Giving way to right-turning vehicles?

[musicman]

Was just reading the road code online to refresh my memory for licence tests tomorrow (6R & 1L) and came across this

When turning right at an uncontrolled intersection, you must give way to all right-turning vehicles coming from your right.
<img src="http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/gfx/turn-right-giveway-r-turn.jpg"><img src="http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/gfx/turn-right-giveway-r-turn2.jpg">

Just wondering if anyone sticks to this rule? I don't think I've ever come across an intersection like this, I've only ever seen ones where the side street / carpark entrance had the double white Give Way lines, in which case this doesn't apply... right? I'm confused now...

[Magua]

If the red car or bus were at give ways then yes, they would have to give way but as it's an uncontrolled intersection (no give ways) you follow the rule of giving way to your right. Watch out for idiots who don't understand this rule and think that you have to give way to them.

Here's an awesome picture.

[xwhatsit]

Yeah this hardly ever pops up. I cocked up early on (thought the street had give-way lines, not the case) and earned some biddy's dire wrath. I sometimes find myself stopped, giving way, and the idiot not knowing that they have right of way in this situation.

It's uncommon to find it, so nobody knows what to do.

[Sam I Am]

Ok sorry i have to rant now !!! ( yet another one )

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGG stupid fucking give way rules in NZ and DUMB ASS Drivers ( and some riders )

fuck me, there is sod all courteous driving here too many people out for them selves and the rules dont help .. as for giving way to people on minor roads and carparks i am not going to go on or i will be here all night, just wished people used common sence

best of luck with your test and onec you pass... just rember the best rule of thumb

You never have right of way till someone gives it to you ........

[xwhatsit]

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGG stupid fucking give way rules in NZ and DUMB ASS Drivers ( and some riders )

The rules are actually very simple and straightforward. Probably the simplest possible rule set you can have -- just give way to your right. But numbnuts drivers can't necessarily make sense of that.

[rainman]

I don't think I've ever come across an intersection like this

I have one on my daily commute, corner of Geoffrey and Glamorgan in Torbay. It's on a bus route, and near the crest of a hill (traffic coming towards you when you're in the "blue car" position is often hidden by the hill and frequently moving at speed). Bus drivers in the "red car" position mostly act like they don't understand the rule, and wait - but not all of them. Often there are cars right on your tail as there's a long flat straight right behind you, plus there's those diversion island thingies close to the intersection just to piss them off really well. Oh, and you can't see around the corner to see if a car/bus is coming until you're right on it because of a large hedge. So while you're playing chicken with the bus, and watching for cars to shoot up over the hill in front of you, there's likely to be a car overtaking on your left shaking their fist at you.

Fucking moronic rule, should be scrapped, and give ways installed at every intersection to remove all traces of ambiguity.

[musicman]

moronic rule, should be scrapped, and give ways installed at every intersection to remove all traces of ambiguity.

Yeah, it seems a bit confusing that if there is a give way or stop sign there, then the blue car doesn't have to give way, but in exactly the same situation at an uncontrolled intersection instead, the blue car does have to give way.


It's uncommon to find it, so nobody knows what to do.

I guess that's what the road code is for eh? At least the people reading this thread will know what to do if they encounter this kind of intersection in the future!

[Nasty]

I come across this situation almost daily ... and find that I give way and the other person doesn't know the rule ... makes me grumpy cos all I am trying to do is get into my street and home.

[BiK3RChiK]

And if you are the vehicle on the right with 'right-of-way' don't assume the other dumb-nut who is meant to give way 'knows' and comes in you left hand side!

I come across this type of intersection almost daily, and also, with the number of roundabouts in Whakatane, you'd think the general local populace would know the road rules applying to them by now.....Alas! They don't!!

Assumption is the mother of all F*ck-ups!!!

[swbarnett]

The rules are actually very simple and straightforward. Probably the simplest possible rule set you can have -- just give way to your right. But numbnuts drivers can't necessarily make sense of that.
Actually, the rules in Europe are simpler and make a lot more sense. The trouble in NZ is that we drive on the left and give way to the right. This leads to confusion and a lot of exceptions that require road marking (to the point that when there is no road marking people think the same rules apply as if there were. In Europe they drive on the right but still give way to the right. Because they give way to the same side that they drive on there are far fewer exceptions. The ONLY exception in the Swiss road rules is where a small side street enters a major thoroughfare. In this case there are signs telling you that the thoroughfare is a priority road and traffic on it has right of way over all side roads.

In the town that I lived (about 15,000 people) I cannot remember one intersection that wasn't on the one or two main roads that had any road marking at all. The best and most courteous driving I've ever experienced was while living there.

[homer]

its actually quite simple really
just think about it

Its a simple right hand rule , give way to the right , nothing on you right just go . hit something on there drivers side , tough shit there fault

[yungatart]

A lot of the streets around our home are like that. Whether I need to give way or not, I do, because most people don't know what to do.
I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Rosie]

Just wondering if anyone sticks to this rule? I don't think I've ever come across an intersection like this, I've only ever seen ones where the side street / carpark entrance had the double white Give Way lines, in which case this doesn't apply... right? I'm confused now...

I live in a suburb that is composed almost entirely of intersections like this. No-one is entirely sure what to do, but consensus seems to be that you are supposed to give way to the left hand vehicle :wacko:
Of course Rotorua is full of people who indicate right, to show that they are going straight ahead through a roundabout, so it may not be a good example of give way rule awareness :wacko::crazy:

[Mom]

An easy way to remember who gives way to whom is if you are going to get hit on your drivers door or r/h side on a bike, you give way.

[Ragingrob]

Haha yeah these are TERRIBLE! On my 6R test I came up to an intersection where I had to turn right, but I wasn't at a give way. Car came along to turn right down my road and I thought "hmmm well I'm in the right and I don't wanna give way because the agent may put a bad mark down, but this fucker aint got a clue so no way", sure enough he just pulls along and without looking at my road for a give way just turns in front of me. Then I head along my merry way.

But......... Who does actually look at the road they're turning into for a give way sign?! It's fuckin' harder to pull out right in front of someone anyway from an uncontrolled intersection then to let them turn! This rule should be abolished.

[phoenixgtr]

It's uncommon to find it, so nobody knows what to do.

The street I live down is like this. Noone has a clue they have the right of way when they're coming out so I usually end up going first, just carefully to make sure they're not someone who actually knows their road rules

[Usarka]

I was taken through one of these on my licence so it does pay to understand (and you should anyways or you become one of the nong-heads who cause traffic chaos).

Nowadays, if i'm in the car i assert my rights, if I'm on the bike i do what it takes to get through in one piece, with the odd bit of "driver education" thrown in :devil2:


something else i've been told, this doesn't apply to driveways because if you are exiting a driveway you are supposed to give way to people on the road.

BUT public access driveways like the one at foodtown supposedly are treated like road intersections.

[jim.cox]

Since I'm usually on two wheels and not in an armour plated cage

I tend to give way to any and everything

and treat all motorists as homocidal morons actively out to get me

Paranoid? Who me?

[hellnback]

Yeah this hardly ever pops up.....
It's uncommon to find it....

Just about all the roads in my town are like this!!:2thumbsup

[firefighter]

Was just reading the road code online to refresh my memory for licence tests tomorrow (6R & 1L) and came across this


Just wondering if anyone sticks to this rule? I don't think I've ever come across an intersection like this, I've only ever seen ones where the side street / carpark entrance had the double white Give Way lines, in which case this doesn't apply... right? I'm confused now...

yeah dude for the sake of your test make sure you do but on the road on-one realises it they just presume they have the right of way, if your giving way you'll be sitting waiting for ages for them to go then they'll look at you like your an f-wit, then wave to say thanks as though your being polite for 'letting them in' when they had the right of way the whole time (obviously this happens to be heeeeaps!!)

[Freakshow]

I always think about these as if they are a round about and it works. The thing is that 90% of the time these places will be something like a give way or stops sign.

[Steam]

I just got a job as a bus driver in Dunedin. I'm gunna obey this rule to the letter and squash cagers! Don't worry, I'll be nice to riders.

[swbarnett]

its actually quite simple really
just think about it

Its a simple right hand rule , give way to the right , nothing on you right just go . hit something on there drivers side , tough shit there fault
It's not simple at all. You have to look for the give way or stop sign on the side road. If we gave way to the left we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Part of the function of road rules is to mirror common sense. It seems to me that, in this case, it does not.

[The Stranger]

The rules are actually very simple and straightforward. Probably the simplest possible rule set you can have -- just give way to your right. But numbnuts drivers can't necessarily make sense of that.

This man speaks the truth.

The entire give way system can be summed up in a few words.

Give way to anyone who would hit your driver's door.

It's the law, and it happens to coincide with natural law also, which should make it easy for the simple folk.

As for numbnuts drivers not understanding that simple all encompassing law, do you really think chaning the law will help them?

[avgas]

Here is the simple rules i follow:
Give way - stop for everything
Stop - Stop
Flush medium/turning right on road - give way to everything but that which is at either another give way or a stop

[swbarnett]

The entire give way system can be summed up in a few words.

Give way to anyone who would hit your driver's door.
Unless the law says you don't have to. Driving on the left and giving way to the right introduces too many exceptions. We should be giving way to the left like they do in Europe (drive on the right - give way to the right, drive on the left - give way to the left).

[johan]

Unless the law says you don't have to. Driving on the left and giving way to the right introduces too many exceptions. We should be giving way to the left like they do in Europe (drive on the right - give way to the right, drive on the left - give way to the left).

I agree. This is madness.

I lol'ed and then cried when I saw Wellingtonian had half of a page explaining how to drive a roundabout, an ad paid by land transport NZ.

[Badjelly]

Just wondering if anyone sticks to this rule?
I would say 5-10% of the driving population follow this rule consistently. I'm one of that 5-10%, which leads to some fist-shaking at times.

One problem I'm noticing more these days is that on modern cars with rounded front ends, the right-hand indicator of the vehicle that has the right of way isn't visible to the vehicle that's supposed to be giving way. Then there's the problem that the vehicle that has the right of way still has to give way to straight through traffic.

On the whole, the rule is a bloody disaster, but it's the rule, so what do you do?

[90s]

Actually, the rules in Europe are simpler and make a lot more sense. The trouble in NZ is that we drive on the left and give way to the right ... The ONLY exception in the Swiss road rules is where a small side street enters a major thoroughfare. In this case there are signs telling you that the thoroughfare is a priority road and traffic on it has right of way over all side roads.

Actually there are lots of odd rules in different European countries, and some are as stupid as this rule here.:blank:
Where I first got licenced in Blelgian road turning from the right onto another rd had priority. This meant that a 120kph main rd had to give way to minor side rd traffic turning onto it - except of course most of these had stops or give ways on. But not all. So like the situation here there was great ambiguity. You'd have to be a moron to take priority by presenting the side of your car at 10kph to a steaming oncoming car at 120kph. But guess what? World is full of morons.:Pokey:

There was also a crazy rule whereby you had to give way to traffic coming onto a roundabout when you were already on it.

Rule here is actually manifest all the time whereby you are turning left into a rd and an oncoming car also wants to turn left. They have priority, unless they are in a lane that has a yield, in which case they generally assume they have priority (guess what? ...).

The two situations that will happen to most riders every day that invoke this rule are (from the road code) giving way to:
- all vehicles coming towards you and turning right.
- Giving way when turning left

You need to seriously get on top of this rule to understand what drivers might be doing and why to ride safely. And assume everyone is a moron and will do the one thing they shouldn't do in any situation. Oh, good luck with you test.

[Skyryder]

Nothing difficult about the right hand rule. If you are changing direction in the absence of stop or give way signs give way to all traffic that is on your right.


The only exception to this is if the side road goes straight ahead and the main road curves to the right, you give way to turning traffic even though you are not changing direcrection.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Rule here is actually manifest all the time whereby you are turning left into a rd and an oncoming car also wants to turn left. They have priority, unless they are in a lane that has a yield, in which case they generally assume they have priority (guess what? ...).



Two oncoming vehicle turning left and one has priority???? They are both turning away from each other.


Skyryder

[Ixion]

But......... Who does actually look at the road they're turning into for a give way sign?! It's fuckin' harder to pull out right in front of someone anyway from an uncontrolled intersection then to let them turn! This rule should be abolished.

The rule is simplicity itself.

Turning left ? Give way to everything.
Turning right ? Give way to anything you see when you look right.

Anyone who cannot comprehend it should not be on the road.Or indeed , loose in society.

And I certainly hope that everyone "does actually look at the road they're turning into for a give way sign". I always do. And assume that cages will ignore it.

The obsessive need that people seem to have nowdays for signs to tell them what to do is a sad indication of the general level of cretinism endemic on the roads. There is NO need for give way or stop signs except when it is necessary to override the general rule. If the right hand rules means that traffic would have to give way anyway,. there should be no sign.

[Skyryder]

something else i've been told, this doesn't apply to driveways because if you are exiting a driveway you are supposed to give way to people on the road.

BUT public access driveways like the one at foodtown supposedly are treated like road intersections.

That's correct. Access to and from a public car park is to be treated in the same manner as if this was an intersection. If you are making a 'right' hand turn into the carpark and a vehicle is waiting to exit the park and is signalling that he is turning right you give way. Few do but if you are leaving the park and making a right hand turn you have the right of way. Use this rule safely and it will save you a lot of time.

Skyyrder

[ManDownUnder]

It's such an easy rule! Translate it into the following to make it even easier...

If the other car will KILL YOU (because it hit you in the driver's door) ... give way to it. (Insert "right arm" for "driver's door" as appropriate on a m/c)

[90s]

Two oncoming vehicle turning left and one has priority???? They are both turning away from each other.
Skyryder

Left as in "your left". Right for them.

[musicman]

Turning right ? Give way to anything you see when you look right.

Except when the vehicle on the right is at a give way or stop sign, or when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street.

[KLOWN]

as a general rule most drivers just give way to the car on the busier road, whether this is right or not. I came across this problem a lot when i lived in palmerston North, lots of little roads intersecting with no signage. Usually i didn't bother about giving way cause no one followed the rule but one day when i was coming home there was a cop car on the road i was turning into, on my right, and he was also turning right. So i applied the give way rule so i didnt recieve a ticket and ended up waiting about 5 minutes as the cop gestured for me to go, but i refused as i didnt want a ticket. Its a rule followed rarely but if u find someone who actually uses it you will be at fault in an accident

[Badjelly]

Except when the vehicle on the right is at a give way or stop sign, or when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street.

"...when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street?" That's news to me!

[Ixion]

Except when the vehicle on the right is at a give way or stop sign, or when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street.

Yes, yes, or is at a traffic light, or is an emergency vehicles with lights and siren, or you are following the directions of an enforcement officer.

[Skyryder]

"...when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street?" That's news to me!

I think he means when both oncoming vehicles are turning into the same street.

One will be making a left turn the other a right.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Left as in "your left". Right for them.

Right. :niceone:

Skyryder

[Ixion]

No, the other right.

[Usarka]

Correct....

[Badjelly]

"...when there is an oncoming vehicle turning left into the same street?" That's news to me!


I think he means when both oncoming vehicles are turning into the same street. One will be making a left turn the other a right.

Yes. So we have a T intersection, no give way or stop signs. Vehicle A wants to turn right off the through road onto the side street; vehicle B, coming out of the side street, wants to turn right onto the through road; vehicle C, coming down the through road in the opposite direction to A, wants to turn left.

I understood musicman to mean A can proceed. (Have I misunderstood?) The way I see it is that A has to give way to B, and C has to give way to A. B has no one to give way to, so B should proceed while the others wait (but if C is quick she can whip around while B is blocking A).

What happens in practice is everyone waits, then everyone goes at the same time. But I'm talking about what should happen.

[PrincessBandit]

Always adhere to the give way to things on your right at uncontrolled intersections where turning is involved, even though plenty of people don't seem to follow it. Most of the intersections where it's an issue for me have been "converted" to official Give Ways now so it's not quite the hassle it used to be.

[Skyryder]

Yes. So we have a T intersection, no give way or stop signs. Vehicle A wants to turn right off the through road onto the side street; vehicle B, coming out of the side street, wants to turn right onto the through road; vehicle C, coming down the through road in the opposite direction to A, wants to turn left.



B has right of way. A gives way to both B Without B C gives way to A.

This is the anomily of NZ driving. There was a time when C had the right of way.


B is the only vehicle that can proceed without giving way to any vehicle. Usually C would turn left at time that B turns right as A has to give way to B.



Skyryder

[homer]

This man speaks the truth.

The entire give way system can be summed up in a few words.

Give way to anyone who would hit your driver's door.

It's the law, and it happens to coincide with natural law also, which should make it easy for the simple folk.

As for numbnuts drivers not understanding that simple all encompassing law, do you really think chaning the law will help them?

Yeah its so simple its just so funny people cant figure it out .

heres another way to remember
the smallest turning vehicle always gives way .
im so not going in to it any more , its such a stupid rule and its what all driving follows.

[Jiminy]

We should be giving way to the left like they do in Europe (drive on the right - give way to the right, drive on the left - give way to the left).

Mmmmmmh, I don't agree. Too many people already drive on the wrong side of the road when abroad, I don't want them to also have to think about which side has right of way.


Nothing difficult about the right hand rule. (...)

The only exception to this is (...)

Exceptions are the problem ;)

I tend to ignore the rule carefully as most people ignore it and expect you to do so. But caution is king.

[The Stranger]

Yeah its so simple its just so funny people cant figure it out .


You need not figure them out, simply adhere to them.

Look over here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=71182) ragingknob and fizbin et al can't even work out that you are meant to drive in the Left lane on the motorway. Even when it is pointed out to them in the road code they steadfastly refuse to believe that it is law.
Shall we change that too?

No amount of changing the laws is going to create compliance.
You would need to change the people, how you do that (within the current murder laws) I have no idea.

[homer]

were not changing anything , well im not just a couple of simple points and your sweet

[Usarka]

This thread is perfect example of why changing the give way laws wont make a japs snatch of a difference. People just can't grasp road rules in this country, whaddever they be.

(edit, what he 2 above said)

[homer]

It's not simple at all. You have to look for the give way or stop sign on the side road. If we gave way to the left we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Part of the function of road rules is to mirror common sense. It seems to me that, in this case, it does not.

If you gave way to the left your on the wrong side of the road ,
or in the wrong country
think about it

[McJim]

It's such an easy rule! Translate it into the following to make it even easier...

If the other car will KILL YOU (because it hit you in the driver's door) ... give way to it. (Insert "right arm" for "driver's door" as appropriate on a m/c)

Hmm. I was going straight ahead - the oncoming car was turning to his right. He turned anyway and hit me in the drivers door and yet he was found to be at fault not me.

Obviously some qualification involved hence maybe not so simple.

or...

How come the rest of the world does it differently with no issues at all and yet New Zealand has a 'simple' rule that no-one understands?

[homer]

overseas"im not 100% sure if it was germany thought it was , you actually pass on the left hand side on a passing lane .
makes sence to me as , if you want to pass then you have to manouver your vehicle , not like here where you pass in the middle and then end up in a different lane, then you have to ,manouver back to the standard flow, which then merges back to where you just passed .

now is that fucked or what

[The Stranger]

How come the rest of the world does it differently with no issues at all and yet New Zealand has a 'simple' rule that no-one understands?

with no issues at all??
Really?
I stand corrected, I am all for the change then.

[The Stranger]

overseas"im not 100% sure if it was germany thought it was , you actually pass on the left hand side on a passing lane .
makes sence to me as , if you want to pass then you have to manouver your vehicle , not like here where you pass in the middle and then end up in a different lane, then you have to ,manouver back to the standard flow, which then merges back to where you just passed .

now is that fucked or what

The Germans drive on the RHS of the road.
So wouldn't passing on the left essentially be the same as we have here.
Truely revolutionary!

[Radar]

I live in a suburb that is composed almost entirely of intersections like this. No-one is entirely sure what to do, but consensus seems to be that you are supposed to give way to the left hand vehicle :wacko:
... :wacko::crazy:

Same down here, in fact everywhere I have been. No seems to be aware of this law. In fact what happens is that instead of giving way, the vehicle stops (waiting to turn) across your path so that you cannot turn.

What a stupid screw up of a rode code rule. Thanks for starting this thread - it is good to know, for those who going for their restricted or full.

[homer]

The Germans drive on the RHS of the road.
So wouldn't passing on the left essentially be the same as we have here.
Truely revolutionary!

wasnt in germany then

maybe in the states i dont recall
but you drive in the middle and passing is on the left .
and theres patrol cars and vans that ticket you for going to slow
seen it on tv
think if your traveling slower than 160 km you get a ticket

[swbarnett]

Too many people already drive on the wrong side of the road when abroad, I don't want them to also have to think about which side has right of way.
I agree. This is why they changed the give way rule from left to right.

What I'm really saying is that we should give way to the same side we drive on. I know it would be hard but this can also be achieved if we follow Europe et al. and drive on the right while still giving way to the right. The confusion then goes away completely (for both which side to drive and give way).

[Ixion]

B has right of way. A gives way to both B Without B C gives way to A.

This is the anomily of NZ driving. There was a time when C had the right of way.


B is the only vehicle that can proceed without giving way to any vehicle. Usually C would turn left at time that B turns right as A has to give way to B.



Skyryder
Yes. And it is breathtakingly simple. I cannot believe that any creature with enough sentience to keep breathing cannot understand it, so I think those who complain are simply foreigners who want to complain about anything that is different to "back home" just for the sake of it.

C is turning left, so he is bottom of the heap and must give to everybody.

A and B are both turning right so are on equal terms. But when A looks to his right he sees B , so he must give way.

Sorted. Now, really, how hard was that. And are you having trouble figuring out the breathing thing?

[Ixion]

If you want a mantra , just remember

"Left turn loser; car to the right, sit tight"

[swbarnett]

If you want a mantra , just remember

"Left turn loser; car to the right, sit tight"
Except for the exceptions.


Yes. And it is breathtakingly simple. I cannot believe that any creature with enough sentience to keep breathing cannot understand it
I agree that our road laws are at a level that any educated ten year old should be able to understand. I think this says more about our education system than anything else.


, so I think those who complain are simply foreigners who want to complain about anything that is different to "back home" just for the sake of it.
I was born in Auckland and apart from two years in Switzerland have lived in Auckland for the last 43. One of the biggest things that struck while I lived there was the impressive driving standard (and you hardly ever saw a cop on traffic duty). There are several reasons for this. Far and away the biggest is that fact that drivers respect each other and each other's right to be there. This is aided by the the fact that the traffic density is very low (one car for every 1350 people in Zurich). Next in line are the road rules - they just make sense. The first thing I did after my first cycle around my local town was find the nearest office of their equivalent of the LTNZ and pick up an English language version of their road code. What struck me first was how thin it was. Because the rules are close to common sense you don't need pages of exceptions and explanations of a myriad of different types of intersections. There was even a paragraph stating that if you got into a situation where the give way rules didn't seem to be working (thinking specifically about the tight, twisting mountain roads) then the vehicles involved where supposed to make up their own minds as to what would work (and when in doubt any bus driver present had authority over the situation - the buses and their drivers were phenomenal, but that's another story).

If our rules in NZ are "breathtakingly simple" then we need a new word to describe the Swiss road rules.

[Skyryder]

Yes. And it is breathtakingly simple. I cannot believe that any creature with enough sentience to keep breathing cannot understand it, so I think those who complain are simply foreigners who want to complain about anything that is different to "back home" just for the sake of it.

C is turning left, so he is bottom of the heap and must give to everybody.

A and B are both turning right so are on equal terms. But when A looks to his right he sees B , so he must give way.

Sorted. Now, really, how hard was that. And are you having trouble figuring out the breathing thing?

At the risk of being pedantic C has no need to give way to B as they are not on any collision course. C must certainly give way to A if B is not present.

However as A has to give way to B C can safely turn left as B is making a right hand turn. If I could post up a diagram I would but I can't so it's back to the heavy breathing thing.


Skyryder

[Hinny]

It's fuckin' harder to pull out right in front of someone anyway from an uncontrolled intersection then to let them turn! This rule should be abolished.

Think about it. You are advocating crossing each others path as being better than not! That's not very logical is it?

[Hinny]

All these people having trouble with the right hand rule makes you realise how dangerous it is driving on our roads. It is as basic as driving on the left.
Can probably blame the confusion on the traffic engineers who insist on overiding the right hand rule, at almost every intersection, with give way signs. There are probably more exceptions to the rule than not as a result of their meddling. This is part of their master plan to facilitate traffic flows by creating major roads and reducing the status of the rest to the equivalence of private driveways.They then wonder why we have traffic jams. It's like taking a sieve and blocking up most of the holes and making some bigger. Block one hole and you create mayhem. Take the cars off thirty roads and put them on one - Yeah that's really bright. Let the traffic flow on the roads that are there, taking the shortest route to their destination, seems far more sensible to me.
Goes along with their practice of spending roading dollars on destroying the existing infrastructure by putting bumps in perfectly smooth roads and great lumps of concrete all over the place. Instead of maintaining or, perish the thought, improving the roads we already have, they are proceeding full speed ahead with their evil plans of destruction. Are they all bmx riders? Want to give us a thrill on the way to work. Swerve around this, bounce off that, have a little bit of jiggy jig jiggle here as we bump our way over the corrugations of the breaking up pavement. FFS give us decent roads that we can drive down and we wouldn't need to drive 4x4's in Remuera and Herne Bay. Have you seen the roads in Herne Bay/Ponsonby? All the rates these people pay and look at the roads they get. Urgent need to get rid of the people responsible for that fiasco.
Probably need to drive on the other side of the road as well.

[Ixion]

At the risk of being pedantic C has no need to give way to B as they are not on any collision course. C must certainly give way to A if B is not present.

However as A has to give way to B C can safely turn left as B is making a right hand turn. If I could post up a diagram I would but I can't so it's back to the heavy breathing thing.


Skyryder

Strictly , C must give way to A. But A must give way to B. Therefore the order of precedence is B A C . (Shit, I hope I got that right. This alphabet soup is making my head asplode)

In practice as you note, people will make such slight modifications to the strict rules as prudence and common sense permit.

It is important to note that the requirement is to give way. Once one has yielded the right of way, if he who has the superior right is unable to avail himself of it , nothing stops one proceeding. It is "give way", not "wait until the other person is gone". For instance, if one is required to give way to another motorist, who then stalls his vehicle, nothing prevents one proceeding.

In reality, it is more easily done than explained. Like sex.

[Jiminy]

I agree that our road laws are at a level that any educated ten year old should be able to understand. I think this says more about our education system than anything else.

Aouch! Hey, I'm not the one who said that ;). Didn't say I disagree, either :whistle:. Now what if the license test was a bit more decent? Felt much too easy if you ask me...


I was born in Auckland and apart from two years in Switzerland have lived in Auckland for the last 43. (...)

I might argue that CH has a higher density of population, making the roads feel at least as busy as here (note that I don't drive in Auckland). But, yeah, drivers in most of CH are legends, less sure about the peripheral regions.

On the same topic, I find it simplistic to follow the road marking and traffic signs, and apply the give way to the right rule when there is no marking. Far simpler than viewing the road marking as an exception to the rule. My two cents...

[swbarnett]

I might argue that CH has a higher density of population, making the roads feel at least as busy as here (note that I don't drive in Auckland).
Yes, over the country as a whole the population is denser than here (~9million people in an area the size of the central north island). However, There are more towns than in NZ so the population is spread more evenly over the whole country. As a result it didn't feel any more crowded than NZ (and it felt less crowded than Auckland - even in Zurich).

As for the roads, there's a a darn sight less traffic on them than in NZ (at least Auckland anyway). Because the public transport system is so good (I've not seen better) people who don't want to drive don't have to (unlike Auckland where it's almost mandatory). When I had to return a rental car on a Monday morning I travelled from Brugg to Basel (~65km) on state of the art motorways the entire way and averaged about 130kph (speed limit 120kph) the traffic was so light. In Basel the traffic banked up a little but not nearly as much as it does in Auckland.


But, yeah, drivers in most of CH are legends, less sure about the peripheral regions.
Everywhere but Geneva that I drove I found the same. My theory is that the presence of the UN brings in a large number of non-Swiss drivers to muddy the waters.

[90s]

This alphabet soup is making my head asplode

I am have passed the licence to drive & ride in 4 countries, and have been pedantically proud to be able to remember and understand the road codes in each of these, and other those of other countries too.

Before this thread I understood the rules totally.

After this thread all I understand is that I am to view people's right turning (or left turning ... where was 'c' again?) doors as a target and attempt to ram them. And I'll overtake from now on on the motorway on any lane I please, including the hard shoulder, because if enough people believe its legal it must be. :crybaby:

[90s]

wasnt in germany then

maybe in the states i dont recall
but you drive in the middle and passing is on the left .
and theres patrol cars and vans that ticket you for going to slow
seen it on tv
think if your traveling slower than 160 km you get a ticket

Not the states! 160kph in the states?
I've driven all over the world, and I don't recognise the system you are talking about here at all.

Pls describe what you mean - "drive in the middle and passing is on the left".
Is this for a system driving on the same side as NZ? If so there are few countries that do. If not then passing on the left is that same as here.
The situation on many 'motorways' where people would drive "in the middle" would be when the inside rd is given over to certain things, such as entering/exiting the motorway.

Intriqued, pls. let us know more.

[Mikkel]

I fucked the give way rule, as described in post #1, up during my 6R practical - but the examiner was a good fella and let me get away with it for a number of reasons.

However, the give way to right turning traffic rule in NZ is stupid. It is that simple. Not because it is hard to remember or difficult to implement.
No, simply because it doesn't make sense and it provokes dangerous situations all the time. It forces a driver who is turning left to split his attention to both the left-and the righthand side of the road. In dense traffic, i.e. city traffic, this provides a very good oppotunity for mowing down cyclists, etc.
On the other hand - it provides a driver turning right with more opportunities to complete his turn... However, once you have commited to that turn - if anything at all goes wrong you could be in big big trouble. It is an idiotic rule and there's a reason why it's unique to NZ. It does go some way to make kiwis a more endagered species though and as such it makes it easier to identify with the national icon :no:

[homer]

Not the states! 160kph in the states?
I've driven all over the world, and I don't recognise the system you are talking about here at all.


Pls describe what you mean - "drive in the middle and passing is on the left".
Is this for a system driving on the same side as NZ? If so there are few countries that do. If not then passing on the left is that same as here.
The situation on many 'motorways' where people would drive "in the middle" would be when the inside rd is given over to certain things, such as entering/exiting the motorway.

Intriqued, pls. let us know more.
Yes driving on the same side of the road as here .
think the whole piece on tv was because there was one fella who tests the porsche top speed before they ship them to the new owners, and its where they test the top speed and then send a certificate with the car , photo showing the speed on the speedo.
top speed was 312 km
I saw it on tv quite a long time back , dont recall in the slightest where
"poland" ? i have no idea
its like the auto bahn , motorway here heading north from chch
similar, any ways al lthe traffic stays in the middle lanes going north and south, the passing lane is the left lane, so if your not in a hurry you stay in the middle and all the passing vehicles have to make the judgement of to pass or not and they decide when and how they merge back in to the constant flow .
this was also a not speed restriction area that if you travel under im sure was posted at 160 km you got a ticket

[90s]

Weird. Still, sounds like fun. I forget what guilt free speed feels like over here.

[Skyryder]

I fucked the give way rule, as described in post #1, up during my 6R practical - but the examiner was a good fella and let me get away with it for a number of reasons.

However, the give way to right turning traffic rule in NZ is stupid. It is that simple. Not because it is hard to remember or difficult to implement.
No, simply because it doesn't make sense and it provokes dangerous situations all the time. It forces a driver who is turning left to split his attention to both the left-and the righthand side of the road. In dense traffic, i.e. city traffic, this provides a very good oppotunity for mowing down cyclists, etc.
On the other hand - it provides a driver turning right with more opportunities to complete his turn... However, once you have commited to that turn - if anything at all goes wrong you could be in big big trouble. It is an idiotic rule and there's a reason why it's unique to NZ. It does go some way to make kiwis a more endagered species though and as such it makes it easier to identify with the national icon :no:

Spot on Mikkel. There was a time when the left hand turn had the right of way but if memory is correct this was changed sometime in the sixties. The idea being that vehicles would not be obstructing the intersection giving way to the left turning vehicle. It has never worked from day one to the present.

There was talk of this changing back to the 'old' way but the boffins in NZ Land Transport considered that this would be to confusing. One has only to look at the current signalling laws on roundabouts to understand their wisdom on what they claim to be experts on.

Skyryder

[Badjelly]

Spot on Mikkel. There was a time when the left hand turn had the right of way but if memory is correct this was changed sometime in the sixties.

If my memory is correct, then yours isn't. The new road rules were introduced in 1978, I believe. They were called the "new rules" until well into the 1990s, but this usage has dropped away recently.

I was one of the people who initially thought the new rules were a good thing, because they were simpler and less ambiguous. Some time in the last 30 years, I changed my mind. I am very disappointed that the proposal to change them a few years ago was dropped.

[Ixion]

Yes, late seventies or early eighties it was.

I was the reverse, thought it a bad idea at first, but now it's well settled in an no sentient person (except immigrants, and with them it's not that they can't figure it out, they just don't want to know about anythign that's in any way different to 'back home' ) has any problem with it. It's not worth changing.

It was actually driven by the small towns. In the city the old rule worked OK. But on the open road ,.a right turning vehicle was considered dangerously exposed in the middle of the road. And as open road speeds rose this caused a considerable number of serious accidents. The rule about having to pull to the left before turning right was dropped at the same time.

On the open road, it still makes sense.

[Badjelly]

The reason I think the "new rules" (new as in 30 years old) are a bad thing is that they create too many opportunities for confusion & misjudgement. Not just for new NZers who don't understand them, but for everyone.

I'm vehicle A, turning right into a side street, and I see vehicle B come out of the side street. Is his right-hand indicator flashing? (I can't see, because it's on the side of the car away from me.) Is there a Give Way or Stop sign on the side street? Oh, WTF, I'll just drive far enough forward that he can't pull out in front of me and then make the turn.

I'm B coming out of the side street, wanting to turn right. Here comes A from my left. Is he turning right. No he isn't, no he isn't, yes he is, OK I'll pull out, hmm, why is he shaking his fist at me? (I am not making this one up, I'm talking about the intersection of Volga St and Mt Albert Rd any weekday morning. I'm B.) Or, yes he is turning right, but what about the guy behind him?

I'm A again, still trying to turn into the same side street (but B's not there). I see C coming down the road wanting to turn left. But what about D coming down the road behind C? D's left indicator is obscured by C, so let's assume he doesn't want to turn left. But can he fit past C? Depends how far to the left C moves before making the turn. Nah, he can't fit past, she'll be right, faark, crash!

Replayed every day in every suburb around the country.

[Badjelly]

And, might I add, the fact that only 5-10% of the driving population even tries to follow the "right-turning traffic entering a side street (A) gives way right-turning traffic coming out of the side street (B)" rule tells you something. I have lost count of the number of times I have given way to the right in this situation and caused complete confusion.

[Grahameeboy]

The rules are actually very simple and straightforward. Probably the simplest possible rule set you can have -- just give way to your right. But numbnuts drivers can't necessarily make sense of that.

Yeah but that turning left rule is considered giving way to your right even though the right turning vehicle is not on your right, coming from your right....it's oncoming or NNNNE not East approaching....now that is numbnuts thinking...I mean the turning right vehicle is no more coming from right as is the turning left vehicle etc...

[90s]

except immigrants ...

A strategic mistake to ignore them as they form 50% of the population, and in the area of Auckland I live (which could be any part) about 100%?

[Ixion]

Ah, I don't ignore them. I watch for them very carefully. And remove myself elsewhere. I just wish they all came with flags. The ones with turbans are OK, you can see the turban and get out of the way. But the Poms are harder. They look, outwardly, normal.

[90s]

Poms are harder. They look, outwardly, normal.

Careful - those pests understand the roundabout rules from birth and therefore present a considerable hazzard in behaving correctly on them ...

And for your information I look far from normal sir.

[ynot slow]

Read first page only,but my take is as follows "When turning right,give way to all vehicles crossing or approaching from the right".Which means if a car is turning right and on your left,you are turning right,you have right of way,although be prepared to stop lol.

If said vehicle doesn't give way the fingure and/or boot to rear panel has a good effect.

[bikemike]

I agree with Mikkel, and this here nugget from Badjelly:

... But what about D coming down the road behind C? D's left indicator is obscured by C, so let's assume he doesn't want to turn left. But can he fit past C? Depends how far to the left C moves before making the turn. Nah, he can't fit past, she'll be right, faark, crash!

Replayed every day in every suburb around the country.

The problem I have with this rule is not any difficulty remembering it, but the fact that as a left turner you have to make the call based on the vehicle (B) coming right out of the side road you want to turn into, because he may or may not need to give way to the vehicle (A) coming toward you who wants to turn right into the same lane as you, and (A), as he might or might not give way to you regardless of whether he's considered whether he should give way to (B). So far so road sense... but, you also have to watch for the guy (D) coming up behind you who might or might not squeeze past, nay, even overtake and cross double yellows to go past you whilst you sit waiting to go left. Mr Oncoming (A) may or may not wait for this possibility leaving a stalemate. Plus there's the cyclist coming up your nearside.

I see this regularly round the corner from me, the usual outcome is that the left turner gets overtaken by (D), who crosses the double yellows and often has to brake to avoid (B) who has just pulled out because A and me are at a standstill, or (A) who is the one who has right of way and bravely makes the turn. Even if I take the whole lane whilst waiting to turn left (there is no filter and there are cyclists) the guy (D) will pass on the yellows. Really, it's the norm. Maybe I should go and video it.

Maybe the problem here is not so much the give way rule, or even the following of it, but the wrong choice of junction.

Let there be more roundabouts, and roundabouts feeding into roundabouts, roundabouts with traffic lights, roundabouts within roundabouts.

Seriously though, even in standard and proper use with the guy (D) following and not trying a pass into oncoming traffic but where there is instead plenty of room or even lanes for him to pass you whilst you wait to turn left you still have to know what he is going to do before giving way to (A) or sneaking in before him because you are 'covered' by the guy behind you (D) passing.

I'm not whinging about avin to look beyind me iver. I love the big mirrors on my bike which actually let me see a full view of what is there, I use them always.

The one really good road rule we have here is parking on your own side of the road.

[spudchucka]

Fucking moronic rule, should be scrapped, and give ways installed at every intersection to remove all traces of ambiguity.

There is no ambiguity, it is fundamentally simple. Unfortunately there are also extremely high numbers of fundamentally stupid motorists who should be banished to public transport.

[spudchucka]

It's not simple at all. You have to look for the give way or stop sign on the side road. If we gave way to the left we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Part of the function of road rules is to mirror common sense. It seems to me that, in this case, it does not.

Right turning traffic gives way to other right turning traffic on their right. It is simple and if you have to "look" for stop signs and give way signs, (not to mention the lines painted on the road surface) at intersections then you need your eyes tested.

[Badjelly]

There is no ambiguity, it is fundamentally simple. Unfortunately there are also extremely high numbers of fundamentally stupid motorists who should be banished to public transport.

So the idea is to cause all the morons to crash, thereby discouraging them from driving?

It's taking a while.

[Badjelly]

Right turning traffic gives way to other right turning traffic on their right. It is simple and if you have to "look" for stop signs and give way signs, (not to mention the lines painted on the road surface) at intersections then you need your eyes tested.

Corner Evans Bay Parade & Kemp St, Kilbirnie Wellington: it used to be uncontrolled, now there's a Give Way sign on Kemp St. The sign's behind a tree and the line on the road is faint. Result: much confusion. There are many like that.

[swbarnett]

if you have to "look" for stop signs and give way signs, (not to mention the lines painted on the road surface) at intersections then you need your eyes tested.
Truck sitting forward covering the white line and overgrown tree blocking the stop sign from my view. It's happened to me. Even if it's obvious you still have to look.

[swbarnett]

I agree with Mikkel, and this here nugget from Badjelly:


The problem I have with this rule is not any difficulty remembering it, but the fact that as a left turner you have to make the call based on the vehicle (B) coming right out of the side road you want to turn into, because he may or may not need to give way to the vehicle (A) coming toward you who wants to turn right into the same lane as you, and (A), as he might or might not give way to you regardless of whether he's considered whether he should give way to (B). So far so road sense... but, you also have to watch for the guy (D) coming up behind you who might or might not squeeze past, nay, even overtake and cross double yellows to go past you whilst you sit waiting to go left. Mr Oncoming (A) may or may not wait for this possibility leaving a stalemate. Plus there's the cyclist coming up your nearside.

I had this yesterday in the cage. I was wanting to turn left into the side street, car wanting to turn right across my path that had right of way over me. The car behind me was coming through so I started to move. The car behind me must've stopped because the other car took their right of way and I had to jump on the anchors real sharpish. No accident resulted because I was open to the situation changing but it does not bode well for anyone that's even a little less alert than I was.

[spudchucka]

Corner Evans Bay Parade & Kemp St, Kilbirnie Wellington: it used to be uncontrolled, now there's a Give Way sign on Kemp St. The sign's behind a tree and the line on the road is faint. Result: much confusion. There are many like that.

If you can't tell if there's a give way sign or not then treat it as uncontrolled until you know otherwise.

[spudchucka]

Truck sitting forward covering the white line and overgrown tree blocking the stop sign from my view. It's happened to me. Even if it's obvious you still have to look.

If you can't tell if there's a give way sign or not then treat it as uncontrolled until you know otherwise.

[Ragingrob]

But then people will hesitate, hesitate, then both go thinking the other's giving way and crash anyway haha!

[Ixion]

If you can't tell if there's a give way sign or not then treat it as uncontrolled until you know otherwise.

Which is, of course, the fail safe option.

And the question of the visibility or otherwise of signs has nothing whatsoever to do with the question as to the merits of the give way rule.

No matter what rule there is for uncontrolled intersections, in whatever country, a specific give way or stop sign will over ride that rule. And those relying on the rule will still need to determine if it is overridden or not. Left hand, right hand, it makes no difference.

I repeat, anyone unable to deal with so simple a requirement has no business driving a pedal car let alone a powered vehicle.

[swbarnett]

If you can't tell if there's a give way sign or not then treat it as uncontrolled until you know otherwise.
I agree completely. However, the guy in the truck gets pretty pissed off when you just sit there and they're quite rightly waiting for you.

[Badjelly]

And the question of the visibility or otherwise of signs has nothing whatsoever to do with the question as to the merits of the give way rule.


Yes it does, because under the old rules the priority was the same whether the side street had a Give Way on it or not.

OK, in theory the term "side street" has no standing in law, but in practice that seldom mattered: it was obvious to everyone which street was the side street and traffic on that street gave way to everyone regardless. Simpler and, consequently, safer.

It's all very well to say the rules are simple and anyone who can't follow them is stupid. However, face it, there are a lot of stupid people (or people who drive stupidly). The current rules are simple in theory, complex in practice, for reasons that have been explained in abundant detail already on this thread. The result is indecision, confusion, near-misses and collisions.

[Ixion]

Yes it does, because under the old rules the priority was the same whether the side street had a Give Way on it or not.

OK, in theory the term "side street" has no standing in law, but in practice that seldom mattered: it was obvious to everyone which street was the side street and traffic on that street gave way to everyone regardless. Simpler and, consequently, safer.

It's all very well to say the rules are simple and anyone who can't follow them is stupid. However, face it, there are a lot of stupid people (or people who drive stupidly). The current rules are simple in theory, complex in practice, for reasons that have been explained in abundant detail already on this thread. The result is indecision, confusion, near-misses and collisions.

No. Not so. Under the old "right turning traffic gives way", in force until sometime about 1970 odd, a STOP or GIVEWAY sign overrode the 'uncontrolled' rule (or a traffic light of course). Granted, there weren't very many signs back then. Remember too, that then a right turning vehicle was obliged, in all cases, to pull to the right of the road and wait until the road was clear before turning, which would not be very practical in todays urban traffic

But if you are talking about the side road versus main road rule, then you are going back a LONG way. That rule was abolished by the Transport Act 1948 !

No rule for uncontrolled intersections is going be be able to deal with people who cannot, through stupidity, or will not, through perversity, apply it. Some people can't even work out traffic lights. You can't get any more directive than those.

[swbarnett]

I think the crux of the matter is that if we gave way to the same side we drive on (i.e. the left) uncontrolled intersections would be the norm. Under the current situation uncontrolled intersections are the exception. A rule that needs an exemption more than 50% of the time doesn't work very well.

[Badjelly]

No. Not so. Under the old "right turning traffic gives way", in force until sometime about 1970 odd, a STOP or GIVEWAY sign overrode the 'uncontrolled' rule (or a traffic light of course). Granted, there weren't very many signs back then. Remember too, that then a right turning vehicle was obliged, in all cases, to pull to the right of the road and wait until the road was clear before turning, which would not be very practical in todays urban traffic.


Before the "new" road rules were introduced (in 1978, I believe) the rules for uncontrolled intersections were:

Right-turning traffic gives way to all other traffic
When two vehicles are turning right, courtesy prevails (a quaint phrase, but the one used in the Road Code IIRC)


Invariably, when two vehicles were turning right, "courtesy" led a vehicle turning right out of the side street to give way to a vehicle turning right into the same side street. (Give way to the left in other words.) This was an unwritten rule, but consistently followed nonetheless. So a Give Way sign on the side street made no difference.

Yes, I know the term side street no longer existed in the road rules, nevertheless people knew what they were expected to do and, for the most part, did it.

By the way, although turning right from the left side of the road was required in rural areas, it was not required (or done) in urban areas.

The motivation for the changes in the road rules in 1978 was to remove ambiguity and make the rules simpler. I used to think this was a good idea. I was convinced otherwise largely by my experience living in the USA for 4 years. I was amazed by how well people handled 4-way stops, but when I studied the local equivalent of the road code for my local driver's license test, I couldn't find any rules specific to 4-way stops. I realised that the rules actually followed by USA drivers at 4-way stops are:

Take turns
Be nice
Turning traffic goes way to straight-thru traffic (but this is a lower-priority rule than the first two)

In my opinion, "take turns and be nice" are very good road rules.

[Badjelly]

A rule that needs an exemption more than 50% of the time doesn't work very well.
I couldn't agree more!

[Ixion]

Before the "new" road rules were introduced (in 1978, I believe) the rules for uncontrolled intersections were:
Right-turning traffic gives way to all other traffic
When two vehicles are turning right, courtesy prevails (a quaint phrase, but the one used in the Road Code IIRC)
Invariably, when two vehicles were turning right, "courtesy" led a vehicle turning right out of the side street to give way to a vehicle turning right into the same side street. ..

Correct. BUT -- if there was a Give way or Stop sign that overrode those rules. After all, what would be the point of having a STOP sign, if people ignored it! The reason for the "two vehicles turning right" bit was that two vehicles turning right can cross each others paths, but need not do so. There is no equivalent for "two vehicles turning left" now because two left turning vehicles can never cross.

The "pull over to left" rule was indeed widely disregarded in urban areas (for obvious reasons). But it was still the law none the less, and snakes regularly ticketed for it.

The "side road rule" is still sometimes brought up even nowdays , despite it being 60 years since it was the law. I would not recommend relying on it in discussions with an enforcement officer !

There can be no objection at all to drivers extending courtesy to each other, and it is common practice for drivers to forgo a right of way which they have and wave the other vehicle through, the latter being in a more "difficult" position. But the gist of the thread was about what is the law, not what is courteous practice.

[Badjelly]

There can be no objection at all to drivers extending courtesy to each other, and it is common practice for drivers to forgo a right of way which they have and wave the other vehicle through, the latter being in a more "difficult" position. But the gist of the thread was about what is the law, not what is courteous practice.

The gist of the thread (well, the gist of my contributions) is about what the law should be. I have no dispute with you about what the law is.

Given that the Government considered changing the law a few years back and decided not to, I suspect that it is a waste of time to continue discussing what the law should be, therefore I will stop bashing my head against this particular brick wall.

[jaykay]

This thread, and comments such as "it's such an easy rule to follow" really show just how bad the NZ rules are. No other country would be even having this sort of discussion - any rule that relies on indicators, changes depending on whether white lines are present and which many drivers don't even apply properly should be consigned to history.

[2fst4u]

look guys, if the very rare situation occurs where 5 or so people have to give way to each other, i think it's pretty safe to say that nobody will give a damn if you just gun it and get out of the way.