Who is in the right here?

[Ixion]

..

(the other people who want it changed, of course, are the immigrants , who as always insist that everything in the country must immediately be changed so as to be exactly as it was "back home". Why they ever bothered to leave "back home" in the first place completely escapes me)

well i'm writing form my experence of having taken uk police advanced motorcycling course (and extensively studied their bible), well over 600,000 miles throughout uk, us and europe on bikes, three years all weather despatch riding in london ( two low speed falls and no tickets, 80,000 miles) and i've never seen such a micky mouse set of driving laws such as we have to put up with as here. Oh by the way i can count my accidents on one hand only one of which caused any significant damage and wasn't my fault, no convictions except for three speeding fines in over 40 years. These laws are counter intuitive, confusing and dangerous. If you are in the right it is dangerous to enforce your rights. I spent considerable time learning the road code here and checking with the police for interpretations, however the road code is widely abused (willfully or not) placing all parties at risk and if the rules are so effective then more countries would have taken them on board.
Rant number two

< >

[The Stranger:Me]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.
With the constant 'dumbing down' that is legislated for in NZ, it wont be too long before the ability to think is gone from our DNA, as we will no longer need it.
Those who can't understand something as basic and simple as the right hand rule should hand in their licences.
Then watch the accident statistics go down....

My contention exactly tart.

Given the simplicity of the current rule, if defies belief that changing it is going to increase comprehension and compliance. There will simply be an additional excuse for not getting it right i.e. the change, and heaven help us if there is even one exception.

[MSTRS:Me]

The rules are so simple now - give way to anything that would hit your drivers door - that fucken simple, hell it even obeys survival instincts.

Those who can't understand something as basic and simple as the right hand rule should hand in their licences.
Then watch the accident statistics go down....

My contention exactly tart.

Given the simplicity of the current rule, if defies belief that changing it is going to increase comprehension and compliance. There will simply be an additional excuse for not getting it right i.e. the change, and heaven help us if there is even one exception.

And the voices wittering about 'that's not the way the rest of the world does it' can go fuck themselves. Or go live there instead.
The rule here is very simple (is that the problem?) and where is it written that the rest of the world is always right?
Mind you, that 'no-one' can understand Giveway to your right is not surprising...look at the fuckwits and their indicator use in roundabouts.

[The Stranger:Me]

Mind you, that 'no-one' can understand Giveway to your right is not surprising...look at the fuckwits and their indicator use in roundabouts.

I know how to fix that, it's obvious - lets change the rules.

[yungatart]

Bollocks. I understand the rules very well. But I don't like them.

Well, that's a really good reason to change them...NOT!

[klingon]

Ironically, with recent publicity surrounding the campaign to change the rules, suddenly more people seem to be aware of the rule than ever before! In the last week or so I have noticed considerably fewer people just barging on through when they should be giving way to their right.

[Badjelly]

People only want the law changed because they are too stupid/thick/lazy to understand the rules as they are.

Bollocks. I understand the rules very well. But I don't like them.

Well, that's a really good reason to change them...NOT!

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?

However, the give way to right turning traffic rule in NZ is stupid. It is that simple. Not because it is hard to remember or difficult to implement. No, simply because it doesn't make sense and it provokes dangerous situations all the time. It forces a driver who is turning left to split his attention to both the left-and the righthand side of the road. In dense traffic, i.e. city traffic, this provides a very good oppotunity for mowing down cyclists, etc. On the other hand - it provides a driver turning right with more opportunities to complete his turn... However, once you have commited to that turn - if anything at all goes wrong you could be in big big trouble. It is an idiotic rule and there's a reason why it's unique to NZ. It does go some way to make kiwis a more endagered species though and as such it makes it easier to identify with the national icon

The reason I think the "new rules" (new as in 30 years old) are a bad thing is that they create too many opportunities for confusion & misjudgement. Not just for new NZers who don't understand them, but for everyone.

I'm vehicle A, turning right into a side street, and I see vehicle B come out of the side street. Is his right-hand indicator flashing? (I can't see, because it's on the side of the car away from me.) Is there a Give Way or Stop sign on the side street? Oh, WTF, I'll just drive far enough forward that he can't pull out in front of me and then make the turn.

I'm B coming out of the side street, wanting to turn right. Here comes A from my left. Is he turning right. No he isn't, no he isn't, yes he is, OK I'll pull out, hmm, why is he shaking his fist at me? (I am not making this one up, I'm talking about the intersection of Volga St and Mt Albert Rd any weekday morning. I'm B.) Or, yes he is turning right, but what about the guy behind him?

I'm A again, still trying to turn into the same side street (but B's not there). I see C coming down the road wanting to turn left. But what about D coming down the road behind C? D's left indicator is obscured by C, so let's assume he doesn't want to turn left. But can he fit past C? Depends how far to the left C moves before making the turn. Nah, he can't fit past, she'll be right, faark, crash!

Replayed every day in every suburb around the country.

And, might I add, the fact that only 5-10% of the driving population even tries to follow the "right-turning traffic entering a side street (A) gives way right-turning traffic coming out of the side street (B)" rule tells you something. I have lost count of the number of times I have given way to the right in this situation and caused complete confusion.

The problem I have with this rule is not any difficulty remembering it, but the fact that as a left turner you have to make the call based on the vehicle (B) coming right out of the side road you want to turn into, because he may or may not need to give way to the vehicle (A) coming toward you who wants to turn right into the same lane as you, and (A), as he might or might not give way to you regardless of whether he's considered whether he should give way to (B). So far so road sense... but, you also have to watch for the guy (D) coming up behind you who might or might not squeeze past, nay, even overtake and cross double yellows to go past you whilst you sit waiting to go left. Mr Oncoming (A) may or may not wait for this possibility leaving a stalemate. Plus there's the cyclist coming up your nearside.

I see this regularly round the corner from me, the usual outcome is that the left turner gets overtaken by (D), who crosses the double yellows and often has to brake to avoid (B) who has just pulled out because A and me are at a standstill, or (A) who is the one who has right of way and bravely makes the turn. Even if I take the whole lane whilst waiting to turn left (there is no filter and there are cyclists) the guy (D) will pass on the yellows. Really, it's the norm. Maybe I should go and video it.

Maybe the problem here is not so much the give way rule, or even the following of it, but the wrong choice of junction.

Let there be more roundabouts, and roundabouts feeding into roundabouts, roundabouts with traffic lights, roundabouts within roundabouts.

Seriously though, even in standard and proper use with the guy (D) following and not trying a pass into oncoming traffic but where there is instead plenty of room or even lanes for him to pass you whilst you wait to turn left you still have to know what he is going to do before giving way to (A) or sneaking in before him because you are 'covered' by the guy behind you (D) passing.

...the current road rules are more complicated in practice. Give way to a vehicle coming out of a side street on your right UNLESS someone's hidden a Give Way sign behind a tree. If you're coming out of an uncontrolled side street, a right-turning vehicle on your left has to give way to you, but for Christ's sake remember the straight-through vehicle (currently obscured) coming through on his left. Vehicle turning left into side street gives way to vehicle turning right into side street UNLESS he's baulked by straight-through vehicle.

I would say 5-10% of the driving population follow this rule consistently. I'm one of that 5-10%, which leads to some fist-shaking at times.

One problem I'm noticing more these days is that on modern cars with rounded front ends, the right-hand indicator of the vehicle that has the right of way isn't visible to the vehicle that's supposed to be giving way. Then there's the problem that the vehicle that has the right of way still has to give way to straight through traffic.

On the whole, the rule is a bloody disaster, but it's the rule, so what do you do?

[yungatart]

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?

66.6...% of the reasons quoted as to why the law should be changed are yours.
I still don't see any need to change....

[Badjelly]

66.6...% of the reasons quoted as to why the law should be changed are yours. I still don't see any need to change....

These guys share my views, apparently (quote from Campbell Live Wed 10 dec 2008)

Just about every group involved in road traffic safety, the police, Ministry of Transport, Land Transport, the Cyclist Advocate Network and the Institute of Engineers have called for the rule to be changed.

You're free to consider & reject someone else's arguments, and you're free to ignore them. Hell, you're even free to explain why you disagree! (Still waiting.) But when you suggest the only reason people disagree with you is that they're lazy/stupid/thick, then I will call you out on it.

[The Stranger:Me]

You're right, it's not a reason to change them, but it was not intended to be. It was just a refutation of your contention (first quote above).

Reasons to change? Have you been paying attention? Or are you too stupid/thick/lazy to read them?

Weird isn't it.
How come one driver sees so many and has so many problems with something that another driver has no issue with.

As you seem to have problems seeing indicators, have you had your eyes tested? Again, I don't have problems seeing indicators.

Anyway - regardless of the your problems and my lack thereof, please describe your proposed new rule for us so that we may see how it would work.

[Badjelly]

Weird isn't it. How come one driver sees so many and has so many problems with something that another driver has no issue with.

Feeling a little disingenuous today, are we?

As you seem to have problems seeing indicators, have you had your eyes tested? Again, I don't have problems seeing indicators.

This is a minor issue. Modern cars have rounded front ends and indicators set far enough back that when you're approaching from the left you can't see the right front indicator until you're nearly in front. Unless you have X-ray vision, as I presume you do.

Anyway - regardless of the your problems and my lack thereof, please describe your proposed new rule for us so that we may see how it would work.

The ones they have in Australia these days seem to work quite well. I'll look them up and get back to you.

[Badjelly]

The [road rules] they have in Australia these days seem to work quite well. I'll look them up and get back to you.

Here we are. The Victorian Road Code is here:

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rd...inginVicRR.pdf

On p 34 it describes the rule at T intersections. Unfortunately the document is a secured PDF (obviously this stuff is top secret) so I can't copy and paste, but it says that the traffic on the ending road gives way to traffic on the continuing road.

Otherwise they seem to have a give-way-to-right rule, which means that when two vehicles are turning into a side road, the left-turning vehicle gives way. I'm not so keen on that one.

I think we should have (in ascending order of priority):

• Give way to right
• Right turning gives way to everyone else (straight ahead and left-turning)
• Traffic on ending road at T intersection gives way to continuing road

[nodrog:Me]

who gives a fuck what they do in australia? maybe the low percent of people who have trouble with the road rules here should fucken move there (and i bet most of that percentage have migrated here from overseas in the first place).

[Badjelly]

who gives a fuck what they do in australia? maybe the low percent of people who have trouble with the road rules here should fucken move there (and i bet most of that percentage have migrated here from overseas in the first place).

OK. I bow to your superior logic. I see that everything I have written on this subject is quite wrong.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think we should have (in ascending order of priority):

• Give way to right
• Right turning gives way to everyone else (straight ahead and left-turning)
• Traffic on ending road at T intersection gives way to continuiing road

Whilst I agree that this would seem sensible, it won't work.
People can't get the no exception right hand rule correct. When exceptions are thrown in, their dumbed-down unthinking brains would just fry their circuits (more than now).
Whether you agree with the current rule or not, at least it does not have exceptions to muddy the waters.