Who is in the right here?

[sunhuntin]

ok, this happened a few weeks ago, and its still bugging me. someone on tm said the van had right of way, while i think the van should have waited and treated the intersection as a giveway [its not marked as anything]
in similar situations, ive always waited, as i assumed the turning vehicle had right of way, given they are generally blocking my path.

had i been furthur forward in the turning lane, or quicker off the mark once the oncoming traffic cleared, chances are my right leg would have been mangled. ive attached a pic... hopefully its clear enough!

[Katman]

As it's an uncontrolled intersection you must give way to the van.

[Virago]

At an unmarked intersection, the "give way to the right" rule applies. In this case, the van has right of way.

[vifferman]

The van must give way to the purpley-pink lozenges blobbing along the road. You must also give way to them, and to the van (even though it's green). If it was a white van, it would be best to stay well clear of it, as they're the second most dangerous vehicles on the road.

[Badjelly]

...I think the van should have waited and treated the intersection as a give way [its not marked as anything]...

A lot of people share your view. The traffic regulations say otherwise.

[Nasty]

I have the rule this was

If in a car the other car hits the drivers door I give way ... if its the passenger door I get to go and the passenger suffers if I am hit.

Simple way to remember.

Harder on a bike.

[sunhuntin]

thats the same way i look at it, nasty. hence why i tend to giveway when im in the vans position. in this case, had i been in the car, he would have hit the drivers door.

viffer, in this case the van was actually yellow, but it wouldnt show up on the white background. :yes: around here, yellow vans are always exclusive brethern, and they are the WORST drivers on the road. had more bad experiences with them than anything else.

[Nasty]

thats the same way i look at it, nasty. hence why i tend to giveway when im in the vans position. in this case, had i been in the car, he would have hit the drivers door.

viffer, in this case the van was actually yellow, but it wouldnt show up on the white background. :yes: around here, yellow vans are always exclusive brethern, and they are the WORST drivers on the road. had more bad experiences with them than anything else.


Yeah he would hit my door I give way ... its actually the easy way to remember the law ..

[sunhuntin]

ahhh, hang on. i gotcha. was reading it wrong. why wasnt this on the scratchy?? this seems more important to know than what way should you indicate when turning right.

[pzkpfw]

As it's an uncontrolled intersection you must give way to the van.

Eh?

Please explain.

[klingon]

Eh?

Please explain.

Always give way to your right at an uncontrolled intersection.

In the diagram, it looks like there is a mark on the road showing where to stop. Officially this is not a give way sign, it is simply a guide to show you where it's safe to position yourself on the road. Therefore this is an uncontrolled intersection.

[klingon]

Check out the third diagram from the bottom on this page:
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/giving-way-at-uncontrolled-intersections.html

Looks pretty much like the one in sunhuntin's first post.

[yungatart]

Eh?

Please explain.

Gawd help us....

[pzkpfw]

Always give way to your right at an uncontrolled intersection.

In the diagram, it looks like there is a mark on the road showing where to stop. Officially this is not a give way sign, it is simply a guide to show you where it's safe to position yourself on the road. Therefore this is an uncontrolled intersection.

Ahh frack I'm colour blind!

I thought the red one was the van (or speed-read it and assumed the bottom one was the bike.)

Yep, in that case, yeah, of course.


(This is one that normal pisses me off, as people tend to think the "straight" road is the "main" road and think they have right of way over the people on the "side" road... lots of busy streets in my area have had Give Way signs put on them to take away the decision.)

[de_wood_elf]

Its an example of how nobody knows the 'proper' rules anymore since they let any man and his dog drive now days. If it were me in the van I would pull out since legally I have right of way (but I never do it on my bike for obvious reasons, the most being that cars can take a hit better than a bike).

[sunhuntin]

my way of thinking, i simply applied a non existant control [in this case, a give way, since that is how i treat that intersection] as thats the way it made sense.
i dont recall this situation being on the scratchy, and i really think it should be.

[pritch]

In your diagram red gives way to green. You give way to the vehicle turning right. If you're both turning right, you give way to the vehicle on your right.

Where I work that's a great secret. several years ago I tested many of the drivers here with that scenario, the guys got it right but none of the women did. I mean even if they'd taken a guess thay should've got about 50%???

One of the "senior" women was the first female to get it right, then the boss.
When I commented the boss laughed and explained that the other woman and her both had teenagers sitting their licence...

Basically, it would be very unwise to assume that the other person at the intersection actually knew who had right of way...

[NighthawkNZ]

As it's an uncontrolled intersection you must give way to the van.


At an unmarked intersection, the "give way to the right" rule applies. In this case, the van has right of way.

What they said...

[Badjelly]

By the way, folks, this was discussed at some length in April this year

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=71364

The previous government considered changing the law a few years ago but decided not to. With the change of government, and a revision of the road rules being under way, it looks like a change will be considered again. There was an item about it on the TV last night (Campbell Live?). It sounds like there's a lot of support for a change.

[crystalball]

Yes this is one of the sticky road rules.
If there is no signs for the van (which i believe there should be as this catches alot of people out.)
Then you are on his left so he has right of way to go 1st.
Also sometimes tho there will be a give way sign marked on the road where your bike was.
When i end up in this scene i allways make sure got eye contact with other driver as they most likely as confused as you are.
Give him a little wave to get him going if hes not moving.
This is one off the areas in the road code that needs to be fixed.
more give way signs, also more visiable road marking giveway signs as lots are fading.:done:

[discotex]

Keep in mind this also applies to driveways. For example at your local supermarket or gas station. Unless there is a giveway sign at the exit of course.

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.

Apparently 2 thirds of Herald voters want it scrapped...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10546965

[Kickaha]

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.


I'd suggest it means the fuckers should hand in there licences and take the bus

[slofox]

This is a case of what I call "double right hand rule".

1. You give way to the right.
2. You also give way when turning right.

In Sun's diagram, red is turning right AND has green on the right. So two reasons to stop.
Green is turning right but has red on the LEFT. So only one reason to stop.
Ergo green has ROW.
In practice however, it is usually the other way round. Green usually stops for red.......don't ask me why......whenever I try to let green go ahead the driver thinks I am trying to t-bone them for some odd reason.....suspicious bastards....

[slofox]

By the way, folks, this was discussed at some length in April this year

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=71364

The previous government considered changing the law a few years ago but decided not to. With the change of government, and a revision of the road rules being under way, it looks like a change will be considered again. There was an item about it on the TV last night (Campbell Live?). It sounds like there's a lot of support for a change.

If we do change, it will be back to what the rules were years ago. This latest thing about right turning traffic having ROW over left turning traffic has been around for a while but it was not always so.....

[fireliv]

U give way to van.

I failed my full cage test on this one when I was in the bikes position, and was waved on by a guy in a van (who was where the van was in this diagram) I went. Instant fail....

[Slyer]

Remember you can use google street view if you are ever not sure of the signage.

[Mom]

I always thought if two vehicles are turning right, curtesy prevails, mind you I would have let the van go if I was on my bike.

[NighthawkNZ]

I always thought if two vehicles are turning right, curtesy prevails, mind you I would have let the van go if I was on my bike.

NO you give way to your right... (under current law)

[That looks like fun]

Why do we have some of these strange laws you ask:Police: Because the same laws apply for all road users. If you drove a 20 metre long 44 tonne B Train unit you would instantly understand the right hand rule. :confused: Lets replace the bike with a big shiny truck. The van has right of way as he is turning away from the big truck whereas the big shiny truck would be turning towards the van. Replace the van with ya scooter. sit in the middle of the intersection where the van was and have a B Train turn in front of you and as you leap from your bike and watch it get crushed to bitsez under the back axles of his trailer a sudden realisation will run down your leg :doh: ahha so thats why that rule is like that you will say :done:
As for the left turning traffic gives way to everything rule, no wonder we are the only country in the world with that one. Its just plain stupid :jerry:

[Mom]

NO you give way to your right... (under current law)

Yeah I know, if I am going to get hit in my right hand side I wait, and wait, and wait.

[H00dz]

Yep I agree the vans got the right of way..........

Theres that other really good rule of thumb too....If hes bigger than you let him have the right of way, if he gives way all good, never mind the road rules this one always works LOL

[discotex]

I'd suggest it means the fuckers should hand in there licences and take the bus

Rather hard to police.

Wouldn't mind seeing compulsory re-testing every 10 years except for the fact that NZTA would use it as a revenue gathering opportunity.

[wickle]

I have the rule this was

If in a car the other car hits the drivers door I give way ... if its the passenger door I get to go and the passenger suffers if I am hit.

Simple way to remember.

Harder on a bike.
i follow the say rule

[jtzzr]

I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.

[NighthawkNZ]

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.

Then how the fuck did they get their license in the first place... :scratch:

[Grahameeboy]

Another silly Kiwi rule....Van was coming out of a side road...uncontrolled on not the same rule should apply as if it was controlled...emerging vehicle gives way....simple but not in NZ....

[Ixion]

All intersection give ways are determined by a simple hierarchy

Is there a sign directing any of the vehicles (Give way, Stop)? If so, that takes precedence. (Traffic lights even more so of course)

For vehicles not controlled by a sign :

Is someone going straight ahead (as indicated by the road marking, can get tricky on Y intersections)? If so they have right of way

Is someone turning right? If so they have right of way over traffic turning left. If two people are turning right the one who has the other vehicle on his left has right of way ("Give way to the right").

Anyone turning left is low man on the totem pole and must give way to everybody. Sucks to be a leftie.

In this case : no signs. We assume that the straight through traffic is far enough off that it does not count. Two vehicles both turning right. The vehicle with the other vehicle to its left has right of way. Which is the green van.

The rule is incredibly simple. It takes much longer to state it than it does to apply it . If two thirds of people do not understand it, that simply means that two thirds of people should not have a drivers licence. If the rule were changed (to *anything*) , the same two thirds of people would not understand the new rule . The only rule that those two thirds would understand is "You are special. You always have right of way. Everybody gives way to you" . Which is the rule to they apply at present, and always will apply. It is not worth changing the offical rules to pander to cretinous idiots.

[Grahameeboy]

Keep in mind this also applies to driveways. For example at your local supermarket or gas station. Unless there is a giveway sign at the exit of course.

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.

Apparently 2 thirds of Herald voters want it scrapped...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10546965

Yeah I mean the turning left rule giving way to vehicles on your right really makes sense when the other vehicle is in fact coming from ahead not from the right...

[Katman]

I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.

Best you get it sorted in your head before it bites you in the arse.

[Grahameeboy]

All intersection give ways are determined by a simple hierarchy

Is there a sign directing any of the vehicles (Give way, Stop)? If so, that takes precedence. (Traffic lights even more so of course)

For vehicles not controlled by a sign :

Is someone going straight ahead (as indicated by the road marking, can get tricky on Y intersections)? If so they have right of way

Is someone turning right? If so they have right of way over traffic turning left. If two people are turning right the one who has the other vehicle on his left has right of way ("Give way to the right").

Anyone turning left is low man on the totem pole and must give way to everybody. Sucks to be a leftie.

In this case : no signs. We assume that the straight through traffic is far enough off that it does not count. Two vehicles both turning right. The vehicle with the other vehicle to its left has right of way. Which is the green van.

The rule is incredibly simple. It takes much longer to state it than it does to apply it . If two thirds of people do not understand it, that simply means that two thirds of people should not have a drivers licence. If the rule were changed (to *anything*) , the same two thirds of people would not understand the new rule . The only rule that those two thirds would understand is "You are special. You always have right of way. Everybody gives way to you" . Which is the rule to they apply at present, and always will apply. It is not worth changing the offical rules to pander to cretinous idiots.

It's still a dumb rule when 99% of the time the vehicle emerging from the intersection has to give way to traffic from both the right and left...hence why the so called 'simple' rule buggers people because 99% of driving is the opposite.

[PrincessBandit]

Slofox is right, most of us older ones can remember the days before the "give way to everything on your right at uncontrolled intersections". In THOSE days the van would have stopped for the car. I see a lot of those "confusing" intersections in Manurewa are now getting give ways painted at them to obviously stop the misunderstanding. If I had a dollar for every time I've had to wave another driver through (because under the "new" system they're on my right so I have to wait for them, but they don't seem to understand that) I'd give up my day job.

[discotex]

Then how the fuck did they get their license in the first place... :scratch:

A large number got it when the test had 10 questions that never changed and the practical test was a drive around the block.

It's only recently that the learner test has had decent intersection questions. Even then it's easy enough to fluke them.

[McJim]

Although I know the van has priority I have never had the opportunity to take advantage of this right of way when I have been on the van's position as so many drivers here just cut across your nose anyway - they even beep if it looked as though you were going to go. This suggests that a great many kiwi drivers are not clear on how this rule works at intersections.

This probably goes some way towards explaining why the recent AA magazine has once again showcased why this stupid rule designed for a tram ridden Australian city should really be abolished (since we are officially now the ONLY country in the world legislating this stupidity) the tram ridden Australian city in question subsequently adopted the rest of the world's intersection priority and saw their intersection crash rate halve virtually overnight.

One day......

[Rhino]

I always thought if two vehicles are turning right, curtesy prevails, mind you I would have let the van go if I was on my bike.
Don't ever chance courtesy at an intersection,you could get impaled by a Virago. On the Goldwing, I would simply ride over you. Stick to the laws of the land and you have a better chance of survival.

[The Stranger]

Rather hard to police.

Wouldn't mind seeing compulsory re-testing every 10 years except for the fact that NZTA would use it as a revenue gathering opportunity.

Yes, potentially a pain for country folk too, however, at least make everyone do a scratch and win each time their license is renewed.

[klingon]

I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.

jtzzr, why would the right-hand rule not apply here? This is exactly the situation where the right hand rule does apply. Did you look at the link to the road code that I supplied earlier? :blink:

Yep, I remember when the rule changed to its current one (1977). And I remember all the explanations about why it was a better rule than before. It really doesn't matter what the rule is, as long as everybody knows what it is. And if they don't know, then they shouldn't be driving. :bash:

[Ixion]

Yep, I remember when the rule changed to its current one (1977). And I remember all the explanations about why it was a better rule than before. It really doesn't matter what the rule is, as long as everybody knows what it is. And if they don't know, then they shouldn't be driving. :bash:

Yes, I remember too. And I quite agree. What the details of the rule are do not really matter . (I can actually remember, I think, when there really was a main road rule). So long as everyone knows it and obeys it. The problem is that half the driving population are too bone stupid and bone lazy to grasp or follow ANY rule. Changing the rule would achieve nothing. They are too stupid to observe any rule.


(The other people who want it changed, of course, are the immigrants , who as always insist that everything in the country must immediately be changed so as to be exactly as it was "back home". Why they ever bothered to leave "back home" in the first place completely escapes me)

[klingon]

(The other people who want it changed, of course, are the immigrants , who as always insist that everything in the country must immediately be changed so as to be exactly as it was "back home". Why they ever bothered to leave "back home" in the first place completely escapes me)


oooooh! Them's fightin' words! :girlfight:





:corn:

[That looks like fun]

:argh:
I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.
And therein lies the problem :girlfight: People who because they dont know nor understand the road rules make there own ones up and we have what we have on the NZ roads. Angry:mad: confused, drivers living in there own little bullets (thats what I call cars that will eventually kill someone) driving blissfully along applying there own version of common sense :baby:
On the bike as in the truck I apply one rule above all others. Treat everyone else as a potential moron and increase both our chances of living a bit longer :2thumbsup

[Trumpess]

It amazes me and seriously fucks me off, the amount of people who can not come to grips with the right hand rule! Especially at an uncontrolled 'T' intersection. Its such an easy rule. If you have oncoming traffic that can hit your drivers door, give fucken way!

Though, this issue in the road code is very confusing and needs to be illistrated better than what it is.

[jtzzr]

Best you get it sorted in your head before it bites you in the arse.


jtzzr, why would the right-hand rule not apply here? This is exactly the situation where the right hand rule does apply. Did you look at the link to the road code that I supplied earlier? :blink:

Yep, I remember when the rule changed to its current one (1977). And I remember all the explanations about why it was a better rule than before. It really doesn't matter what the rule is, as long as everybody knows what it is. And if they don't know, then they shouldn't be driving. :bash:


:argh:
And therein lies the problem :girlfight: People who because they dont know nor understand the road rules make there own ones up and we have what we have on the NZ roads. Angry:mad: confused, drivers living in there own little bullets (thats what I call cars that will eventually kill someone) driving blissfully along applying there own version of common sense :baby:
On the bike as in the truck I apply one rule above all others. Treat everyone else as a potential moron and increase both our chances of living a bit longer :2thumbsup

I stand corrected and hopefully not collected in the future. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding or inability to read the road code.

[Mom]

Don't ever chance courtesy at an intersection,you could get impaled by a Virago. On the Goldwing, I would simply ride over you. Stick to the laws of the land and you have a better chance of survival.

Gee you are a lovely bloke

[Owl]

Although I know the van has priority I have never had the opportunity to take advantage of this right of way when I have been on the van's position as so many drivers here just cut across your nose anyway - they even beep if it looked as though you were going to go. This suggests that a great many kiwi drivers are not clear on how this rule works at intersections.

Oh I hear ya!:yes:
I learnt this one early on with my driving and 25 years later, it amazes me how many people still don't get it!
The stalemate position and the dumbfounded looks you get when signaling the other party to go. Of course on the other side of the coin, I’ll never take it as a given that another driver will give way to me. Being “in the right” is not an exemption from a hospital visit, so I’m more than happy to use caution with this one! It is nice when people do get it right and I always give a nod or thumbs up!:niceone:

[Gareth51]

If you had to sit a theroy test each time you renewed your license might make the roads a bit safer out there.A lot of drivers haven't a bloody idea of the road code.
I got my heavy tralier to drive tow trucks back in the sixties to suplement my apprentice wages,haven't needed it since,yet I could legally drive a B train.

[Pascal]

Well, I'm an immigrant and have been driving on NZ roads for almost 7 years now.

Whilst studying up for my Motorcycle Learners I came across this scenario in the road code. And colour me surprised when I saw it, because I had not realized it. It must have slipped through when I sat my original theory test and in all the years I've seen nobody follow that rule - particularly at driveways and car parks and such like.

And yet, it's law. It's the way we're supposed to drive. Now I'm paying a hell of a lot more attention. As a motorcyclist you can't really afford to make mistakes.

[klingon]

I stand corrected and hopefully not collected in the future. Thanks for clearing it up the misunderstanding or inability to read the road code.

Excellent attitude. Keep up your willingness to learn and you will go far. :)

[prettybillie]

Aren't we the only country that has this rule?

[Badjelly]

I always thought if two vehicles are turning right, courtesy prevails...

That was the case until the "new" road rules came in. 30 years ago!

[pritch]

Keep in mind this also applies to driveways.

Ummm since when? I understood that vehicles not already on the road give way to everything that is.

[Badjelly]

Yes, I remember too. And I quite agree. What the details of the rule are do not really matter . (I can actually remember, I think, when there really was a main road rule). So long as everyone knows it and obeys it. The problem is that half the driving population are too bone stupid and bone lazy to grasp or follow ANY rule. Changing the rule would achieve nothing. They are too stupid to observe any rule.

That is certainly part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is that the current road rules are more complicated in practice. Give way to a vehicle coming out of a side street on your right UNLESS someone's hidden a Give Way sign behind a tree. If you're coming out of an uncontrolled side street, a right-turning vehicle on your left has to give way to you, but for Christ's sake remember the straight-through vehicle (currently obscured) coming through on his left. Vehicle turning left into side street gives way to vehicle turning right into side street UNLESS he's baulked by straight-through vehicle.

The details do matter.


The other people who want it changed, of course, are the immigrants , who as always insist that everything in the country must immediately be changed so as to be exactly as it was "back home". Why they ever bothered to leave "back home" in the first place completely escapes me.

That's ceratinly part of it.

But I've been driving in this country for 35 years and when the "new" road rules were introduced in 1977 (was it?) I was convinced they were a good thing, being simpler, and waited for the transition problems to die down. I'm a stubborn bugger, but after a couple of decades I gave up waiting.

[discotex]

Ummm since when? I understood that vehicles not already on the road give way to everything that is.

Umm since the give way rules were put in place. A driveway is considered an intersection for the purpose of the give way rules.

If someone is turning right into a driveway and someone is leaving the driveway turning right the former must give way. It's the same as an uncontrolled T intersection (e.g. one with no give way or stop sign).

It's rare that this happens at your home obviously but it's very common at shops etc.

[Patrick]

Umm since the give way rules were put in place. A driveway is considered an intersection for the purpose of the give way rules.

If someone is turning right into a driveway and someone is leaving the driveway turning right the former must give way. It's the same as an uncontrolled T intersection (e.g. one with no give way or stop sign).

It's rare that this happens at your home obviously but it's very common at shops etc.

Extremely rare at your home, I would guess.... but if this was to happen, yes it would be correct, a driveway is an intersection... in this scenario only. However.....

Driveways are NOT roads... Someone leaving a drive gives way to all.

Carparks, service stations etc ARE roads. Someone leaving these places, the give way to the right applies. (Unless someone is controlled by lights, signs etc, of course....)

[Badjelly]

Driveways are NOT roads... Someone leaving a drive gives way to all.

Carparks, service stations etc ARE roads. Someone leaving these places, the give way to the right applies.

You're right, I think, though the question is not so much "What is a road?" as "What is an intersection?" This is what the Road Code (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/the-give-way-rules.html) says:


What is an intersection?

An intersection is where:

* two or more streets or roads join or cross
* a public entrance or exit joins a street or road.

Intersections include entrances and exits to and from supermarkets, petrol stations and other public parking areas such as airports and hospitals.

So the place where your private driveway joins a road is not an intersection. Meaning that the give way rules for intersections do not apply, nor does this one


Blocking rule

You must not go into or attempt to cross the intersection, railway level crossing, pedestrian crossing or an area controlled by pedestrian traffic signals, unless there is space for your vehicle on the other side of the intersection or crossing.

[Ixion]

The "driveway out of the supermarket car aprk" classes as a road.

Normally not a problem, since the vehicle coming out of the car park will be turning and must give way to the straight thru traffic on the road . The one time that one can get caught out, is the car coming out of a supermarket type 'driveway' and intending to shoot straight across the road into another such 'driveway' opposite (or another road on a T intersection directly opposite, if such a rara avis is to be found) .
Technically if you are pootling along the road and see such a vehicle up ahead on your right (ie coming out of a car park exit and not indicating) , you must stop and give way to him . In reality one assumes that the twunt just hasn't bothered to indicate. But if he DID claim the right of way you would be in the wrong.

I think on reaosn for the problem is the obsession of the authorities for making every intersection a controlled one. So people have little occasion to apply the rule.

[discotex]

I'm sure someone has already posted it but can't hurt to have it several times.

This page of the online road code is very clear (with helpful pictures) about how to apply the give way rules at uncontrolled intersections.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/giving-way-at-uncontrolled-intersections.html

In a nutshell:

- Turning traffic always gives way to traffic that is traveling straight through (i.e. following the white line).
- If you are turning you give way to all right turning traffic on your right.

[klingon]

I think on reaosn for the problem is the obsession of the authorities for making every intersection a controlled one. So people have little occasion to apply the rule.

And this is what makes it hilariously funny when a set of traffic lights fails (or in the case of Auckland's power cuts a couple of years ago, several sets of lights fail). The lights turn to flashing orange lights which mean "this is now an uncontrolled intersection - give way rules apply."

And suddenly people go absolutely nuts with fear and confusion. :pinch: They have no idea what to do, so they either
a) close their eyes and fly through the intersection without slowing down or
b) stop dead in the middle of the road and refuse to move in any direction at any speed.

IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE! :bash:

[Badjelly]

And this is what makes it hilariously funny when a set of traffic lights fails (or in the case of Auckland's power cuts a couple of years ago, several sets of lights fail). The lights turn to flashing orange lights which mean "this is now an uncontrolled intersection - give way rules apply."

And suddenly people go absolutely nuts with fear and confusion. :pinch: They have no idea what to do, so they either
a) close their eyes and fly through the intersection without slowing down or
b) stop dead in the middle of the road and refuse to move in any direction at any speed.

IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE! :bash:

Also 4-way stops.

The 1977 "new" road rules were intended to remove the ambiguity in the previous rules. (I mean, "courtesy prevails", come on!) The thing that convinced me this is not necessarily a good thing was living in Fort Collins, Colorado for 4 years. That place was full of 4-way stops and for a while I couldn't work out what the priority rules were. The local counterpart to the Road Code had some stuff that seemed to bear no relation to what people did. Then I twigged it. The rules were:

Take turns
Be nice

You drove up to a stop sign. You stopped. You waited until any vehicles that were already at the stop signs when you arrived had gone through. You took off. It worked beautifully! Granted, when things went wrong it might have been hard to work out who was "at fault". But this disadvantage was more than outweighed by the fact that things very seldom went wrong.

[Patrick]

....So the place where your private driveway joins a road is not an intersection. Meaning that the give way rules for intersections do not apply, nor does this one

True - but the scenario given about two vehicles turning into the one drive would make it an exception to that rule - even if it is unlikely....

[klingon]

Also 4-way stops.

The 1977 "new" road rules were intended to remove the ambiguity in the previous rules. (I mean, "courtesy prevails", come on!) The thing that convinced me this is not necessarily a good thing was living in Fort Collins, Colorado for 4 years. That place was full of 4-way stops and for a while I couldn't work out what the priority rules were. The local counterpart to the Road Code had some stuff that seemed to bear no relation to what people did. Then I twigged it. The rules were:

Take turns
Be nice

You drove up to a stop sign. You stopped. You waited until any vehicles that were already at the stop signs when you arrived had gone through. You took off. It worked beautifully! Granted, when things went wrong it might have been hard to work out who was "at fault". But this disadvantage was more than outweighed by the fact that things very seldom went wrong.

This is the rule in a surprising number of US and Canadian cities. I couldn't quite believe it when I started driving over there and my Bro in Canada gave me a quick run-down on the road rules for different states I would be driving through.

"What do you mean, be courteous?! That can't possibly work!" Well to my great surprise, it does.

It comes back to Ixion's earlier comment about over-regulating. In NZ we expect someone else to be rtesponsible for telling us what we have to do, and all common sense and courtesy soon goes out the window.

Same with that Dutch town that got rid of all its traffic lights a year or so ago. Suddenly people had to pay attention to what other traffic and pedestrians were doing. Brought their road toll way down by removing the regulations and returning the responsibility to the road users.

[klingon]

True - but the scenario given about two vehicles turning into the one drive would make it an exception to that rule - even if it is unlikely....

Have you ever been to Auckland - the land of the in-fill housing?! Lots of houses sharing a single driveway, and of course the developer made the driveway as skinny as possible so they could fit more houses in the space.

It's quite common for me to have to apply the give-way rules to my own driveway.

[vifferman]

The "driveway out of the supermarket car aprk" classes as a road.

Normally not a problem...
Except... people don't realise this, and there's an unofficial (urban folklore?) rule that people adopt, viz: "the big road has right-of-way over the little road".
Our local supermarket driveway looks like a driveway, so people treat it as such. It's hopeless when turning right out of it expecting people turning right into it to give way to you, because they won't. Alos, when driving around big supermarket carparks, unless there are signs painted on them, people go, "Awrriiight!! The Wild West Rules apply! Let's go crazy! Might is right! The bold win!"


I think on reaosn for the problem is the obsession of the authorities for making every intersection a controlled one. So people have little occasion to apply the rule.
Yep. Also, we are increasingly becoming a population that by and large expects to be told what to do. Commonsense, personal responsibility and thought don't come into it. So much so, the refrain when "things go wrong" is: "There should be a law against it! We're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves - tell us what to do!"


And this is what makes it hilariously funny when a set of traffic lights fails ...s uddenly people go absolutely nuts with fear and confusion. IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE! :bash:
Yeah, it is. See my previous comment.


Also 4-way stops.

The 1977 "new" road rules were intended to remove the ambiguity in the previous rules. (I mean, "courtesy prevails", come on!) The thing that convinced me this is not necessarily a good thing was living in Fort Collins, Colorado for 4 years. That place was full of 4-way stops and for a while I couldn't work out what the priority rules were.
It's brilliant!
When I was in SF in Christmas 2006, I thought, "Hmmm... I can see how this basically works - give way to the left. But what happens when there's 4 cars waiting?"
So, I asked a bicycle cop in San Jose, and he said the same thing as you: "the car that arrives first, goes first. If two or more arrive at once, then it's down to courtesy". It works so well!
Of course, unspoken is the veiled threat, "Don't give way to me, bee-yatch, and I might just shoot you!" :shit:
Actually, I'm sure that's not the case. I found driving in California SO pleasant and unstressful, as almost everyone drove so courteously. (The one exception being a BMW driver in a hurry at peak rush hour, Friday night in LA on the freeway, who blasted me with the horn as I tried to change lanes, and he came through at 30mph or more faster than all the other traffic, and didn't want me to impede his progress as he weved from lane to lane. That's one (1!) incident in 9 days of driving, including driving onto the wrong side of the road coming out of the rental car place.



It comes back to Ixion's earlier comment about over-regulating. In NZ we expect someone else to be rtesponsible for telling us what we have to do, and all common sense and courtesy soon goes out the window.
Eggs Zachary!


Same with that Dutch town that got rid of all its traffic lights a year or so ago. Suddenly people had to pay attention to what other traffic and pedestrians were doing. Brought their road toll way down by removing the regulations and returning the responsibility to the road users.
Amazing, innit?
Similar phenomena have been oobserved where roads have been straightened, the perceived risk goes down, people pay less attention, and the accident rate goes up.

There are surprisingly (or perhaps not) few accidents on narrow, winding, unsealed ski-field roads with no guard rails. You just *know* that if you fuck up, it's a long way down!

[Renegade]

i thought the person trying to enter an main arterial road from a side road had to give way to those turning off the main road into the side road, stops congestion on the main road iwould of thought.

[Ixion]

Oh dear. I fear you are showing your age. That has not been the law for MANY years . 1948 Transport Act I suspect.

[yungatart]

i thought the person trying to enter an main arterial road from a side road had to give way to those turning off the main road into the side road, stops congestion on the main road iwould of thought.

Well, you thought wrong.
For safety's sake, I suggest you familiarise yourself with an updated version of the road code.

[Skyryder]

By the way, folks, this was discussed at some length in April this year

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=71364

The previous government considered changing the law a few years ago but decided not to. With the change of government, and a revision of the road rules being under way, it looks like a change will be considered again. There was an item about it on the TV last night (Campbell Live?). It sounds like there's a lot of support for a change.



Shit even I agree with this. Silly rule never should have been changed in the first place.

Skyryder

[The Stranger]

i thought the person trying to enter an main arterial road from a side road had to give way to those turning off the main road into the side road, stops congestion on the main road iwould of thought.

FFS, what a pathetic piss take. At least make it look realistic.
NO one is going to believe you are that stupid.

[Ixion]

FFS, what a pathetic piss take. At least make it look realistic.
NO one is going to believe you are that stupid.

The poster may merely be of advanced age. The rule he posits DID use to be the rule (I'm not sure if it was actually law, things were not so proscribed in those days, the original Road Code was just that, a Code , not backed by law , except for speed limits in later years).

It was changed some times ago (about 60 years ago i think), but some folk have long memories.

[quickbuck]

Keep in mind this also applies to driveways. For example at your local supermarket or gas station. Unless there is a giveway sign at the exit of course.




Yep, after 22 years of driving I only got that confirmed for me the other day!

No wonder I hate supermarket car parks!

I agree it is time to scrap the rule.

Haven't read all the thread, but it was brought in on the back of what the Victorians did (The Aussies, not the people around the time of Queen Victoria). They brought in the "Give Way to the right" so that the cars got out of the way of the trams promptly.
This failed when you had a lot of cars, so they scrapped the rule 15 years ago, and invented the J-turn. This is where if you want to turn right, you actually pull over to the left in front of the traffic wanting to cross the intersection, and then head across before them....

Works well over there, because the roads are designed to be so big for the trams.
Of course, no need to do J-Turns here...

[cheshirecat]

We should send all these comments to tha AA and Gov transport bods. It's typical of the confusion caused by this blanket right hand rule. This is the most confusing counter intuitive driving law I've ever had the misfortune to come across, wide open to abuse and downright dangerous, espcially for two wheels. I mean I sat there in the middle of the road watching the car trying to turn across me, my wing mirrow for the lunatic comming up hehind and my left eye for the mother pushing her pram across the junction. Mother duck.
Not to mention allowing cars to reverse out onto the main road, 3 second indicating rule, minor roads having priority to major roads at intersecftions I mean how can a car comming out of back road have any priority over a vehicle on a main highway, two lane turning, and giving on comming vehicles crossing the centerline in front of you having priority(that's what traffic lights and roundabouts are for) and low grade tar seal and anything else!

There I've had my rant.

[The Stranger]

We should send all these comments to tha AA and Gov transport bods. It's typical of the confusion caused by this blanket right hand rule. This is the most confusing counter intuitive driving law I've ever had the misfortune to come across, wide open to abuse and downright dangerous, espcially for two wheels. I mean I sat there in the middle of the road watching the car trying to turn across me, my wing mirrow for the lunatic comming up hehind and my left eye for the mother pushing her pram across the junction. Mother duck.
Not to mention allowing cars to reverse out onto the main road, 3 second indicating rule, minor roads having priority to major roads at intersecftions I mean how can a car comming out of back road have any priority over a vehicle on a main highway, two lane turning, and giving on comming vehicles crossing the centerline in front of you having priority(that's what traffic lights and roundabouts are for) and low grade tar seal and anything else!

There I've had my rant.

If it's that confusing for you, you really shouldn't have a fucken license.
Do us all a favour and hand your license in before you get someone killed.

[Max Preload]

Well, you thought wrong.
For safety's sake, I suggest you familiarise yourself with an updated version of the road code.

Yeah. One that's not hand-chiseled into stone tablets... :shake:

[The Stranger]

It was changed some times ago (about 60 years ago i think), but some folk have long memories.

Only 60yrs?
My humble apologies, what on earth was I thinking, in another couple of hundred he should get it.

[homer]

jesus christ
here we go .
if your going to get hit on the drivers side , or the drivers door ( if you were in a car )
its ALWAYS YOUR FAULT

[cheshirecat]

If it's that confusing for you, you really shouldn't have a fucken license.
Do us all a favour and hand your license in before you get someone killed.

Well I'm writing form my experence of having taken UK police advanced motorcycling course (and extensively studied their bible), well over 600,000 miles throughout UK, US and Europe on bikes, three years all weather despatch riding in London ( two low speed falls and no tickets, 80,000 miles) and I've never seen such a micky mouse set of driving laws such as we have to put up with as here. Oh by the way I can count my accidents on one hand only one of which caused any significant damage and wasn't my fault, no convictions except for three speeding fines in over 40 years. These laws are counter intuitive, confusing and dangerous. If you are in the right it is dangerous to enforce your rights. I spent considerable time learning the road code here and checking with the police for interpretations, however the road code is widely abused (willfully or not) placing all parties at risk and if the rules are so effective then more countries would have taken them on board.
Rant number two

[BMWST?]

the "right hand rule" is quite logical.....its the left hand turn thing that makes it confusing....
And as far as i can remember the right hand rule hasnt really changed since 1972,except for the aforementioned left hand turners give way except....,although i do vaugley recall if two vehicles are turning right courtesy prevails
All you people who confess to not knowing the rules scare me silly......

[The Stranger]

Snip - *sad appeal to authority*

however the road code is widely abused (willfully or not) placing all parties at risk and if the rules are so effective then more countries would have taken them on board.
Rant number two

So changing the rules would ensure more people read, understand them and interpret them correctly?

The rules are so simple now - give way to anything that would hit your drivers door - that fucken simple, hell it even obeys survival instincts.
Should we change all rules that people routinely ignore, hell that will sort out all our problems.

[cheshirecat]

So changing the rules would ensure more people read, understand them and interpret them correctly?

The rules are so simple now - give way to anything that would hit your drivers door - that fucken simple, hell it even obeys survival instincts.
Should we change all rules that people routinely ignore, hell that will sort out all our problems.

In a recent NZ Herald survey over two thirds of the respondents wanted it changed along with a big majority on Campbell Live.
The AA is also lobbying for a change.

[The Stranger]

In a recent NZ Herald survey over two thirds of the respondents wanted it changed along with a big majority on Campbell Live.
The AA is also lobbying for a change.

Changed to what?

[yungatart]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.
With the constant 'dumbing down' that is legislated for in NZ, it wont be too long before the ability to think is gone from our DNA, as we will no longer need it.
Those who can't understand something as basic and simple as the right hand rule should hand in their licences.
Then watch the accident statistics go down....

[Badjelly]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.

Bollocks. I understand the rules very well. But I don't like them.

[Ixion]

..

(the other people who want it changed, of course, are the immigrants , who as always insist that everything in the country must immediately be changed so as to be exactly as it was "back home". Why they ever bothered to leave "back home" in the first place completely escapes me)


well i'm writing form my experence of having taken uk police advanced motorcycling course (and extensively studied their bible), well over 600,000 miles throughout uk, us and europe on bikes, three years all weather despatch riding in london ( two low speed falls and no tickets, 80,000 miles) and i've never seen such a micky mouse set of driving laws such as we have to put up with as here. Oh by the way i can count my accidents on one hand only one of which caused any significant damage and wasn't my fault, no convictions except for three speeding fines in over 40 years. These laws are counter intuitive, confusing and dangerous. If you are in the right it is dangerous to enforce your rights. I spent considerable time learning the road code here and checking with the police for interpretations, however the road code is widely abused (willfully or not) placing all parties at risk and if the rules are so effective then more countries would have taken them on board.
Rant number two

< >

[The Stranger]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.
With the constant 'dumbing down' that is legislated for in NZ, it wont be too long before the ability to think is gone from our DNA, as we will no longer need it.
Those who can't understand something as basic and simple as the right hand rule should hand in their licences.
Then watch the accident statistics go down....

My contention exactly tart.

Given the simplicity of the current rule, if defies belief that changing it is going to increase comprehension and compliance. There will simply be an additional excuse for not getting it right i.e. the change, and heaven help us if there is even one exception.

[MSTRS]

The rules are so simple now - give way to anything that would hit your drivers door - that fucken simple, hell it even obeys survival instincts.




Those who can't understand something as basic and simple as the right hand rule should hand in their licences.
Then watch the accident statistics go down....


My contention exactly tart.

Given the simplicity of the current rule, if defies belief that changing it is going to increase comprehension and compliance. There will simply be an additional excuse for not getting it right i.e. the change, and heaven help us if there is even one exception.

And the voices wittering about 'that's not the way the rest of the world does it' can go fuck themselves. Or go live there instead.
The rule here is very simple (is that the problem?) and where is it written that the rest of the world is always right?
Mind you, that 'no-one' can understand Giveway to your right is not surprising...look at the fuckwits and their indicator use in roundabouts. :mad:

[The Stranger]

Mind you, that 'no-one' can understand Giveway to your right is not surprising...look at the fuckwits and their indicator use in roundabouts. :mad:

I know how to fix that, it's obvious - lets change the rules.

[yungatart]

Bollocks. I understand the rules very well. But I don't like them.

Well, that's a really good reason to change them...NOT!

[klingon]

Ironically, with recent publicity surrounding the campaign to change the rules, suddenly more people seem to be aware of the rule than ever before! In the last week or so I have noticed considerably fewer people just barging on through when they should be giving way to their right.

[Badjelly]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.


Bollocks. I understand the rules very well. But I don't like them.


Well, that's a really good reason to change them...NOT!

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?


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:


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.


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.


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.


...the current road rules are more complicated in practice. Give way to a vehicle coming out of a side street on your right UNLESS someone's hidden a Give Way sign behind a tree. If you're coming out of an uncontrolled side street, a right-turning vehicle on your left has to give way to you, but for Christ's sake remember the straight-through vehicle (currently obscured) coming through on his left. Vehicle turning left into side street gives way to vehicle turning right into side street UNLESS he's baulked by straight-through vehicle.


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?

[yungatart]

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?

66.6...% of the reasons quoted as to why the law should be changed are yours.
I still don't see any need to change....

[Badjelly]

66.6...% of the reasons quoted as to why the law should be changed are yours. I still don't see any need to change....

These guys share my views, apparently (quote from Campbell Live Wed 10 dec 2008)


Just about every group involved in road traffic safety, the police, Ministry of Transport, Land Transport, the Cyclist Advocate Network and the Institute of Engineers have called for the rule to be changed.

You're free to consider & reject someone else's arguments, and you're free to ignore them. Hell, you're even free to explain why you disagree! (Still waiting.) But when you suggest the only reason people disagree with you is that they're lazy/stupid/thick, then I will call you out on it.

[The Stranger]

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?

Weird isn't it.
How come one driver sees so many and has so many problems with something that another driver has no issue with.

As you seem to have problems seeing indicators, have you had your eyes tested? Again, I don't have problems seeing indicators.

Anyway - regardless of the your problems and my lack thereof, please describe your proposed new rule for us so that we may see how it would work.

[Badjelly]

Weird isn't it. How come one driver sees so many and has so many problems with something that another driver has no issue with.

Feeling a little disingenuous today, are we?


As you seem to have problems seeing indicators, have you had your eyes tested? Again, I don't have problems seeing indicators.

This is a minor issue. Modern cars have rounded front ends and indicators set far enough back that when you're approaching from the left you can't see the right front indicator until you're nearly in front. Unless you have X-ray vision, as I presume you do.


Anyway - regardless of the your problems and my lack thereof, please describe your proposed new rule for us so that we may see how it would work.

The ones they have in Australia these days seem to work quite well. I'll look them up and get back to you.

[Badjelly]

The [road rules] they have in Australia these days seem to work quite well. I'll look them up and get back to you.

Here we are. The Victorian Road Code is here:

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/CA55689D-51AC-49ED-B3B4-34A882148421/0/DrivinginVicRR.pdf

On p 34 it describes the rule at T intersections. Unfortunately the document is a secured PDF (obviously this stuff is top secret) so I can't copy and paste, but it says that the traffic on the ending road gives way to traffic on the continuing road.

Otherwise they seem to have a give-way-to-right rule, which means that when two vehicles are turning into a side road, the left-turning vehicle gives way. I'm not so keen on that one.

I think we should have (in ascending order of priority):

Give way to right
Right turning gives way to everyone else (straight ahead and left-turning)
Traffic on ending road at T intersection gives way to continuing road

[nodrog]

who gives a fuck what they do in australia? maybe the low percent of people who have trouble with the road rules here should fucken move there (and i bet most of that percentage have migrated here from overseas in the first place).

[Badjelly]

who gives a fuck what they do in australia? maybe the low percent of people who have trouble with the road rules here should fucken move there (and i bet most of that percentage have migrated here from overseas in the first place).

OK. I bow to your superior logic. I see that everything I have written on this subject is quite wrong. :weep:

[MSTRS]

I think we should have (in ascending order of priority):

Give way to right
Right turning gives way to everyone else (straight ahead and left-turning)
Traffic on ending road at T intersection gives way to continuiing road


Whilst I agree that this would seem sensible, it won't work.
People can't get the no exception right hand rule correct. When exceptions are thrown in, their dumbed-down unthinking brains would just fry their circuits (more than now).
Whether you agree with the current rule or not, at least it does not have exceptions to muddy the waters.

[nodrog]

OK. I bow to your superior logic. I see that everything I have written on this subject is quite wrong. :weep:

while your at it you might want to point out the half the world drive on the other side of the road? maybe we should change to that too to keep them happy while they are here on holiday?

[yungatart]

who gives a fuck what they do in australia? maybe the low percent of people who have trouble with the road rules here should fucken move there (and i bet most of that percentage have migrated here from overseas in the first place).

Ahh, Nodrog, you seem to labouring under the misconception that all the people who want this law changed, do so because they don't understand.

You are wrong! Badjelly understands it fine, he just doesn't like it and THAT is the reason it should be changed!

[Badjelly]

Whilst I agree that this would seem sensible, it won't work. People can't get the no exception right hand rule correct. When exceptions are thrown in, their dumbed-down unthinking brains would just fry their circuits (more than now). Whether you agree with the current rule or not, at least it does not have exceptions to muddy the waters.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? People can't cope with the current, very simple rule, so how could they cope with something (slightly) more complicated? And yet before the simpler road rule was introduced in the late 70s, the rule for two right-turning vehicles was "Courtesy prevails". (Really!) And people consistently interpreted that to mean that the traffic in the side road gave way. And now, after 30 years, about 75% of the driving population still drive as if this were the case, even though the current, very simple, very clear rule states it's not. It's almost enough to make one reexamine one's assumptions, isn't it?

Back in the 70s, New South Wales had an even simpler rule than ours: give way to the right. Never mind who's turning and who's going straight ahead, just give way to the right. That was a very simple rule, so it must have been a very good rule, right? It wasn't. I visited Sydney as a teenager. I was just learning to drive in NZ, but thankfully I didn't drive in Sydney. I lost count of the number of times I was in a car going along a straight road, when there was a flash from the right, a screech of tyres and a curse from the driver. A local explained the reasoning behind the rule to me, "At least you always know who's in the wrong when there's a crash: the one with the dent in the right-hand door." "Er, but," I said, "don't you have more crashes?" "Well, yes."

I'll make my message simple:


Simple does not always mean good.

[The Stranger]

Feeling a little disingenuous today, are we?

Not at all, simply stated as the truth. I have no issue with the rules as they stand and never see a problem. Sometimes a little patience my be required to allow for an ignorant driver, but nothing new there and I don't see that will ever change. Perhaps if you lack patience I could see that may be an issue.

This is a minor issue. Modern cars have rounded front ends and indicators set far enough back that when you're approaching from the left you can't see the right front indicator until you're nearly in front. Unless you have X-ray vision, as I presume you do.

Regulations require that the RH indicator be visible from at least 45 degrees from the left. This is checked at compliance time and my experience is that I can see the RH indicator quite clearly in such situations without needing to turn on my X-ray vision. If the car is any closer such that it doesn't permit you to see the indicator, perhaps it not such a good idea to try and beat it anyway. Again you are having problems with a situation where no problem exists - are you really sure your eyes aren't fucked?


The ones they have in Australia these days seem to work quite well. I'll look them up and get back to you.

In your zeal to paint the laws in the worst light possible you are resorting to trumping up problems. Try sticking to fact.

[The Stranger]

I think we should have (in ascending order of priority):

Give way to right
Right turning gives way to everyone else (straight ahead and left-turning)
Traffic on ending road at T intersection gives way to continuing road


Yep, clear and concise.
I can see that's much simpler than "give way to anything that would hit your drivers door."

I look forward to it.

[Badjelly]

This is a minor issue. Modern cars have rounded front ends and indicators set far enough back that when you're approaching from the left you can't see the right front indicator until you're nearly in front...


In your zeal to paint the laws in the worst light possible you are resorting to trumping up problems. Try sticking to fact.

Er, did you see the bit where I said "this is a minor issue"?

I am not trying to paint the laws in the worst possible light. I am trying to have a reasoned, balanced discussion. It's a hard road...

[cheshirecat]

Then we can have a go at this

[ManDownUnder]

Then we can have a go at this

The design committee put some effort into finding "the ideal solution" there I see...

[Renegade]

Driveways are NOT roads... Someone leaving a drive gives way to all.

Carparks, service stations etc ARE roads. Someone leaving these places, the give way to the right applies. (Unless someone is controlled by lights, signs etc, of course....)

im sure i read some case law on this and a drive is classed as a road in some circumstances such as rural drives that can be kms long, i will try and dig it out.

[Renegade]

FFS, what a pathetic piss take. At least make it look realistic.
NO one is going to believe you are that stupid.

thank you for your cheerful post, i have refreshed myself on that particular road rule, i just hope other road users can aspire to be the perfect road user like you...cock.

[MSTRS]

....the rule for two right-turning vehicles was "Courtesy prevails". (Really!) And people consistently interpreted that to mean that the traffic in the side road gave way. And now, after 30 years, about 75% of the driving population still drive as if this were the case, even though the current, very simple, very clear rule states it's not.
Courtesy and actual thinking is a thing of the past. If it hasn't been legislated out of existence, the ME generation have lost it somewhere along the line.

It's almost enough to make one reexamine one's assumptions, isn't it?
No


Simple does not always mean good.
Not when it removes the need to think. But since that's been dealt to ^, then there is no alternative.

[Badjelly]

Driveways are NOT roads... Someone leaving a drive gives way to all.


I'm sure I read some case law on this and a drive is classed as a road in some circumstances such as rural drives that can be kms long. I will try and dig it out.

Yes, but (as I said before) I think the relevant question for the application of the give way rules is not, "Is this driveway/entranceway/whatever a road?" but "Is the place where it joins a road an intersection?". The Road Code says it is for public entrances and (I forget the rest).

[Badjelly]

It's almost enough to make one reexamine one's assumptions, isn't it?


No.

<meh>Oh.</meh>

[The Stranger]

thank you for your cheerful post, i have refreshed myself on that particular road rule, i just hope other road users can aspire to be the perfect road user like you...cock.

Whilst you are at it, ask yourself "what the fuck else am I completely ignorant about?" and refresh yourself on all the road rules. Seriously, may just save a life.

[The Stranger]

Er, did you see the bit where I said "this is a minor issue"?

I am not trying to paint the laws in the worst possible light. I am trying to have a reasoned, balanced discussion. It's a hard road...

Yes, however, all your issues are minor, however you blow them out of proportion for effect. Ironically however, driving around half fucken blind is NOT a minor issue.

[Patrick]

Have you ever been to Auckland -

Only lived there for 37 years and worked my line of work for 16 there.


im sure i read some case law on this and a drive is classed as a road in some circumstances such as rural drives that can be kms long, i will try and dig it out.

Try Section 2 of the Land Transport Act - Definitions. Look up "road." Driveways are expressly excluded.


Yes, but (as I said before) I think the relevant question for the application of the give way rules is not, "Is this driveway/entranceway/whatever a road?" but "Is the place where it joins a road an intersection?". The Road Code says it is for public entrances and (I forget the rest).

The rest is - "The bit where it joins the road, is the gutter..."

[Badjelly]

Yes, however, all your issues are minor, however you blow them out of proportion for effect.

I don't think all the issues are minor. The fact that a vehicle turning right out of a side road does not have to give way to a right-turning vehicle approaching from the left, but does have to give way to straight-through vehicles coming from the same direction occasionally causes a great deal of confusion and indecision. You claim never to have observed this. I have, many times.


Ironically however, driving around half fucken blind is NOT a minor issue.

What the fuck are you on about?

[The Stranger]

What the fuck are you on about?

Your repeated assertions that you can't see.
Such as.



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.

Hey don't shoot the messenger.

[Max Preload]

Your repeated assertions that you can't see.

Or at least, refuses to look.

[Badjelly]

Your repeated assertions that you can't see.

...that on occasions I haven't been able see the right-hand, front indicator of a car in a side road or public driveway on the right, until I was nearly in front of the vehicle in question, because the indicator was obscured by the front of the car. You pointed out that there was a compliance requirement that the RH indicator be visible from 45 deg. (Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of it.) Well, to be at a 45 deg angle in this situation you have to be almost in front of the vehicle in the side road.

You interpreted this as my saying I have poor vision. I never bothered correcting this because it's obvious to anyone who reads my words (other than you, apparently) that I never said that.

[robboh]

Originally Posted by MSTRS
Mind you, that 'no-one' can understand Giveway to your right is not surprising...look at the fuckwits and their indicator use in roundabouts.

I know how to fix that, it's obvious - lets change the rules.

The scary thing is, they did. About a year ago!! And people STILL get it wrong. They dont do what the original rule was (indicate left to enter roundabout, then indicate right, then indicate left to exit) OR the new rule.

People just DONT seem to get roundabouts. The number of times Im actually IN the roundabout (in my cage) and someone comes screaming straight across my nose from the left is ridiculous!! Im not just talking trying to squeeze in, Im talking having to jump on the anchors to avoid hitting them in the drivers door!! One roundabout seems very prone to it on my way to work. And the Royal Oak roundabout is just chaos with dual lanes + 5 exits.

The new rule is actually far simpler (treat it like an intersection, indicate left or right, and not if going straight, and then indicate left prior to your exit), and is now how I think it always should have been. I believe the old rule was ridiculous, confusing, and caused accidents (coz you couldnt tell what the person was actually going to do at the roundabout).

Interestingly, a cop in Palmy told my old man that they wouldnt typically actually enforce the new law due to the small size of most of the roundabouts. I say thats crazy, since there are actually less indication changes compared to the old law!!

And DONT get me started on some of the absolute crazy things I see outside my work every day in new market (side road beside the cock and bull). And this is being a fly-on-the-wall observer on the footpath, not from on the road.

Things like people hanging a left into that road and then almost immediately deciding they want to go back out the same way... and then proceed to do a 7 point turn (since they dont actually know where the edges of their car are)... IN RUSH HOUR!!... blocking traffic for ages, in both directions... all because of their own selfishness!!

And THEN there are the pedestrians that just seem to think that the road is for them, and that the traffic should give way to them while they amble across the road. Making cars jump on the anchors etc, when there is a lighted crossing literally 50m away!!

And while I hate generalising, I would have to say that about 80% of the time I see either of the above (and I probably see about 5 or so occurances of each a day), its usually someone of eastern persuasion doing it.

Then there is that really high incidence of totally broken indicators in Akl. Or the slightly faulty ones that must be g-force activated, coz they only ever seem to come on once the car is IN the corner!!!

OK. Ive wound myself up enough here. :mad:
/ Rant off.

[Max Preload]

The scary thing is, they did. About a year ago!! And people STILL get it wrong. They dont do what the original rule was (indicate left to enter roundabout, then indicate right, then indicate left to exit) OR the new rule.

There is no 'new' rule - it's always been the same in my 21 years of driving.

[robboh]

I know how to fix that, it's obvious - lets change the rules.


There is no 'new' rule - it's always been the same in my 21 years of driving.

The new indication rules came in at the same time as only being able to use fog lamps when its foggy, the new pedestrian crossing laws, and minimum following distance laws.

I thought it was only a year or so ago, but looks like it was a little earlier (2005). But I also seem to recall something on the news about it, not so long ago. Maybe they were doing a review of how pitifully everyone is following the new lays.

I notice somewhere buried in the summary & Q+A that the roundabout indication law is legislating what had previously been guidance.

However, I am positive when I was sitting my tests in the mid 80's, that the road code actually stated that you had to indicate left onto a roundabout initially, then right as you followed it (no matter how far around) and then left again to exit. It stuck with me as I recall thinking what an absolutely daft rule it was.

And believe it or not, I actually DID see someone doing it exactly like that the other day (at least they were indicating :grin:), and it had me thinking how daft it was all over again. Either that, or they just changed their mind :grin: I almost ran into them as they carried on around when I was expecting them to go left (as they were initially indicating).

And yes, I have always done it the way the rule is now (officially) too. Id love to be able to find some old copies of the road code, just so I can see if I was right... or that Im actually just going senile at an early age :confused:

All this argument one way or another about road rules is kinda a waste of time anyway. Whatever they are, noone will follow them. People cant even use indicators at normal intersections for pity's sake.

I always subscribed to the standard 'treat everyone like they are out to kill you' when riding a bike, but Ive even gotten to the stage in my car now.

[Voltaire]

Riding a fully loaded BMW two up around Istanbul for a day will teach you everything you need to know about " right of way"

Motorcycles are at the bottom of the road pecking order.
Traffic lights don't give you right of way, but the opportunity to proceed with caution.
Removing sunglasses and getting 'eye contact' helps...
Get out of the way for vehicles coming towards you....

I would prefer all countries had the same road rules...it just makes sense.
( and the fact they drive on the other side makes no difference after a few hours....in fact it heightens your awareness).

[MSTRS]

The new indication rules came in at the same time as only being able to use fog lamps when its foggy, the new pedestrian crossing laws, and minimum following distance laws.

... that the roundabout indication law is legislating what had previously been guidance.



The only new thing in there is the ped crossing stuff. Previously you could not proceed if a pedestrian was on your side of the centre line. Now it's the whole crossing, unless there is some sort of barrier system or raised median in the centre. Plus I noticed that round here (at least) the roadway got a 'proximity' limit line painted maybe 3m from the pedestrian stripes.

[Max Preload]

The new indication rules came in at the same time as only being able to use fog lamps when its foggy, the new pedestrian crossing laws, and minimum following distance laws.

The so-called new rule was in the copy of the road code I had when taught by a driving instructor at 15. At the vehicle limit line you only indicate left if you're taking the first exit and only indicate right if you're going more than half way around. You always indicate left as soon as you're past the exit before the one you're taking.

[MSTRS]

The so-called new rule was in the copy of the road code I had when taught by a driving instructor at 15. At the vehicle limit line you only indicate left if you're taking the first exit and only indicate right if you're going more than half way around. You always indicate left as soon as you're past the exit before the one you're taking.

Move along. Nothing new here....
:lol:

[Squiggles]

Reading this thread is fucken scary. :crazy:

[Badjelly]

I would prefer all countries had the same road rules...it just makes sense.

I spent a few days in Arequipa, Peru, last summer. No driving (thank heavens) but I walked around quite a bit. In the inner city the streets are on a grid and most of the 4-way intersections have no signs. There may be a give way to left or give way to right rule, but I saw no evidence of it. Traffic in one direction bullies its way through for a while, then a vehicle trying to go in the other direction manages to poke its nose in, whereupon it and the others bully their way through for a while. Pedestrians scurry across where they can, but if you make eye contact with drivers and look determined enough, they'll stop for you. It's sort of a "courtesy prevails" system, where "courtesy" has a peculiarly South American flavour.

After a few days I had to admit it worked, sort of. I'm sure more traffic managed to pass through this way. I reckon if the drivers did follow strict priority rules, the whole city would grind to a halt.

[Max Preload]

Move along. Nothing new here....
:lol:

And this is exactly why we need either much harder licence testing or compulsory tuition by qualified instructors (personally I prefer the former as the modern car instructors seem to be mostly incompetent - my father owned a driving school) - Otherwise people pass on only what they personally do themselves, not what is correct. It doesn't help that Police target nothing except speed either - doing so might limit damage when thye do crash but does very little to ensure that the crash doesn't happen in the first place, which further reduces damage...

I'd like to see compulsory theory and practical retesting every 10 years and any time you have an accident. The bonus is that some people would probably be so busy doing the retesting that they'd hardly ever be on the road.

[robboh]

The only new thing in there is the ped crossing stuff. Previously you could not proceed if a pedestrian was on your side of the centre line. Now it's the whole crossing, unless there is some sort of barrier system or raised median in the centre. Plus I noticed that round here (at least) the roadway got a 'proximity' limit line painted maybe 3m from the pedestrian stripes.

The new thing is that they are now LAW, not guidance. Therefore they are legally enforceable. Which means you or I could be fined for not following them.

Having said that, I have never once seen roundabout signaling actually followed up. Mind you, isnt it interesting how much better everyone drives when there is a cop sitting on an intersection. And after the changes, I did hear of people being pulled over and fined for the fog lights.

Agreed with the ped crossings being the biggest change. The caveat was that it was only applicable in the case of a centre-line existing. If no centreline, then it applied for the entire PD, not just your side. Now, as you say, there must be a physical barrier of some description in the centre for it to apply.

[robboh]

The so-called new rule was in the copy of the road code I had when taught by a driving instructor at 15. At the vehicle limit line you only indicate left if you're taking the first exit and only indicate right if you're going more than half way around. You always indicate left as soon as you're past the exit before the one you're taking.

Now, first thing. I believe you. I have always done it that way too.

I had to do mine twice as I stupidly let my learners expire. Which meant that I had to go through and do the skills handling test (didnt the first time, new rule), AND go through my learners period again, AND resit the road code test, so I did get lots of opportunity to study it :mad:

As I said, it could of course just be premature senility on my part. But I am sure I have seen it presented how I described it somewhere. I also find it VERY hard to believe I could have made such a daft misinterpretation of what I consider to be a very logical current implementation.

Now I think the old man had a really old copy of the Road Code sitting on his shelf (I think mine was Black with a yellow stripe), so potentially I saw it in there. Im going to give him a call in the next few days and ask him to check, purely for my own mental sanity :rolleyes:

[robboh]

And this is exactly why we need either much harder licence testing or compulsory tuition by qualified instructors (personally I prefer the former as the modern car instructors seem to be mostly incompetent - my father owned a driving school) - Otherwise people pass on only what they personally do themselves, not what is correct. It doesn't help that Police target nothing except speed either - doing so might limit damage when thye do crash but does very little to ensure that the crash doesn't happen in the first place, which further reduces damage...

I'd like to see compulsory theory and practical retesting every 10 years and any time you have an accident. The bonus is that some people would probably be so busy doing the retesting that they'd hardly ever be on the road.

Fully agree with everything you say here.

And I would go one stage further and say that there should be some sort of a 'simulation' testing component as well, where people are put through a simulation driving course, and externally judged on their decision making, ability to keep up with traffic flow, application of correct rules, defensive driving etc.

It do wonder at times what criteria the testers are given for guidance on a pass v's fail mark, and just how bad you need to be before you get given the big red X.

[Max Preload]

It do wonder at times what criteria the testers are given for guidance on a pass v's fail mark, and just how bad you need to be before you get given the big red X.

I understand the practical testers are expected to pass 75% on practical exams which is very wrong in my opinion. Every pass or fail should be based solely on actual performance of the individual, not their statistical position in the driving population. It's like the NCEA for driving. :eek:

[Ixion]

..
I notice somewhere buried in the summary & Q+A that the roundabout indication law is legislating what had previously been guidance.

However, I am positive when I was sitting my tests in the mid 80's, that the road code actually stated that you had to indicate left onto a roundabout initially, then right as you followed it (no matter how far around) and then left again to exit. It stuck with me as I recall thinking what an absolutely daft rule it was.

..

You are correct, but I think it was long before the 80s. When roundabouts first were introduced, and were very rare (sigh), the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road. So you turned left off the straight road (left turn becaus ethe centre line stopped), then right as you went round, and left as you exited. There wasn't any actual law about it, cos roundabouts were too rare (Tauranga didn't even have one, that's how rare they were !) , so the snakes sort of invented the rule on the fly. (They were good at that !) But I think it was more like the 60s than the 80s. Could be wrong though.

[Ocean1]

the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road.

Sounds right, most of 'em were just that.

A lot aren't though, now. I've got one in mind that differs from a standard uncontrolled 4 way intersection just in that there's a slightly raised lump in the middle.

When the "new rule" was introduced I noticed that (of course) people started to believe what others indicated they were going to do, with predictable results. Perversely, I think not having to indicate other than to change lanes on a roundabout tends to keep everyone guessing, and maybe that's a good thing.

[Beemer]

Gawd help us....

This person lives in Wellington - I don't think many people follow the road rules there, and Sunhuntin lives in Wanganui, you'll have to cut her some slack - they're mostly OAPs or gang prospects up there so I don't think the normal rules apply. :innocent:

[Jiminy]

There are two things that irk me in the current road rule:

- Give way to the right EXCEPT if you are going straight ahead (4th pic in http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/giving-way-at-uncontrolled-intersections.html)
- Give way when turning left rule

Because of those two rules, it is not sufficient to consider the position of the vehicles to know who has right of way, but you also need to consider where the vehicles are going (and drivers/riders are not THAT good at using their indicators, now, are they? 3 seconds anyone?).

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

Btw, I'm surprised (shocked?) at so much bitching and debating about the road code here. Would that be a sign that the rules are not so intuitive, after all?


while your at it you might want to point out the half the world drive on the other side of the road? maybe we should change to that too to keep them happy while they are here on holiday?

Now that's a good idea! :jerry:

[Max Preload]

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

The only danger comes from not applying the rule. If you can't manage that, how about fucking off back from whence you came?

[Jiminy]

The only danger comes from not applying the rule. If you can't manage that, how about fucking off back from whence you came?

I *do* apply the rules, but find it less intuitive and more dangerous as it is.

I have been here for a few years, but leave the voting and lobbying to the locals until I decide to settle... or not. In the mean time, feel free to put me on your ignore list if you don't think I have the right to post my opinion ;).

[robboh]

There are two things that irk me in the current road rule:

- Give way to the right EXCEPT if you are going straight ahead (4th pic in http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/giving-way-at-uncontrolled-intersections.html)
- Give way when turning left rule

Because of those two rules, it is not sufficient to consider the position of the vehicles to know who has right of way, but you also need to consider where the vehicles are going (and drivers/riders are not THAT good at using their indicators, now, are they? 3 seconds anyone?).

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

Btw, I'm surprised (shocked?) at so much bitching and debating about the road code here. Would that be a sign that the rules are not so intuitive, after all?

The rules you stated above still follow the two basic premises. EG, that turning traffic always gives way to straight-ahead traffic, and that you give way to your right (eg when turning left, you can either have someone turning right or coming straight from the right).

Yes, people do need to indicate for them to work, and they do depend on both direction and intention, but thats the case in any intersection under any rules anyway??

In your example (4th pic), I assume they are going straight (eg I have to give way). If they ARE going to turn and dont indicate, then its not likely they are going to give way correctly either, and will just plow round the corner. In which case, discretion is the better part of valour anyways (and much safer). On these intersections, I basically only take my right of way IF the other person is showing very definite intentions of coming to a full stop and giving way.

As for people actually DOING things like indicating, yeah, its a worry. I shudder to think what would happen if they introduced the equivilent to what the States have in some places, eg 'free right turn on a red'.

As for the arguments, I dont understand it either. The rules are incredibly simple, with no exceptions to the two basic premises (that I can think of). I dont personally agree with having to give way to right-turning traffic if you are turning left (I think it holds up traffic flows), but the rules are the rules. And if people cant cope with the simple ones we have now, how on earth are they going to cope if they start introducing 'these are the rule, with this long list of exceptions'.

The thing I find interesting is that people having driven overseas say that NZ'ers are bad drivers. Yet, I also hear that, for example, Italy is uncontrolled mahem, but still seems to work well. I think its that they are all basically on the 'same page' as to how to react in a given situation. Here, you just DONT know what people are going to do :angry2:

[robboh]

You are correct, but I think it was long before the 80s. When roundabouts first were introduced, and were very rare (sigh), the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road. So you turned left off the straight road (left turn becaus ethe centre line stopped), then right as you went round, and left as you exited. There wasn't any actual law about it, cos roundabouts were too rare (Tauranga didn't even have one, that's how rare they were !) , so the snakes sort of invented the rule on the fly. (They were good at that !) But I think it was more like the 60s than the 80s. Could be wrong though.

Thank you Ixion. Im pleased to hear that I am in fact NOT going completely senile at an early age! :woohoo:

Agreed that it was probably far earlier than the 80s. Its quite possible I came across it in an earlier road code and stored it as an interesting factoid.

[Badjelly]

Yes, people do need to indicate for them to work, and they do depend on both direction and intention, but thats the case in any intersection under any rules anyway??

But a bit more so under the current rules than under some feasible alternatives.

[thepom]

Max preload seems a bit touchy,:spanking:

[Max Preload]

Max preload seems a bit touchy,:spanking:

Hey, he was just making a suggestion, as was I.

[Badjelly]

Hey, he was just making a suggestion, as was I.

The suggestion that Jiminy fuck off back from whence he came? Yes, that is a suggestion. I think we can all form our own judgements about people who make suggestions like that.

[Max Preload]

The suggestion that Jiminy fuck off back from whence he came? Yes, that is a suggestion. I think we can all form our own judgements about people who make suggestions like that.

Judge away! :baby: