Indicating, laws, etc...

[TLMAN]

Did you get the cops involved? the insurance company almost every time will go with the decision that the police came to based on the traffic crash report that was completed at the scene.

[swbarnett]

This is not quite the same situation but may help all the same.

I heard of one case that went to court where a car driving at a steady speed was indicating left and proceeded through the intersection. Another car turned right across their path because they had assumed the other car was turning left and. The judge ruled that the two drivers were equally at fault because the right turning driver should've been able to judge by the speed of the other vehicle that they were not going to turn.

I'm no lawyer but I think in your case the fact that they were decelerating is the key. They had shown clear intent.

My own philosophy is that if I'm intending to stop just past an intersection I don't indicate at all. The brake light should be sufficient for following traffic.

[homer]

I had the same thing luckly no accident
was going south on a two lane south and two lane north avenue which has a centre rasied island running full length along it....anyways there was a car indicating from the inner lane heading north wanting to turn left i was going to wait as it changed lanes and then i saw it indicating so i went right and cut it off....what made me do this well considering it indicated and was also a cop and since the car was going down the street to the police station you would assume it was going to turn so had to give way to me ...but no it was just changing lanes
i got pulled up round the corner and was asked if i had seen the indicator which i replied yes then explained i thought he was turning to go to the station but he was just changing lanes anyway i didnt get a ticket so all was good i did explain the fact that you shouldnt change lane coming up to an intersection .

[Grahameeboy]

This is why the turning left rule needs scrapping.

Yes you should wait until they stop but other factors like slowing down etc are relevant factors too.

It would be different if you were emerging from a junction when you thought someone was turning into the junction you were exiting from because you are emerging so you have the primary responsibility to gived way,but with this turning left rule it is more difficult because the way I see it the vehicle indicating left before a junction combined with the turning left rule means that they have the primary responsibility to give way as you have right of way, if that makes sense.

Misleading signals in Binghams Case Studies is still relevant in NZ.

[swbarnett]

The problem in NZ is that we drive on the left but give way to the right. In Switzerland (and the rest of Europe I believe) they drive on the right but still give way to the right. Giving way to the same side that you drive on eliminates a whole lot of ambiguous situations. If we adopted this here and started giving way to the left the situation that started this thread would be a non-issue. The right turning vehicle would have to wait until the left turning vehicle had completed their turn or passed the intersection - no-brainer, no accident.

[liviy]

Lots of good info guys!

...And yes, I'd totally agree with the scraping of the give way to the right rule...

I have 3 full licences...

• UK - Drive on left, give way to left
• Australia - Drive on left, give way to left
• NZ - Drive on left, give way to right?

I honestly can't think of a single country that drives on the left that gives way to the right...bar NZ...

I hate the give way to right rule and the most annoying thing is, if I'd stuck with my underlying gut feeling that giving way to the right is wrong...I would have never been in the accident! (as in, quite often I'll sit there like a nonce while the other person is waiting for me to turn right n I have to go...what the hell are they waiting for??? Oh crap, I'm supposed to go!)

[roogazza]

Agreed, roogazza and hitcher, but I'd be interested in what the legalities of it are, rather than the "ride to survive" side of things.

ie who would win in a court of law.

Guess we sound like old farts ? and we are ! But if your leg is hanging off who cares ? You could be in the right , in court, with you leg hanging off (or Sewn back on ) But i do see your point. Gaz.

[NordieBoy]

I like the "give way to anyone who could hit you in the drivers door" version of the give way to the right rule.

[Hitcher]

I am a fan of the current "give way to your right" rule, as it tidies up many situations that may result in unsafe situations on the road as a result of stationary turning traffic.

Riding in Australia recently where the turning rule is different was a bit of a trick, particularly in towns. But judicious use of the "proceed with extreme caution" principle seemed to work famously well.

[marty]

he could have quite legitimately had his indicator on signalling a turn left into a driveway just after the intersection. there are occasions where i can recall myself putting my indicator on to pull into a servo for gas, just past a side road, when the car waiting at the side road, or the car waiting in the middle of the road, has pulled out thinking i was going to turn into the side road. the mobil in cambridge approaching from the south is a classic example of this.

afaik the 'rule' is:

1. you must indicate 3 seconds before turning

2. you must give way to traffic turning from your right

3. you must give way to traffic travelling straight through.

the indicator is just that, an 'indicator'. it's not called an 'absolute'.

[Toaster]

This is why the turning left rule needs scrapping.

Yes you should wait until they stop but other factors like slowing down etc are relevant factors too.

Very true. We are, as I understand it, the only country that does it this way and are out of step with everyone else.

To the thread starter:
It appears given the facts stated that the driver of the indicating car was driving carelessly and the test in court is whether any reasonable person would expect a vehicle to turn if it had its indicator on. Of course any person would conclude that it is likely the vehicle intended to turn if it is indicating to do so and also visibly appears to be slowing in order to make the turn.

Of course defensive driving/riding emphasises the need to never assume anything and as such to drive/ride with extra care in case someone makes an error, as the driver did in this case.

[Grahameeboy]

Very true. We are, as I understand it, the only country that does it this way and are out of step with everyone else.

To the thread starter:
It appears given the facts stated that the driver of the indicating car was driving carelessly and the test in court is whether any reasonable person would expect a vehicle to turn if it had its indicator on. Of course any person would conclude that it is likely the vehicle intended to turn if it is indicating to do so and also visibly appears to be slowing in order to make the turn.

Of course defensive driving/riding emphasises the need to never assume anything and as such to drive/ride with extra care in case someone makes an error, as the driver did in this case.

Agreed, however, the turning left rule changes things and the way I see it puts more onus on the driver indicating to turn left..........all the Case Law on 'Misleading Signals' relates to normal 'Intersection' scenario's i.e. emerging vehicle.

[Grahameeboy]

he could have quite legitimately had his indicator on signalling a turn left into a driveway just after the intersection. there are occasions where i can recall myself putting my indicator on to pull into a servo for gas, just past a side road, when the car waiting at the side road, or the car waiting in the middle of the road, has pulled out thinking i was going to turn into the side road. the mobil in cambridge approaching from the south is a classic example of this.

afaik the 'rule' is:

1. you must indicate 3 seconds before turning

2. you must give way to traffic turning from your right

3. you must give way to traffic travelling straight through.

the indicator is just that, an 'indicator'. it's not called an 'absolute'.

Agree although to avoid giving a misleading signal a driver should not indicate too early either. If there was a driveway just after intersection, then I would slow, which would alert following vehicles, and indicate closer i.e. when level with intersection, to driveway because as the driver I should be aware that any earlier indication would mislead others given the turning left rule.

Plus since when is the turning left rule giving way to traffic on your right when they are in fact oncoming......

I think the problem with the turning left rule is that it makes the indication more of an absolute than in the case of an emerging scenario and if as appears to be the case here, the car was slowing and close to kerb a reasonable and prudent person would assume that vehicle was turning left.

[jim.cox]

I like the "give way to anyone who could hit you in the drivers door" version of the give way to the right rule.

I subscribe to the

"Give Way to anything thats bigger than you, harder than you, or can kill you"

version.

And don't trust them idiot motorists either...

So far it seems to be working

[Little Miss Trouble]

I subscribe to the

"Give Way to anything thats bigger than you, harder than you, or can kill you"

version.

And don't trust them idiot motorists either...

So far it seems to be working

You forgot to add "anything WAY more expensive coz theyre usually arrogant pricks!"