Who is in the right here?

[H00dz]

Yep I agree the vans got the right of way..........

Theres that other really good rule of thumb too....If hes bigger than you let him have the right of way, if he gives way all good, never mind the road rules this one always works LOL

[discotex]

I'd suggest it means the fuckers should hand in there licences and take the bus

Rather hard to police.

Wouldn't mind seeing compulsory re-testing every 10 years except for the fact that NZTA would use it as a revenue gathering opportunity.

[wickle]

I have the rule this was

If in a car the other car hits the drivers door I give way ... if its the passenger door I get to go and the passenger suffers if I am hit.

Simple way to remember.

Harder on a bike.

i follow the say rule

[jtzzr]

I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.

Then how the fuck did they get their license in the first place...

[Grahameeboy]

Another silly Kiwi rule....Van was coming out of a side road...uncontrolled on not the same rule should apply as if it was controlled...emerging vehicle gives way....simple but not in NZ....

[Ixion]

All intersection give ways are determined by a simple hierarchy

Is there a sign directing any of the vehicles (Give way, Stop)? If so, that takes precedence. (Traffic lights even more so of course)

For vehicles not controlled by a sign :

Is someone going straight ahead (as indicated by the road marking, can get tricky on Y intersections)? If so they have right of way

Is someone turning right? If so they have right of way over traffic turning left. If two people are turning right the one who has the other vehicle on his left has right of way ("Give way to the right").

Anyone turning left is low man on the totem pole and must give way to everybody. Sucks to be a leftie.

In this case : no signs. We assume that the straight through traffic is far enough off that it does not count. Two vehicles both turning right. The vehicle with the other vehicle to its left has right of way. Which is the green van.

The rule is incredibly simple. It takes much longer to state it than it does to apply it . If two thirds of people do not understand it, that simply means that two thirds of people should not have a drivers licence. If the rule were changed (to *anything*) , the same two thirds of people would not understand the new rule . The only rule that those two thirds would understand is "You are special. You always have right of way. Everybody gives way to you" . Which is the rule to they apply at present, and always will apply. It is not worth changing the offical rules to pander to cretinous idiots.

[Grahameeboy]

Keep in mind this also applies to driveways. For example at your local supermarket or gas station. Unless there is a giveway sign at the exit of course.

The fact that such a high percent of drivers can't/won't understand the right-hand rule suggests it's time to scrap it and adopt the aussie system.

Apparently 2 thirds of Herald voters want it scrapped...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10546965

Yeah I mean the turning left rule giving way to vehicles on your right really makes sense when the other vehicle is in fact coming from ahead not from the right...

[Katman]

I think the van has to give way, due to the fact that the van has to give way to the other vehcles travelling in a straight line ,hence the turning vehicle(Sunhuntin) has right of way on that thoroughfare.
I`m sure the right-hand give way rule does not apply.

Best you get it sorted in your head before it bites you in the arse.

[Grahameeboy]

All intersection give ways are determined by a simple hierarchy

Is there a sign directing any of the vehicles (Give way, Stop)? If so, that takes precedence. (Traffic lights even more so of course)

For vehicles not controlled by a sign :

Is someone going straight ahead (as indicated by the road marking, can get tricky on Y intersections)? If so they have right of way

Is someone turning right? If so they have right of way over traffic turning left. If two people are turning right the one who has the other vehicle on his left has right of way ("Give way to the right").

Anyone turning left is low man on the totem pole and must give way to everybody. Sucks to be a leftie.

In this case : no signs. We assume that the straight through traffic is far enough off that it does not count. Two vehicles both turning right. The vehicle with the other vehicle to its left has right of way. Which is the green van.

The rule is incredibly simple. It takes much longer to state it than it does to apply it . If two thirds of people do not understand it, that simply means that two thirds of people should not have a drivers licence. If the rule were changed (to *anything*) , the same two thirds of people would not understand the new rule . The only rule that those two thirds would understand is "You are special. You always have right of way. Everybody gives way to you" . Which is the rule to they apply at present, and always will apply. It is not worth changing the offical rules to pander to cretinous idiots.

It's still a dumb rule when 99% of the time the vehicle emerging from the intersection has to give way to traffic from both the right and left...hence why the so called 'simple' rule buggers people because 99% of driving is the opposite.

[PrincessBandit]

Slofox is right, most of us older ones can remember the days before the "give way to everything on your right at uncontrolled intersections". In THOSE days the van would have stopped for the car. I see a lot of those "confusing" intersections in Manurewa are now getting give ways painted at them to obviously stop the misunderstanding. If I had a dollar for every time I've had to wave another driver through (because under the "new" system they're on my right so I have to wait for them, but they don't seem to understand that) I'd give up my day job.

[discotex]

Then how the fuck did they get their license in the first place...

A large number got it when the test had 10 questions that never changed and the practical test was a drive around the block.

It's only recently that the learner test has had decent intersection questions. Even then it's easy enough to fluke them.

[McJim]

Although I know the van has priority I have never had the opportunity to take advantage of this right of way when I have been on the van's position as so many drivers here just cut across your nose anyway - they even beep if it looked as though you were going to go. This suggests that a great many kiwi drivers are not clear on how this rule works at intersections.

This probably goes some way towards explaining why the recent AA magazine has once again showcased why this stupid rule designed for a tram ridden Australian city should really be abolished (since we are officially now the ONLY country in the world legislating this stupidity) the tram ridden Australian city in question subsequently adopted the rest of the world's intersection priority and saw their intersection crash rate halve virtually overnight.

One day......

[Rhino]

I always thought if two vehicles are turning right, curtesy prevails, mind you I would have let the van go if I was on my bike.

Don't ever chance courtesy at an intersection,you could get impaled by a Virago. On the Goldwing, I would simply ride over you. Stick to the laws of the land and you have a better chance of survival.

[The Stranger:Me]

Rather hard to police.

Wouldn't mind seeing compulsory re-testing every 10 years except for the fact that NZTA would use it as a revenue gathering opportunity.

Yes, potentially a pain for country folk too, however, at least make everyone do a scratch and win each time their license is renewed.