Should we be changing the Give Way rule? (POLL)

[Trade_nancy]

I have (not in this thread but the many, many others round) & it is, the arguments I've heard against it however are "I can't use the current system" & "I'm too impatient" & "it'll be good for tourists"
Well, learn how to drive, get some patients, & fuck the tourists it's our country while they're here they can learn out rules


And we know how accurate polls & statistics are...

What aspects of the current (old to be) system would you say are superior to the new system ScubaSteve? I'm always prepared to be swayed to the side of the opposition where their argument is better.

[Scuba_Steve]

What aspects of the current (old to be) system would you say are superior to the new system ScubaSteve? I'm always prepared to be swayed to the side of the opposition where their argument is better.

it is superior in regardless to traffic flow & thus minimising congestion.

I saw this happening this morning so I'll use that as example
a somewhat busy & narrow street, there were cars wanting to enter a parking building. The guy needing to turn right already had 10 cars behind him as there was no way to pass, the left turning cars (like pretty much always) had a space to pull into the kerb to allow straight through traffic through & them to skip round the corner allowing traffic to flow, when it came to 2-3 cars wanting to turn left the right hand turner had his chance to turn thus allowing the blocked straight through traffic behind him passage again & everyone to carry on.

Now if we were under new/old rules that right turner would of had to rely on curtsey, there is no other way he would be able to make the turn, given traffic density & the traffic would keep piling up behind him which would end up being blocked right back to the lights (50 cars back maybee) also blocking the intersection. Because his legal right to turn would not exist.

Traffic flow & minimisation of congestion is why I say the current rule is logical & superior & why the new/old is illogical.

[GingerMidget]

Can't be naffed reading through all the crap on this thread but does anybody know a reason the law was changed to its present status way back??

To justify some gubbmint officials existance

[steve_t]

If the current rule was superior, every other country in the world would have it too. Traffic flow engineers study flow and congestion as their job. I think I'll believe them on what works best... or are you secretly a traffic engineer by profession?
As previously stated, the current rule was originally implemented in Victoria to keep the centre of the road clear so trams could pass. They realised it didn't work and changed it back quickly. Our transport minister didn't want to look like he'd made a mistake so didn't change it back.
Or do you think professional traffic engineers are wrong?

[cheshirecat]

it is superior in regardless to traffic flow & thus minimising congestion.

I saw this happening this morning so I'll use that as example
a somewhat busy & narrow street, there were cars wanting to enter a parking building. The guy needing to turn right already had 10 cars behind him as there was no way to pass, the left turning cars (like pretty much always) had a space to pull into the kerb to allow straight through traffic through & them to skip round the corner allowing traffic to flow, when it came to 2-3 cars wanting to turn left the right hand turner had his chance to turn thus allowing the blocked straight through traffic behind him passage again & everyone to carry on.

Now if we were under new/old rules that right turner would of had to rely on curtsey, there is no other way he would be able to make the turn, given traffic density & the traffic would keep piling up behind him which would end up being blocked right back to the lights (50 cars back maybee) also blocking the intersection. Because his legal right to turn would not exist.

Traffic flow & minimisation of congestion is why I say the current rule is logical & superior & why the new/old is illogical.

Having lived in London for most of my life which enjoys some conjestion and narrow streets this situation never happens since if oncomming drivers see the opposite lane blocked by somone turing right they pause to let them across. What they don't have is a rule giving rights to an oncoming vehicle crossing the centerline in front of you or a rule giving a minor road rights over a major road.

[Scuba_Steve]

If the current rule was superior, every other country in the world would have it too.

PAL is superior NTSC still exists, Betamax was superior VHS supplied the world, Toyota was superior until couple years back GM was #1. Being the best doesn't mean you are the most popular or guarantee success.
Using "but the rest of the world do it" as an argument is really a pathetic one, the rest of the world is run by corporations, the rest of the world is corrupt, the rest of the world have or are financially fucking themselves. We are following too, but do you think we should be??? IMO no. But hey "the rest of the world is doing it so it must be right"

Traffic flow engineers study flow and congestion as their job. I think I'll believe them on what works best... or are you secretly a traffic engineer by profession?
As previously stated, the current rule was originally implemented in Victoria to keep the centre of the road clear so trams could pass. They realised it didn't work and changed it back quickly. Our transport minister didn't want to look like he'd made a mistake so didn't change it back.
Or do you think professional traffic engineers are wrong

Looking at our roads I do think whoever is making decisions is wrong & have no idea what they are doing. I know for sure the Minister for transport & the "powers" of NZTA have no fucking clue what they are doing.
But 1stly Being in a job doesn't make you good at it, or even mean you know what you are doing.
2ndly we don't even know (& it's probably not) if what the traffic engineers are saying is anywhere near the final result, there's many layers of bullshit these suggestions go through before being implemented & if its anything like any other corporation we get a "purple monkey dishwasher" Chinese whispers translation

[Scuba_Steve]

Having lived in London for most of my life which enjoys some conjestion and narrow streets this situation never happens since if oncomming drivers see the opposite lane blocked by somone turing right they pause to let them across. What they don't have is a rule giving rights to an oncoming vehicle crossing the centerline in front of you or a rule giving a minor road rights over a major road.

But this is why it's illogical, there is no right given, you are purely reliant on the kindness of others. I'm not saying that doesn't work at times, I know before all these pretty coloured lights came about people were much more curious mainly because you kinda had to be, like your mentioning here.
As for the minor/major roads your talking here, are you meaning uncontrolled intersections??? Because that is the only thing IMO that needed changing, it should have always worked like a controlled intersection.

[oneofsix]

Can't be naffed reading through all the crap on this thread but does anybody know a reason the law was changed to its present status way back??

You embarrassed me Scumdog because I should but can't remember. I know when studying for my licence under the old old law you had to remember the 5 exceptions to the giveway, seemed to be 5 things to every rule back then, to the right rule and that when they went to the present rule it is simply giveway to the right- no exceptions. Anyways guess they were tidying up a whole lot of stuff about uncontrolled intersections and there were less pretty lights and roundabout things about at the time so it made traffic flow faster.

[cheshirecat]

The fundamental rule is that vehicles have no rights crossing the centerline unless it is clear to do so with major penalties for crossing yellow lines. They must ensure its clear. Similarly roads are catagorised. A, B, dual carriageway, motorway. etc. 'A' roads have rights over 'B' roads and so forth. Higher rates roads enjoy higher overall speed limits and are designed for safe driving at those speeds. Vehicles moving from a minor road to a major road must ensure they are clear to do so. Vehicles crossing the centerline in front of you have no rights and ensures a left turning vehicle an focus on left turning and where they are going without hesitating or wondering if vehicles possibly crossing in front of them and vehicles comming up behind both sides of the road, plus vehicles and pedestrians around the junction interpret the rules correctly.

In NZ there are no such systems. A supermarket entrance, or public gravel track has rights over a major busy state highway and the rule system places the onus on individual correcct interpretation, not clear democation of priorities keeping oncomming vehicles and faster moving and or conjested traffic flows separate.

I believe NZ is the only country where an oncoming vehicle has rights crossing the centerline in the face of oncoming traffic.

As a footnote London (and Euro) intersections are considerablty more fluid moving and relatively efficient considering the volume of traffic than experienced here.

[oneofsix]

The fundamental rule is that vehicles have no rights crossing the centerline unless it is clear to do so with major penalties for crossing yellow lines. They must ensure its clear. Similarly roads are catagorised. A, B, dual carriageway, motorway. etc. 'A' roads have rights over 'B' roads and so forth. Higher rates roads enjoy higher overall speed limits and are designed for safe driving at those speeds. Vehicles moving from a minor road to a major road must ensure they are clear to do so. Vehicles crossing the centerline in front of you have no rights and ensures a left turning vehicle an focus on left turning and where they are going without hesitating or wondering if vehicles possibly crossing in front of them and vehicles comming up behind both sides of the road, plus vehicles and pedestrians around the junction interpret the rules correctly.

In NZ there are no such systems. A supermarket entrance, or public gravel track has rights over a major busy state highway and the rule system places the onus on individual correcct interpretation, not clear democation of priorities keeping oncomming vehicles and faster moving and or conjested traffic flows separate.

I believe NZ is the only country where an oncoming vehicle has rights crossing the centerline in the face of oncoming traffic.

As a footnote London (and Euro) intersections are considerablty more fluid moving and relatively efficient considering the volume of traffic than experienced here.

Second paragraph is where they went wrong way back in the 70s but most NZ drivers don't seem to know this anyhow and give the road the right over the supermarket entrance at least, not so clear cut for the side road verses the major road T intersection.

Third paragraph might be due to preceptive. As bot hare turning neither is real "oncoming" and neither has 'rights'. The right turner, crossing the centre line was given priority on the entrance to the side road over the left turner to get them out of the middle of the road. The left turner, if done correctly, should be no more trouble to following traffic than a parked car but the right turner is an obstruction as they are in the middle of the road and not many of them know how or when to pull over to the left and wait before turning right also this means now crossing two lanes of traffic instead of one.

[steve_t]

Using "but the rest of the world do it" as an argument is really a pathetic one, the rest of the world is run by corporations, the rest of the world is corrupt, the rest of the world have or are financially fucking themselves. We are following too, but do you think we should be??? IMO no. But hey "the rest of the world is doing it so it must be right"

Shouldn't you be in a tent in Aotea Square?

Being in a job doesn't make you good at it, or even mean you know what you are doing.

Again, I would trust a traffic engineer who deals with flow dynamics and congestion daily over a layperson, such as yourself, any day of the week... unless you have some kind of qualification or do some statistical analysis I'm not aware of

[oneofsix]

Again, I would trust a traffic engineer who deals with flow dynamics and congestion daily over a layperson, such as yourself, any day of the week... unless you have some kind of qualification or do some statistical analysis I'm not aware of

And the gentlemen that had studied at Sandhurst said to stand with your toes on the white line and to walk slowly forward when they blow the whistles because the artillery will have taken care of the enemy. And even after having surfer the worst casualty rates ever the next day they said the same thing, and the day after and the day after..... because that is what they had been taught and what they did daily.

Ok, I've had been fun. As you were.

[scumdog]

Well, learn how to drive, get some patients, ...

That's the the problem Steve - due to inept driving/riding we have too many patients. And dead people.

We don't want anybody to get some patients.

Except maybe an ambualance...

[scumdog]

And the gentlemen that had studied at Sandhurst said to stand with your toes on the white line and to walk slowly forward when they blow the whistles because the artillery will have taken care of the enemy. And even after having surfer

Ah, there's the problem - surfer.

They're always drowning, should have left surfer behind...

Stick to soldiers.

[scumdog]

As a footnote London (and Euro) intersections are considerablty more fluid moving and relatively efficient considering the volume of traffic than experienced here.

More to do with the drivers manners and attitudes than the countrys road-rules...