Give Way rule change

[Virago]

Does it??? you've only removed the right turning car, the guy waiting to come out of the side street's still there ready to pull out in-front of the bike

I suppose it does remove 1 chance but I'd say the "situation" still exists

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Cars are always going to pull out in front of bikers who don't cancel their indicators. The elimination of one common scenario is not negated because others still exist. It can only be a good thing.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Cars are always going to pull out in front of bikers who don't cancel their indicators. The elimination of one common scenario is not negated because others still exist. It can only be a good thing.

yea I sorta miss read to start, but the final point was I'd call the intersection the "situation" & the law change will only decrease chance within the situation, not the situation itself... But it's more technicalities than an actual argument

[SPman]

..................and that's exactly what the problem is. The rule that we have now would work perfectly well if everyone applied some sense and actually used it properly. Thing is, I reckon that at best, 60% of motorists know the rule and apply it.

Bugger all will change, as the same 60% will apply the new rule, and the 40% will continue to be totally ignorant, and apply whatever rule suits them.

60%!
Jeez - you're getting generous in your old age.........

[swbarnett]

Believe it or not, but average "normal" citizens do get paranoid, because people do get ticketed for things that "normal" citizens think were "not that bad".

Surely this sums up what's wrong with the current traffic laws? Aren't laws supposed to reflect the philosophy of the majority of the population? If most average "normal" citizens think a law is bad (or at least badly implemented) surely this is a case to have it revoked (or at least reinterpreted to meet the majority viewpoint)?

[quickbuck]

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

IF I were to do such a STUPID thing, then I would fully expect a bill for $150...... It must have been 1986 and i did just that during a driving lesson with the late Mr McLoud in Ashburton. He got me to pull over and gave me a lecture on Mansaughter charges, after I didn't give somebody on a C50 quite enough room.... Well, we didn't connect, BUT it was the lesson that needed to be given.

Never done it since, despite potentially being on the recieving end of such bad driving, if I hadn't been defencive/ self preserving.

[steve_t]

IF I were to do such a STUPID thing, then I would fully expect a bill for $150...... It must have been 1986 and i did just that during a driving lesson with the late Mr McLoud in Ashburton. He got me to pull over and gave me a lecture on Mansaughter charges, after I didn't give somebody on a C50 quite enough room.... Well, we didn't connect, BUT it was the lesson that needed to be given.

Never done it since, despite potentially being on the recieving end of such bad driving, if I hadn't been defencive/ self preserving.

LOL. "It's horribly STUPID... I remember when I did it"

Now, imagine if you hadn't done it during your driving lesson (like I expect the vast majority of people haven't) and had the bolloxing, I'd imagine your view on the matter would have been different for at least many years after you got your licence.
I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary folk who would also do this STUPID thing, get pulled over by a cop and told that it's wrong, and never do it again. You were just 'lucky' because you had an early experience. Most people won't have been so 'lucky'

[quickbuck]

LOL. "It's horribly STUPID... I remember when I did it"

Now, imagine if you hadn't done it during your driving lesson (like I expect the vast majority of people haven't) and had the bolloxing, I'd imagine your view on the matter would have been different for at least many years after you got your licence.
I'm sure there are plenty of ordinary folk who would also do this STUPID thing, get pulled over by a cop and told that it's wrong, and never do it again. You were just 'lucky' because you had an early experience. Most people won't have been so 'lucky'

Exactly mate.
That is why I believe EVERY Rider/ Driver should recieve professional instruction at some point in their licencing graduation.
This dad taught me, and he was taught by his dad, and his dad taught him in an Austin A30 cycle has to be broken as not all "dads" are very good instructors.
Incidently my dad was a great instructor. So great he realised that to be the best driver I could, i needed to spend a few lessons in a dual controlled car..... I had already been taught skid control in the car before these lessons, and rode the Farm Bike like Ivan Mauger from a very early age...

[merv]

Here's a visitors viewpoint about NZ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10783288

[BMWST?]

On second thoughts - don't just hammer the lane ignorant.

Whatever the rule/s are, following them at intersections = no prangs/close calls/etc.

Strangely enough, (most) motorists know the rules when there's a snake about. I guess that's why no real attempt is made to target the kind of bullshit that goes on ??

One of my pet peeves is the treadlies that come up the left side of a left indicating vehicle, when said treadlie intends on going straight ahead. What's with that most stupid of manoeuvres?

prolly the same brain dead manouvre that occurs just after a car passes a cyclist and then turns left...

[FJRider]

Surely this sums up what's wrong with the current traffic laws? Aren't laws supposed to reflect the philosophy of the majority of the population? If most average "normal" citizens think a law is bad (or at least badly implemented) surely this is a case to have it revoked (or at least reinterpreted to meet the majority viewpoint)?

I would have thought they were to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.

The effect of laws ... depends on how they are written ... AND ... how they are Policed.

It would seem that laws nowdays need to be quite specific ... as many interpret laws by what they DON'T say ...

There are bad laws ... and there are unpopular laws. (the latter ... is often refered/interpreted to being ... the former)

[FJRider]

prolly the same brain dead manouvre that occurs just after a car passes a cyclist and then turns left...

but ... but ... if you are in front ... everybody (else) behind must be able to stop in half the clear ...etc or it's their fault ... right ???

[FJRider]

... and rode the Farm Bike like Ivan Mauger from a very early age...

so the farm bike didn't have brakes either ...

[quickbuck]

so the farm bike didn't have brakes either ...

Nope... Broke those off the CT90 off in an accident... Well, the handle barr brakes anyway. Still had the rear, but that was only used to stop completly.

[swbarnett]

I would have thought they were to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.

Yes, but who defines what is safe? And what level of safety and risk is acceptable?

There are bad laws ... and there are unpopular laws. (the latter ... is often refered/interpreted to being ... the former)

Is this not supposed to be a democracy? Under a democracy is not a referendum a valid way to decide what laws should exist?

The "rightness" of a law is an opinion. The only opinion that counts in a democracy is that of the people i.e. the result of a referendum regarding said law.

[swbarnett]

but ... but ... if you are in front ... everybody (else) behind must be able to stop in half the clear ...etc or it's their fault ... right ???

Not if you were behind immediately prior. That's called an arrogant, ill-conceived overtake.