But then people will hesitate, hesitate, then both go thinking the other's giving way and crash anyway haha!
Which is, of course, the fail safe option.
And the question of the visibility or otherwise of signs has nothing whatsoever to do with the question as to the merits of the give way rule.
No matter what rule there is for uncontrolled intersections, in whatever country, a specific give way or stop sign will over ride that rule. And those relying on the rule will still need to determine if it is overridden or not. Left hand, right hand, it makes no difference.
I repeat, anyone unable to deal with so simple a requirement has no business driving a pedal car let alone a powered vehicle.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous
"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"
Yes it does, because under the old rules the priority was the same whether the side street had a Give Way on it or not.
OK, in theory the term "side street" has no standing in law, but in practice that seldom mattered: it was obvious to everyone which street was the side street and traffic on that street gave way to everyone regardless. Simpler and, consequently, safer.
It's all very well to say the rules are simple and anyone who can't follow them is stupid. However, face it, there are a lot of stupid people (or people who drive stupidly). The current rules are simple in theory, complex in practice, for reasons that have been explained in abundant detail already on this thread. The result is indecision, confusion, near-misses and collisions.
No. Not so. Under the old "right turning traffic gives way", in force until sometime about 1970 odd, a STOP or GIVEWAY sign overrode the 'uncontrolled' rule (or a traffic light of course). Granted, there weren't very many signs back then. Remember too, that then a right turning vehicle was obliged, in all cases, to pull to the right of the road and wait until the road was clear before turning, which would not be very practical in todays urban traffic
But if you are talking about the side road versus main road rule, then you are going back a LONG way. That rule was abolished by the Transport Act 1948 !
No rule for uncontrolled intersections is going be be able to deal with people who cannot, through stupidity, or will not, through perversity, apply it. Some people can't even work out traffic lights. You can't get any more directive than those.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
I think the crux of the matter is that if we gave way to the same side we drive on (i.e. the left) uncontrolled intersections would be the norm. Under the current situation uncontrolled intersections are the exception. A rule that needs an exemption more than 50% of the time doesn't work very well.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous
"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"
Before the "new" road rules were introduced (in 1978, I believe) the rules for uncontrolled intersections were:
- Right-turning traffic gives way to all other traffic
- When two vehicles are turning right, courtesy prevails (a quaint phrase, but the one used in the Road Code IIRC)
Invariably, when two vehicles were turning right, "courtesy" led a vehicle turning right out of the side street to give way to a vehicle turning right into the same side street. (Give way to the left in other words.) This was an unwritten rule, but consistently followed nonetheless. So a Give Way sign on the side street made no difference.
Yes, I know the term side street no longer existed in the road rules, nevertheless people knew what they were expected to do and, for the most part, did it.
By the way, although turning right from the left side of the road was required in rural areas, it was not required (or done) in urban areas.
The motivation for the changes in the road rules in 1978 was to remove ambiguity and make the rules simpler. I used to think this was a good idea. I was convinced otherwise largely by my experience living in the USA for 4 years. I was amazed by how well people handled 4-way stops, but when I studied the local equivalent of the road code for my local driver's license test, I couldn't find any rules specific to 4-way stops. I realised that the rules actually followed by USA drivers at 4-way stops are:
- Take turns
- Be nice
- Turning traffic goes way to straight-thru traffic (but this is a lower-priority rule than the first two)
In my opinion, "take turns and be nice" are very good road rules.
Correct. BUT -- if there was a Give way or Stop sign that overrode those rules. After all, what would be the point of having a STOP sign, if people ignored it! The reason for the "two vehicles turning right" bit was that two vehicles turning right can cross each others paths, but need not do so. There is no equivalent for "two vehicles turning left" now because two left turning vehicles can never cross.
The "pull over to left" rule was indeed widely disregarded in urban areas (for obvious reasons). But it was still the law none the less, and snakes regularly ticketed for it.
The "side road rule" is still sometimes brought up even nowdays , despite it being 60 years since it was the law. I would not recommend relying on it in discussions with an enforcement officer !
There can be no objection at all to drivers extending courtesy to each other, and it is common practice for drivers to forgo a right of way which they have and wave the other vehicle through, the latter being in a more "difficult" position. But the gist of the thread was about what is the law, not what is courteous practice.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
The gist of the thread (well, the gist of my contributions) is about what the law should be. I have no dispute with you about what the law is.
Given that the Government considered changing the law a few years back and decided not to, I suspect that it is a waste of time to continue discussing what the law should be, therefore I will stop bashing my head against this particular brick wall.
This thread, and comments such as "it's such an easy rule to follow" really show just how bad the NZ rules are. No other country would be even having this sort of discussion - any rule that relies on indicators, changes depending on whether white lines are present and which many drivers don't even apply properly should be consigned to history.
look guys, if the very rare situation occurs where 5 or so people have to give way to each other, i think it's pretty safe to say that nobody will give a damn if you just gun it and get out of the way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks