Give way rule to change

[BoristheBiter]

I have expressed my views on this subject before, at great length and in the face of considerable opposition. I strongly support having vehicles turning right from the terminating road at a T intersection give way. I also support (but less strongly) having right turning vehicles giving way to the left-turning vehicles. I am resigned to the fact that I will never convince Ixion.

To quote the captain from the Hunting of the Snark, "Now you have stated the whole of your case, more debate would be simply absurd." We need a poll:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...rsection-rules

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

[Mikkel]

The biggest drawback of the current rule has nothing to do with traffic flow and everything to do with over-taxing the average driver's situational awareness.

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

And at T-intersections it is even more ridiculous, because you have to check whether the guy waiting to turn right is governed by a give-way sign or not. And the road-markings quite often makes this even more confusing than it should be (e.g. putting a give-way sign at the tributary-road while also putting in a "give way"-line across the turning lane at a position that would suggest that you should give way.).

I have expressed my views on this subject before, at great length and in the face of considerable opposition. I strongly support having vehicles turning right from the terminating road at a T intersection give way. I also support (but less strongly) having right turning vehicles giving way to the left-turning vehicles.

No surprise, we have already established that you are a reasonable person.

This also clears up the fact that the guy turning right may or may not have their indicator on by accident. Which means everyone should give way to them as the assumption is they 'may be' going straight.

The same is equally true for anyone who's left their left-hand indicator on. Except, if a bad call is being made in that regard - as the rule stands now - you could end up with a hairy situation with a guy crossing in front of straight-ahead traffic causing a major pile-up. That situation can never occur if the revised give-way rule is observed.

I can't see what is wrong with the system as it stands now. if you don't know the give way rules you shouldn't have a licence and changing them will make no differance.
If you want to drive like the rest of the world then we should change it to driving on the right side of the road.
The road rules are fucked up but dicks who don't know how to drive in the first place and they should get these off the road so we can ride in peace.

Lots of people on NZ's roads shouldn't have a license - that far we agree - but not just because they don't know the give way rules. There's no reasonable excuse for making the rules excessively convoluted with potential for fatal errors.

Also, as far as I am aware NZ is the only country in the world where you drive on the left and give way to the right. And I have no knowledge of any country where you drive on the right and give way to the left. Furthermore, about one third of the world's population drive on the left.

[BoristheBiter]

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

And at T-intersections it is even more ridiculous, because you have to check whether the guy waiting to turn right is governed by a give-way sign or not. And the road-markings quite often makes this even more confusing than it should be (e.g. putting a give-way sign at the tributary-road while also putting in a "give way"-line across the turning lane at a position that would suggest that you should give way.).

sorry.
I have been driving for the last 25 years here and in a few other countries where they drive on the right.
I check what the road rules are and stick to them. if i find it is hard to drive because i don't know the area/driving practices are like i get a taxi/bus. if people can't give way then how did they get their licence in the first place?

there are pros and cons for both systems but to change them for the reasons that have been given are just wrong.
everyone knows the rules and like other rules of the road choose to ignore them (we could start a speeding thread here) so changing the give way to the right is just dumb.
and as for looking out for bikes that will get worse because they will just turn left without looking as they don't have to stop to give way.

Yes the uncontrolled intersection is a dumb rule as it applies to carparks and driveways..
Treat everyone as an idiot, you will never be dissapointed.

[avgas]

The same is equally true for anyone who's left their left-hand indicator on. Except, if a bad call is being made in that regard - as the rule stands now - you could end up with a hairy situation with a guy crossing in front of straight-ahead traffic causing a major pile-up. That situation can never occur if the revised give-way rule is observed.

Ah but that's were your wrong thinking it is equal. While I agree the accident could happen if someone left their left indicator on. Who is to blame is very easy.
You give way to ALL traffic to your right. If your left indicator is on. So if you accidentally leave it on and someone drives into you.....you are at fault.
However change the system, and that all goes to hell. Finger pointing will be interesting then.

Common practise actually states that both parties stop before deciding who goes first - however I hear common practise is on holiday with common sense.

[scumdog]

People bleat on about the rules should be changed so NZ is 'like the rest of the world' - that being the case when ARE we changing to driving on the right-hand side of the road...

[R-Soul]

I'm one of the biggest supports of improved driver education. It's better to educate from the start then to try and discipline bad behaviour (e.g. driving like a dick head, not be courteous to other drivers) but some of the driving instructors are plain daft. .

I have heard that Germany has the worlds best drivers, but also the most fearsome -and expensive -training requirements before you are allowed to get your license. It makes sense really.

To my mind, any law that requires others to have to rely on other's attentiveness is looking for trouble. People work best when they are looking out for themsekves, nt others. i.e. looking for a gap in traffic to trun right. Not looking out for others to be kind to them. Getting rid of that law makes sense.
Also, many cars turning right may not see a bike (or cyclist) that is passing the car turning left that has kindly given way. Any law that allows a car to turn across the path of others should be looked at very carefully.

[R-Soul]

The general rule of thumb should be that whoever is on the straight lane has right of way. Anyone wanting to join or cross a straight lane (such as turning across it) must give way until there is a space for them. Straight. Make peoples driving instincts simlar to their survival instincts and there will be no fuck ups.

[R-Soul]

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

Your thoughts are flawed, as this this holding up of cars behind the car wanting to turn right would only apply at busy intersections. And roads that have busy intersections very rarely only have a single lane width. And if its busy, its normally busy both ways and there would be lots of cars behind the car currently giving way, so he would not do it.

And if its a small road, and an isolated incident where three cars happen to be behind the car in front - let them get over it, slow down (they should not be speeding anyway) and have some patience.


The enormous targedy that can be caused by a person doing something as simple as leaving their indicator on, just rules this law out from the start.

[Badjelly]

If someone argues that they are too stupid, obstinate, or lazy to undersatnd and implement the present rule, changing the rule won't help. They'll be too lazy, obstinate or stupid to understand and implent the new rule. And the proposed rules are considerably more complex than the present ones.

Yes, but I expect that people will understand and follow them more consistently. Lack of complexity is a good thing in a road rule, but it's not the only thing.

If they cannot, or will not, follow the present rules, why do you suppose they will follow new ones? Lead a horse to water and all that.

We are all agreed, I think, compliance with and awareness of the current rule for the case of two right-turning vehicles is abysmal. About 20-30% of drivers even attempt to obey this rule, some of the time. It's not so bad for the right-turning vs left-turning case.

I submit that there's something about the current rule that doesn't fit people's brains. (I cannot cite solid evidence to support my submission, but, hey, this is an Internet forum.) I think it's the fact that side roads are seen as less important than main roads. Or just the fact that side roads often have give way signs, so people find it hard to switch mental gears when they don't. Whatever. There are many lazy and stupid drivers on the roads, but when considerably more than half of the drivers just don't seem to get the hang of a road rule (a very simple one) I think it's more than that.

The fact is that the majority of people do follow a consistent rule in this case. It's just unfortunate that it's not the rule specified in the law.

NB: I mentioned main roads and side roads. These are not well-defined terms and I expect the new road rule will refer to continuing and terminating roads at a T intersection, as the Victorian ones do.

[avgas]

People bleat on about the rules should be changed so NZ is 'like the rest of the world' - that being the case when ARE we changing to driving on the right-hand side of the road...

When Japan and Korea do..........

[BoristheBiter]

Your thoughts are flawed, as this would holding up of cas behind the car wanting to turn would only apply at busy intersections. And roads that have busy intersections very rarely only have a single lane width. and if its busy, its normally busy both ways and there would be lots of cars behind the car currently giving way, so he would not do it.

And if its a small road, and an isolated incident where three cars happen to be behind the car in front - let them get over it, slow down (they should not be speeding anyway) and have some patience.


The enormous targedy that can be caused by a person doing sometghing as simple as leaving their indicator on is just rules this law out from the start.

I think i get what you mean but you know this is NZ right.
Ask the guy in the ute that was run over by a truck at the greens road/sh17 intersection because the truck driver failed to see the car indicate. if it would change the outcome.
it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.

[Leyton]

I just looked a the new rules and I do not understand it.

I have always worked under the rule of thumb "If you can put a nasty dent in the passenger door, Go for it!" Now it looks like.. "If we can get nailed in the drivers door, Go for it!" whats up with that ? :P

I also note that they are making it so, independent of a stop or give way at a t-intersection, one still has to give way but now to the left.

Why change the give way rules, a large portion of drivers have no fricken clue regarding correct roundabout indicative procedure. I can not count the times in the day when I had missed a entry opportunity because some twat signals right to go straight ahead only to indicate right on the exit point.

I think the answer for some motorists to just get bigger cars, and drive even more quicker out of ignorance for the rules as no one follows most of them anyway :P Oh I am feeling really old right now!

[cowboyz]

I think of the amount of people who indicate when going striaght through roundabouts.. indicate left to turn right at a roundabout Generally not getting it and shudder. This rule change will mean you have to be very aware of everything around you.

[Berries]

So it would be better if all the left turners go through letting one right turner go through per cycle?

Yes. Right turning traffic is crossing the path of straight through traffic so should expect to wait. Because left turners often don't look behind them to see that there is no straight through traffic they can sit and wait to give way when there is no need, causing frustration and general gibbledeness. Hey, I just made a new word. After 14 years in NZ I understand the rule, I just don't understand the point of it.

[kwaka_crasher]

it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.

Spot on.

I think of the amount of people who indicate when going striaght through roundabouts.. indicate left to turn right at a roundabout Generally not getting it and shudder. This rule change will mean you have to be very aware of everything around you.

It's scary that we share the roads with these cabbages.