would get some traction I underestimated the ammount of support he got ,and totally underestimated NZ first revival.I thought both of those parties were history.That is what i meant by THINK they know

[FJRider]

So who is to decide whether a person's understanding is satisfactory?

As with all laws and political systems ... ignorance of such is not against any rules.

[swbarnett]

They are abiding by their democratic right, to vote in any way they deem is the correct/desired choice .... for them.
Yes, and I won't be stopping them.

But at the same time they are doing themselves and us a disservice by tossing a coin to decide who to vote for. A vote is supposed to represent one's statement that this party or the other best represents the voter's views. If the voter doesn't have any views or has no real clue which party best represents them then this is best represented by not voting.

For example:

In a population of 100 elligible voters split thus:

- 10 strongly support party A because of their policies
- 15 strongly support party B because of their policies
- the remaining don't have a preference either way but 30 of these have always voted for party B because their parents did and 45 have always voted for party A for the same reason.

Assuming they all vote, party A will win the election 55 to 45 even though the overall will of the people actually favours party B by 15 votes to 10 (the rest don't really care so it's roughly a 50/50 split on the toss of a coin).

[swbarnett]

So who is to decide whether a person's understanding is satisfactory?
The important thing is not whether someone else thinks they know the issues. It's whether the voter themselves think they do.

[Kickaha]

So who is to decide whether a person's understanding is satisfactory?

That's an easy one
If they agree with me then their understanding is satisfactory, if they don't it isn't

[FJRider]

The important thing is not whether someone else thinks they know the issues. It's whether the voter themselves think they do.

Back on topic ... do the people that fail to give way at a give way sign "know all the issues" ... ???

More often ... they merely think it's the best choice of action for THEM ... at the time. Little fore thought ... and less after thought ... untill things turn to custard on them.

Then the ... "I never thought they would do that" comments are made.

[Scuba_Steve]

I had a thought the other day & where I think we'll see the most "fun" with this law change is in car parking lots. 2 cars, 1 park, new rule, "fun"

[swbarnett]

I had a thought the other day & where I think we'll see the most "fun" with this law change is in car parking lots. 2 cars, 1 park, new rule, "fun"
Indeed. It occurred to me that this might be a good time to get a Stebel.

[FJRider]

Indeed. It occurred to me that this might be a good time to get a Glock.

There ... fixed it for you.

[Swoop]

Well, it appears as if the authorities are waiting until the last second to start the advertising campaign for the rule change.

Perhaps they beileve the kiwi driver has a shorter attention span, than first thought.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well, it appears as if the authorities are waiting until the last second to start the advertising campaign for the rule change.

Perhaps they beileve the kiwi driver has a shorter attention span, than first thought.

They're attempting to avoid the "what date does that rule change again?" "are we under the new or old rule now" confusion. Their plan is to spam everything all at once around the actual change over date (10 days before it starts) in an attempt to stop people switching early... Will it work??? I guess we'll find out soon enough

[Edbear]

Well, it appears as if the authorities are waiting until the last second to start the advertising campaign for the rule change.

Perhaps they beileve the kiwi driver has a shorter attention span, than first thought.

Kiwi drivers have an attention span..? :wacko:

[FJRider]

The Auckland councils seem to have a problem ... There is no mention of the rest of the country.

Only Auckland seems to have road issues ... funny that ... :innocent:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/12954198/intersections-need-work-before-rule-change/

[oneofsix]

The Auckland councils seem to have a problem ... There is no mention of the rest of the country.

Only Auckland seems to have road issues ... funny that ... :innocent:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/12954198/intersections-need-work-before-rule-change/

Alternatively Auckland is the only council that is doing something proactive about it.

[FJRider]

Alternatively Auckland is the only council that is doing something proactive about it.

Alternatively Auckland is the only council that has problems with their roads ...

[oneofsix]

Alternatively Auckland is the only council that has problems with their roads ...

That was your original suggestion wasn't it? and I doubt it be more likely the other councils are still too busy assessing their CEO's pay rates to think about minor things like traffic. Wellington, for example, seems to take the attitude that the harder it is for motorised vehicles the more they like it so if the rule change causes issues they will be happy but they wont have thought about it.

[FJRider]

That was your original suggestion wasn't it? and I doubt it be more likely the other councils are still too busy assessing their CEO's pay rates to think about minor things like traffic. Wellington, for example, seems to take the attitude that the harder it is for motorised vehicles the more they like it so if the rule change causes issues they will be happy but they wont have thought about it.

If Auckland believes their problems should be/are national news ... :crazy:

Everywhere else, Councils are just getting on with what needs to be done.

[oneofsix]

If Auckland believes their problems should be/are national news ... :crazy:

Everywhere else, Councils are just getting on with what needs to be done.

Auckland = Squawkland so there you have a point and are most likely correct. I hope the other councils are getting on with it as there isn't much time left.

[FJRider]

Auckland = Squawkland so there you have a point and are most likely correct. I hope the other councils are getting on with it as there isn't much time left.

I dont see an issue with road markings ... people will (or wont) give way when they are supposed to. Nothing will change there. As long as they stay on the correct side of the road ...

Look at the road markings in your area. What changes will they need ???

[superman]

Alternatively Auckland is the only council that has problems with their roads ...

If I call Auckland Transport that a stretch of road has a dangerous patch of washout or potholes during tight corners etc, within 1 week they are there redoing the road after they've sent out a road inspector to check if it really is as bad as I said.

I find that they tend to be rather good a maintaining all the roads except for the fact they use cheap ass seal which needs redoing every bloody year in low traffic areas.

[oneofsix]

I dont see an issue with road markings ... people will (or wont) give way when they are supposed to. Nothing will change there. As long as they stay on the correct side of the road ...

Look at the road markings in your area. What changes will they need ???

more room for people waiting to turn right. I remember there was a lot of remarking of roads that went on when the current law was bought so presume this has to be "undone" when we revert to the old ways. Adjusting centre lines to allow for longer right turn queues and shorter left turn ones would be the main affect.

[Swoop]

Kiwi drivers have an attention span..? :wacko:
I'm more concerned about the amount of kiwi drivers who think they are "above average" drivers.:facepalm:

"I'm a pretty good driver!" 84%
"I'm not that good" 14%
"I know I'm a poor driver" 2%
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786698


Alternatively Auckland is the only council that has problems with their roads ...
You mean the amount of tax collector's on our roads?:scratch:

[FJRider]

You mean the amount of tax collector's on our roads?:scratch:

Aucklanders do moan if there's not at least a two lane (each way) highway to take them anywhere.

We dont have tax collector issues ... the four we have aren't perfect ... but ... ;)

[Berries]

I'm more concerned about the amount of kiwi drivers who think they are "above average" drivers.:facepalm:

"I'm a pretty good driver!" 84%
"I'm not that good" 14%
"I know I'm a poor driver" 2%
"I'm an average driver!" 50%.

Start a poll on here and you'd get the same result.

[Clockwork]

I'm more concerned about the amount of kiwi drivers who think they are "above average" drivers.:facepalm:

"I'm a pretty good driver!" 84%
"I'm not that good" 14%
"I know I'm a poor driver" 2%
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786698


You mean the amount of tax collector's on our roads?:scratch:

What's your problem? Half of us are right, only the other 34% are wrong.

[oneofsix]

I'm more concerned about the amount of kiwi drivers who think they are "above average" drivers.:facepalm:

"I'm a pretty good driver!" 84%
"I'm not that good" 14%
"I know I'm a poor driver" 2%
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786698


You mean the amount of tax collector's on our roads?:scratch:

Where does that say above average. They might consider a pretty good driver average. Wouldn't you prefer your 'average' driver to be pretty good?

However I suspect if they had added a line for an excellent driver or an above average driver more than realist number of the 84% of pretty good drivers would have moved to the higher level :brick:

[Swoop]

Where does that say above average.
Taken from The Harold's poll.
If "not that good" and "poor" are added together, I see both of those as being below average.

[rastuscat]

I had a thought the other day...............

Awesome !! Great work Skoober. How's it feel? :nya:

[Scuba_Steve]

Awesome !! Great work Skoober. How's it feel? :nya:

Well lets just say I now understand why the police don't :bleh:

[release_the_bees]

For those that are interested, you can download posters on the rule change from this link (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/give-way-resources.html). I've put four or five posters up at my work to hopefully help to get the message across.

[Scuba_Steve]

For those that are interested, you can download posters on the rule change from this link (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/give-way-resources.html). I've put four or five posters up at my work to hopefully help to get the message across.

Nice to see they feature a bike in 1 of the quiz questions.

[Pixie]

Pigs will probably blub and complain that the public don't love them for forcing them to obey lane discipline.Then,after two weeks, they will go back to collecting revenue on speed,seatbelts and alcohol.
Just like they did with indicating at round-abouts,cell phone use etc.etc.etc.

[Macontour]

This explains it all!!!

[scumdog]

Pigs will probably blub and complain that the public don't love them for forcing them to obey lane discipline.Then,after two weeks, they will go back to collecting revenue on speed,seatbelts and alcohol.
Just like they did with indicating at round-abouts,cell phone use etc.etc.etc.

"Bait is not subtle enough, must try harder"

[Zamiam]

Shit I didn't very well on the test. May be something to do with the fact that as a blue oval supporter I'd never give way to a RED car.

[FJRider]

Shit I didn't very well on the test. May be something to do with the fact that as a blue oval supporter I'd never give way to a RED car.

Doesn't matter ... Fords have right of way ...... everywhere ...

[Tony.OK]

Be an easy change over in Hawkes Bay, no one gives way or knows the road rules so all will stay the same. If most ppl can't figure out a roundabout then what hope will they have hahaa.

[sinned]

Be an easy change over in Hawkes Bay, no one gives way or knows the road rules so all will stay the same. If most ppl can't figure out a roundabout then what hope will they have hahaa.
Having visited Hastings a few times recently I must agree - more than their share of incompetent drivers.

[MSTRS]

Doesn't matter ... Fords have right of way ...... everywhere ...
Fucked Off Retarded Driver...


Having visited Hastings a few times recently I must agree - more than their share of incompetent drivers.

Not wrong. In fact, I think Hastings was declared a Retard Reserve a while back. Bit like marine reserves, in that the wildlife within must be left alone. The theory goes that over-crowding will result in the overflow (re)populating the surrounds. That seems to be the case, as the 'escapees' have now reached Napier...

[scumdog]

Having visited Hastings a few times recently I must agree - more than their share of incompetent drivers.

Nah, we've our fair share down here too...

[Scuba_Steve]

Nah, we've our fair share down here too...

yea but you get the unfair advantage of having all those temporary imports

[Usarka]

Having visited Hastings a few times recently I must agree - more than their share of incompetent drivers.

Better than Tauranga, it's full of incontinent drivers!

[MSTRS]

Better than Tauranga, it's full of incontinent drivers!

PMSL............
The little hoses protuding from under the driver's door are a dead giveaway, huh?

[steve_t]

Better than Tauranga, it's full of incontinent drivers!

Depends :crazy:

[Mental Trousers]

This is useful

http://www.giveway.co.nz/interactive