Road rule change: an unclear area

[Badjelly]

I expect that (hopefully) many roadmarkings, signs, light sequences will be changed at the time the new rule is effective.

There should be a bit of that, not necessarily to clear up confusion, just to make some intersections work better with the new priorities. But it's potentially a big job and it ain't going to happen overnight.

[Hopeful Bastard]

Total non-issue under either rule. The road that the orange car is turning into has two lanes. Neither car has to give way.

Bloody dorklanders... Street View it then.


The road has a slip road to enable car turning left an easy entrance onto the road. He still, However, Has to give way to the right hand side as the car turning right, Has right of way.

Berries stated it rather one in one of their posts...


Edit: Berries post...

Eh? The imaginary green car is using a slip lane to join the lane the orange car will be in after it turns right, so, because of the continuity lines, should give way to the orange car. Nothing will change under the new rule. If that left turn lane wasn’t there then things would be different. They might have to stick a give way sign up under the tree to show the green car that he has to give way as he effectively joins the main road. In fact, I am surprised they have not done that already.

It is essentially a simple T intersection with one big difference, the left turn lane. Any vehicle coming from this left lane has to give way to vehicles that have already turned right.

[Badjelly]

What about the north to east turn? no dotted lines there

Isn't there a give way sign there already?

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.

I can't see what the problem is.

These intersections will stay the same as the left turning cars, as has already been pointed out, have their own lane.

There is no need for confusion, it is an easy road to read. If you still have problems with the road rules please hand your licence into the nearest branch of the AA (automobile association or alcoholic's anonymous it doesn't matter).

[Badjelly]

Yes there is a Give Way sign there. Ditto south to west.

Edit: That's the situation now. There may have been some changes since the Google Earth photo was taken.

I can't see what the problem is.

These intersections will stay the same as the left turning cars, as has already been pointed out, have their own lane.

There is no need for confusion, it is an easy road to read. If you still have problems with the road rules please hand your licence into the nearest branch of the AA (automobile association or alcoholic's anonymous it doesn't matter).

You quoted me, but what does your post have to do with the quote? Someone asked if there was a Give Way sign. There is.

[BoristheBiter]

You quoted me, but what does your post have to do with the quote? Someone asked if there was a Give Way sign. There is.

You are getting confused about an intersection where nothing will change.
I just could be bothered to quote the first post.

[swbarnett]

Bloody dorklanders... Street View it then.


The road has a slip road to enable car turning left an easy entrance onto the road.

Makes no difference. On initial entry in to the side road there are two lanes i.e. no give way necessary. At the end of the slip road the normal merge laws apply. We have roads exactly the same in Auckland and this is how the majority of the traffic treats them. It works very well.

[MSTRS:Me]

Makes no difference. On initial entry in to the side road there are two lanes i.e. no give way necessary. At the end of the slip road the normal merge laws apply. We have roads exactly the same in Auckland and this is how the majority of the traffic treats them. It works very well.

There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.

[swbarnett]

There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.

I just had a good look at Google street view and what seemed obvious to me in fact wasn't. I was assuming that the dotted line ended in the middle of the road. It doesn't. It in fact ends on the kerb. My apologies to all for making an assumption based on the original, obscured, picture .

Now to comment on the actual road layout. The car turning left should give way to the car turning right (the orange one) because at the end of the dotted line (as I now see it from Google Maps) the orange car is completely on the side road but the other one isn't. Effectively rendering this as two intersection, not one. Once the law changes it would be good to see intersections like this repainted to give the left turning car the full lane instead. Thus removing any potential confusion (I'm not at all sure that my interpretation would hold up in court. Especially considering that merging on to a motorway has a similar layout and the merging car has right of way).

[rastuscat]

There isn't actually a parallel continuation of the sliplane. So where it meets the main lane, it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection. Except for the continuity dotted lane markings...which do cause confusion, but should indicate lane priority.
And there are no 'merge laws' as such...it is a courtesy thing.

+1

Got it in one.

[rastuscat]

Just a thought.

Criticizing a law which has to deal with thousands of intersections based on a poorly designed intersection that 98% of the population won't drive through is a little harsh.

Certainly there will be anomalies created by all laws intended to have universal application.

My guess is that the new law will work perfectly well 99% of the time.

Lets not spend too much of our time stressing about the 1%.

Just my thoughts.

[MSTRS:Me]

My guess is that the new law will work perfectly well 99% of the time.

As did the 'old' law...

[BoristheBiter]

the car that was turning right has already turned, they are now heading straight.
so as per the rule all turning traffic has to give way to all straight though traffic.

[Badjelly]

On the one hand...

Traffic islands don't come in to it.

Essentially, this intersection is simply a T, but with some aspects controlled and some not.

But on the other...

Look at it as a big crossroads and on each approach there is a little offset T intersection.

Effectively rendering this as two intersection, not one.

This is the key. Does each traffic island create a separate mini-intersection? Riffer and MSTRS say no, Berries and Swbarnett say yes. (Apologies if my selective quoting has misinterpreted what anyone said. Let's not get stuck on that if I have. The point is there are two possible interpretations.) I don't think the road code is very clear about this, but I think the sensible answer is yes.

And, no, I don't think I'm confused. But I may be getting a bit tedious, so I'll give it a rest now.

[MSTRS:Me]

Does each traffic island create a separate mini-intersection? Riffer and MSTRS say no, ...

I'm not sure that I meant that exactly. I would go so far as to say that some parts of an intersection like this one are a controlled T, and some parts (because of the slip-lane design) actually become separate and uncontrolled T intersections. Yet the normal give way rules still don't apply, because of the continuity lane markings.