Give Way rule change

[cheshirecat]

The thing that worries me most about the upcoming change is that the munters will be concentrating so hard on the application of the new rule that they'll completely forget what give way signs are for.

What they know already?

[Berries]

I understand your point completely, but 1) visibility is not the only consideration for safety at intersections,

But it is the only consideration when you decide to put in a stop sign over a give way sign. Or should I say 'should be' according to the regs.

rightly or wrongly, if its there, adhere to it, or accept the consequences for choosing to ignore it

I do. My only ticket is for failing to stop at a stop sign. A stop sign that does not meet the requirements for its installation because you can see quite clearly if there is any traffic coming. I accepted my ticket gladly at the time because I thought when I was being pulled over it was for something I did just before slowing down for the intersection. Nearly kissed the cop when I was told what I was being done for. Long walk home otherwise.

Back on topic. Ping the bastards. Although I don't believe Rangiora has any roads with two lanes in the same direction does it? Can they put markings down on gravel these days?

[Kickaha]

A stop sign that does not meet the requirements for its installation because you can see quite clearly if there is any traffic coming.

What are the requirements for stop sign installation?

[Berries]

What are the requirements for stop sign installation?

Part 1 of the TCD Rule is a bit vague, with Part 4 out later this year which should up date things. So at present, all guidance is contained with MOTSAM Part 1.

Policy: Subject to formal authorization by the controlling authority, RG-5 STOP signs should be erected:

(a) at blind intersections where lack of visibility makes it unsafe to approach the intersection at a speed greater than 10 km/h. Note: It is unsafe to approach an intersection at more than 10 km/h if, from a point 9 metres from the intersection limit line on a controlled approach, a driver cannot see a vehicle on an uncontrolled approach at a distance (metres) of 1.2 times the speed (km/h) exceeded by 15% of vehicles on the priority route,

(b) at intersections of an unusual layout or unusual traffic pattern where it is essential to give one ocntrolled approach priority over another controlled approach. NOTE: The Land Transport (Road User) Rule requires traffic at a STOP sign to give way to traffic from a GIVE WAY sign, and

(c) as part of the RG-32 sign at railway level crossings which are not controlled by automatic alarms or permanent crossing keepers. Refer to Part 9 of the Traffic Control Devices Manual.

And being picky, many Stop signs out there have never been formally authorised by the controlling authority.

[Owl]

Wait until there is nothing coming, make the turn as necessary to get into your driveway.

Classic here in Palmy is Featherston/Rangatikei St, where there's a McDonalds on the corner. People seem to think it's their God given right to to be able to cross lanes to get into McDonalds driveway.

I'm all for the $150 ticket!

[pzkpfw]

Might work as well as the campaign to make people indicate correctly at roundabouts.



(Me, I'd pay unemployed people to sit at intersections and video people. Plates would be used to send out letters. "You didn't indicate correctly", "you turned into the wrong lane", etc. To make sure people actually read the things, you make it a competition; they have to fill in some details and tick a multi-choice mini-test correctly (one about the offence they were seen commiting) and they have to send the letter back to be in to win something. Maybe do it on-line.)

[MSTRS:Me]

...Thing is, it feels harsh, fining someone $150 for turning into the wrong lane....

I can understand that. I'm sure that most of us would feel the same.
Tell you what, here's a deal that all can relate to...

You and your buddies in the Farce stop ticketing speed, and you can be let off ticketing those dodgy lane manoeuvres. Will that help you feel better?

I know it'll help a whole lot of people who currently live in mortal fear of being caught doing 112kph on a straight, otherwise deserted SH...

[p.dath]

I've just read a couple of pages of posts about signs.

I don't get it. If there is a stop sign, why not simply stop? It seems really simple to me.

[Coolz]

You only have to stop if you believe the sign needs to be there,apparantly...

[rastuscat]

I can understand that. I'm sure that most of us would feel the same.
Tell you what, here's a deal that all can relate to...

You and your buddies in the Farce stop ticketing speed, and you can be let off ticketing those dodgy lane manoeuvres. Will that help you feel better?

I know it'll help a whole lot of people who currently live in mortal fear of being caught doing 112kph on a straight, otherwise deserted SH...

Oh God, here we go again.

For the record, my section doesn't write many speeding tickets. Like, about 2% of the tickets we write are for speed. That's going to change in the next couple of weeks, when we'll be doing the back to school programme, but generally we don't target speed.

I happen to agree with a lot of the comments on here about the over emphasis on speed, but I also think that if the paranoia it has created slows people down, the intersection crashes we have will be less serious. And that's my focus, decreasing both the number and the severity of crashes.

That's why we hammer seatbelts, traffic lights, cellphones, and turning and crossing offences.

Still, if it takes enforcement paranoia to slow the crashes down, so be it.

[rastuscat]

You only have to stop if you believe the sign needs to be there,apparantly...

Yeah, that's what I'm reading into these comments. Stop, make an informed, balance, educated assessment as to hetehr the sign is legitimate or not, then in future just roll on through if you think it's clear.

What about those folk (and it happens every day) who collide with things they didn't see coming? The whole point of stopping is that it gives people less chance of not seeing an oncoming vehicle.

Still, here we go again, defending the right to roll through stop signs then bitch about getting ticketed for doing it.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

[oneofsix]

Yeah, that's what I'm reading into these comments. Stop, make an informed, balance, educated assessment as to hetehr the sign is legitimate or not, then in future just roll on through if you think it's clear.

What about those folk (and it happens every day) who collide with things they didn't see coming? The whole point of stopping is that it gives people less chance of not seeing an oncoming vehicle.

Still, here we go again, defending the right to roll through stop signs then bitch about getting ticketed for doing it.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

Instead of bitching they can fight the ticket and if they can prove the sign invalid then it can be removed adn replaced with the correct sign. That will happen the sign would be changed if they can prove it doesn't meet the criteria for a stop sign? I mean it does cut both ways

[MSTRS:Me]

Oh God, here we go again.

KA-CHOMP!!!

Sore spot?

In case you missed the point, and I'm not sure that you did, I was getting at the obvious targeting of speed (cos it's so simple to detect, not to mention a great little earner for tptb) when so many other things that drivers/riders get up to are often ignored...things that are way more dangerous than a slight overage on the open highway.
The point of traffic regs (and cops to enforce them) is safety, is it not?

[FJRider]

Instead of bitching they can fight the ticket and if they can prove the sign invalid then it can be removed adn replaced with the correct sign. That will happen the sign would be changed if they can prove it doesn't meet the criteria for a stop sign? I mean it does cut both ways

Apart from the obvious point that ... to fight it claiming the sign is "invalid" (whatever that means) ... is an adnmission you DID go through a stop sign. And subject to the appropriate fine for that offence. (and demerits) The judge will have NO authority to order the sign changed to Give Way.

[Scuba_Steve]

Apart from the obvious point that ... to fight it claiming the sign is "invalid" (whatever that means) ... is an adnmission you DID go through a stop sign. And subject to the appropriate fine for that offence. (and demerits) The judge will have NO authority to order the sign changed to Give Way.

think the "invalid" means it's only ever been registered as a give-way yet a stop has been placed there. Which would mean legally all they did was roll through a falsely advertised give-way.

However I haven't looked into how these sorts of things work so I'm not sure if they can falsely advertise a intersection?
I guess it's possible I mean all these "temp n km/h" signs we get are for while they go through the process of registering that road at the lower speed the sign displays.