Do you know give way rules changing on 25 March? Give way rule quiz

[MSTRS:Me]

Give way sign trumps stop sign. Has this changed?

Don't think so. Legally. In practice...we'll see

[Hoarn]

Stop sign gives way to all traffic except others on a stop sign, where normal give way rules apply. This hasn't changed. I don't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout. Maybe we'll see more on them, I can just imagine the NZTA trolling us

[pritch]

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way.

When in Holland I was told that they keep it simple; you hit a cyclist - you are in the wrong. Full stop.
Most people presumably therefore take care not to hit cyclists.

[FJRider]

Stop sign gives way to all traffic except others on a stop sign, where normal give way rules apply. This hasn't changed. I don't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout. Maybe we'll see more on them, I can just imagine the NZTA trolling us

Give way ... means give way to all other traffic.

Stop ... means stop and continue when the way is clear and safe to do so.

If you risk hitting anybody, or being hit (and you do/are) ... it is obviously isn't/wasn't safe.

Simple really.

[FJRider]

When in Holland I was told that they keep it simple; you hit a cyclist - you are in the wrong. Full stop.
Most people presumably therefore take care not to hit cyclists.

Most people here are of the belief that motor vehicles have "right of way" ... thus their rights are more important. Some forget bicycles are a vehicle ... and are subject to all the laws relating to the Road Traffic act. Full stop.

The fact that no licence is required to operate a bicycle, does not mean your licence is safe in the event of you being prosecuted for any road traffic offence.

[_Shrek_]

Not if there is a cycle lane. If a car has to cross a "shared" space of roadway ie: a cycle lane/footpath ... the respective cyclist/pedestrian has right of way. Although most entering supermarket carparks seem unaware of this.

Cyclists need to be aware of ... and adapt to the new rules ... just like everybody else.

And when is the new NZ wide tag being put up ... ???

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

[Maha]

Give way sign trumps stop sign. Has this changed?

I thought it would have been very unusual to have an intersection where one side is a Stop and the other is a Give Way, turns out, we have one here in town..
It is a very busy intersection, and not one car stops at the compulsary stop when turning left.
That wont change come Sunday...

When using that particular intersection, most people just geture to the other car driver to move on/go etc.

[Berries]

I thought it would have been very unusual to have an intersection where one side is a Stop and the other is a Give Way, turns out, we have one here in town..

There are plenty around, due to crap visibility on one side and ok on the other. Because a lot of people don't understand the give way rule in these situations you get delays and hesitation. Complain about it though and because they can't improve the visibility the only option is to put a stop sign on what is a give way so people can deal with it. And guess what? Another BS stop sign that isn't there for the correct reason which will result in people rolling through because they can see perfectly fine and then, of course, tickets will be issued because it will be liking shooting fish in a barrel. And all because people can't get their heads around a fairly simple rule.

Having said that, it requires you to not only observe the sign you are facing but also the one across the road. Normally easy, sometimes not when it is in the wrong place or stuck to a big fat telegraph pole. They should just drop the rule if you ask me.

Then again, they should drop everyone who causes a crash at an intersection as well.

[FJRider]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

If the cycle lane goes up to intersection (marked as one by the way) left turning vehicles do have to give way. If NO cycle lane is marked ... they are just another vehicle, and as such. Have to (supposed to) pass on the right.

At intersections where cycle lanes are marked ... I treat it as a left turning lane and move over to the left a bit. As long as I wont run over a cyclist in the process. Thus you become the "front vehicle" with right of way.

[5150]

This is about right.....

[awayatc]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

Spoken like a true cage driving swamp creature.............

So when you squeeze yourself to the front of the queu on your Beemer you lose your rightof way to...?

[Motig]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then ) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

[Scuba_Steve]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then ) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

because it was a far superior more logical rule.
I can't even get a straight answer outta Victoria over why they switched back to this retarded one we're going to. Best answer I've got is effectively they couldn't handle change

[MSTRS:Me]

Give way ... means give way to all other traffic.

Stop ... means stop and continue when the way is clear and safe to do so.

If you risk hitting anybody, or being hit (and you do/are) ... it is obviously isn't/wasn't safe.

Simple really.

It's not that simple.
We have intersections that are uncontrolled, are a mix of uncontrolled and Give Way or Stop, are Give Way for all, are a mix of Give Way and Stop, or are Stop for all.
Who takes precedence as right-of-way depends on the turning law of the day, and which type of sign 'controls' that vehicle.
Open (uncontrolled) trumps Give Way, trumps Stop.

[FJRider]

It's not that simple.

4.5 million people in this country have their own version of what the rules are .... And what the exceptions are. (or should be) And drive as if it was law.

Included in that are those that don't know/don't care .... And we share the road with them.



Remember this ... I do. (in the assumption theory, that assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups)

Having right of way ... doesn't mean you'll get it. So don't assume you'll be given it.