Give way rule to change

[BoristheBiter]

Left truners can hide cyclists and moorbikes to either side, making it more unsafe, and resulting in a car truning directly across tehir path - lethal!

Whereas if the law is that you just dont turn if there is no space, then the right turner has one thing to look at- a gap in thetraffic, and stays there until its ALL clear. One direction of focus.

The left truner also only has to worry about cyclists coming up on his left, and does not have three separate (and oppositely aligned) areas to focus on.

Cars behind the right turner basically also have single focus - the car in front of them. Its not rocket science.

Als

that all should happen now but it doesn't and it not because of the give way rule.
You should know how bad NZ drivers are by now and changing a give way rule will do nothing to mke it safer

[MSTRS:Me]

... you have to be very aware of everything around you.

Pity THAT couldn't be made a 'rule'...

Because left turners often don't look behind them to see that there is no straight through traffic they can sit and wait to give way when there is no need, causing frustration...

Whilst not agreeing that the present rule needs changing, I do have to say that this is a problem. It's not necessarily the lack of looking, but rather with the vehicle partially turned, the mirrors don't look back at an angle that allows the driver to see what's behind them. True, they could turn their head to look, but that means they have to think for themselves. When instructors teach that mirrors are only a backup device, then we might see changes in that area.

[R-Soul]

The biggest drawback of the current rule has nothing to do with traffic flow and everything to do with over-taxing the average driver's situational awareness.

If you are to turn left, as the rules are now, you have to divide your attention at least three ways: 1) Check that there are no cyclists or pedestrians on your left before you initiate your turn, 2) make there are no vehicle approaching from your right to whom you must give way and 3) if 2) is the case, check if there's any traffic coming up behind you that may or may not block the vehicle to which you should yield.

Often 1) is neglected in favour of 2) and 3) - which is pretty unfortunate for soft road-users.

And all of this is not even taking the utterly amazing concept of multiple-carriageways into account - this will of course not be resolved by changing the give way rules, but maybe it will free up a bit of mental capacity to deal with such complex matters.

Yup, now throw in the left hand turning drivers other tendency to be applying lipstick, texting and lip synching with music, and teh fact that they are 15 and got their license yesterday, and where does that leave you?

[BoristheBiter]

Yup, now throw in the left hand turning drivers other tendency to be applying lipstick, texting and lip synching with music, and teh fact that they are 15 and got their license yesterday, and where does that leave you?

and again changing the rule will stop this how?

[R-Soul]

I like a lot of people live and drive out on country roads where this would make things much worse. there have been many serious crashes at an intersection down the road where people have not been paying attention to the car that is turning right. there have been even more near miss's because the car can get out of the way because they have right of way.
I know you think your argument is sound but as there is not a wide shoulder on most roads, at main intersections it would hold a lot of traffic up by having a car stuck in the middle and it would also have the danger of causing a car, if hit, to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

BUT a person generally can be expected to pay attention to a car in front of them who has indicated and who is slowing down because it is their own survival and a single point of focus. Can a person be expected to pay the same level of attention to anothers needs to turn right while focussing on their need to turn left, the possibility of pedestrians, the number of cars behind them, and the timing of the situation?

[R-Soul]

I think i get what you mean but you know this is NZ right.
Ask the guy in the ute that was run over by a truck at the greens road/sh17 intersection because the truck driver failed to see the car indicate. if it would change the outcome.
it is not the give way rule that is at fault it is the driver and changing a law is not going to change that.
the enormous targedy is the easy way people get their licence in the first place.

but your argument that "cars may not see the indicator" works both ways for both scenarios? its just that in one scenario, the truck misses the indicator that is right in front of them. In the other, the driver of teh left turning car misses the indicator of a car in the opposite lane on his right, while he is looking for pedestrians to the left of him, cars behind him, and downshifting gears.

Also, if you are the car behind the car turning right, you have certainty - you know teh car wont turn right because there is an oncoming car - REGARDLESS of whether teh oncoming car is turning or not. If its there, the car turning right wWILL stop. So you slow down.

Currently the car behind the car turning right has to change plans depending on whether there is an oncoming car, and whether the oncoming car has its indicator on, AND whether it will actually give way - thats a lot of planning and/or/if's...

[BoristheBiter]

BUT a person generally can be expected to pay attention to a car in front of them who has indicated and who is slowing down because it is their own survival and a single point of focus. Can a person be expected to pay the same level of attention to anothers needs to turn right while focussing on their need to turn left, the possibility of pedestrians, the number of cars behind them, and the timing of the situation?

so now you make the car turning right take more of chance by making him stop in the middle of the road hopeing like hell the guy doing 100kph behind him has seen that he is turning, or will the driver try and risk the turn before the left turning car gets there.

[BoristheBiter]

but your argument that "cars may not see the indicator" works both ways for both scenarios? its just that in one scenario, the truck misses the indicator that is right in front of them. In the other, the driver of teh left turning car misses the indicator of a car in the opposite lane on his right, while he is looking for pedestrians to the left of him, cars behind him, and downshifting gears.

Also, if you are the car behind the car turning right, you have certainty - you know teh car wont turn right because there is an oncoming car - REGARDLESS of whether teh oncoming car is turning or not. If its there, the car turning right wWILL stop. So you slow down.

Currently the car behind the car turning right has to change plans depending on whether there is an oncoming car, and whether the oncoming car has its indicator on, AND whether it will actually give way - thats a lot of planning and/or/if's...

So why change the rule if it not going to change the reason for crashes due to failure to give way or pay attention to the road ahead?

[R-Soul]

and again changing the rule will stop this how?

Reducing the number of things to check per driver.

Car truning left only has to look for pedestrians and bicycles.

Car turning right must just look for a gap.

Car behind car turning right must just look for an indictaor, and if there is an oncoming car.

Car behind car turning left must just slow a little to allow the car turning left to get out of the lane.

Every one follows the principle that the car going straight has right of way, and the car crossing a straight lane yields to all. Simple principles, no decision screw ups.

[R-Soul]

?? I think you have been missing what I have been saying.

It wont change the reason for crashes (if a person is an inattentive driver, he will probably off himself or someone else sometime) , but it will change the number of crashes because there are LESS things for that inattentive driver to pay attention to and make decisions about - so he has a better chance of doing it right.

[BoristheBiter]

Reducing the number of things to check per driver.

Car truning left only has to look for pedestrians and bicycles.

Car turning right must just look for a gap.

Car behind car turning right must just look for an indictaor, and if there is an oncoming car.

Car behind car turning left must just slow a little to allow the car turning left to get out of the lane.

Every one follows the principle that the car going straight has right of way, and the car crossing a straight lane yields to all. Simple principles, no decision screw ups.

I think we will go around i circles all day on this. so i will leave it there.

[Usarka]

I'm afraid that's gonna create a little confusion.



... Really.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[R-Soul]

so now you make the car turning right take more of chance by making him stop in the middle of the road hopeing like hell the guy doing 100kph behind him has seen that he is turning, or will the driver try and risk the turn before the left turning car gets there.

If the car doing 100km/hr does not see a car stopped, then why would he see the same car slowing? He would ram the car turning right anyway wouldn't he?

[R-Soul]

that all should happen now but it doesn't and it not because of the give way rule.
You should know how bad NZ drivers are by now and changing a give way rule will do nothing to mke it safer

You seem to be more worried about the effect of the changing of the rules (i.e. in the transition period) than of the actual new changed rule.

[avgas]

Wanna know the really scary thing.
When I lived in Aussie......I gave way as if I was still driving in NZ.........and NO accidents happened.
Not only that, but people must have thought I was the nicest person on the road - they even stopped to let me through.

Goes to show don't it - rules are ok, but common courtesy is by far superior.