Give Way rule change

[scumdog]

you shouldn't *need* to change your driving, and if you do, it's pretty much conclusive proof that you
do know the rules, and choose to ignore them in the absence of believable threat of punishment.

Yup, indicators work, Stop signs work and speed limts work a lot better when a cop car is visible, hell even seat-belts go on a lot more when there's a cop car around.

(Been tempted to get some tiny stick-on vinyl cop-car images to hand out to non-seat-belt-wearing types for sticking onto the inside of their windscreen since the sight of a cop car seems to remind them so much - "Aw I was just about to put it on when I saw you boss...)

[tigertim20]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

I say you could easily fulfil your 'performance targets' on this alone. and I for one would welcome it. I never go through an intersection with the mentality that its my RIGHT to do what the road rules say I can, rather I proceed cautiously, because fuckall people seem to know this rule. either that or they dont give a fuck.

A few more people getting a ticket for such a thing might make them more inclined to do it right the next time.
bring it on.

[scumdog]

I dare say the first week will go nice and politely.

Then the gold-fish mentality of a lot of drivers will mean they revert to square 1.

If they even remember square 1...

Constant reminders via media/tickets will be the thing that will help them remember.

[jaykay]

Presumably the OP is a policeman in and around Rangiora -

I fail to understand why the Police have this naive faith that they can ticket their way to safety, or that drivers are somehow grateful for being given a ticket.

Far better to educate, and attack genuine poor driving rather than sit near a Stop sign and hand out fines.

Hopefully the law change on the 25th will perhaps encourage drivers to take the correct lane when appropriate (ie the nearside) - and perhaps police patrols could sit at the end of the Christchurch northern motorway and chat to people who fail to keep left - someone who can't pay attention and drive in the correct lane is far worse than someone doing 112kph.

[FJRider]

I fail to understand why the Police have this naive faith that they can ticket their way to safety, or that drivers are somehow grateful for being given a ticket.

Far better to educate, and attack genuine poor driving rather than sit near a Stop sign and hand out fines.

Hopefully the law change on the 25th will perhaps encourage drivers to take the correct lane when appropriate (ie the nearside) - and perhaps police patrols could sit at the end of the Christchurch northern motorway and chat to people who fail to keep left - someone who can't pay attention and drive in the correct lane is far worse than someone doing 112kph.

It may supprise you how many people say thank you after getting a ticket (ask any cop)

So ... not stopping at a stop sign ISN'T poor driving ... ??? those knowing the rules, are NOT always obeying the rules ...

Drivers dont take the correct lane if it is not "convenient" NOW ... how will a law change make ANY difference to them ... ???

[Berries]

It may supprise you how many people say thank you after getting a ticket (ask any cop)

Any other options that won't get you in to trouble?

So ... not stopping at a stop sign ISN'T poor driving ... ???

Not necessarily. If a stop sign actually met the requirements for having one, ie such poor visibility that you have to stop to make sure the way is clear then yes, not stopping may be an indication of poor driving. Where the stop sign has been put up to placate residents or because of crashes when it was a give way sign then no, I don't think it is indicative of poor driving. Somebody can quite safely see that there is no oncoming traffic and quite safely enter the main road without coming to a complete stop. Even more of an issue on a bike where the riders eye height is quite a bit more than the height used to measure visibility so they may not be affected by whatever the issue is, if in fact there is one.

A judge would simply say that it is a stop sign and you failed to comply therefore the ticket is valid. We all know where we stand with that but really, if the sign is non compliant with the relevant rules then the ticket should be invalid and the sign changed to what it should be. Otherwise you get low compliance and thus a fishing spot. Dunedin riders will know the stop sign at the end of the Fairfield off ramp. Bastards.

[tigertim20]

I understand your line of thinking re: if you can easily see that the way is clear, then a stop sign may not be necessary.
however If a stop sign has been put up to 'placate residents' or 'as a response to accidents' - then isn't it fair to assume that there are other hazards that might not be immediately noticeable?
If its to placate residents, it probably means there is a school, or alot of children in the area, or a hidden side street. Not every hazard is a road based one. children, animals, cyclists, areas bad for black ice and bad frost, or poor road surface could all be factors too, its not just about whether or not a car is coming, the stop sign has been put there to tell you that you need to stop and make an assessment.
secondly, if the sign is due to crashes, its likely that crashes have been caused by people not making accurate assessments, and not seeing potential hazards, thus the stop sign would be entirely justified.

The issue with your perspective is that you are suggesting we can ignore road signs if we think we know better. Imagine the carnage if every road user decide to ignore the signs, and proceed as they felt like doing.

[Berries]

Poor visibility is 24 hours a day, every time you come up to an intersection. All the hazards that you mentioned are temporary in nature and there are other methods of warning people about them. None of them justify the use of a stop sign.

The issue with your perspective is that you are suggesting we can ignore road signs if we think we know better. Imagine the carnage if every road user decide to ignore the signs, and proceed as they felt like doing.

I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

[tigertim20]

Poor visibility is 24 hours a day, every time you come up to an intersection. All the hazards that you mentioned are temporary in nature and there are other methods of warning people about them. None of them justify the use of a stop sign.


I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

if the hazards are temporary and the hazards that exist change from one day to another, then isnt that even more reason to put a stop sign in, to indicate the need for motorists to assess the situation before continuing?
what other methods would you suggest, that are as (or more) cost effective as putting up a permanent stop sign?

[FJRider]

I am not saying we can ignore road signs if we know better, I am just saying that the requirements for regulatory signs should be followed so we all know where we stand. At least that way we can believe the message.

The requirements were met ... then they were installed. Those that choose NOT to obey the signs requirements in law ... know where they stand if they get get caught.

Belief in the message (or the law) is NOT required. Obedience IS ...

[Berries]

The requirements were met ... then they were installed. .

Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.

if the hazards are temporary and the hazards that exist change from one day to another, then isnt that even more reason to put a stop sign in, to indicate the need for motorists to assess the situation before continuing?
what other methods would you suggest, that are as (or more) cost effective as putting up a permanent stop sign?

It really depends on what the issue is. I would have thought most of them (kids, ice, surface etc) would be an issue before you came up to the intersection and should be signed accordingly. Those hazards don't occur specifically at an intersection, unlike potential conflict with a vehicle. And anyway, surely a give way sign indicates the need to asses the situation at an intersection anyway?

[FJRider]

Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.

A good example why Give Way signs should be treated with a little more respect.

Locally there are a few intersections that have killed a few people due to them not taking care with their responsibility to give way. End result is a speed reduction to 80 kms/hr 500 metres either side of the intersection.

To continue to ignore the rules in place ... results in the rules getting toughened ...

A continual process ... and it's a process that covers the entire road transport act ...

[rastuscat]

The problem here is that this may achieve high compliance with the Rule and thus not be a great revenue earner.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't give a fat rats arse about the revenue. I don't get a cent of it, and my salary doesn't depend on it, so why would I care? Nobody in the Police counts the fine revenue, that's why I get so pissed off at being called a revenue collector. Still, nothing is going to change, so we just get on with trying to change crap driving by enforcing the rules.

I'm aware that the lane rule isn't changing. Someone on here has suggested I get my troops better educated. Don't worry, I live in a world where driving rules are flogged day in and day it, so I know the law. We don't enforce the road code, your mothers shopping list or your uncles neighbours idea of what the law says. We enforce legislation, so we get to know it fairly well.

On our daily intersection operations in ChurChur we see no more than 50% of vehicles being turned into the correct lane. Most times even less. Hell, some people turn into the wrong lane, then lane change into the lane they should have turned into, just coz that's where they want to be. Bizarre.

Education? Doesn't everyone know this rule? We spent 2 weeks a couple of years back (pre earthquakes, actually), stopping folk and giving warnings at particular intersections. Almost every one said they knew what the rule was, they just hadn't applied it.

For the record, the tickets we write for that are normally after someone has inconvenienced someone else by turning into the wrong lane. And there aren't too may written, as it's just never really been a priority for us. I'll cop the flack for that, as I know we should do more of it. Thing is, it feels harsh, fining someone $150 for turning into the wrong lane. We don't set the fines. If I had my way it would be $75 and 10 demerits. While I stand there writing the ticket, lots more people do exactly the same thing. It's a bloody disease here, and I suspect ChurChur isn't the only place.

Donuts.

[tigertim20]

Here's a good example. You have a crossroads and on one side a stop control, on the other give way, all due to the available visibility. Because of all the numb nut driver/riders who cannot come to grips with the give way rules when one vehicle is on a stop and one on a give way the council goes and changes the give way sign to a stop. And guess what. No sooner is that done than people start getting tickets for failing to stop at what should be a give way.

No, they get ticketed because the sign is a STOP sign. its not a 'stop sometimes' sign, or a 'stop if theres a cop around' sign, or a 'just sllow down a bit, she'll be right' sign. If you cannot read the sign, and adhere to it, you probably shouldnt be on the road. If, at that same intersection, you were to get taken out by a car that rolled through the stop sign, Im sure your perspective would be different

It really depends on what the issue is. I would have thought most of them (kids, ice, surface etc) would be an issue before you came up to the intersection and should be signed accordingly. Those hazards don't occur specifically at an intersection, unlike potential conflict with a vehicle. And anyway, surely a give way sign indicates the need to asses the situation at an intersection anyway?

they could be an issue at any point, but most intersections are surrounded by buildings, fences, parked cars etc, thus you often cant see whats happening to the left or the right untill you are actually at the edge of the intersection. frost and ice etc would be an issue AFTER stopping, as thats when you get on the gas to leave, thus youd need to look out for it and drive accordingly.
If you are turning onto another street instead of continuing forwards, then again you should be stopping, and taking the time to look ahead to where you intend to be going as well, what hazards will there be further up the street? its not just about whats going on in a 20 metre radius of your vehicle, it gives you an opportunity to look further afield too

[superman]

Stop Signs are funny sometimes... it's illegal to slow down to 2 km/h for the last couple metres (taking 4 seconds) and then taking off. But to hoon up to it, slam on the brakes to a complete stop on the edge and flooring it to take off (with no loss of traction) is completely legal. Better keep it legal...