Do you know give way rules changing on 25 March? Give way rule quiz

[MSTRS:Me]

Having right of way ... doesn't mean you'll get it. So don't assume you'll be given it.

Of course. But I thought we were discussing the legal side of the issue, not the actuality...

[BMWST?]

These laws are too confusing. I'm staying off the roads around town wherever possible. Open road is a different matter.

on the open road any hesitation or incorrect actions have results with forces many many times more than at 30- 50 km hr

[FJRider]

Of course. But I thought we were discussing the legal side of the issue, not the actuality...

Actuality is often forgotten in the discussion process. And is usually more important than written law.
Legality is often spouted ... and claimed in practice. Not always with success. I have had (and I guess you have too) experience in this area ...

[MSTRS:Me]

Actuality is often forgotten in the discussion process. And is usually more important than written law.
Legality is often spouted ... and claimed in practice. Not always with success. I have had (and I guess you have too) experience in this area ...

Not to the point of pain...
Still - when (if) it all turns to custard, *someone* was in the wrong. Legally. Otherwise, we'd have no traffic laws other than 'might is right'. Do any of us want to go there?

[FJRider]

Not to the point of pain...
Still - when (if) it all turns to custard, *someone* was in the wrong. Legally. Otherwise, we'd have no traffic laws other than 'might is right'. Do any of us want to go there?

I have felt the pain ...

If ALL the laws were obeyed ... there would be no issue. The "convenience factor" plays the biggest part in rule obeyence. The boundrys between ... I give way/I might make it/I will make it ... times at intersections can be slim at best. Those pushing the boundrys and/or flouting the laws ... can have a dire effect on a motorcyclist. (increased pulse at least) The roll-on effect of a small error of judgement can get serious very quickly. One factor ... added to a list of other factors ...

Often ... it's obvious you are being given right of way. Sometimes not so obvious. My point was that to assume you will be given it ... may not be the safest course of action.

Especially on a motorcycle.

But some are just in a hurry. With no time to lose.

[robin_steal]

Yep passed the ausy rules test, next time I go there I'll have no excuses for cuttin them off haha.

[BMWST?]

The word Vigilant comes to mind...
All what you say, happens now...that wont change.
And show me a reference where, if you are turning right give way, wont be law?
Some thngs are just way over-thought.

the turning right at a t intersection is the one which may seem to break ingrained rules,old or new,but in most cased is a common sense on which will aid in traffic flow
This salso the one which will be involved in the most incidents as some intersection like this have some for of control of varying degrees of being self evident to someone on the leg of the t

[yungatart]

the turning right at a t intersection is the one which may seem to break ingrained rules,old or new,but in most cased is a common sense on which will aid in traffic flow
This salso the one which will be involved in the most incidents as some intersection like this have some for of control of varying degrees of being self evident to someone on the leg of the t

In my experience very few obey the law as it is now. For those that don't, there is no change.

[_Shrek_]

This is far more useful

http://www.giveway.co.nz/interactive

Spoken like a true cage driving swamp creature.............

So when you squeeze yourself to the front of the queu on your Beemer you lose your rightof way to...?

have a look at the above link P & you will see what I was trying to say

[scumdog]

Idon't think I've ever seen your example of a stop sign opposite a give ways sign, that would be some retarded intersection layout.

We have at least one right here in Riviera of the South.

I suspect it is that way because the by-pass north re-joins the main street at that intersection - and having a Stop sign there would cause 'issues' with HMVs rejoining the main street.

And the Stop sign opposite it also cut a bit of slack for the truck drivers, gives them a better chance to keep moving.

[scumdog]

Pleased to see old rule back (course I wasn't born then ) Why NZ persisted which the previous change when even Victoria realised it was stupid is beyond me. 9/9

Please let us all know why in your opinion it is a 'stupid' rule??

[MSTRS:Me]

Please let us all know why in your opinion it is a 'stupid' rule??

Too simple = stupid?

[chasio]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

Declaration: I used to cycle a lot until fairly recently.

Pushbikes are generally pretty slow compared to most other traffic. My take on this scenario is:

1) A cyclist proceeding at average speed e.g. 15-20km/h will not catch up a vehicle ahead of it that is turning left across a cycle lane. So there should be no need for the motorist to yield (unless (2) applies). The cars in this example were being driven as if equipped with 50cc motors, so that creates a false scenario that won't happen that often.

2) Even in the absence of a cycle lane, motorists passing a cyclist on their side of the road have at least a moral obligation to complete the pass in plenty of time if they will soon be turning left, rather than just getting themselves ahead and then cutting the cyclist off. I believe this is supported in law, but cannot quote it. (Anyone?) Cycle lanes really only emphasize this necessity, as I see it.

What is so wrong with slowing down and turning left behind the bike after it has cleared the turn? Many do but for those who don't I can only assume that impatience is the primary motivator.

3) So what happens when the cyclist is quicker than the traffic e.g. clocking 50kmh in the cycle lane and traffic is slow, so a car in front that is turning left should yield? Pretty much that will be a fill your pants moment, possibly followed by an accident. Really, being legally entitled to pass on the left does not remove the moral obligation to use your brain. I agree with SWB on this one: go around on the car's right (or just give way). Passing on the left is not a right that is worth risking life and limb to defend.

[FJRider]

2) Even in the absence of a cycle lane, motorists passing a cyclist on their side of the road have at least a moral obligation to complete the pass in plenty of time if they will soon be turning left, rather than just getting themselves ahead and then cutting the cyclist off. I believe this is supported in law, but cannot quote it. (Anyone?) Cycle lanes really only emphasize this necessity, as I see it.

What is so wrong with slowing down and turning left behind the bike after it has cleared the turn? Many do but for those who don't I can only assume that impatience is the primary motivator.

3) So what happens when the cyclist is quicker than the traffic e.g. clocking 50kmh in the cycle lane and traffic is slow, so a car in front that is turning left should yield? Pretty much that will be a fill your pants moment, possibly followed by an accident. Really, being legally entitled to pass on the left does not remove the moral obligation to use your brain. I agree with SWB on this one: go around on the car's right (or just give way). Passing on the left is not a right that is worth risking life and limb to defend.

I dont think it's is/was a transport law, rule, or exception ... more an "endangering public safety" ... or something like that. (but will now be failing to give way)

Regardles of the fact they have no engine ... they are still a vehicle and have legal rights as such.

A simple point few consider in their busy lives ...

[_Shrek_]

I don't have a problem with the footpath etc... but cycle lanes don't go across intersections, there for should not be under passing turning vehicle!!! in normal circumstances the front vehicle has the right of way so why give cyclist the right to come up your inside when turning? in this case the law is a complete arse

well I stand corrected on the cycle lanes!!! after being in Alex over the weekend I took note that they do go across T intersections as broken white lines, run out at rounder bouts & four way intersections

so while cyclists have the right of way at T intersectons they loose it on rounder bouts etc...