Give way rule to change

[Berries]

...and you are not supposed to overtake on a flush median, unless turning yourself. I was thinking of a different scenario though - signalised crossroads with individual lanes for straight through and turning traffic. You'd think that as the left turn is the safest movement, ie crosses no other traffic, it should be the easiest but that's not the case having to worry about right turning traffic and whether straight through traffic behind you means you can go ahead of opposing right turners. All compounded by the totally unsafe NZ way of allowing pedestrians to cross with a shared phase for vehicles (not everywhere, but certainly in Dunedin). No wonder so many of them get bowled over.

[Pixie]

Blue is not allowed to overtake if he has to cross the centreline to do so as he doesn't have 100m of clear road ahead. So that scenario doesn't play out.

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.

[scumdog]

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.

AND leave enough gap between them and the bike they ae passing that a logging truck could drive between them, - WTF did they think was going to happen - the bike was going to suddenly swerve right and bump them off the road??

[scumdog]

I'd be interested in a legal opinion on that (i.e. the real law). That is, someone turning right has right of way over someone turning left - but does the fact that the left turner has someone wanting to go straight, behind them (in the saem lane), change who has right of way?

i.e. when the left turner doesn't give way to the right-turner, because they see someone behind themselves going straight, are they actually doing the legal thing?

Yes they are doing the legal thing and normally that is what happens - common sense tells them: 'no way is that car going to be able to cut through all this straight-through traffick following behind me so I might as well whip around the corner'

Of course add the sight of a cop car to the scenario and the motorists brains go right out the window at time............

[pzkpfw]

Yes they are doing the legal thing and normally that is what happens - common sense tells them: 'no way is that car going to be able to cut through all this straight-through traffick following behind me so I might as well whip around the corner'

But if the straight through traffic has to wait behind the left turner, then there'd be no straight through traffic for the right turner to "cut through".

(In my scenario there's just one lane in each direction.)

Are you saying the left turner wouldn't be given a ticket for not giving way? (discretion)
or
Are you saying the left turner couldn't be given a ticket for not giving way? (it's legal)

[merv]

I look forward to the change back to left turn having right of way and it was a silly day in 1977 indeed when this changed to the "wrong" way.

However I'm not impressed with the idea that when two vehicles are turning right at a T junction the vehicle that has to drive right around in front of the other one will have right of way. It is much easier for the other vehicle to turn first and get out of the way.

Pre '77 the rule was if both vehicles are turning right courtesy prevailed which then meant people had to make the decision but it did allow for circumstance e.g. if a long truck wants to turn and it won't fit until the other vehicle gets out of the way, why say it has right of way.

[scumdog]

But if the straight through traffic has to wait behind the left turner, then there'd be no straight through traffic for the right turner to "cut through".

(In my scenario there's just one lane in each direction.)

Down here in hicksville the street always have enough room for the 'about to turn left' car to nick into against the kerb (except when some drongo from another part of the world parks right on the corner!) and let the cars behind him funnel past him - and if theres a car coming towards him that intends making a right turn across his bows he then doesn't HAVE to sit there like a dummy while a string of cars from behind him are heading straight through.


Never heard of anybody geting a ticket in those circumstances.

[BMWST?]

It is simply going back to the way it used to be. So simple to remember: If you're turning right give way to everyone. Give way to anyone approaching from your right. Otherwise you have the right of way.

it isnt the way it was.You will sse that some intersections will overturn the right hand rule,and the car turning off the main road will have right of way.....how are we gonna decide where that rule applies and where it doesnt?

[MSTRS:Me]

Of course add the sight of a cop car to the scenario and the motorists brains go right out the window at time............

Ah...but most of them actually 'find' their brains when a marked car is in the vicinity.
Slight change of subject... the indicating is still utter crap, but the bastards at least stay within their lane in a roundabout, for instance.

[Badjelly]

Down here in hicksville the street always have enough room for the 'about to turn left' car to nick into against the kerb...

Up here in the capital city the roads are narrower than yours, the drivers tend to be a little more ... incisive [wrong word, try impatient], and a lot of people seem to think there's a road rule that says you must have 2.5 m clear road to your left at all times while making a left turn , so the question of whether the left-turning car is blocking the straight-through car behind is a source of great entertainment.

[Badjelly]

Controlled Chaos - European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

Interesting stuff, alright. Mind you, one of the benefits that the late Hans Monderman claimed for his naked roads concept is that it slows traffic down.

A similar thing was suggested in Australia too (well tasmania at least). The downside being that although the number of major accidents decreases the number of minor accidents increases...read for people on motorbike and bicycles the number of major accidents increases.

Do you have any references I can look up for further info?

[avgas]

.......................................

[R-Soul]

Precisely so. We are told that we are the only people where left turning traffic gives way. Here, left turning means traffic turning into the nearside. But most of the world , their nearside turn would be a RIGHT turn. Which , we are told is what they do. Their nearside (right) turning traffic gives way. If all the kepe right countries did as is proposed for NZ they would in fcat be giving way when turning left. Which we are assured they are not.

Its not about right or left.
Yes they turn right into the nearside, but they are also turning from the right hand lane. it is a perfect mirror image of driving on the left. And they do not give way to cars truning left from the other side of the road.

Its about whether you give way to a car turning across your lane. Only NZ does it. ALL other countries say that the car travelling straight and which is not turning across a lane going straight has the right of way at a turn. And that other cars wanting to turn across a lane must simply wait until a traffic light say they can, or for a suitable gap in the traffic.

[Coldrider]

Down here in hicksville .....

Hicksville was HASTINGS initially, at time the railway was being built.

[Coldrider]

Yeah,and this is the real world experience.Mr Blue will happily wait behind Mr yellow.Like fuck it is!
I've had fuckwits drive straight at me on the wrong side of the road at 100kmh,in order to pass a bicycle,rather than slow for 5 seconds.

Outside the town limits of the real 'ex-hicksville', signs indicate to motorists to leave a gap of 1.5metres from cyclist to car.