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

**Scuba_Steve** · 26th March 2012, 19:29

Originally Posted by Usarka

I see what you mean, and it's probably one of those ones that if the bike decieded to turn you'd be in the wrong.

But to say the truck wasn't allowed to turn is taking it too far IMHO.

While not blatant all the laws surrounding suggest legally he just has to sit & wait. I think for all intensive purposes we should call this illegal, as this is most likely how it will be inforced.
Let the individual make up their own minds & take their own chances legally & physically.

**Badjelly** · 27th March 2012, 10:04

Same thing happened to me yesterday turning into a supermarket car park. Bike (me) turning right into car park, waiting for a couple of cars coming the other way and turning left into the same entrance, car coming out of car park and wanting to turn right. I waved them all through. No worries. Common sense prevailed, as it should.

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere? Surely if a vehicle cannot or will not enter an intersection, you are not failing to give way to it if you move through yourself. It's similar in principle to the situation that was even more common under the recently-deceased road rules, where a left-turning car had to give way to a right-turning vehicle, but could proceed anyway because a straight-through vehicle made the right-turning vehicle unable to turn.

**oneofsix** · 27th March 2012, 10:13

Originally Posted by Badjelly

Same thing happened to me yesterday turning into a supermarket car park. Bike (me) turning right into car park, waiting for a couple of cars coming the other way and turning left into the same entrance, car coming out of car park and wanting to turn right. I waved them all through. No worries. Common sense prevailed, as it should.

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere? Surely if a vehicle cannot or will not enter an intersection, you are not failing to give way to it if you move through yourself. It's similar in principle to the situation that was even more common under the recently-deceased road rules, where a left-turning car had to give way to a right-turning vehicle, but could proceed anyway because a straight-through vehicle made the right-turning vehicle unable to turn.

That is basically what give way means, give them right of way if they can proceed, don't proceed if you will get in the way of their right of way. Same at round a bouts where two vehicles can actually enter the round a bout at the same time from different entrances because the car on the right is not held up through the fact the car from the next entrance has gone by the time they get there, only works with proper sized round a bouts.

One good thing about the new law, which I saw last night, is if the left turner doesn't indicate it doesn't matter any more. If the were going straight through you had to give way and now when they turn left you have to as well. Made me laugh when the person obviously turning left unnecessarily deliberately left he indicator to force their way round. Would have been funnier if he had got at least a warning for failing to indicate.

**Scuba_Steve** · 27th March 2012, 10:17

Originally Posted by Badjelly

Regarding the actual law, it seems to me that the key question is the meaning of the phrase "give way". Is that defined anywhere?

can't find it with a quick search probably need access to one of those special legal dictionaries where they makeup new meanings for words to suit their agenda

**Badjelly** · 27th March 2012, 10:31

This is a place where a lot of terms are defined (Traffic Regulations 1976, section 2, Interpretation)

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul....html#DLM50043

But not, unfortunately, "give way".

**merv** · 27th March 2012, 11:49

In addition all the guff is in the Road User Rule http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...html#dlm302188 but interestingly it is also silent on a definition for "Give Way".

**chasio** · 27th March 2012, 14:21

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

... for all intensive purposes we should call this illegal, as this is most likely how it will be inforced.
Let the individual make up their own minds & take their own chances legally & physically.

Sorry, I just can't help myself. It is for all intents and purposes.

Also, I don't believe the police would ever stop someone who executed that manouevre considerately and I'd be willing to argue it in court if they stopped me for it.

**Bassmatt** · 27th March 2012, 14:35

Originally Posted by chasio

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.

Sorry, I just can't help myself. It is for all intents and purposes.

Also, I don't believe the police would ever stop someone who executed that manouevre considerately and I'd be willing to argue it in court if they stopped me for it.

Ha, beat me to that one but...
you missed "inforced" should be "enforced".
I'll be taking that position now, thanks.

**chasio** · 27th March 2012, 14:55

Originally Posted by Bassmatt

Ha, beat me to that one but...
you missed "inforced" should be "enforced".
I'll be taking that position now, thanks.

Typos are one thing but the wrong words altogether are something else... But I must concede that I have clearly been beaten by the better candidate

**MSTRS:Me** · 27th March 2012, 15:02

SS does get points for the correct 'their'...

**jasonu** · 27th March 2012, 15:05

Originally Posted by Usarka

So on Campbell Live tonight a motorcycle was watiing to turn right into a side street but was giving way to stream of cars turning left.

The truck turning right out of the street went, and the reporter said they were in the wrong because it didn't give way to the bike, even though the bike couldn't turn due to all the cars he was giving way to.

Either she's useless and should learn about what she's reporting on before making judgement, or I have got this wrong. Any one?

The truck was in the right because it had a PROTECTED TURN. Protected because the bike has to give way to the left turning cars therefore allowing the truck to go out of turn.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

**jasonu** · 27th March 2012, 15:09

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

Here we go, took a bit of searching but I found it, it's not up in legislation form at the moment (still rocking the old legislation) only in amendment form

But the bike was not 'about to turn', he was waiting for the left turning traffic to pass before he could turn.

**FJRider** · 27th March 2012, 15:10

Originally Posted by chasio

Please find below my application for the apparently vacant position of KB pedant.

Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_say...se_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly.

**Bassmatt** · 27th March 2012, 15:14

Originally Posted by FJRider

Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_say...se_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly.

Well with pedantry like that, I withdraw my request for the position.

**MSTRS:Me** · 27th March 2012, 15:14

Originally Posted by FJRider

Your application has been declined.

The correct phrase is "TO all intents and purposes"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_say...se_purposes%27

If you must correct a post ... make sure you do it correctly.

You in HR? You actually need to read more than a line or so, don't you know...

Originally Posted by WIKI

In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable.