Who is in the right here?

[robboh]

The only new thing in there is the ped crossing stuff. Previously you could not proceed if a pedestrian was on your side of the centre line. Now it's the whole crossing, unless there is some sort of barrier system or raised median in the centre. Plus I noticed that round here (at least) the roadway got a 'proximity' limit line painted maybe 3m from the pedestrian stripes.

The new thing is that they are now LAW, not guidance. Therefore they are legally enforceable. Which means you or I could be fined for not following them.

Having said that, I have never once seen roundabout signaling actually followed up. Mind you, isnt it interesting how much better everyone drives when there is a cop sitting on an intersection. And after the changes, I did hear of people being pulled over and fined for the fog lights.

Agreed with the ped crossings being the biggest change. The caveat was that it was only applicable in the case of a centre-line existing. If no centreline, then it applied for the entire PD, not just your side. Now, as you say, there must be a physical barrier of some description in the centre for it to apply.

[robboh]

The so-called new rule was in the copy of the road code I had when taught by a driving instructor at 15. At the vehicle limit line you only indicate left if you're taking the first exit and only indicate right if you're going more than half way around. You always indicate left as soon as you're past the exit before the one you're taking.

Now, first thing. I believe you. I have always done it that way too.

I had to do mine twice as I stupidly let my learners expire. Which meant that I had to go through and do the skills handling test (didnt the first time, new rule), AND go through my learners period again, AND resit the road code test, so I did get lots of opportunity to study it

As I said, it could of course just be premature senility on my part. But I am sure I have seen it presented how I described it somewhere. I also find it VERY hard to believe I could have made such a daft misinterpretation of what I consider to be a very logical current implementation.

Now I think the old man had a really old copy of the Road Code sitting on his shelf (I think mine was Black with a yellow stripe), so potentially I saw it in there. Im going to give him a call in the next few days and ask him to check, purely for my own mental sanity

[robboh]

And this is exactly why we need either much harder licence testing or compulsory tuition by qualified instructors (personally I prefer the former as the modern car instructors seem to be mostly incompetent - my father owned a driving school) - Otherwise people pass on only what they personally do themselves, not what is correct. It doesn't help that Police target nothing except speed either - doing so might limit damage when thye do crash but does very little to ensure that the crash doesn't happen in the first place, which further reduces damage...

I'd like to see compulsory theory and practical retesting every 10 years and any time you have an accident. The bonus is that some people would probably be so busy doing the retesting that they'd hardly ever be on the road.

Fully agree with everything you say here.

And I would go one stage further and say that there should be some sort of a 'simulation' testing component as well, where people are put through a simulation driving course, and externally judged on their decision making, ability to keep up with traffic flow, application of correct rules, defensive driving etc.

It do wonder at times what criteria the testers are given for guidance on a pass v's fail mark, and just how bad you need to be before you get given the big red X.

[Max Preload]

It do wonder at times what criteria the testers are given for guidance on a pass v's fail mark, and just how bad you need to be before you get given the big red X.

I understand the practical testers are expected to pass 75% on practical exams which is very wrong in my opinion. Every pass or fail should be based solely on actual performance of the individual, not their statistical position in the driving population. It's like the NCEA for driving.

[Ixion]

..
I notice somewhere buried in the summary & Q+A that the roundabout indication law is legislating what had previously been guidance.

However, I am positive when I was sitting my tests in the mid 80's, that the road code actually stated that you had to indicate left onto a roundabout initially, then right as you followed it (no matter how far around) and then left again to exit. It stuck with me as I recall thinking what an absolutely daft rule it was.

..

You are correct, but I think it was long before the 80s. When roundabouts first were introduced, and were very rare (sigh), the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road. So you turned left off the straight road (left turn becaus ethe centre line stopped), then right as you went round, and left as you exited. There wasn't any actual law about it, cos roundabouts were too rare (Tauranga didn't even have one, that's how rare they were !) , so the snakes sort of invented the rule on the fly. (They were good at that !) But I think it was more like the 60s than the 80s. Could be wrong though.

[Ocean1]

the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road.

Sounds right, most of 'em were just that.

A lot aren't though, now. I've got one in mind that differs from a standard uncontrolled 4 way intersection just in that there's a slightly raised lump in the middle.

When the "new rule" was introduced I noticed that (of course) people started to believe what others indicated they were going to do, with predictable results. Perversely, I think not having to indicate other than to change lanes on a roundabout tends to keep everyone guessing, and maybe that's a good thing.

[Beemer]

Gawd help us....

This person lives in Wellington - I don't think many people follow the road rules there, and Sunhuntin lives in Wanganui, you'll have to cut her some slack - they're mostly OAPs or gang prospects up there so I don't think the normal rules apply.

[Jiminy]

There are two things that irk me in the current road rule:

- Give way to the right EXCEPT if you are going straight ahead (4th pic in http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roa...rsections.html)
- Give way when turning left rule

Because of those two rules, it is not sufficient to consider the position of the vehicles to know who has right of way, but you also need to consider where the vehicles are going (and drivers/riders are not THAT good at using their indicators, now, are they? 3 seconds anyone?).

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

Btw, I'm surprised (shocked?) at so much bitching and debating about the road code here. Would that be a sign that the rules are not so intuitive, after all?

while your at it you might want to point out the half the world drive on the other side of the road? maybe we should change to that too to keep them happy while they are here on holiday?

Now that's a good idea!

[Max Preload]

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

The only danger comes from not applying the rule. If you can't manage that, how about fucking off back from whence you came?

[Jiminy]

The only danger comes from not applying the rule. If you can't manage that, how about fucking off back from whence you came?

I *do* apply the rules, but find it less intuitive and more dangerous as it is.

I have been here for a few years, but leave the voting and lobbying to the locals until I decide to settle... or not. In the mean time, feel free to put me on your ignore list if you don't think I have the right to post my opinion .

[robboh]

There are two things that irk me in the current road rule:

- Give way to the right EXCEPT if you are going straight ahead (4th pic in http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roa...rsections.html)
- Give way when turning left rule

Because of those two rules, it is not sufficient to consider the position of the vehicles to know who has right of way, but you also need to consider where the vehicles are going (and drivers/riders are not THAT good at using their indicators, now, are they? 3 seconds anyone?).

That's why, in my opinion, the current rules are dangerous. And, yes, I'm a foreigner.

Btw, I'm surprised (shocked?) at so much bitching and debating about the road code here. Would that be a sign that the rules are not so intuitive, after all?

The rules you stated above still follow the two basic premises. EG, that turning traffic always gives way to straight-ahead traffic, and that you give way to your right (eg when turning left, you can either have someone turning right or coming straight from the right).

Yes, people do need to indicate for them to work, and they do depend on both direction and intention, but thats the case in any intersection under any rules anyway??

In your example (4th pic), I assume they are going straight (eg I have to give way). If they ARE going to turn and dont indicate, then its not likely they are going to give way correctly either, and will just plow round the corner. In which case, discretion is the better part of valour anyways (and much safer). On these intersections, I basically only take my right of way IF the other person is showing very definite intentions of coming to a full stop and giving way.

As for people actually DOING things like indicating, yeah, its a worry. I shudder to think what would happen if they introduced the equivilent to what the States have in some places, eg 'free right turn on a red'.

As for the arguments, I dont understand it either. The rules are incredibly simple, with no exceptions to the two basic premises (that I can think of). I dont personally agree with having to give way to right-turning traffic if you are turning left (I think it holds up traffic flows), but the rules are the rules. And if people cant cope with the simple ones we have now, how on earth are they going to cope if they start introducing 'these are the rule, with this long list of exceptions'.

The thing I find interesting is that people having driven overseas say that NZ'ers are bad drivers. Yet, I also hear that, for example, Italy is uncontrolled mahem, but still seems to work well. I think its that they are all basically on the 'same page' as to how to react in a given situation. Here, you just DONT know what people are going to do

[robboh]

You are correct, but I think it was long before the 80s. When roundabouts first were introduced, and were very rare (sigh), the official guidance (which is all the Road Code is) was to treat the roundabout as being a curved bit of road. So you turned left off the straight road (left turn becaus ethe centre line stopped), then right as you went round, and left as you exited. There wasn't any actual law about it, cos roundabouts were too rare (Tauranga didn't even have one, that's how rare they were !) , so the snakes sort of invented the rule on the fly. (They were good at that !) But I think it was more like the 60s than the 80s. Could be wrong though.

Thank you Ixion. Im pleased to hear that I am in fact NOT going completely senile at an early age!

Agreed that it was probably far earlier than the 80s. Its quite possible I came across it in an earlier road code and stored it as an interesting factoid.

[Badjelly]

Yes, people do need to indicate for them to work, and they do depend on both direction and intention, but thats the case in any intersection under any rules anyway??

But a bit more so under the current rules than under some feasible alternatives.

[thepom]

Max preload seems a bit touchy,

[Max Preload]

Max preload seems a bit touchy,

Hey, he was just making a suggestion, as was I.