Do you know give way rules changing on 25 March? Give way rule quiz

[orangeback]

how do you think you'll go with new Oze rules ????
Quiz your self
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/new-rule-quiz.html

[Motu]

9 out of 9. They are not the OZ rules, they are the old Kiwi rules. I have no problems with them because that's how I learned to drive/ride. It's just getting back to the old rules that made sense.

[Mom]

Yepper, same. Just like the olden days. What worries me is how much MORE vulnerable we are going to be at intersections after March 25.

Eyes open people.

[steve_t]

Yepper, same. Just like the olden days. What worries me is how much MORE vulnerable we are going to be at intersections after March 25.

Eyes open people.

How do you figure we're more vulnerable?

Cue smokeu to say how stupid the change is ;)

[merv]

9 out of 9. They are not the OZ rules, they are the old Kiwi rules. I have no problems with them because that's how I learned to drive/ride. It's just getting back to the old rules that made sense.

Yep same as you it will be quite normal for me, especially as I have to be in that mode driving overseas and its only here that the current rules feel so ridiculous, except to those that argued otherwise on the earlier threads about this lol.

[SMOKEU]

Cue smokeu to say how stupid the change is ;)

These laws are too confusing. I'm staying off the roads around town wherever possible. Open road is a different matter.

[flyingcrocodile46]

9 out of 9.

My wife killed a biker :weep:

[FJRider]

... I'm staying off the roads around town wherever possible.

I feel so much safer now ...

[Macontour]

It's simple really.


file:///C:/Users/OEM/Desktop/Stay%20home%20day%20(1).jpg

[Macontour]

Geez, I had forgotten how to do this. :( Hope this one works!!!

[flyingcrocodile46]

Geez, I had forgotten how to do this. :( Hope this one works!!!

LMFAO Well done:lol:

[Katman]

I'm staying off the roads around town wherever possible.

Christchurch should consider itself lucky.

[KiWiP]

NZTA has recognised that changing the give way rule in one go may be too much to handle so the have at the eleventh hour decided to have a phased introduction.

To reduce the amount of times we need to think if we need to give way or not NZTA is saying we need only give way to the left at every second junction. This will half the amount of junction stress that will exist. It is advised that as you become more comfortable with the new rules you can extend your adoption to every third junction and then forth etc until you are giving way correctly on almost every junction. It is recognised that there will be occasions when it is not possible to comply (drunk, stoned, in control of a taxi, appearing in a tv advert etc) and so a vigorous application of the accelerator should get you out of most hazardous situations.

Motorcyclists are advised to buy off road bikes and get to their destinations through peoples back gardens.

[ellipsis]

Christchurch should consider itself lucky.

..we spend so much time weaving around mountains and valleys in the roads here that clowns in other vehicles are just another slight distraction...nobody,it seems has ever played by the rules when it comes to giving way to bikes...the weariness will/should always be there...accepting that your right of way is well defined and will keep you safe is a quick trip to oblivion...

[FJRider]

The Give Way "rules" often get ignored ... as it is assumed (by some) that the first to the intersrection has right of way. (A bit like one way bridges)

[Mom]

How do you figure we're more vulnerable?

I would on average avoid being taken out at intersections on my commute half a dozen times a week by people that do not know their give way rules. Changing them will only make this even worse, ergo making us more vulnerable to idiots at intersections.

For some, this was the rule that was drummed into us as we learned, and what we applied to our driving/riding for many years, until it changed. Changing it back will be a relatively easy transistion for us, howevr, there will be plenty of people out on the roads that will have no friggen idea who gives way to whom.

[Newbi]

It's gonna be fucken carnage......... that is all.

[sinfull]

I would on average avoid being taken out at intersections on my commute half a dozen times a week .
I love living where i am !

Don't commute so there's a bonus but i very seldom feel threatened by other drivers at intersections, could have something to do with the fact it's a bloody retirement villa mecca all up and down the kapiti coast now !

I tend to spend most of my time pacepalming and shaking my head while folk sit there and wonder which one of them has right of way !
Ok i'm not that calm a driver when in my van and am also generally screaming things like, come on you stupid fuckin woman or silly old prick !

[Maha]

When in doubt.....wait, and you will live.

[Voltaire]

9/9....just cast my mind back to the late 70's and driving overseas....unlike the old( current) rule which is just plain stupid and has never worked properly:mad:

[Usarka]

When in doubt.....wait, and you will live.

Not in auckland. It's when in doubt, get the f*** out!

[Maha]

Not in auckland. It's when in doubt, get the f*** out!

ahhhhh the Aucklnad bus driver train of thought.

[MSTRS]

...( current) rule which is just plain stupid and has never worked properly:mad:

Which is something I could never understand. It was sooo easy to remember. No ifs, buts, or any other exceptions.
The stupid part is one of the ads I've seen re the change states "Just remember, if you can be hit on your left side, then you give way".
Never did I see or hear such a simple explanation of the about-to-be-changed rule...And a car driver is so much more vulnerable to injury from a strike on the right side, n'est pas?

[Scuba_Steve]

9/9....just cast my mind back to the late 70's and driving overseas....unlike the old( current) rule which is just plain genius and is far more logical:mad:

fixed that for ya

My main concern is the amount of people (looking at other forums round) that are failing this online test some even to the point of only 4-5 correct... That's a scary thought, even worse given most of them are also of the age where they can remember the old rule

[oneofsix]

Which is something I could never understand. It was sooo easy to remember. No ifs, buts, or any other exceptions.
The stupid part is one of the ads I've seen re the change states "Just remember, if you can be hit on your left side, then you give way".
Never did I see or hear such a simple explanation of the about-to-be-changed rule...And a car driver is so much more vulnerable to injury from a strike on the right side, n'est pas?

I did and like you said no ifs buts or exception. As the driver of the cage if you were about to get hit in your door (note immediate danger to self) give way in all circumstances. Now it will be if you are going to be hit in your door give way EXCEPT at an uncontrolled intersection were you and the other car are both turn, in which if if the passenger is going to get hit, well who care its not you.

[MSTRS]

My main concern is the amount of people (looking at other forums round) that are failing this online test some even to the point of only 4-5 correct... That's a scary thought, even worse given most of them are also of the age where they can remember the old rule

Absolutely.
I learned to drive/ride under the old rule, and the 'new' one always made more sense to me.
I took that test. I applied the easy to remember 'If you can be hit on the left side' and got one wrong.
Yep...at the roundabout.
Regardless of who gives way to who, all that has happened is exceptions have been re-introduced.

[Gianz]

I've been driving/riding 3 years here in Nz and finally I will obey the rules for the first time from the 25th of march. If I think it's stupid I don't do it, especially if the government asks me to.

[Scuba_Steve]

I've been driving/riding 3 years here in Nz and finally I will obey the rules for the first time from the 25th of march. If I think it's stupid I don't do it, especially if the government asks me to.

:facepalm: Wow, you are lucky you never met me in my cage then. I enforce the sensible laws & people tend to get the message when they find a Landrover through their drivers door (tho to be honest they always tend to get the message before contact, shame really).

[BurningPlastic]

9/9... Although most people seem to use the new rule already when it comes to in/out of parking lots...

[oneofsix]

9/9... Although most people seem to use the new rule already when it comes to in/out of parking lots...

yes that is the one bit of the old rule that did not make sense. Making a non-road (parking lot entrance) a road just for the give way rule was dumb.

[Gianz]

:facepalm: Wow, you are lucky you never met me in my cage then. I enforce the sensible laws & people tend to get the message when they find a Landrover through their drivers door (tho to be honest they always tend to get the message before contact, shame really).


funny that, I must have met you! I drive a very asian toyota funcargo with black windows (only asian and old people drive it). Once I turned left in front of a big useless heavy ugly SUV without giving way and the dickhead in the SUV yelled out of the window: "learn the give way rules, fucking asian!!!". That was so funny, even a girl on the other side of the road started laughing when she saw i was not asian at all.
You guys should really take it easy with the road rules. There's the police to police the roads. If I don't follow the rules and I don't put anybody in danger, just shut up and mind your businness. It's nothing personal, capisci?

[MSTRS]

funny that, I must have met you! I drive a very asian toyota funcargo with black windows (only asian and old people drive it). Once I turned left in front of a big useless heavy ugly SUV without giving way and the dickhead in the SUV yelled out of the window: "learn the give way rules, fucking asian!!!". That was so funny, even a girl on the other side of the road started laughing when she saw i was not asian at all.
You guys should really take it easy with the road rules. There's the police to police the roads. If I don't follow the rules and I don't put anybody in danger, just shut up and mind your businness. It's nothing personal, capisci?

Everybody knows Asians can't drive. I'll bet you were glad it wasn't an Asian driving the SUV...in which case he prolly wouldn't have noticed you pulling out like that.
You, sir, are an idiot...expecting others to make allowances and accommodate your poor driving, and then expecting them to not be upset with you.

[oneofsix]

Everybody knows Asians can't drive. I'll bet you were glad it wasn't an Asian driving the SUV...in which case he prolly wouldn't have noticed you pulling out like that.
You, sir, are an idiot...expecting others to make allowances and accommodate your poor driving, and then expecting them to not be upset with you.

If I thought he was for real I would have pointed out that his assumption that he had put nobody in danger was a bit pretentious. Road rage or even an upset driver can be a danger on the road so to deliberately set out to upset another road user is plain stupid.

[Scuba_Steve]

funny that, I must have met you! I drive a very asian toyota funcargo with black windows (only asian and old people drive it). Once I turned left in front of a big useless heavy ugly SUV without giving way and the dickhead in the SUV yelled out of the window: "learn the give way rules, fucking asian!!!".

Oh that wasn't me, I don't yell out the window... You either stop like your supposed to or you find the front bumper of my landrover in your lap.

[Zedder]

funny that, I must have met you! I drive a very asian toyota funcargo with black windows (only asian and old people drive it). Once I turned left in front of a big useless heavy ugly SUV without giving way and the dickhead in the SUV yelled out of the window: "learn the give way rules, fucking asian!!!". That was so funny, even a girl on the other side of the road started laughing when she saw i was not asian at all.
You guys should really take it easy with the road rules. There's the police to police the roads. If I don't follow the rules and I don't put anybody in danger, just shut up and mind your businness. It's nothing personal, capisci?

It is personal! You didn't give way to another person (in a vehicle) when you were legally meant to. Pessimo!

[FJRider]

Once I turned left in front of a big useless heavy ugly SUV without giving way

So any changes to the give way rules wont make any difference to you then, seeing as you ignore the existing ones ...

I guess you feel safe in your useless heavy ugly SUV ... by your definition at least.

[MSTRS]

I guess you feel safe in your useless heavy ugly SUV ... by your definition at least.

Not quite. He was NEARLY in one tho...except for the driver's superior skills. Which is unusual for drivers of such vehicles.

[Zedder]

So any changes to the give way rules wont make any difference to you then, seeing as you ignore the existing ones ...

I guess you feel safe in your useless heavy ugly SUV ... by your definition at least.

Umm FJR, he wasn't driving the useless, heavy, ugly, SUV.

[FJRider]

Umm FJR, he wasn't driving the useless, heavy, ugly, SUV.

A minor tecnicality ... I only put that in for effect. Interesting only that part of the post brought comment ... :lol:

[FJRider]

Not quite. He was NEARLY in one tho...except for the driver's superior skills. Which is unusual for drivers of such vehicles.

Perhaps the only driver there that knew what they were doing ... with some understanding of why the rules are in place.

[Zedder]

A minor tecnicality ... I only put that in for effect. Interesting only that part of the post brought comment ... :lol:

Nah, nah, all good stuff prior to that.

[imac]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It shits me that people can’t get the current rules right. I’m not saying they are good rules but they are not that complex. Driving safely requires modicum of care and consideration. If you don’t understand what the rules are, stay off the fucking road until you do. If you don’t have the intellectual capacity to learn them, get someone to beat them into you.

[Gianz]

the thing is that most of the times you can turn left in front of someone without the need for the other person to even think to brake. Nobody will have to brake, things will go smoothly but still the idiot will have the time to yell something racist at you.
It's not that I don't know how to do it the other way, but that it is too stupid.
BTW the rule is going to change, so I've always been right. :lol:

[oneofsix]

the thing is that most of the times you can turn left in front of someone without the need for the other person to even think to brake. Nobody will have to brake, things will go smoothly but still the idiot will have the time to yell something racist at you.
It's not that i don't know how to do it the other way, but that it is too stupid.
Btw the rule is going to change, so i've always been right. :lol:

:bs: They have to brake but you are so far up your own arse you have no idea of the affect you are having. At least you wont be a problem for long. Sooner or later you will meet someone like Scuba in their SUV :Oops: The Land Rover is not an SUV, there is nothing suburban about it as it is more a RUV, apart from a tractor you don't get much more rural.

:bs: you've never been right and the fact the law is changing to agree with your retarded thinking just reinforces this. :banana:

[Gianz]

:bs: They have to brake but you are so far up your own arse you have no idea of the affect you are having. At least you wont be a problem for long. Sooner or later you will meet someone like Scuba in their SUV :Oops: The Land Rover is not an SUV, there is nothing suburban about it as it is more a RUV, apart from a tractor you don't get much more rural.

:bs: you've never been right and the fact the law is changing to agree with your retarded thinking just reinforces this. :banana:


Your reasoning makes no sense. People have to brake anyway at intersections, also to make sure that the other vehicle is respecting the give way rule, and that there's no other vehicle overtaking or something. I pass in that time. You are just kids crying "it was my turn! Mommy! that fucking asian kid is smarter then me!"
Also, if you want to try and be the smartass cutting my way, after the eventual crash I'd turn my indicator off and I'd just say that you cut my way because I wanted to go straight.
Grow up, driving is not a game.

[oneofsix]

Your reasoning makes no sense. People have to brake anyway at intersections, also to make sure that the other vehicle is respecting the give way rule, and that there's no other vehicle overtaking or something. I pass in that time. You are just kids crying "it was my turn! Mommy! that fucking asian kid is smarter then me!"
Also, if you want to try and be the smartass cutting my way, after the eventual crash I'd turn my indicator off and I'd just say that you cut my way because I wanted to go straight.
Grow up, driving is not a game.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. No driving isn't a game. The rules aren't there so the ref can give out penalties, they are meant to be to prevent crashes. Smart arses like you ignoring the rules that don't suit you deserve the SUV front right sitting on your chest.
You were the one that said no braking was required, I was the one calling you the fucktard, you have now proved me correct. Thanks

[MSTRS]

I'm an arrogant fucker, and I know the rules are only there IF I can be bothered at the time. The other motorists better be alert for me, and if I get caught out - well, then I'll just lie to weasel out of trouble


Fixed that for you. It reads much more honestly now...
Anyone that uses our roads like you describe yourself doing is a complete fuckwit. The sad part of that is if/when you get taken out, chances are the world will be told it was a terrible tragedy. Like you were some innocent. :mad:

[FJRider]

the thing is that most of the times you can turn left in front of someone without the need for the other person to even think to brake. Nobody will have to brake, things will go smoothly but still the idiot will have the time to yell something racist at you.
It's not that I don't know how to do it the other way, but that it is too stupid.
BTW the rule is going to change, so I've always been right. :lol:

Actually ... if you were charged with failing to give way ... under the current rules. Chances are ... you may appear in court after the NEW law is in effect. And most likely found guilty. And fined for breaking a law ... no longer in effect. Funny that.

[FJRider]

Also, if you want to try and be the smartass cutting my way, after the eventual crash I'd turn my indicator off and I'd just say that you cut my way because I wanted to go straight.


Giving false evidence is frowned on in this country. Some law enforcers take it quite seriously even.

[Gianz]

You guys should really take it easy. I do what I do only if I know it is safe to do so. And I know better then the legislator, that is not there with me all the time on the road. And that at last has changed idea on this stupidest rule.
The police of course is there to fine me if they think so. I'll do what is safe for me anytime. And, by the way, what is safe is what the rest of the world has been doing for the last 50 years and that Nz has just accepted.
And i never said I don't drive safely in YOUR roads, that's the only rule I don't obey.
Now if you want to go on offending me, go for it, seems like you've got lots of time to do so, the cows don't need milking today?

[MSTRS]

... And I know better ...
Famous. Last. Words.

...what is safe is what the rest of the world has been doing for the last 50 years...
Where is it written that 'the rest of the world has been doing for 5 years' is better/safer than what we had? Utter bollocks. 'Safe' is obeying the rule/s - whatever they are.

[oneofsix]

Famous. Last. Words.

Where is it written that 'the rest of the world has been doing for 5 years' is better/safer than what we had? Utter bollocks. 'Safe' is obeying the rule/s - whatever they are.

Your reply reminded me
1/ It isn't the rest of the world but only a segment that has this rule
2/ more of the rest of the world has been driving/riding on the opposite side of the road for centenaries.
Perhaps the quickest way would be for Gianz to try copying the 'rest of the world' in 2 as well :rolleyes:

[FJRider]

Perhaps the quickest way would be for Gianz to try copying the 'rest of the world' in 2 as well :rolleyes:

He may like to start riding on the right hand side of the road. Thats popular in some places ...

[FJRider]

Famous. Last. Words.

Where is it written that 'the rest of the world has been doing for 5 years' is better/safer than what we had? Utter bollocks. 'Safe' is obeying the rule/s - whatever they are.

Judging by his red rep status ... a few may agree with you ... :killingme

I wonder how many red tabs he manages to gather ... :rolleyes:

[swbarnett]

Your reasoning makes no sense. People have to brake anyway at intersections, also to make sure that the other vehicle is respecting the give way rule, and that there's no other vehicle overtaking or something. I pass in that time. You are just kids crying "it was my turn! Mommy! that fucking asian kid is smarter then me!"
Also, if you want to try and be the smartass cutting my way, after the eventual crash I'd turn my indicator off and I'd just say that you cut my way because I wanted to go straight.
Grow up, driving is not a game.
You, sir, are what's wrong with the world today. You care about noone but yourself. You show a total lack of courtesy. You have no respect whatsoever for the people you share the road with. Yes, there are people inside (or on) thise hunks of metal and plastic.

[swbarnett]

'Safe' is obeying the rule/s - whatever they are.
While I agree with what I believe you meant by this in this context (and that Gianz is an arrogant fucktard), this is a very dangerous statement. In general (but not always), if we all obeyed the road rules we would all be safer. That does not mean that if we break a few we aren't still safe. The speed limit is a perfect example.

[Gianz]

please guys go on, this is so funny. Opening another beer...

[scumdog]

Your reasoning makes no sense. People have to brake anyway at intersections, also to make sure that the other vehicle is respecting the give way rule, and that there's no other vehicle overtaking or something. I pass in that time. You are just kids crying "it was my turn! Mommy! that fucking asian kid is smarter then me!"
Also, if you want to try and be the smartass cutting my way, after the eventual crash I'd turn my indicator off and I'd just say that you cut my way because I wanted to go straight.
Grow up, driving is not a game.


Fuck-off ding-a-ling, your last three piss-poor attempts at trolling failed like an icing-sugar condom...ya really need to make an effort.

Or head back to Wakari, - Ward 9 I suspect.

[FJRider]

While I agree with what I believe you meant by this in this context (and that Gianz is an arrogant fucktard), this is a very dangerous statement. In general (but not always), if we all obeyed the road rules we would all be safer. That does not mean that if we break a few we aren't still safe. The speed limit is a perfect example.

Not really ....

With fucktards on the road deciding what is safe for them ... even obeyence of the speed limits does not mean we will all remain safe.

With the literal live or die aspect ... in whatever decision we (or anybody else) make on the road ... a lottery is a better example.

Everybody feeling lucky ... ???

[swbarnett]

Not really ....
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant the speed limit as an example of a law, that if broken, does not necessarily lead to one being less safe. I didn't mean to imply that under it you are safe. Far from it.

[FJRider]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant the speed limit as an example of a law, that if broken, does not necessarily lead to one being less safe. I didn't mean to imply that under it you are safe. Far from it.

I go on the theory that everybody is out to get me. And ride accordingly.

It hasn't always kept me safe ... but I have survived so far ...

[swbarnett]

I go on the theory that everybody is out to get me. And ride accordingly.

It hasn't always kept me safe ... but I have survived so far ...
My thoughts exactly.

[MSTRS]

While I agree with what I believe you meant by this in this context ...

I saw little point in writing a novel about what is safe, what is not safe and when there are exceptions to either.
I thought that speech marks around the word would indicate the relativeness of the statement.

[pritch]

Glanz is a knob. (Pun intended)

I don't usually do red rep, and I have never used the ignore function (I have one in my finger).
Sometimes though I'm tempted...

[FJRider]

Glanz is a knob. (Pun intended)

I don't usually do red rep, and I have never used the ignore function (I have one in my finger).
Sometimes though I'm tempted...

Go on ... you know you can ... :devil2:

[Fast Eddie]

8/9

watch out..

[swbarnett]

I saw little point in writing a novel about what is safe, what is not safe and when there are exceptions to either.
I thought that speech marks around the word would indicate the relativeness of the statement.
Fair enough. I do take things quite literally at times.

[steve_t]

Glanz is a knob. (Pun intended)

I don't usually do red rep, and I have never used the ignore function (I have one in my finger).
Sometimes though I'm tempted...

Bahahaha! Awesome!! :clap:

Red rep, ignore, I don't think it makes much vas defference :apint:

[psykonosis]

I think if we all drive defensively we should be fine. Just got to be twice as aware on the roads. Stay safe out there everyone

[MSTRS]

Heard someone say that those who learn to drive under the new rule won't have a problem with it. Hmmmm....:laugh:

[Gianz]

Fuck-off ding-a-ling, your last three piss-poor attempts at trolling failed like an icing-sugar condom...ya really need to make an effort.

Or head back to Wakari, - Ward 9 I suspect.

In fact I'm really sorry with everything I wrote until now. I thought it was a biker's forum, but apparently it's full of fucking V8 cagers, and I didn't want to hurt your bored sensitivity. I will happily fuck off for sure and for good. Thanks for the world famous kiwi welcome.

[FJRider]

Heard someone say that those who learn to drive under the new rule won't have a problem with it. Hmmmm....:laugh:

true ........

[scumdog]

In fact I'm really sorry with everything I wrote until now. I thought it was a biker's forum, but apparently it's full of fucking V8 cagers, and I didn't want to hurt your bored sensitivity. I will happily fuck off for sure and for good. Thanks for the world famous kiwi welcome.




Just trying to stop you getting your posts put into the Pointless Drivel section, so no worries, glad to have helped!

[MSTRS]

In fact I'm really sorry with everything I wrote until now. I thought it was a biker's forum, but apparently it's full of fucking V8 cagers, and I didn't want to hurt your bored sensitivity. I will happily fuck off for sure and for good. Thanks for the world famous kiwi welcome.
Cot rejects toys. Pffft!
Anyway, the 'famous Kiwi welcome' is reserved for those that deserve it. Tossers like you (say you are) don't get a look in. I think you'll find that's the case the world over.


true ........

Oh how I wish there was a :sarcasm: smilie. Or :irony: at least...
We've had 30+ years/millions of people learning to drive under the right hand rule and how many of them couldn't do it right...
Then again :facepalm: you were referring to the 'learn to drive' bit eh?

[FJRider]

... Then again :facepalm: you were referring to the 'learn to drive' bit eh?

Learning to drive ... yes. I did not try to infer anything about you.

[_Shrek_]

Which is unusual for drivers of such vehicles.

:Oi: i drive one of them :girlfight:

[_Shrek_]

I've been driving/riding 3 years here in Nz and finally I will obey the rules for the first time from the 25th of march. If I think it's stupid I don't do it, especially if the government asks me to.

Oh goodie a hole 3 years aye, well sonny if you don't like the way we do things over here, there is a right that you have & thats the right to flock off back to where you came from :wavey: because if I had my way dip sticks like you wouldn't have any rights :done:

[Tigadee]

A friend sent me this... Better stay off the roads on the 25th.

[Mental Trousers]

This is far more useful

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

[Maha]

If you are turning right....GIVE WAY...what is hard about that?

[oneofsix]

If you are turning right....GIVE WAY...what is hard about that?

what was hard about if they are on your right give way? or to make it more personal if they are going to hit your right side, stop.
What's hard is the confusion that is going to occur or the object that is going to hit you when you aren't expecting it

BTW it isn't always if you are turning right give way but it used to be always give way to the right, now there will be an except.

[Maha]

what was hard about if they are on your right give way? or to make it more personal if they are going to hit your right side, stop.
What's hard is the confusion that is going to occur or the object that is going to hit you when you aren't expecting it

BTW it isn't always if you are turning right give way but it used to be always give way to the right, now there will be an except.

The word Vigilant comes to mind...
All what you say, happens now...that wont change.
And show me a reference where, if you are turning right give way, wont be law?
Some thngs are just way over-thought.

[steve_t]

what was hard about if they are on your right give way? or to make it more personal if they are going to hit your right side, stop.
What's hard is the confusion that is going to occur or the object that is going to hit you when you aren't expecting it

BTW it isn't always if you are turning right give way but it used to be always give way to the right, now there will be an except.

Now there will be an except? I came across the exact problem of the current rule the other day. The guy in front of me was turning left and there was an oncoming car turning right. The guy in front of me didn't bother to check that I was behind him going straight so stopped to give way. He was supposed to go. I couldn't squeeze around him (I was in the car) so all 3 of us came to a stand still at the intersection for several seconds. The current rule is too hard for most numpty drivers - When turning left, give way to oncoming vehicles turning right EXCEPT if there is a vehicle behind you going straight.

[oneofsix]

Now there will be an except? I came across the exact problem of the current rule the other day. The guy in front of me was turning left and there was an oncoming car turning right. The guy in front of me didn't bother to check that I was behind him going straight so stopped to give way. He was supposed to go. I couldn't squeeze around him (I was in the car) so all 3 of us came to a stand still at the intersection for several seconds. The current rule is too hard for most numpty drivers - When turning left, give way to oncoming vehicles turning right EXCEPT if there is a vehicle behind you going straight.

Not quite. It is/was called a shadow turn and you were allowed to turn in the shadow of the straight through car IF that car was blocking the right turner. But as you couldn't get past the left turner, there was no shadow so the left turn still had to give way to the right turner.

Don't worry it the shadow turn is the same sort of thing people can't work out at round abouts, if the vehicle that you are thinking about giving way to can't go because of another vehicle then there isn't a need to give way to them.

[MSTRS]

But you weren't going through...you couldn't.
The problem in your scenario only took place when the left-turner was angled left and couldn't see in his mirrors. But if there was room for the straight-throughs where's the problem? The opposing right-turner would (and will) be giving way to them, anyway. So the left-turner would sit there when they didn't have to...should be a lesson to do the headcheck thing, instead of mirrors only.

[Scuba_Steve]

This is far more useful

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

That had me realize something I didn't think of before... This new rule is much more dangerous for deadly peadlys (#12 is the one I'm talking bout).
These guys are doing their illegal driving quite a bit slower than it will be done in real life, so the deadly peadly shown in #12 will now have a much higher chance of being side-swiped as cage pays no attention to the left as they swing round the corner

[Mental Trousers]

If I was a cyclist (that shit is far too dangerous so I'll stick to something safe like racing motorbikes) I'd be thinking about parking the bike up for approximately a month or so. Or sticking the bike in the car and driving out of town before getting on it. Anything to keep well away from intersections for a bit.

[swbarnett]

That had me realize something I didn't think of before... This new rule is much more dangerous for deadly peadlys (#12 is the one I'm talking bout).
These guys are doing their illegal driving quite a bit slower than it will be done in real life, so the deadly peadly shown in #12 will now have a much higher chance of being side-swiped as cage pays no attention to the left as they swing round the corner
That cyclist is just asking for trouble. Under no circumstances should a vehicle be undertaken. The cyclist should've passed the car on the right, cycle lane or no.

[pritch]

Or sticking the bike in the car and driving out of town before getting on it. Anything to keep well away from intersections for a bit.

Nah. Do what I do, ride on the footpath.

SWB, that sounds wierd. There has been a bad traffic situation here the last few days due to work on a bridge on the main northern route out of town.
On the moped I've 'filtered" past hundreds of cars using the cycle lane until I could take to the footpath to cross the bridge.

[jasonu]

This is far more useful

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

Now that is a good test and after doing it if any of you thick cunts still can't figure out the rules then you shouldn't be on the roads!

[steve_t]

Not quite. It is/was called a shadow turn and you were allowed to turn in the shadow of the straight through car IF that car was blocking the right turner. But as you couldn't get past the left turner, there was no shadow so the left turn still had to give way to the right turner.

Don't worry it the shadow turn is the same sort of thing people can't work out at round abouts, if the vehicle that you are thinking about giving way to can't go because of another vehicle then there isn't a need to give way to them.

Oh man, so I'm the numpty! Actually, I did end up going squeezing around the left turning car in the end cos nobody was going. But it just goes to prove the point that the current rule is dumb and the sooner everyone gets used to the change, the better. I guess I need to brush up on my road rules! :o

[_Shrek_]

Now that is a good test and after doing it if any of you thick cunts still can't figure out the rules then you shouldn't be on the roads!

a good test but, the push bike should be overtaking on right side not the left of turning car, this is going to cause a shit load of problems

[Scuba_Steve]

That cyclist is just asking for trouble. Under no circumstances should a vehicle be undertaken. The cyclist should've passed the car on the right, cycle lane or no.

asking for trouble or not, he is the norm & this will make deadly pedleys more dangerous than they already are

[jasonu]

a good test but, the push bike should be overtaking on right side not the left of turning car, this is going to cause a shit load of problems

Yes I agree.
Really though if a cyclist is stupid enough to undertake a left turning car assuming he has been seen and will have the right of way and then gets clobbered by the left turning car, I say tough shit for the cyclist. Being so vunerable he should not rely on others seeing him. There will be a lot of SMIDSY's in this situation. It is the same on a motorcycle, if you have the right of way and still get hit you will always come off second best. Defensive driving and commonsense is what it is all about.

[Berries]

The guy in front of me was turning left and there was an oncoming car turning right. The guy in front of me didn't bother to check that I was behind him going straight so stopped to give way. He was supposed to go. I couldn't squeeze around him (I was in the car) so all 3 of us came to a stand still at the intersection for several seconds. The current rule is too hard for most numpty drivers - When turning left, give way to oncoming vehicles turning right EXCEPT if there is a vehicle behind you going straight.
Woooah. If that has been your understanding for the last X number of years I am surprised you haven't been taken out turning left.


I guess I need to brush up on my road rules! :o
Quite possibly.

[Stylo]

Woooah. If that has been your understanding for the last X number of years I am surprised you haven't been taken out turning left.


Quite possibly.

Started practising the new Give Rules in the car last Wednesday ...

Can't say i've made too many new friends since then.....

[swbarnett]

Nah. Do what I do, ride on the footpath.

SWB, that sounds wierd. There has been a bad traffic situation here the last few days due to work on a bridge on the main northern route out of town.
On the moped I've 'filtered" past hundreds of cars using the cycle lane until I could take to the footpath to cross the bridge.
I've lost count of the numer of close calls I've seen caused by a cyclist travelling at least twice as fast as the line of cars down the left side.

Unless the line of cars is truly stationary and showing absolutely no signs of wanting to turn left I would not pass cars in the cycle lane, bicycle or motorcycle. You're just too close to take evasive action. When I used to cycle to work I would pass left-turning cars as I described. I refuse to put myself in a position that makes a SMIDSY almost inevitable.

[FJRider]

Started practising the new Give Rules in the car last Wednesday ...

Can't say i've made too many new friends since then.....

If it doesn't work out by the 25th ... go back to the old way. :innocent:

[FJRider]

a good test but, the push bike should be overtaking on right side not the left of turning car, this is going to cause a shit load of problems

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way. Although most entering supermarket carparks seem unaware of this.

Cyclists need to be aware of ... and adapt to the new rules ... just like everybody else.

And when is the new NZ wide tag being put up ... ???

[swbarnett]

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way. Although most entering supermarket carparks seem unaware of this.

Cyclists need to be aware of ... and adapt to the new rules ... just like everybody else.

And when is the new NZ wide tag being put up ... ???
This is why I hate cycle lanes with a passion. They are accidents waiting to happen. A confident cyclist is better off without them.

[FJRider]

This is why I hate cycle lanes with a passion. They are accidents waiting to happen. A confident cyclist is better off without them.

If all cyclists behaved as they did in that test vid ... we would ALL be much happier.

And if we all behaved ... we wouldn't need a cycle lane.

[Maha]

what was hard about if they are on your right give way? or to make it more personal if they are going to hit your right side, stop.
What's hard is the confusion that is going to occur or the object that is going to hit you when you aren't expecting it

BTW it isn't always if you are turning right give way but it used to be always give way to the right, now there will be an except.


The word Vigilant comes to mind...
All what you say, happens now...that wont change.
And show me a reference where, if you are turning right give way, wont be law?
Some thngs are just way over-thought.

Still looking for a suitable reference? :confused:
Or is that proving impossible?

[Scuba_Steve]

Still looking for a suitable reference? :confused:
Or is that proving impossible?

roundabouts is the obvious 1 (this seems to be providing a challenge for most people on the tests), then there'd be stop vs give-way, & green arrows at lights

[Maha]

roundabouts is the obvious 1 (this seems to be providing a challenge for most people on the tests), then there'd be stop vs give-way, & green arrows at lights

The round-a-bout give way rule stays the same, no change = no matter.
Stop V Give way...? If you are turning right, you give way..its not a hard thing.
Change (however little) can be expanded to great worries for some, for no reason other than thier inability think simplistic.

[Usarka]

Stop V Give way...? If you are turning right, you give way..its not a hard thing.

Give way sign trumps stop sign. Has this changed?

259843

[MSTRS]

Give way sign trumps stop sign. Has this changed?


Don't think so. Legally. In practice...we'll see

[Hoarn]

Stop sign gives way to all traffic except others on a stop sign, where normal give way rules apply. This hasn't changed. I don't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout. Maybe we'll see more on them, I can just imagine the NZTA trolling us :blink:

[pritch]

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way.

When in Holland I was told that they keep it simple; you hit a cyclist - you are in the wrong. Full stop.
Most people presumably therefore take care not to hit cyclists.

[FJRider]

Stop sign gives way to all traffic except others on a stop sign, where normal give way rules apply. This hasn't changed. I don't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout. Maybe we'll see more on them, I can just imagine the NZTA trolling us :blink:

Give way ... means give way to all other traffic.

Stop ... means stop and continue when the way is clear and safe to do so.

If you risk hitting anybody, or being hit (and you do/are) ... it is obviously isn't/wasn't safe.

Simple really.

[FJRider]

When in Holland I was told that they keep it simple; you hit a cyclist - you are in the wrong. Full stop.
Most people presumably therefore take care not to hit cyclists.

Most people here are of the belief that motor vehicles have "right of way" ... thus their rights are more important. Some forget bicycles are a vehicle ... and are subject to all the laws relating to the Road Traffic act. Full stop.

The fact that no licence is required to operate a bicycle, does not mean your licence is safe in the event of you being prosecuted for any road traffic offence.

[_Shrek_]

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way. Although most entering supermarket carparks seem unaware of this.

Cyclists need to be aware of ... and adapt to the new rules ... just like everybody else.

And when is the new NZ wide tag being put up ... ???

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

[Maha]

Give way sign trumps stop sign. Has this changed?



I thought it would have been very unusual to have an intersection where one side is a Stop and the other is a Give Way, turns out, we have one here in town..:shifty:
It is a very busy intersection, and not one car stops at the compulsary stop when turning left.
That wont change come Sunday...

When using that particular intersection, most people just geture to the other car driver to move on/go etc.

[Berries]

I thought it would have been very unusual to have an intersection where one side is a Stop and the other is a Give Way, turns out, we have one here in town..
There are plenty around, due to crap visibility on one side and ok on the other. Because a lot of people don't understand the give way rule in these situations you get delays and hesitation. Complain about it though and because they can't improve the visibility the only option is to put a stop sign on what is a give way so people can deal with it. And guess what? Another BS stop sign that isn't there for the correct reason which will result in people rolling through because they can see perfectly fine and then, of course, tickets will be issued because it will be liking shooting fish in a barrel. And all because people can't get their heads around a fairly simple rule.

Having said that, it requires you to not only observe the sign you are facing but also the one across the road. Normally easy, sometimes not when it is in the wrong place or stuck to a big fat telegraph pole. They should just drop the rule if you ask me.

Then again, they should drop everyone who causes a crash at an intersection as well.

[FJRider]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

If the cycle lane goes up to intersection (marked as one by the way) left turning vehicles do have to give way. If NO cycle lane is marked ... they are just another vehicle, and as such. Have to (supposed to) pass on the right.

At intersections where cycle lanes are marked ... I treat it as a left turning lane and move over to the left a bit. As long as I wont run over a cyclist in the process. Thus you become the "front vehicle" with right of way.

[5150]

This is about right..... :shit:

[awayatc]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

Spoken like a true cage driving swamp creature.............:yes:

So when you squeeze yourself to the front of the queu on your Beemer you lose your rightof way to...?:scooter:

[Motig]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then :innocent:) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

[Scuba_Steve]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then :innocent:) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

because it was a far superior more logical rule.
I can't even get a straight answer outta Victoria over why they switched back to this retarded one we're going to. Best answer I've got is effectively they couldn't handle change

[MSTRS]

Give way ... means give way to all other traffic.

Stop ... means stop and continue when the way is clear and safe to do so.

If you risk hitting anybody, or being hit (and you do/are) ... it is obviously isn't/wasn't safe.

Simple really.

It's not that simple.
We have intersections that are uncontrolled, are a mix of uncontrolled and Give Way or Stop, are Give Way for all, are a mix of Give Way and Stop, or are Stop for all.
Who takes precedence as right-of-way depends on the turning law of the day, and which type of sign 'controls' that vehicle.
Open (uncontrolled) trumps Give Way, trumps Stop.

[FJRider]

It's not that simple.


4.5 million people in this country have their own version of what the rules are .... And what the exceptions are. (or should be) And drive as if it was law.

Included in that are those that don't know/don't care .... And we share the road with them.



Remember this ... I do. (in the assumption theory, that assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups)

Having right of way ... doesn't mean you'll get it. So don't assume you'll be given it.

[MSTRS]

Having right of way ... doesn't mean you'll get it. So don't assume you'll be given it.

Of course. But I thought we were discussing the legal side of the issue, not the actuality...

[BMWST?]

These laws are too confusing. I'm staying off the roads around town wherever possible. Open road is a different matter.

on the open road any hesitation or incorrect actions have results with forces many many times more than at 30- 50 km hr

[FJRider]

Of course. But I thought we were discussing the legal side of the issue, not the actuality...

Actuality is often forgotten in the discussion process. And is usually more important than written law.
Legality is often spouted ... and claimed in practice. Not always with success. I have had (and I guess you have too) experience in this area ...

[MSTRS]

Actuality is often forgotten in the discussion process. And is usually more important than written law.
Legality is often spouted ... and claimed in practice. Not always with success. I have had (and I guess you have too) experience in this area ...

Not to the point of pain...
Still - when (if) it all turns to custard, *someone* was in the wrong. Legally. Otherwise, we'd have no traffic laws other than 'might is right'. Do any of us want to go there?

[FJRider]

Not to the point of pain...
Still - when (if) it all turns to custard, *someone* was in the wrong. Legally. Otherwise, we'd have no traffic laws other than 'might is right'. Do any of us want to go there?

I have felt the pain ... :facepalm:

If ALL the laws were obeyed ... there would be no issue. The "convenience factor" plays the biggest part in rule obeyence. The boundrys between ... I give way/I might make it/I will make it ... times at intersections can be slim at best. Those pushing the boundrys and/or flouting the laws ... can have a dire effect on a motorcyclist. (increased pulse at least) The roll-on effect of a small error of judgement can get serious very quickly. One factor ... added to a list of other factors ... :facepalm:

Often ... it's obvious you are being given right of way. Sometimes not so obvious. My point was that to assume you will be given it ... may not be the safest course of action.

Especially on a motorcycle.

But some are just in a hurry. With no time to lose.

[robin_steal]

Yep passed the ausy rules test, next time I go there I'll have no excuses for cuttin them off haha.

[BMWST?]

The word Vigilant comes to mind...
All what you say, happens now...that wont change.
And show me a reference where, if you are turning right give way, wont be law?
Some thngs are just way over-thought.

the turning right at a t intersection is the one which may seem to break ingrained rules,old or new,but in most cased is a common sense on which will aid in traffic flow
This salso the one which will be involved in the most incidents as some intersection like this have some for of control of varying degrees of being self evident to someone on the leg of the t

[yungatart]

the turning right at a t intersection is the one which may seem to break ingrained rules,old or new,but in most cased is a common sense on which will aid in traffic flow
This salso the one which will be involved in the most incidents as some intersection like this have some for of control of varying degrees of being self evident to someone on the leg of the t

In my experience very few obey the law as it is now. For those that don't, there is no change.

[_Shrek_]

This is far more useful

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



Spoken like a true cage driving swamp creature.............:yes:

So when you squeeze yourself to the front of the queu on your Beemer you lose your rightof way to...?:scooter:

have a look at the above link P & you will see what I was trying to say <_<

[scumdog]

Idon't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout. :blink:

We have at least one right here in Riviera of the South.

I suspect it is that way because the by-pass north re-joins the main street at that intersection - and having a Stop sign there would cause 'issues' with HMVs rejoining the main street.

And the Stop sign opposite it also cut a bit of slack for the truck drivers, gives them a better chance to keep moving.

[scumdog]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then :innocent:) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

Please let us all know why in your opinion it is a 'stupid' rule??

[MSTRS]

Please let us all know why in your opinion it is a 'stupid' rule??

Too simple = stupid?

[chasio]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

Declaration: I used to cycle a lot until fairly recently.

Pushbikes are generally pretty slow compared to most other traffic. My take on this scenario is:

1) A cyclist proceeding at average speed e.g. 15-20km/h will not catch up a vehicle ahead of it that is turning left across a cycle lane. So there should be no need for the motorist to yield (unless (2) applies). The cars in this example were being driven as if equipped with 50cc motors, so that creates a false scenario that won't happen that often.

2) Even in the absence of a cycle lane, motorists passing a cyclist on their side of the road have at least a moral obligation to complete the pass in plenty of time if they will soon be turning left, rather than just getting themselves ahead and then cutting the cyclist off. I believe this is supported in law, but cannot quote it. (Anyone?) Cycle lanes really only emphasize this necessity, as I see it.

What is so wrong with slowing down and turning left behind the bike after it has cleared the turn? Many do but for those who don't I can only assume that impatience is the primary motivator.

3) So what happens when the cyclist is quicker than the traffic e.g. clocking 50kmh in the cycle lane and traffic is slow, so a car in front that is turning left should yield? Pretty much that will be a fill your pants moment, possibly followed by an accident. Really, being legally entitled to pass on the left does not remove the moral obligation to use your brain. I agree with SWB on this one: go around on the car's right (or just give way). Passing on the left is not a right that is worth risking life and limb to defend.

[FJRider]

2) Even in the absence of a cycle lane, motorists passing a cyclist on their side of the road have at least a moral obligation to complete the pass in plenty of time if they will soon be turning left, rather than just getting themselves ahead and then cutting the cyclist off. I believe this is supported in law, but cannot quote it. (Anyone?) Cycle lanes really only emphasize this necessity, as I see it.

What is so wrong with slowing down and turning left behind the bike after it has cleared the turn? Many do but for those who don't I can only assume that impatience is the primary motivator.

3) So what happens when the cyclist is quicker than the traffic e.g. clocking 50kmh in the cycle lane and traffic is slow, so a car in front that is turning left should yield? Pretty much that will be a fill your pants moment, possibly followed by an accident. Really, being legally entitled to pass on the left does not remove the moral obligation to use your brain. I agree with SWB on this one: go around on the car's right (or just give way). Passing on the left is not a right that is worth risking life and limb to defend.

I dont think it's is/was a transport law, rule, or exception ... more an "endangering public safety" ... or something like that. (but will now be failing to give way)

Regardles of the fact they have no engine ... they are still a vehicle and have legal rights as such.

A simple point few consider in their busy lives ...

[_Shrek_]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

well I stand corrected on the cycle lanes!!! after being in Alex over the weekend I took note that they do go across T intersections as broken white lines, run out at rounder bouts & four way intersections

so while cyclists have the right of way at T intersectons they loose it on rounder bouts etc... :facepalm:

[_Shrek_]

Declaration: I used to cycle a lot until fairly recently.

Pushbikes are generally pretty slow compared to most other traffic. My take on this scenario is:

1) A cyclist proceeding at average speed e.g. 15-20km/h will not catch up a vehicle ahead of it that is turning left across a cycle lane. So there should be no need for the motorist to yield (unless (2) applies). The cars in this example were being driven as if equipped with 50cc motors, so that creates a false scenario that won't happen that often.

2) Even in the absence of a cycle lane, motorists passing a cyclist on their side of the road have at least a moral obligation to complete the pass in plenty of time if they will soon be turning left, rather than just getting themselves ahead and then cutting the cyclist off. I believe this is supported in law, but cannot quote it. (Anyone?) Cycle lanes really only emphasize this necessity, as I see it.

this is some thing that is done in our house hold

What is so wrong with slowing down and turning left behind the bike after it has cleared the turn? Many do but for those who don't I can only assume that impatience is the primary motivator.

nothing

3) So what happens when the cyclist is quicker than the traffic e.g. clocking 50kmh in the cycle lane and traffic is slow, so a car in front that is turning left should yield? Pretty much that will be a fill your pants moment, possibly followed by an accident. Really, being legally entitled to pass on the left does not remove the moral obligation to use your brain. I agree with SWB on this one: go around on the car's right (or just give way). Passing on the left is not a right that is worth risking life and limb to defend.

this point is the one that will cause the probs

after watching a cyclist the other day come off a footpath behind a car turning left just so he didn't have to stop & give way to the car, & then flips the old fella the bird for not giving way :facepalm:

[FJRider]

well I stand corrected on the cycle lanes!!! after being in Alex over the weekend I took note that they do go across T intersections as broken white lines, run out at rounder bouts & four way intersections

so while cyclists have the right of way at T intersectons they loss it on rounder bouts etc... :facepalm:

No ... no loss of the right of way ...They become/are just another vehicle. And as such, have the rights of all OTHER vehicles in roundabouts.

[_Shrek_]

No ... no loss of the right of way ...They become/are just another vehicle. And as such, have the rights of all OTHER vehicles in roundabouts.

I know they become just another vehicle!!! Trev but most cyclists will think they can still come up on your inside & have right of way & I've watched it happen

[FJRider]

I know they become just another vehicle!!! Trev but most cyclists will think they can still come up on your inside & have right of way & I've watched it happen

I have seen that too ... I treadly up the middle of the lane in the roundabout. A cop has even given a car a ticket for not giving way to me. I did lol when I saw that. (she wasn't lolling though)

[Stylo]

Been out in the car today - practising the new Give way rules ...

Can't say I've made too many friends ...

[MSTRS]

Been out in the car today - practising the new Give way rules ...

Can't say I've made too many friends ...

Well duh...you're supposed to know them, but not do them until the 25th :innocent:

[steve_t]

Well duh...you're supposed to know them, but not do them until the 25th :innocent:

LOL http://www.buysellswap.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2467767.jpg :shutup::corn:

[nadroj]

I'm glad my bike is blue - I won't have to give way to anyone........

[pzkpfw]

Where I think the issues will come, are the edge cases. The advertising is hitting the specific changes hard, but they don't seem to say much about combined situations.

Pic 1: C would have to give way to A, but A has to give way to B. So while B goes 'round the corner will/can C just go? I bet there will be cases where people will get confused, and the wrong two will go, leading to dings.

Pic 2: People are used to position-based rules ("give way to your right") and the new situation-based rule ("Top of the T goes before me") changes that. On the four-way uncontrolled intersections - will people apply the new positional rule? I bet there will be cases where both blue cars go...

[Clockwork]

Sorry, slightly off topic but there have been many comments on thus thread about cyclists in cycle lanes.

Do cycle lanes actually exist in a statutory sense as do bus lanes? I thought they were simply a curtesy device (such as those curtesy crossings) they assist with traffic separation but have no legal standing. Without such statutory definition my assumption would be that if a bicycle passed a moving vehicle on its left they are legally in the same lane and the cyclist has committed a passing offense. Likewise, there would be no rules prohibiting cars from driving over/along cycle lanes as there are for the use of bus lanes.

[_Shrek_]

Where I think the issues will come, are the edge cases. The advertising is hitting the specific changes hard, but they don't seem to say much about combined situations.

Pic 1: C would have to give way to A, but A has to give way to B. So while B goes 'round the corner will/can C just go? I bet there will be cases where people will get confused, and the wrong two will go, leading to dings.

Pic 2: People are used to position-based rules ("give way to your right") and the new situation-based rule ("Top of the T goes before me") changes that. On the four-way uncontrolled intersections - will people apply the new positional rule? I bet there will be cases where both blue cars go...

1 both green have right of way = B has right of way, now if A is not over the lane stopping C, :shifty: I would go if I sore indecision in A, other wise sit & wait as A has right of way

2 green has right of way = the + means right hand rule applies!!! this has not changed

me thinks peeps just have to be a bit patient for a bit!!!! :shit: that means me too :brick:

[Scuba_Steve]

Sorry, slightly off topic but there have been many comments on thus thread about cyclists in cycle lanes.

Do cycle lanes actually exist in a statutory sense as do bus lanes? I thought they were simply a curtesy device (such as those curtesy crossings) they assist with traffic separation but have no legal standing. Without such statutory definition my assumption would be that if a bicycle passed a moving vehicle on its left they are legally in the same lane and the cyclist has committed a passing offense. Likewise, there would be no rules prohibiting cars from driving over/along cycle lanes as there are for the use of bus lanes.

yea they do exist and you can drive over them (as per bottom extract)

special vehicle lane means a lane defined by signs or mark- ings as restricted to a specified class or classes of vehicle; and includes a bus lane, a transit lane, a cycle lane, and a light rail vehicle lane

Special vehicle lanes
This rule establishes provisions for special vehicle lanes that include prohibiting driving along a special vehicle lane, permitting drivers to cross a special vehicle lane when proceeding to turn or in the process of parking, and prohibiting parking or standing on a special vehicle lane.

[MSTRS]

See #4 ... http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303690.html?search=sw_096be8ed807b7a62_cycle+la nes&p=1&sr=2

A lane is just that, a lane, and as such is separate from any other lane and is subject to any provisos that relate to that type of lane.

[pzkpfw]

the + means right hand rule applies!!! this has not changed

I agree, but due to the new rule for the T I suspect some people will think they've got right of way on the + when they don't.

[scumdog]

me thinks peeps just have to be a bit patient for a bit!!!! :shit: that means me too :brick:

Good call Keith!:yes:

[FJRider]

Good call Keith!:yes:

But nobody can say they didn't know the rules were changing ...


And say hi to Ducky for me. I hear she's heading your way today.

[oneofsix]

But nobody can say they didn't know the rules were changing ...
.

I actually heard someone say that recently. Scared the B-jesus out of me but it appears they had been too busy with downloaded media and had therefore missed all the fuss. You already know car drivers don't care as much about the rules as motorcyclists.
Another one that scares me is those that try to apply the changes to round abouts. They have heard the give way to the right rule is changing and as they have been taught to give way to the right at round abouts figure it too is changing.

[Scuba_Steve]

I actually heard someone say that recently. Scared the B-jesus out of me but it appears they had been too busy with downloaded media and had therefore missed all the fuss. You already know car drivers don't care as much about the rules as motorcyclists.
Another one that scares me is those that try to apply the changes to round abouts. They have heard the give way to the right rule is changing and as they have been taught to give way to the right at round abouts figure it too is changing.

I think the biggest confusional ones will be those where the councils decided to place a small different coloured non-raised circle patch in the middle to make a 4-way intersection a round-a-bout (yet was never big enough to support 1) to further create the lowest denominator. This will be the time where people look at it and go "what do I do?, the rules have changed so it must be reversed right?"

[steve_t]

Where I think the issues will come, are the edge cases. The advertising is hitting the specific changes hard, but they don't seem to say much about combined situations.

Pic 1: C would have to give way to A, but A has to give way to B. So while B goes 'round the corner will/can C just go? I bet there will be cases where people will get confused, and the wrong two will go, leading to dings.




1 both green have right of way = B has right of way, now if A is not over the lane stopping C, :shifty: I would go if I sore indecision in A, other wise sit a wight as A has right of way



I'm gonna disagree with you here Shrek. I think B will turn, then A and finally C will go.

Again, to try and avoid confusion with + intersections etc, they ads are clearly stressing that 'Only 2 rules are changing': The left turner getting the right of way over the right turner and the uncontrolled T intersection. All others stay the same.

[Badjelly]

Where I think the issues will come, are the edge cases. The advertising is hitting the specific changes hard, but they don't seem to say much about combined situations.

Pic 1: C would have to give way to A, but A has to give way to B. So while B goes 'round the corner will/can C just go? I bet there will be cases where people will get confused, and the wrong two will go, leading to dings.

Pic 2: People are used to position-based rules ("give way to your right") and the new situation-based rule ("Top of the T goes before me") changes that. On the four-way uncontrolled intersections - will people apply the new positional rule? I bet there will be cases where both blue cars go...

Pic 1: you're right, and it will take a while before people work out how to handle this situation, but they will. It's pretty common (not legal, but common) for A in this situation to move far enough forward that C can't get out of the side road. I expect C will just decide in most cases to wait until everything's gone.

"Top of the T goes before me" is a new rule in a legal sense, but it's the rule that 80% of the driving population has been following for the last 30 years regardless. I really don't expect this change to cause any problem at all. And it will save me (and you, I'm sure) from the burden of being in the minority 20%!

Pic 2: Yeah, 4-way uncontrolled intersections are a bugger in NZ, for straight-ahead traffic as well as turning traffic. This won't change much.

[_Shrek_]

I would go if I sore indecision in A, other wise sit & wait as A has right of way

2 green has right of way = the + means right hand rule applies!!! this has not changed

I'm gonna disagree with you here Shrek. I think B will turn, then A and finally C will go.

Again, to try and avoid confusion with + intersections etc, they ads are clearly stressing that 'Only 2 rules are changing': The left turner getting the right of way over the right turner and the uncontrolled T intersection. All others stay the same.

read what I said steve :msn-wink: not sure why you disagree? :corn:

[Usarka]

But nobody can say they didn't know the rules were changing ...


Really? I haven't heard anything about this apart from KB.

But I watch bugger all TV and don't read newspapers. I'm far from the only person like that.

[_Shrek_]

Really? I haven't heard anything about this apart from KB.

But I watch bugger all TV and don't read newspapers. I'm far from the only person like that.

:laugh: +1 here!! we don't have TV or get the paper. we have the net & this for our updates :facepalm:

[FJRider]

Really? I haven't heard anything about this apart from KB.

But I watch bugger all TV and don't read newspapers. I'm far from the only person like that.

There are notices in shop windows, in public places, Pamflets were delivered to EVERY mailbox, on the news (radio and tv) in most of the ways the "speed tolerance" is advertised (everybody knows about that)... only the un-observant would not see or hear about it. And considering the amount of time since the warnings of the change started ... You would need to be thick (or just plain ignorant) to miss them.

But the funny part is ... ignorance of the laws (even the new ones) is no excuse if you are stopped by the enforcers ...

I think the police may need to carry a few extra boxes of tissues ... for the ones that will cry when they get stopped ... for not giving way.

[steve_t]

[/COLOR]


read what I said steve :msn-wink: not sure why you disagree? :corn:

Oh, yup. LOL. You were kinda right. I was just disagreeing with the first part where you said both green cars had the right of way ;)

[Usarka]

There are notices in shop windows, in public places, Pamflets were delivered to EVERY mailbox, on the news (radio and tv) in most of the ways the "speed tolerance" is advertised (everybody knows about that)... only the un-observant would not see or hear about it. And considering the amount of time since the warnings of the change started ... You would need to be thick (or just plain ignorant) to miss them.

But the funny part is ... ignorance of the laws (even the new ones) is no excuse if you are stopped by the enforcers ...

I think the police may need to carry a few extra boxes of tissues ... for the ones that will cry when they get stopped ... for not giving way.

Well at least one point is bullshit, I haven't received anything in my mailbox. I'll assume the rest is gobshite too.

[FJRider]

... I'll assume the rest is gobshite too.

Assumptions dont save your ass if you get stopped for failing to give way.

I would say the enforcers will be watching for give way issues a lot more closely next week. Good luck ...

[FJRider]

I haven't received anything in my mailbox.

Having NO friends ... does that :pinch:

By the way ... part of the very large goverment funded campaign in public information on this subject was a mail drop of a pamflet (that is looks like any other glossy advertising pamflet) to each mail box. So if you didn't get one (oh dear how sad) see your mail deliverer ... and cry to them. :yawn:

Even if you didn't get one ... ignorance of the changes is no defence if you get caught failing to give way. Your post indicates you are half guilty already ... :facepalm:

Perhaps you better put a box of tissues in your hand-bag ... just in case .... you seem like the sort of person that will need it. :whistle:

[release_the_bees]

Just sent the below email out to the office. That's 100 people with no excuse for breaking the rules come Sunday:


Hi all,

Just a quick reminder that two of the give way rules are changing at 5am on Sunday morning (March 25):

If you want a final (and fun) check that you understand the new rules correctly, you can do so using THIS (http://www.giveway.co.nz/interactive)interactive test.
If you want more information about the actual changes, you can find this information HERE (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/road-user-rule.html?gclid=CJG509uM-64CFdA2pAod9kbcxg).


Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Regards,

release_the_bees

[Badjelly]

Having NO friends ... does that :pinch:

By the way ... part of the very large goverment funded campaign in public information on this subject was a mail drop of a pamflet (that is looks like any other glossy advertising pamflet) to each mail box. So if you didn't get one (oh dear how sad) see your mail deliverer ... and cry to them. :yawn:

Even if you didn't get one ... ignorance of the changes is no defence if you get caught failing to give way. Your post indicates you are half guilty already ... :facepalm:

Perhaps you better put a box of tissues in your hand-bag ... just in case .... you seem like the sort of person that will need it. :whistle:

FFS FJRider, the only one who needs a box of tissues is you. Usarka said he hadn't heard or read about the changes except on KB and (later) that he hadn't got the pamphlet in the mailbox. I (along with Usarka, I'm sure) was well aware of the new rules long before the public information campaign began, but most of the advertising passed me by and I didn't get anything in the mailbox either. (My letterbox is up a long driveway. A lot of the people who deliver pamphlets don't bother. Whatever.) :brick:

[_Shrek_]

. I was just disagreeing with the first part where you said both green cars had the right of way ;)

on the top left they do, me thinks you misunderstood my post :yes:

[_Shrek_]

Really? I haven't heard anything about this apart from KB.

But I watch bugger all TV and don't read newspapers. I'm far from the only person like that.


:laugh: +1 here!! we don't have TV or get the paper. we have the net & this for our updates :facepalm:


Having NO friends ... does that :pinch:

By the way ... part of the very large goverment funded campaign in public information on this subject was a mail drop of a pamflet (that is looks like any other glossy advertising pamflet) to each mail box. So if you didn't get one (oh dear how sad) see your mail deliverer ... and cry to them. :yawn:

Even if you didn't get one ... ignorance of the changes is no defence if you get caught failing to give way. Your post indicates you are half guilty already ... :facepalm:

Perhaps you better put a box of tissues in your hand-bag ... just in case .... you seem like the sort of person that will need it. :whistle:

actually Trev I'm with Usarka if it weren't for KB then the net I would not have known either & we have never got any thing in the post nor seen any thing in shop windows regarding the changes,
so baging some one like this for making a statement is very short sighted on your part, :shifty:unless your trolling of course

[MSTRS]

Who knows the catchy little 'poem' coined by some wally to help people remember?

Top of the T
Goes before me

or is it

Top of the T
Gives way to me

:facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

Who knows the catchy little 'poem' coined by some wally to help people remember?

Top of the T
Goes before me

or is it

Top of the T
Gives way to me

:facepalm:

Maybee it's just time to go "India" - Biggest vehicle has right of way!
After all this is what it's all about, following the rest of the world & what greater driving population than India?

[MSTRS]

True, that!
They are likely to have more motorised vehicles in one city.

My point above was that 'catchy jingles' are no fucking good. When a slight change to it reverses the rule. Yet when sounded out, follows the same rhythm and rhyme, and could seem exactly the same to the ear.

[MSTRS]

OK - so this is a joke...

I wasn't concentrating while driving this morning and crashed into a 'stop' sign. I got out of the car to check the damage. The sign was slightly bent and there was a small scratch on my bumper. Both could be repaired cheaply, so that wasn't too bad. It wasn't all good news, though. I could tell from the kids' screams that the lollipop man was pretty fucked up.

...but the 'all care and attention' attitude described is quite common.

We should be well-used to sharing the road with these sorts, but there is the little homily that insists any idiot-proofing merely results in a better idiot.

[StiffyAlways]

So after visiting numerous message boards and reading through comments on various news sites such and stuff.co.nz over the past few months i have come to the conclusion that while the majority of drivers know when and when not to give way, very few know the actual give way rules. This 1 rule change and 1 new rule would be the perfect opportunity to change that, but instead they've given drivers a bunch of stupid catch phrases and birds-eye-view diagrams/scenarios to memorise :facepalm:

[FJRider]

actually Trev ...

I suggest to those that never heard of, nor recieved any publicity pamflets, nor saw any posters about on the law changes ... needs to get out more ... and open their eyes ...

And contact their local MP ... and ask why they never heard about it ... It may help with the next Goverment funded program to inform the masses ... it's your money that was obviously wasted ...


:shifty: unless your trolling of course

:innocent: :shifty: :o :p

[_Shrek_]

I suggest to those that never heard of, nor recieved any publicity pamflets, nor saw any posters about on the law changes ... needs to get out more ... and open their eyes ...

And contact their local MP ... and ask why they never heard about it ... It may help with the next Goverment funded program to inform the masses ... it's your money that was obviously wasted ...

I stand corrected we received a pamphlet in the mail last night 20cm x 10cm!!! & it was a scratchy :facepalm:

& as for my local mp :nya: been there, she only cares about her job :shutup:, the :kick: would be best for her

[FJRider]

.... as for my local mp :nya: been there, she only cares about her job :shutup:, the :kick: would be best for her

Why people get a woman to do a mans job ... :facepalm:

[MSTRS]

Bit like giving the peasants the right to vote.

[Scuba_Steve]

I see MotorWeb has just decided to reverse the old saying in an attempt for people to remember. Not sure thats a good idea either.



A simple way to remember: if you are going to hit the driver's door in a collision then you must give way.

[oneofsix]

I see MotorWeb has just decided to reverse the old saying in an attempt for people to remember. Not sure thats a good idea either.

That is a confusing idea as it only applies when both vehicles are turning, in all other cases at uncontrolled intersections the exact opposite applies. IF both turning right and you are going to hit the drivers door give way, otherwise if you are going to be hit in the drivers door give way. Confusing so time to give up on the drivers door thing, except for self preservation, i.e. if A has a big enough vehicle and is about to hit B in the drivers door B will give way out of fear.

[Maha]

Just remember...that even if you think you have a handle on the new Give Way rule, the other person may not.

Being Vigilant is the key.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well not long now till we retard our Give-Way rules to "match the rest of the world". Let the chaos ensue, tho I do hope no-one gets caught out.
I have just found out however, if your traveling to West Auckland theres a special set of give-way rules as depicted here (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/03/west-auckland-give-way-rules-from-this-weekend/)

[jasonu]

The only 'chaos' will be caused by dumbshits that shouldn't be on the road in the first place if they can't figure out a couple of simple rule changes. (oh and the one or two hermits that 'claim' not to have been informed of the changes)

[Jantar]

The only 'chaos' will be caused by dumbshits that shouldn't be on the road in the first place if they can't figure out a couple of simple rule changes. (oh and the one or two hermits that 'claim' not to have been informed of the changes)
Or like the one on TV1 news who claimed it was now "give way to the left" :doh:

[Usarka]

The only 'chaos' will be caused by dumbshits that shouldn't be on the road in the first place if they can't figure out a couple of simple rule changes. (oh and the one or two hermits that 'claim' not to have been informed of the changes)

Close to half of the number of drivers on the road are of below average intelligence...

[Nzpure]

There is a mountain of fuckery on the road today in chch.

[FJRider]

Close to half of the number of drivers on the road are of below average intelligence...

............... driving big heavy SUV's ... just to be safe. Inside them.

[mossy1200]

Only two people tried kill me today.Nothing much changed here then

[_Shrek_]

............... driving big heavy SUV's ... just to be safe. Inside them.

:confused: so what are you trying to say :motu:

[FJRider]

:confused: so what are you trying to say :motu:

An interesting immediate reaction ...

Some ... are of the belief, that regardless of cause or fault, they and their family will be safe(r). The feeling of invincibility when their seatbelts are fastened.
The feeling some motorcyclists get when the helmet/gloves/leathers and armour is on. Bulletproof.

Personally ... I see it as a serious game of rock, paper, scissors.

[steve_t]

Spent about 5 hours on the road today driving through Auckland and back through Hamiltron. I didn't see a single incident. Maybe people are more on to it than we give credit for.... nah, fluke I reckon. Tomorrow with going to work and kids going to school etc, that'll be the acid test

[PrincessBandit]

An interesting immediate reaction ...

... I see it as a serious game of rock, paper, scissors.

...lizard, Spock. Don't forget those two important options. "Lizard" option is barely getting off a sticky wicket by the skin of our teeth - losing our tail to make good our escape; "Spock" option is where we have to make like the Starship Enterprise... :shutup:

[_Shrek_]

An interesting immediate reaction ...

Some ... are of the belief, that regardless of cause or fault, they and their family will be safe(r). The feeling of invincibility when their seatbelts are fastened.
The feeling some motorcyclists get when the helmet/gloves/leathers and armour is on. Bulletproof.

Personally ... I see it as a serious game of rock, paper, scissors.

why is it "An interesting immediate reaction" your trouble is you put everyone in the same class!!!, some of us have 4x4's because of where we live & our work, & if you want to play chicken (paper, scissors, rock) on your bike or little car with an SUV be my guest

[Scuba_Steve]

Spent about 5 hours on the road today driving through Auckland and back through Hamiltron. I didn't see a single incident. Maybe people are more on to it than we give credit for.... nah, fluke I reckon. Tomorrow with going to work and kids going to school etc, that'll be the acid test

give it a week or 2, this is the period when everyones concentrating hard like they were when they got their licence, it'll be a week or 2 before everyone switches back to cruise control I reckon.

[Scuba_Steve]

why is it "An interesting immediate reaction" your trouble is you put everyone in the same class!!!, some of us have 4x4's because of where we live & our work, & if you want to play chicken (paper, scissors, rock) on your bike or little car with an SUV be my guest

hmm you read it different to me, I took it as he was saying idiots drove SUV's to feel safe. Not that all 4x4 drivers were idiots. :yes:

[_Shrek_]

hmm you read it different to me, I took it as he was saying idiots drove SUV's to feel safe. Not that all 4x4 drivers were idiots. :yes:

ah good point!! note to self not to reply while tired & hungry :facepalm:

[MSTRS]

Anyone in or on a vehicle is potential idiot. Some DO seem worse than others, using the vehicle type as a guide. And that includes all Subarus, all SUVs and all motorcycles.

[steve_t]

give it a week or 2, this is the period when everyones concentrating hard like they were when they got their licence, it'll be a week or 2 before everyone switches back to cruise control I reckon.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Usarka]

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

[Bassmatt]

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

I saw that and wondered the same thing. I also wonder what the technically correct answer is. I would do the same thing if I was driving the truck, if I was the motorcyclist it wouldnt worry me that the truck did it.

[joan of arc]

I reckon that the reporter was wrong.

Went for my full licence today (which I passed!!) and I think that the examiner took me through every intersection in town. Maan if I didn't know the new rules before I sure as hell know them now.
Probably a good time to do it as everyone was cautious and the eye contact - sheit it was everywhere. Reckon in a couple of weeks when all get lax it could be completely different

[Scuba_Steve]

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

you gots it wrong, unlike the old rule where the left turner got advantage by having someone going straight through blocking the right turner. The same isn't true with the new law, both vehicles are legally stuck until the right turner finally gets a gap, which at some intersections could be 1 long wait

[FJRider]

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

You got it wrong. The truck could turn right because all the cars were turning left. The bike couldn't turn right because he had to give way to the cars turning left.

Just as in previous times, a left turning vehicle (opposite a right turning car) could turn left because the right turning car had to give way to straight thru traffic.

All clear now ???

[Usarka]

If the bike can't turn into the street then the truck doesn't have to give way to it. I say you two are wrong, as is the reporter.

[Scuba_Steve]

If the bike can't turn into the street then the truck doesn't have to give way to it. I say you two are wrong, as is the reporter.

Law says I'm right. Whether a cop will think the same is another issue, but as far as the law stands that truck is legally required to sit & wait

[Usarka]

Law says I'm right. Whether a cop will think the same is another issue, but as far as the law stands that truck is legally required to sit & wait

Based on your interpretation or actual law? If the latter can you reference (seriously, not being a c****)

My interpretation is you give way to the person turning into the street. The biker wasn't turning.

I've just tried googling for the actual legal description of the law but can only find glossy pamphlets. Which like the road code aren't a legal document.

[FJRider]

If the bike can't turn into the street then the truck doesn't have to give way to it. I say you two are wrong, as is the reporter.

You were correct ... the reporter was not. I just like to tell you ... you are wrong .... :lol:

[Scuba_Steve]

Based on your interpretation or actual law? If the latter can you reference (seriously, not being a c****)

My interpretation is you give way to the person turning into the street. The biker wasn't turning.

I've just tried googling for the actual legal description of the law but can only find glossy pamphlets. Which like the road code aren't a legal document.

Here we go, took a bit of searching but I found it, it's not up in legislation form at the moment (still rocking the old legislation) only in amendment form


A driver on a terminating road who is approaching or crossing a T-intersection must give way to a vehicle on the continuing road, including a vehicle turning or about to turn right into the terminating road.

[Scuba_Steve]

You were correct ... the reporter was not. I just like to tell you ... you are wrong .... :lol:

no you were just wrong on both accounts see above

[Usarka]

Here we go, took a bit of searching but I found it, it's not up in legislation form at the moment (still rocking the old legislation) only in amendment form

Still interpretation I reckon, he wasn't about to turn because there were 5 cars he had to give way to.....


You were correct ... the reporter was not. I just like to tell you ... you are wrong .... :lol:

I wouldn't blame ya! :D

[Scuba_Steve]

Still interpretation I reckon, he wasn't about to turn because there were 5 cars he had to give way to.....


Law is all about interpretation, keeps the lawyers paid.
But you can be about to do something for quite some while (years in some peoples cases), you'd have to argue that altho he was waiting to turn right he wasn't "about" to turn right for quite some while. I don't like your chances.

[Usarka]

Law is all about interpretation, keeps the lawyers paid.
But you can be about to do something for quite some while (years in some peoples cases), you'd have to argue that altho he was waiting to turn right he wasn't "about" to turn right for quite some while. I don't like your chances.

I see what you mean, and it's probably one of those ones that if the bike decieded to turn you'd be in the wrong.

But to say the truck wasn't allowed to turn is taking it too far IMHO.

[Scuba_Steve]

I see what you mean, and it's probably one of those ones that if the bike decieded to turn you'd be in the wrong.

But to say the truck wasn't allowed to turn is taking it too far IMHO.

While not blatant all the laws surrounding suggest legally he just has to sit & wait. I think for all intensive purposes we should call this illegal, as this is most likely how it will be inforced.
Let the individual make up their own minds & take their own chances legally & physically.

[Badjelly]

Same thing happened to me yesterday turning into a supermarket car park. Bike (me) turning right into car park, waiting for a couple of cars coming the other way and turning left into the same entrance, car coming out of car park and wanting to turn right. I waved them all through. No worries. Common sense prevailed, as it should.

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere? Surely if a vehicle cannot or will not enter an intersection, you are not failing to give way to it if you move through yourself. It's similar in principle to the situation that was even more common under the recently-deceased road rules, where a left-turning car had to give way to a right-turning vehicle, but could proceed anyway because a straight-through vehicle made the right-turning vehicle unable to turn.

[oneofsix]

Same thing happened to me yesterday turning into a supermarket car park. Bike (me) turning right into car park, waiting for a couple of cars coming the other way and turning left into the same entrance, car coming out of car park and wanting to turn right. I waved them all through. No worries. Common sense prevailed, as it should.

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere? Surely if a vehicle cannot or will not enter an intersection, you are not failing to give way to it if you move through yourself. It's similar in principle to the situation that was even more common under the recently-deceased road rules, where a left-turning car had to give way to a right-turning vehicle, but could proceed anyway because a straight-through vehicle made the right-turning vehicle unable to turn.

That is basically what give way means, give them right of way if they can proceed, don't proceed if you will get in the way of their right of way. Same at round a bouts where two vehicles can actually enter the round a bout at the same time from different entrances because the car on the right is not held up through the fact the car from the next entrance has gone by the time they get there, only works with proper sized round a bouts.

One good thing about the new law, which I saw last night, is if the left turner doesn't indicate it doesn't matter any more. If the were going straight through you had to give way and now when they turn left you have to as well. Made me laugh when the person obviously turning left unnecessarily deliberately left he indicator to force their way round. Would have been funnier if he had got at least a warning for failing to indicate.

[Scuba_Steve]

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere?

can't find it with a quick search probably need access to one of those special legal dictionaries where they makeup new meanings for words to suit their agenda

[Badjelly]

This is a place where a lot of terms are defined (Traffic Regulations 1976, section 2, Interpretation)

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1976/0227/latest/DLM50043.html#DLM50043

But not, unfortunately, "give way".

[merv]

In addition all the guff is in the Road User Rule http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/whole.html#dlm302188 but interestingly it is also silent on a definition for "Give Way".

[chasio]

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.


... for all intensive purposes we should call this illegal, as this is most likely how it will be inforced.
Let the individual make up their own minds & take their own chances legally & physically.

Sorry, I just can't help myself. It is for all intents and purposes.

Also, I don't believe the police would ever stop someone who executed that manouevre considerately and I'd be willing to argue it in court if they stopped me for it.

[Bassmatt]

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.



Sorry, I just can't help myself. It is for all intents and purposes.

Also, I don't believe the police would ever stop someone who executed that manouevre considerately and I'd be willing to argue it in court if they stopped me for it.
Ha, beat me to that one but...
you missed "inforced" should be "enforced".
I'll be taking that position now, thanks.

[chasio]

Ha, beat me to that one but...
you missed "inforced" should be "enforced".
I'll be taking that position now, thanks.

Typos are one thing but the wrong words altogether are something else... But I must concede that I have clearly been beaten by the better candidate :)

[MSTRS]

SS does get points for the correct 'their'...

[jasonu]

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

The truck was in the right because it had a PROTECTED TURN. Protected because the bike has to give way to the left turning cars therefore allowing the truck to go out of turn.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

[jasonu]

Here we go, took a bit of searching but I found it, it's not up in legislation form at the moment (still rocking the old legislation) only in amendment form

But the bike was not 'about to turn', he was waiting for the left turning traffic to pass before he could turn.

[FJRider]

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.


Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_%27all_intents_and_purposes%27_or_%2 7all_intense_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly. :shifty:

[Bassmatt]

Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_%27all_intents_and_purposes%27_or_%2 7all_intense_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly. :shifty:

Well with pedantry like that, I withdraw my request for the position.

[MSTRS]

Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_saying_%27all_intents_and_purposes%27_or_%2 7all_intense_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly. :shifty:

You in HR? You actually need to read more than a line or so, don't you know...

In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable.

[Maha]

I hate sleeping in a tent...for any purpose

[FJRider]

Well with pedantry like that, I withdraw my request for the position.

:killingme


You in HR? You actually need to read more than a line or so, don't you know...

Acceptable ??? I only lower my standards ... if it suits ... :innocent:

[Scuba_Steve]

But the bike was not 'about to turn', he was waiting for the left turning traffic to pass before he could turn.

thats an argument on how long "about" is people can be "about" to do things for years. If your've got a misses take note of how long her "about ready" is.
The bike was "about to turn just as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Like when your about to fix something you just have to get the materials 1st, there is an obstacle but it still doesn't change the fact your about to do it.

[FJRider]

I hate sleeping in a tent...for any purpose

I only sleep in tents for one purpose.

To sleep.

[MSTRS]

I can't sleep when I'm tense.

[Badjelly]

Well with pedantry like that, I withdraw my request for the position.

That should be "application", not "request", surely?

[FJRider]

I can't sleep when I'm tense.

You are lacking in intent ...

[GrayWolf]

You are lacking in intent ...

it could be an intentional lack of sleep?

[MSTRS]

To all intents, being tense in tents is intense...no wonder I can't sleep.

[FJRider]

To all intents, being tense in tents is intense...no wonder I can't sleep.

The extent to which you are intense in tents, is a pretent of your intent, to pretend to be intense in a tent.


How does anybody sleep around here ... ???

[merv]

How does anybody sleep around here ... ???

At this time of the day I don't, I'm busy cooking dinner.

[chasio]

The extent to which you are intense in tents, is a pretent of your intent, to pretend to be intense in a tent.

How does anybody sleep around here ... ???

What is "pretent"? Perhaps something an intensely pretentious lawyer would pretend was a real word...

[FJRider]

What is "pretent"? Perhaps something an intensely pretentious lawyer would pretend was a real word...

Pretent does not preclude the pretentious to pretend an air of pretension.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pretent

[GrayWolf]

What is "pretent"? Perhaps something an intensely pretentious lawyer would pretend was a real word...

pretent? is when you are tensely concentrating, on erecting the tent, prior to intense occupation intent. Therefore you have a pretentious intent.... hope that clears it up for ya

[_Shrek_]

:facepalm: & off to PD this will go :whocares::corn:

[bogan]

So I was pondering, but has the unmarked 4 way crossroads changed with the 'top of the t' bit as well? It doesn't appear to have been mentioned, but as far as I can tell, give way to your left (instead of the old give way to your right) covers the rest of the changes.

Anyway, my question is, car coming from west turning right to south; car coming round south turning right to east, who gives way?

It seems to me, that who gives way depends on whether there is a road heading north or not, which seems a bit of a shit way to do things...


Also, I did search, but couldn't find an answer.

[steve_t]

I reckon the car from the west will have the right of way as per the uncontrolled T intersection rule, but the sooner NZTA sticks a couple of giveway signs there, the better

[Jantar]

So I was pondering, but has the unmarked 4 way crossroads changed with the 'top of the t' bit as well? It doesn't appear to have been mentioned, but as far as I can tell, give way to your left (instead of the old give way to your right) covers the rest of the changes.

Anyway, my question is, car coming from west turning right to south; car coming round south turning right to east, who gives way?

It seems to me, that who gives way depends on whether there is a road heading north or not, which seems a bit of a shit way to do things...


Also, I did search, but couldn't find an answer.

That situation has not changed. The car coming from the west and turning south gives way to the car from the south and turning east. Although both are turning right the car from the west has the other car on its right. Always give way to the right. There are no situations, ever, at an uncontrolled intersection where you give way to the left. You always give way to the right, or give way when turning right. The situation at the top of a T you would only be giving way to the left if the car approaching from your left cuts the corner. If it turns correctly it will be on your right when it crosses the center line.

[bogan]

That situation has not changed. The car coming from the west and turning south gives way to the car from the south and turning east. Although both are turning right the car from the west has the other car on its right. Always give way to the right. There are no situations, ever, at an uncontrolled intersection where you give way to the left. You always give way to the right, or give way when turning right. The situation at the top of a T you would only be giving way to the left if the car approaching from your left cuts the corner. If it turns correctly it will be on your right when it crosses the center line.

That was my conclusion too, I don't think the center line crossing example you give is a good way to remember though, but if it works for you, all good! I'll just remember it as the T main road rule, and avoid unmarked 4 way intersections!

[imac]

The top of of the tee change is because most road users seem to fucking stupid to understand the give way to your right rule. Fairly simple stuff. Now more confusion has been soweth. Perhaps if everyone didn't understand the don't rob banks rule that would be changed too.

[Motu]

I've sorted how to get a trouble free left turn - don't indicate. If you indicate the right turning traffic thinks they have right of way...if you don't indicate they give way.

[merv]

I've sorted how to get a trouble free left turn - don't indicate. If you indicate the right turning traffic thinks they have right of way...if you don't indicate they give way.

Good one Motu, that will have worked well from 1977 - 2012 then also.

[Jantar]

That was my conclusion too, I don't think the center line crossing example you give is a good way to remember though, ....
Don't need to remember it, its just common sense. Give way to the right, give way when turning right.

I still can't think of any situations where you give way to the left. The top of the T may be construed as one example, but even here the new rule has been widely advertised and the reasons given so there shouldn't be any need to think through the situation.

[swbarnett]

That situation has not changed. The car coming from the west and turning south gives way to the car from the south and turning east. Although both are turning right the car from the west has the other car on its right.
Apparently there are no intersections as described:

"6. What happens at crossroads where there are no signs or signals?
Intersections with four or more approaches always have signs on at least two
approaches or are controlled by traffic signals on all approaches. (Note: The only
intersections that can have no signs or signals are T-intersections and in that case
the new T-intersection rule applies.)"

from: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/docs/give-way-qas.pdf

If you were to find an uncontrolled four-way intersection the same rule will apply as for a T. In the situation described above the fourth road is not involved in the manoeuvre and, therefore, does not affect the give way rule.


Always give way to the right. There are no situations, ever, at an uncontrolled intersection where you give way to the left. You always give way to the right, or give way when turning right. The situation at the top of a T you would only be giving way to the left if the car approaching from your left cuts the corner. If it turns correctly it will be on your right when it crosses the center line.
I think you will find that the whole point of these law changes was to change the "give way to the right" rule to "give way to the left". This is how it works in countries that drive on the right - you always give way to the side of the road you drive on (unless sign-posted otherwise).

[Jantar]

Apparently there are no intersections as described:

"6. What happens at crossroads where there are no signs or signals?
Intersections with four or more approaches always have signs on at least two
approaches or are controlled by traffic signals on all approaches. (Note: The only
intersections that can have no signs or signals are T-intersections and in that case
the new T-intersection rule applies.)"

from: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/around-nz/docs/give-way-qas.pdf

If you were to find an uncontrolled four-way intersection the same rule will apply as for a T. In the situation described above the fourth road is not involved in the manoeuvre and, therefore, does not affect the give way rule.
I can find quite a few four way intersections down here that are completely uncontrolled. The new rule does NOT say to treat them as T intersections. (eg intersection of Drybread Rd and Matakanui Rd)



I think you will find that the whole point of these law changes was to change the "give way to the right" rule to "give way to the left". This is how it works in countries that drive on the right - you always give way to the side of the road you drive on (unless sign-posted otherwise).

Well to quote your link back at you:


5. Are we changing to a ‘give way to the left’ rule?
No. The left turn versus right turn rule is not about giving way to the left or right,
but simply establishing who gives way when two vehicles are turning.

Can you please give me an example where anyone gives way to the left other than turning out of the T?