Give Way rule date changed

**superman** · 14th November 2011, 11:59

Originally Posted by Parlane

This roundabout is completely contrary to the above:

http://g.co/maps/fns3e

90% of traffic comes from the north in one huge line with almost no gaps and either goes south or west. Traffic trying to come from the east has almost no oppurtunity to go through. I have experienced this first hand, the conclusion is to never go that way...

Well it could do with buffering lights going into the roundabout then, so that a pressure sensor under the coming from east lane sets off a red light on the north queue every now and again.

The round about below has such a system, where the north eastern lane can often have way too much traffic to allow others through. So it has a light dependent upon traffic volume.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitfo...15000&t=h&z=19

**Parlane** · 14th November 2011, 12:08

Originally Posted by superman

Well it could do with buffering lights going into the roundabout then, so that a pressure sensor under the coming from east lane sets off a red light on the north queue every now and again.

The round about below has such a system, where the north eastern lane can often have way too much traffic to allow others through. So it has a light dependent upon traffic volume.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitfo...15000&t=h&z=19

I have been through that roundabout dozens of times and have never come from the direction that has the lights. Crazy! That is pretty cool. And yes that system would be well deserved in the linwood roundabout.

Auckland is well prepared for the change in laws when it comes to it's traffic light systems. Christchurch is the absolute opposite, all intersections seem to be designed to abuse the left turning give way to right turning rule. There are already intersections in CHCH that are in desperate need for right turn arrows ATM, and are set to get even worse!

I learnt to drive in Auckland and spent a good few years there, so I can compare them

**Berries** · 14th November 2011, 16:57

Originally Posted by MSTRS

But the law is that each must turn into their respective lanes. Pity that so few seem to understand this and it's seldom, if ever, policed.

It gets policed on the wonderful one way system in Dunedin. It would be better giving tickets to the left turning dickheads who sit and wait for all the right turners to go than pinging people for turning in to the 'wrong' lane when there isn't another vehicle in sight. IMHO.

**PrincessBandit** · 14th November 2011, 18:01

Originally Posted by iYRe

or a volvo?

Oh, a VOL-vo. I almost read it as a similar work (with identical consonants but different vowels). Reckon that one of those might work too as those of us who come with one of them already don't ride thinking with balls...

**FJRider** · 14th November 2011, 18:15

Regardless of whom actually has legal "right of way" ... the ones I hate are the silly twats (those that either are one, or have one) that have NO IDEA who should have right of way ... so they stop in the middle of the road and give way to everybody ...

**warewolf** · 14th November 2011, 20:42

Originally Posted by bogan

What if the first driveway on the left after the right turn is where you want to go? Circle the block?

Yes, absolutely. One of my bugbears with kiwi drivers is that they seem to think it is ok to do dangerous, stupid and illegal manoeuvres rather than be slightly inconvenienced by taking the safe but slightly longer route. Pull that kind of stupid shit in Sydney and you'll have not one car hit you, but probably six. Traffic densities here are low enough that you can get away with breaking the rules - and common sense - quite often, but that's no excuse, is it? Especially not for the supposedly enlightened and better class of motorist: the motorcyclist.

I live one block from - and every morning have to travel through - the worst black spot intersection in this district, which is not unexpectedly on a very busy road. I see some really crazy shit, like people trying to turn right across two merge-to-one lanes and one-split-to-two lanes to then turn left, rather than make the easy and safe turn left into one lane only, then use the right turn lane 200m away and go round the block next right and then left back on to the same target street - where round the block has almost no traffic and is only 2x 200m longer. Ditto people trying to turn right from the main road at that intersection without a right turn lane, which can conflict with right turners in to the main road which has a turn destination lane, when it is much safer for the former to turn right a block earlier at the right turn lane. I always plan ahead and take the easiest which is usually the safest option; but then I spent years commuting by bicycle in Sydney and studiously avoiding dangerous traffic situations. You're even less noticed and protected on a bicycle.

**bogan** · 14th November 2011, 21:01

Originally Posted by warewolf

Yes, absolutely. One of my bugbears with kiwi drivers is that they seem to think it is ok to do dangerous, stupid and illegal manoeuvres rather than be slightly inconvenienced by taking the safe but slightly longer route. Pull that kind of stupid shit in Sydney and you'll have not one car hit you, but probably six. Traffic densities here are low enough that you can get away with breaking the rules - and common sense - quite often, but that's no excuse, is it? Especially not for the supposedly enlightened and better class of motorist: the motorcyclist.

In my examples, it was only illegal (and I've never heard of anyone actually taxed for it), and far from dangerous or stupid. I look at it as the road rules are there primarily to keep us safe, and secondly to create efficient transport. So if you can bend one law, with absolute certainty of it being safe to do so, I got no problem with that. But I guess the current focus of society is to swap personal responsibility, for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Pity that, as it won't increase safety, and will decrease efficiency.

**warewolf** · 14th November 2011, 21:17

Originally Posted by bogan

In my examples, it was only illegal (and I've never heard of anyone actually taxed for it), and far from dangerous or stupid. I look at it as the road rules are there primarily to keep us safe, and secondly to create efficient transport. So if you can bend one law, with absolute certainty of it being safe to do so, I got no problem with that. But I guess the current focus of society is to swap personal responsibility, for dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Pity that, as it won't increase safety, and will decrease efficiency.

Rubbish. We were discussing "what if" there was someone turning left in to the left lane at the same time a right turner was turning in to the right lane. By law, and common sense, there is no conflict, it is safe, and it is most efficient at keeping both of those turns flowing. An improper lane change mid-intersection in order to get to a driveway accessed from another lane you can't otherwise reach is dangerous and stupid, in my book.

No-one would ever get taxed for it unless they waz also speeding, as dangerous driving doesn't really count if it's under the posted limit.

**bogan** · 14th November 2011, 21:28

Originally Posted by warewolf

Rubbish. We were discussing "what if" there was someone turning left in to the left lane at the same time a right turner was turning in to the right lane. By law, and common sense, there is no conflict, it is safe, and it is most efficient at keeping both of those turns flowing. An improper lane change mid-intersection in order to get to a driveway accessed from another lane you can't otherwise reach is dangerous and stupid, in my book.

No-one would ever get taxed for it unless they waz also speeding, as dangerous driving doesn't really count if it's under the posted limit.

It was a follow on from a previous post, I meant you would only ever bend the rules if the other lane was definitely clear. But it's a big thread, I'll forgive you for skipping a few posts.

**p.dath** · 15th November 2011, 17:41

It's common-sense really, you should never place yourself in danger to comply with a road regulation.

And the land transport rule explicitly allows you to break any road rule to avoid immediate danger to human life, immediate risk of injury, or immediate risk of property damage provided you are not the cause of the danger.

**rastuscat** · 10th December 2011, 20:17

Originally Posted by p.dath

It's common-sense really, you should never place yourself in danger to comply with a road regulation.

And the land transport rule explicitly allows you to break any road rule to avoid immediate danger to human life, immediate risk of injury, or immediate risk of property damage provided you are not the cause of the danger.

Okay, so how does that make it okay to do what was suggested?

Like, I broke the rule in the interests of safety. Yeah right.