Give Way rule change

[pzkpfw]

"Live in mortal fear"? (That ain't living...)

All I can say is: Fuck there must be a lot of paranoid tossers out there...

Coming home from shopping tonight, I noticed a police car behind me from Porirua to half way through Tawa.

Yes I am occasionally a tosser, and yes, I'm often paranoid.

I made the needle stick to 50 so hard the officer must have been wondering what model of Suzuki Swift has cruise control.

Believe it or not, but average "normal" citizens do get paranoid, because people do get ticketed for things that "normal" citizens think were "not that bad".

When an officer is behind me, I am paranoid that I might accidentally get to 51 in a 50, and see the lights come on...

[Kemet]

I'd be interested in that one as to access one of our sites I do exactly that, although normally (but not always)on a right turn arrow

without knowing the specific routes you are talking about, would it not be easier to turn onto that road an intersection or two before so that you have heaps of time to get into the right lane?

[Berries]

if its there, its legal, temporary or not.

I don't want to jump in here but you are wrong, particularly when it comes to speed limits. There is a formal process that has to be followed, you can't just slap a sign up. Temporary speed limits are even worse. First they have to be approved by the road controlling authority, then they have to be set out in accordance with a proper plan. A lot aren't, and they aren't legal because of it. Which is stupid because it is the guys working on the site who are then put at risk.

[SPman]

And some people have no idea WHO they should give way to ... or where they HAVE right of way. So they give way to EVERYBODY ... which when it is at a busy intersection ...

Ha ha - some years ago now, on Wairau Rd at the Target rd? traffic lights, had a car stop at a green light coming out of Target rd, and wave on the traffic on Wairau (on a red). Wife #1 says "what's that stupid prick doing....that's something I'd expect Uncle Bill to do".
Lights changed, drove past....sure enough.....'twas her Uncle Bill........

To the question, I'd say, give them a weeks grace, then ticket the pricks! The number of drivers who don't have a clue about intersection behaviour is scary - if they don't know, they shouldn't be on the road! The number of close calls I've had over the years must reach into the hundreds now.....and nearly all of them unnecessary if only the silly pricks paid some basic attention to lane procedure!

[p.dath]

...Close by theres an intersection I have to take, it is a stop but like Berries has mentioned it's one of these stops that just have no reason to & shouldn't exist, it should be a give-way no 2 ways about it....

Just been thinking about this. If you believe the rule for deciding when a stop sign should be installed has been incorrectly followed; why not call your local council (assuming it is not an NZTA road) and let them know you think there has been a mistake, and request the correct sign be installed?

[Scuba_Steve]

if its there, its legal, temporary or not.
fail to follow it for whatever reason and you are in the wrong.

As below

I don't want to jump in here but you are wrong, particularly when it comes to speed limits. There is a formal process that has to be followed, you can't just slap a sign up. Temporary speed limits are even worse. First they have to be approved by the road controlling authority, then they have to be set out in accordance with a proper plan. A lot aren't, and they aren't legal because of it. Which is stupid because it is the guys working on the site who are then put at risk.

Just been thinking about this. If you believe the rule for deciding when a stop sign should be installed has been incorrectly followed; why not call your local council (assuming it is not an NZTA road) and let them know you think there has been a mistake, and request the correct sign be installed?

It's a council to NZTA road intersection. My guess as to why it's a stop is because the right turn is (& should be a stop) so they probably decided it was just easier to make both a stop.
But I have another intersection I have to bitch about 1st anyways, one where it should be blocked off really or at the very least a give way, currently it's a merge & you legally have 5m to get from 50km/h to 100km/h, if anyone actually used it as a merge that could be some fun... tho if your wanting to collect insurance this could be a good intersection to use (recommended for cage only)

[Virago]

I've just experienced a potentially harmful situation, which would not happen under the new rule.

Sitting in the cage at traffic lights, waiting to turn right. A bike approaches from the opposite direction, left hand indicator going. I start to ease forward to make my turn, but the biker's speed and road position doesn't seem to suggest he's turning left, so I don't accelerate. He whizzes through going straight ahead, giving me a hard stare - oblivious to the fact that he's at fault.

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.

[MSTRS:Me]

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.

Scenarios can always be found that are better under the new rule. Just as there are some that are better under the old rule. Can't keep everybody safe...
Your described scenario - who was really in the wrong, should there have been a meeting of vehicles?

[steve_t]

oblivious to the fact that he's at fault.

The scenario of cars turning right across the path of bikers who haven't turned their indicators off is not uncommon. The new rule will reduce such harmful situations.

Scenarios can always be found that are better under the new rule. Just as there are some that are better under the old rule. Can't keep everybody safe...
Your described scenario - who was really in the wrong, should there have been a meeting of vehicles?

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

[MSTRS:Me]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Might not have been the best example, but you know what I meant...
A forgotten indicator is a dangerous thing.

[rastuscat]

of course not everyone knows how the rule works now as it is.

..................and that's exactly what the problem is. The rule that we have now would work perfectly well if everyone applied some sense and actually used it properly. Thing is, I reckon that at best, 60% of motorists know the rule and apply it.

Bugger all will change, as the same 60% will apply the new rule, and the 40% will continue to be totally ignorant, and apply whatever rule suits them.

[actungbaby]

We've been asked to have another look at hammering the law that says that if you turn into a multi lane road, you have to turn into the adjacent lane i.e. turning left into a dual lane, turn into the left lane, if right, turn into the right lane.

How would you feel if we stopped you and billed you for $150 for turning into the wrong lane?

The new law means that the car turning left into a multi lane can do so without having to worry about the car coming the other way and turning right, as both can go, as always they should have.

What say you?

I got to say always anoyed me lazy drivers or riders that didnt do this already with out A law

In saying that as i always do i know already will law make it any diffrent . its just common sence know

For goodness sakes people dont even walk on the right side the pavent these days or in the malls

keep to the left keep to left people please... damm what up with people just dont care these days

Whats next fines for people not washing there hands after going to the toilet come on !!!!!!

NO NO NO to 150.00 fine thats stubid and just make people discrespect the law makers

[actungbaby]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Common sence dictates that you do what u do to keep yourself safe insurance companys
Can spin on a spike for all i care as long you abey the general road rules your okay

Anything esle has to be proven Insurance compamy told my dad when claimed on my riding gear .
That helmet was okay didnt need replacing i told him thats rubbish as mentioned testing it yeah right
I told ad only way test it is destry it in a test < end result i got new helmet .

People that work at insurance companys you dealing with indivuals and 90 % the time you can reason with people

You just have to point out the facts or ask qwestions to find them out

[Virago]

If there was a meeting of the 2 vehicles, Virago would have been at fault according to the Police and Insurance companies...

Agreed - to a point. You can't automatically assume right of way on the basis of an indicator. But the hospitals and morgues remain full of people who were legally in the right.

The change of give way rule removes one situation where a forgotten indicator on a bike puts the rider at serious risk.

[Scuba_Steve]

The change of give way rule removes one situation where a forgotten indicator on a bike puts the rider at serious risk.

Does it??? you've only removed the right turning car, the guy waiting to come out of the side street's still there ready to pull out in-front of the bike

I suppose it does remove 1 chance but I'd say the "situation" still exists