ANY JP'S HERE?

[Skyryder]

My wifes a Justice of the Peace and as such she receives the Justices Quarterly.

In the current issue June 05 Volume 74 Number 2 there is a section on New Road Rules page 9. I'll quote the relevent information.

* Drivers must give way to pedestrians on both sides of a pedestrian crossing, unless that crossing is divided by a raised traffic island.

* Only cyclists are allowed to use cyclist lanes; only cyclists, motorcyclists, and busses are allowed to use bus lanes, and no vehicle can park in a sspeacial vehicle lane (unless a sighn permits it)

There's a bit about towing trailor speeds etc that I will not write up.

* Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit.


This little mag is intended to educate Justices of the Peace the current law as it stands. There was a time when you had to give way to anyone on a pedestrian crossing and it now looks like that is back in force. But what got my attention was bit about not having to indicate when going straight ahead on a roundabout.

Skyryder

[Jeremy]

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead"

-> "Drivers entering a roundabout going straight do not need to indicate"

This is true. You however must always indicate when you are leaving a roundabout.

[Skyryder]

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead"

-> "Drivers entering a roundabout going straight do not need to indicate"

This is true. You however must always indicate when you are leaving a roundabout.

That's not what it says. This is a publication to inform JP's of the current law. The pulication states that "It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead." I just can't wait for some cop to ticket me on this one. I have a defence.

Skyryder

[Jeremy]

It's still talking about the previous line, which only deals with the entering of a roundabout. Anyway it's not a valid defence, as it's the wording of the law that is taken into account, not third party publications. Which is why all the AA publications and such have "this may or not be correct, consult a lawyer" on them.

[TonyB]

I've read several times that you must indicate left when leaving a roundabout- even when going straight ahead. Huge numbers of people seem to be really confused about this. Is it any wonder when you have in your possesion an official document that contradicts "official" adverts I've seen in the paper etc? Some of the things I've seen people doing since the law change beggar belief.

The powers that be need to get their collective act together and ensure that everyone has a decent chance to see and understand the new rules.... oh and it would help if they all said the same fricken thing!!!

[Skyryder]

I've read several times that you must indicate left when leaving a roundabout- even when going straight ahead. Huge numbers of people seem to be really confused about this. Is it any wonder when you have in your possesion an official document that contradicts "official" adverts I've seen in the paper etc? Some of the things I've seen people doing since the law change beggar belief.

The powers that be need to get their collective act together and ensure that everyone has a decent chance to see and understand the new rules.... oh and it would help if they all said the same fricken thing!!!

Me to Tony. In fact the since the publicity of this law and its enforcement roundabouts have become infinatley more dangerous. I've been caught in a two lane roundabout where I have been on the inside lane and a car on the right side just ahead of me indicated and then swerved over and cut me off. Said he saw my indicator lights and thought I was turning left. Lying prick. I never used them when going straight ahead but if he had of side swiped me it was his word against mine. Just one of the reasons this law is so bloody dangerouse. Cages believe that the law allows them to change lanes whie exiting a roundabout. Now if LTNZ or police were as zealous on incorrect lane changeing I for one just might have a bit more respect for them.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

It's still talking about the previous line, which only deals with the entering of a roundabout. Anyway it's not a valid defence, as it's the wording of the law that is taken into account, not third party publications. Which is why all the AA publications and such have "this may or not be correct, consult a lawyer" on them.

Don't mean to nit pick. But it is no more talking about the previous line as the last sentance in the para is talking about its preceeding line

The paragraph is talking about three different aspects of roundabouts

1 indicating when exiting to your left or right.

2 Going straight ahead

3 approaching and exiting on multilane roundabouts.

Incedently I believe the road code is also a third party publication. Just can't find the statute on this. Any ideas? Would like to see the actual wording on this.

Skyryder

[Gremlin]

Incedently I believe the road code is also a third party publication. Just can't find the statute on this. Any ideas? Would like to see the actual wording on this.

Skyryder

IIRC, you are correct, I think the road code says something inside the cover that it cannot be used in place of the statutes.

I think anything other than the actual law cannot be used in something like a court case. Partly I'm guessing because the legalese is translated, and paraphrased.

[Jeremy]

I might be missing something here but:

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit."

Doesn't say anything about indicating while exiting. It's of the same form as:

Drivers entering an intersection must indicate if they are intending to turn left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-line intersections you must be in the right lane.

Which would imply to me that the second sentence is following on the same original precept as the first as it impossible to derive any sense from the second sentence when it is isolated from the rest. Unless there's parts of the sentences you haven't quoted from the publication.

[WildBoarMouse]

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/road-user-sa...ew-road-rules/

It even has pretty pictures.

"If you're going straight ahead at the roundabout (eg halfway
around), you need to use any lane which is marked for that
purpose. You must signal a left turn as you pass the exit
before the one you intend to take."

[What?]

It's a dumb-ass bit of ruling anyway - Imagine you are sitting at the top entry to the roundabout in the picture above. It's more than a good bet that you will not be able to see the left hand indicators on either of the cars, yet the purpose of their indicating a left turn is to inform you that they are exiting the roundabout.

[What?]

I just can't wait for some cop to ticket me on this one. I have a defence.

Skyryder

No you don't. It is a legal standard in NZ that "ignorance of the law is no defence" - what you have is an interpretation of the law (which you may have further interpreted), not the law itself.

[Skyryder]

So where is the actual wording the statue on this. I've looked and can not find it. Has anyone seen the actual wording of this or is it just some LTNZ PR ??


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I might be missing something here but:

"Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit."

Doesn't say anything about indicating while exiting. It's of the same form as:

Drivers entering an intersection must indicate if they are intending to turn left or right. It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. At multi-line intersections you must be in the right lane.

Which would imply to me that the second sentence is following on the same original precept as the first as it impossible to derive any sense from the second sentence when it is isolated from the rest. Unless there's parts of the sentences you haven't quoted from the publication.

This is the full quote from the Justices' Quarterly on roundabouts. The paragraph has three (3) sentances only. I have numbered them for clarity

(1)Drivers entering a roundabout must indicate if they are intending to exit left or right. (2) It is not neccessary to indicate if you are going straight ahead. (3) At multi-lane roundabouts you must approach and enter the roundabout in the correct lane for where you intend to exit.

Each of these three sentances are stand-a-lone.

Sentence #2 mentions nothing about entry or exit. It states no indication is neccessary when going straight ahead.

If as you suggest that #2 sentence is following on the same original precept as #1 sentence, then there is an assumption that JP's need to be told that when driving straight ahead it is not neccessary to indicate. I know of no other explanation if sentance #2 is to read in conjuction with #1. Most drivers and JP's know this and are not that dumb. So...............sentance #2 is a standalone sentance and means what it says. No indication is neccessary at roundabouts if driving through. Indication is neccessary when turning left or right.

Does anyone else have a copy of Justices' Quarterly and if so how do they interperet this paragraph?

Now I think I'll go and get pissed so I can understand what I have said.

Skyryder

[TonyB]

Bloody confusing isn't it. You have a statute that states that you need not indicate at all if going straight ahead. Yet the LTSA disagrees. Aint life grand.