PDA

View Full Version : Give way road rule change confirmed



george12
29-09-2010, 11:52 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4178822/Give-way-road-rule-change-confirmed

I think this is great. The inevitible one-off increase in accidents after the change will be well and truly offset by the decrease in accidents long term, and I think it will improve traffic flow overall. Certain intersections might need additional traffic lights though (Bidwill St, Wellington comes to mind).


Transport Minister Steven Joyce has confirmed "confusing" give way rules for turning vehicles are to be changed.

Under the current law, left-turning traffic has to give way to right-turning traffic coming towards it.

Under the changes announced today, this would be reversed so the left turning vehicle would have right of way.

Changes were also planned to the rule for T-intersections, when there were conflicting right turns.

The proposed changes would reverse the give way rule, allowing left turning traffic right of way.

At T-intersections, where two cars are turning right, the car turning off the main road would have right of way - reversing the status quo.

The changes would come into effect in early 2012, Mr Joyce said.

"Our current give way rules for turning vehicles are confusing and out of step with the rest of the world. Research shows changing the rules could reduce relevant intersection crashes by 7 per cent."

New Zealand's give way rule was introduced in 1977 and holds that a vehicle turning right takes precedence over a vehicle turning left.

New Zealand is the only country in the world with this priority rule. The Automobile Association says the rules are a factor in 2560 intersection crashes, and one or two deaths, each year. Some 17 percent of crashes are at intersections.

The Government has also announced changes to motorcycle and moped laws including a power to weight restriction for novice riders, as well as:

* Tougher motorcycle licence tests which are also more motorcycle specific;

*Removing the option for motorcycles to complete an approved driving course, and so cutting the amount of time they spend on a restricted motorcycle licence;

* Motorcycle specific training to be introduced as an alternative to the standard resting regime;

*Requiring all novice motorcyclists, regardless of age, to be subject to the same minimum time requirements.

Currently over 25 year olds have a shorter time requirement on the restricted licence.

* Require all moped riders to complete a moped handling skills test along with a motorcycle learner theory test

*Introduce refresher training options and promote high visibility and protecting clothing benefits.

Power to weight restrictions would allow novice riders a greater range of bikes that were suited to their skill levels, Mr Joyce said.

"Motorcyclists are 20 times more at risk of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash than car drivers per kilometre driven.``

SP8's
29-09-2010, 12:00 PM
Everyone make sure your car insurance is up to date .... bet every panelbeater is laughing .... all the way to the bank !!

coldfront
29-09-2010, 12:15 PM
About blardy time to :thanks

Finally New Zealand realises it is alone with the dumbest rule in the book and before you claim it will increase accidents! Heres a thought maybe give some thought to the standard of driving in frst place that will cause the accidents! The lack of ability to adapt !!!

Oh yes I can see it being a probelm for some but for others they will quickly adapt or should say adapt back.

Why wait until 2012? 6 months agressive meadia promoting will do the trick to eductae the brainless kiwi motorist :)

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 12:46 PM
Another piece of Legislation we do not need.

Please DEFINE Main Road in relation to the two right turning vehicles! There are only two types of intersections in NZ. Controlled or uncontrolled. Controlled means there are Traffic Lights, Stop signs or Giveway signs erected and in the case of traffic lights they have to be operating or the intersection becomes uncontrolled does it not?

So in Auckland is Queen Street or Wellesley Street the "Main Road"?

To make it easy the Gov't could simply repeal the rules introduced in 1977 AND they could do it tomorrow thus saving all these lives earlier than sometime in 2012 which is when they say they will change to allow the dumb Public to be re-educated at a cost to the said Public. Of course the road code will need reprinting as will driving test material etc.

Let me say that when that left turn rule was put in place I thought it was a dopey idea and I still do.

Let's not forget that some people still insist on going through red lights, stop signs without stopping and giveway signs without giving way anyway and they are the ones responsible for the accidents they cause.

So at all intersections we will need to erect stop signs or giveway signs to define which is the main road. This will have to include intersections that currently are controlled by traffic lights in case the power goes off for any reason like a vehicle hitting a powerpole for example.

Cato
29-09-2010, 12:56 PM
People will die because of this.

Gobe1
29-09-2010, 12:57 PM
It wont be to save lives but to reduce accidents. Dead people are not a financial burden on society.
It will be a huge change for me to adjust. My insurance should be current when the change comes in.

prefect
29-09-2010, 01:09 PM
I have just only got it sussed since it was last changed and they are going to change it again!
Used the theory give way to any vehicle that would hit my drivers door.

prefect
29-09-2010, 01:09 PM
People will die because of this.
True but people die from death to.

Gobe1
29-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Used the theory give way to any vehicle that would hit my drivers door.

I use that every time i drive especially to trucks, the passenger door, no matter :devil

"Motorcyclists are 20 times more at risk of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash than car drivers per kilometre driven.`` Well Duh

kenj
29-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Cars will change first I am told... followed by trucks and busses one week later.

Ken

Cato
29-09-2010, 01:30 PM
True but people die from death to.

Yep, murders usually cause death too. There be a reason they they are locked up (in theory at least).

Chilling_Silence
29-09-2010, 01:45 PM
Used the theory give way to any vehicle that would hit my drivers door.

Which is true most of the time, but not if you're at an intersection and they're at a Give Way sign turning right where you're also turning right. The Give Way sign overrides the "They'll hit my drivers door" rule.

Same for if you're turning left, for example into a driveway or shopping mall carpark and they're turning right. You give way only if there are no vehicles behind you in any lane. If there's vehicles behind you, then you have right of way, as otherwise the vehicle from behind could quickly change lanes and sideswipe the other car...

This is a much "cleaner" way of thinking:
"The person on the left, or turning left, has the right of way"
Dead simple! One quick sentence I've though of in about 2 minutes of reading the article myself sums it up.

Agreed 2012 is retarded. Change it sooner rather than later, too many people don't know the current rules anyway so changing them won't make much difference to them :p

coldfront
29-09-2010, 05:28 PM
Let me ask those who are worried about the change!

Have you been overseas and did you have to adapt to the local driving rules in those countries? No differant really you adapt.

If the Brits and Irish can cross the channel and drive in europe on the wrongside for us and them surely the lowly perfect kiwi can?

I got no problem with this rule change and will be adapting on the day it changes without issue. Even after the 9 years it will be of driving under this rule same as I adapted straight away after driving the correct (new) rule after 15 years of driving.

Adapt, Survive or Die...pretty much sums it up howver the T-Intersection part of an uncrontrolled intersection has still got me foxed old or new rule, luckily never come across those junction much where I drive. But whats wrong with just putting some paint down and getting rid of uncontrolled intersections?

paulw
29-09-2010, 05:55 PM
Why wait until 2012. What's wrong with 2011?? I see that most of the newish and not so newish immigrants in South Auckland will have no problem with the new T junction rule as they already thinks that they way it is judging by the number of near misses I had when I lived there..

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 06:19 PM
Taking the right of way even if you are entitled to it is not always the best thing to do anyway. You will, according to the law, be dead right but you can also be dead anyway.

ubergeek85
29-09-2010, 06:30 PM
whats wrong with just putting some paint down and getting rid of uncontrolled intersections?

A lot of these uncontrolled 'intersections' are way way waaaaaay out in the wop wops (like here), complete with gravel roads and one-kilometre long dust clouds.

I've learnt the hard way you can't paint dust... :lol:

Personally I'm fond of the current setup, because, think about it, when you're sitting at a busy multi-lane intersection, your chance to turn right is pretty slim, you might even have to wait til the lights turn yellow before you even get a chance. Whereas if you're turning left, it's a piece of cake. If you're turning right, you don't want to see a gap in traffic, only to have some moron who can turn whenever he wants to get in your way!

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 06:45 PM
It's probably a moot point as I suspect that the Govt may have changed as there is going to be an election in 2011 which is before the law is going to be changed.

Go figure.

--Wolf--
29-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Glad they're changing the t-intersection rule, no one does it how it is currently anyway.

One thing I've never been 100% sure of, if there are two people at a stop/give way sign opposite each other and both are turning right, who goes first? You're both on the right of each other and both turning right. Just whoever pulls out first really?

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 07:33 PM
If at a stop sign facing each other and both turning right there is no conflict. On the other hand if one vehicle has an indcator on say going right then the other vehicle is entitled to go first as you could think it was going straight across.

Both vehicles signalling turning right there is no conflict. There may be some argument about keeping left when turning right but it does say as far to the left as is practicable.

Terry Porritt
29-09-2010, 07:38 PM
If at a stop sign facing each other and both turning right there is no conflict. On the other hand if one vehicle has an indcator on say going right then the other vehicle is entitled to go first as you could think it was going straight across.

Both vehicles signalling turning right there is no conflict.

Only providing both drivers know their left from their right...not very evident when you see the number of drivers signalling right at a roundabout when they are actually turning (technically) left. :banana

wmoore
29-09-2010, 07:42 PM
People will die because of this.

Really ? How ?

The thing is when this rule comes in people will be more careful at intersections. Just like when traffic lights go off in a power cut.
Maybe it will teach people to be more aware of their driving and those around them.

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 07:53 PM
We know that quite a few drivers don't even know or observe the current laws. I have never seen a stop sign at a roundabout either.

Actually in my new soon to be elected Govt I'm going to label every powerpole, tree and fence with a big sign in red saying, "Driving into me may be dangerous to your health."

The next job will be to teach all drivers to read and comprehend the signs. This will be slightly more difficult. I am told that Auckland residents are composed of some 165 ethnic varieties so for a start I suppose we translate the words in quotes above thus making for rather large signs I guess.

Terry Porritt
29-09-2010, 08:06 PM
I think you missed the point I was making snorkers.....if drivers dont know left from right when faced with negotiating a roundabout and signalling correctly, then there is not much hope for them at intersections........:rolleyes:

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 08:17 PM
I didn't really miss the point. Driver education however does not always change driver behaviour. We have been told over and over again to be careful at intersections.

In spite of advice to the contrary people still insist on consuming alcohol and driving and this not only once or twice. Noticed one got convicted for the 17th time for that recently.

PaulD
29-09-2010, 09:26 PM
Please DEFINE Main Road in relation to the two right turning vehicles!

So in Auckland is Queen Street or Wellesley Street the "Main Road"?



The proposed change is for "T" intersections, main is which ever street carries on ie the top of the T. One of the biggest groups of T intersections are driveways from public car parks eg supermarkets.

Queen and Wellesley is just a normal + intersection so no change.

PaulD
29-09-2010, 09:34 PM
Personally I'm fond of the current setup, because, think about it, when you're sitting at a busy multi-lane intersection, your chance to turn right is pretty slim, you might even have to wait til the lights turn yellow before you even get a chance. Whereas if you're turning left, it's a piece of cake. If you're turning right, you don't want to see a gap in traffic, only to have some moron who can turn whenever he wants to get in your way!

There's a recent Engineering Thesis studying Christchurch intersections and the conclusion was that some intersections would be better and some worse with a law change. Unless other changes like traffic light phasing and right turning arrows are also brought in your situation would become common.

At the time of the original change there were other studies that from memory said that some accidents would be saved and some caused whichever way the law went. Don't expect to see any improvement.

ubergeek85
29-09-2010, 09:56 PM
Makes sense. This Engineering Thesis sounds interesting, can you share a link?

Snorkbox
29-09-2010, 10:03 PM
The proposed change is for "T" intersections, main is which ever street carries on ie the top of the T. One of the biggest groups of T intersections are driveways from public car parks eg supermarkets.

Queen and Wellesley is just a normal + intersection so no change.

At T-intersections, where two cars are turning right, the car turning off the main road would have right of way - reversing the status quo.

At a T intersection there will be a road that terminates and one that does not so therefore there is a through road but it can't be defined as a main road.

Theoretically as the law stands now I could drive from my local supermarket directly across the road and enter my service station and only give way to traffic approaching from my right given the absence of any stop or give way signs which would be patently ridiculous but within the law. I could come out of my drive and drive directly across the road into a driveway across the road which would be just as dopey but I'd be in the right would I not?

If not then why not?

BTW a road is defined as any place where the public has access whether as of right or not. Hence people having been convicted of driving while disqualified up the Tanker track on a farm property on which they live.

wmoore
30-09-2010, 05:51 AM
Glad they're changing the t-intersection rule, no one does it how it is currently anyway.

One thing I've never been 100% sure of, if there are two people at a stop/give way sign opposite each other and both are turning right, who goes first? You're both on the right of each other and both turning right. Just whoever pulls out first really?

If you are opposite and both are turning right, then both can go at the same time because you are not crossing each other are you. Because you are both going in different directions.:D

wmoore
30-09-2010, 05:56 AM
This is a much "cleaner" way of thinking:
"The person on the left, or turning left, has the right of way"
Dead simple! One quick sentence I've though of in about 2 minutes of reading the article myself sums it up.

Yes quite simple really, didn't take me long to adjust here in the UK.
Actually feels more natural in some sort of way.

PaulD
30-09-2010, 07:29 AM
Theoretically as the law stands now I could drive from my local supermarket directly across the road and enter my service station and only give way to traffic approaching from my right given the absence of any stop or give way signs which would be patently ridiculous but within the law. I could come out of my drive and drive directly across the road into a driveway across the road which would be just as dopey but I'd be in the right would I not?

If not then why not?



I'd check with a lawyer before you try going straight from your supermarket across to the petrol station. Maybe the law is that dopey.

Your own drive doesn't have the same status as the supermarket driveway.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 08:42 AM
I'd check with a lawyer before you try going straight from your supermarket across to the petrol station. Maybe the law is that dopey.

Your own drive doesn't have the same status as the supermarket driveway.

But you pointed out that driveways into Supermarkets intersect with roads and they are treated as roads regarding giving way. The only difference is that there will normally far less traffic using my driveway.

Incidentally, the Government say they want to change the current law as it confuses visitors from overseas. Then they go on to say they are going to wait to do this until after the Rugby World Cup which is a time when we are likely to have more overseas visitors than usual. Doesn't make sense to me. Link here:-

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4181256/Give-way-change-put-off-for-World-Cup

Nomad
30-09-2010, 08:45 AM
I don't watch a lot of tv ..

What about traffic islands?
If left goes first as I understand but for those who make right turns needs to drive pass the traffic island first, will be backed up right ...

I guess it does fix the situation:
Those who want to turn left (like me) try to give way to the opposite side making a right. But the cars behind me going straight always wanna jump thru the hoop first.

Miami Steve
30-09-2010, 09:05 AM
Incidentally, the Government say they want to change the current law as it confuses visitors from overseas. Then they go on to say they are going to wait to do this until after the Rugby World Cup which is a time when we are likely to have more overseas visitors than usual. Doesn't make sense to me. Link here:-

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4181256/Give-way-change-put-off-for-World-Cup

That was the bit that was most astonishing for me. It's great that common-sense has eventually prevailed and we will have a safer way of negotiating intersections, but implementing the change prior to the influx of overseas visitors would be far more sensible.

PaulD
30-09-2010, 09:14 AM
Don't expect a complete change, on radio this morning a traffic engineer mentioned that some intersections could end up with a left turning lane with a Give Way where it made more sense to give right turning traffic a fair go :D

Lots of talk about other intersection changes that could have been done to improve things whichever way the law was. Why did the traffic engineers take so long to consider their other layout changes?

Paul.Cov
30-09-2010, 10:36 AM
I know from my work with people that many adults are totally clueless regarding their lefts and rights.

It becomes almost impossible for people to think through if they have to consider whether the OTHER driver is turning to their left or their right.

The better way to word it, is "if you need to cross other drivers lanes you must give way".
If you can turn without crossing other lanes you have the right of way.

prefect
30-09-2010, 10:52 AM
I quite often use the 2" Galv steam pipe bull bar give way rule on my service truck.

ManUFan
30-09-2010, 11:20 AM
It wont be to save lives but to reduce accidents. Dead people are not a financial burden on society.
It will be a huge change for me to adjust. My insurance should be current when the change comes in.

No - not after they are dead - but each fatal crash costs approx. $3 million!

prefect
30-09-2010, 11:34 AM
I am pretty sure they just draw these sums like 3mil out of fresh air.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't watch a lot of tv ..

What about traffic islands?
If left goes first as I understand but for those who make right turns needs to drive pass the traffic island first, will be backed up right ...

I guess it does fix the situation:
Those who want to turn left (like me) try to give way to the opposite side making a right. But the cars behind me going straight always wanna jump thru the hoop first.

Simply because the cars behind you have the right of way if they are going straight through over a car turning right in front of them. Sheesh!

What you do is you are going to turn left and you do that from a position as far to the left as practicable. You look in your rear vision mirror(s) which are the reflective bits on the interior or exterior of the car. If you see a vehicle behind you which is not signalling then it would be reasonable to suspect it is going straight through but can't be relied upon. That vehicle has the right of way over the car turning right so therefore make your left turn.

A number of people only use these mirrors to have a shave or apply makeup however.

I have seen people with the stereo on full bore, can't hear sirens, don't use rear view mirrors and are totally oblivious to the fact there is a large fire engine behind them which being painted red and has red flashing lights and flashing headlights should be rather obvious.

Miami Steve
30-09-2010, 11:46 AM
You look in your rear vision mirror(s) which are the reflective bits on the interior or exterior of the car. If you see a vehicle behind you which is not signalling then it would be reasonable to suspect it is going straight through but can't be relied upon. That vehicle has the right of way over the car turning right so therefore make your left turn.

Whereabouts do you drive, Snorkbox, that other drivers leave enough following distance for you to see their lights/indicators in your mirrors?

:devil

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 11:54 AM
Whereabouts do you drive, Snorkbox, that other drivers leave enough following distance for you to see their lights/indicators in your mirrors?

:devil

I mostly rely on the position on the road of the car behind me to be honest. If it's up my rear end it can stop if I do when turning left or it can pass. Their choice!:rolleyes:

prefect
30-09-2010, 11:56 AM
I am the first to admit It gets confusing on trips away with unfamiliar intersections and I am thinking who the **** gives way here. Hopefully the other people at the intersection are locals and know the rules for that intersection and you take a cue from from them.
I suppose it all turns to **** when two out of towners without encyclopedic memory of the NZ give ways rules met at an unfamilar intersection.
In West Auckland the drivers undergoing testing from Westgate all know what to do at each intersection because the driving instructors drive them around the testing circuit all day.
What happens when these driver go to a killer roundabout like the one at Royal Oak I dont know.
As soon as my boy when he is learning to drive gets cocky I will put him thru the Swanson road and then Royal Oak roundabout to kill his over confidence.

B.M.
30-09-2010, 11:58 AM
I think the thing to remember too is that these days we have thousands of overseas travellers who pick up a rental on an international license and head off.

As we seem to be the only country that has this silly rule, these tourists cause a lot of accidents they arenít even involved in. On the other hand, I must admit to having to remind myself constantly of the difference whilst driving in Australia.

Personally, I donít think it would hurt to have some International Convention on road rules for those that drive on the Right or Left hand side of the road. It might be asking too much to expect to get everyone to agree to drive on the same side of the road, but at least standardising the give-way rules would help along with standard international signage.

Melbourne has invented their own bit of confusion with a thing called a ďHook TurnĒ. Any Vicís out there that can explain that one for me? :D Iíve always just played it by ear and given that all other drivers in Melbourne are Indians, it really is just a matter of the survival of the fittest. It reminds me of a shipping lane where intentions to change direction were conveyed by blasts of the horn. ;)

wainuitech
30-09-2010, 12:08 PM
We got driving rules ? :xmouth: Thats a surprise around here :lol: Its take your life in your own hands sometimes.

Half the idiots dont take any notice anyway, and the rest of us idiots are trying to avoid them ;)

PaulD
30-09-2010, 12:31 PM
Melbourne has invented their own bit of confusion with a thing called a ďHook TurnĒ. Any Vicís out there that can explain that one for me? :D Iíve always just played it by ear and given that all other drivers in Melbourne are Indians, it really is just a matter of the survival of the fittest. It reminds me of a shipping lane where intentions to change direction were conveyed by blasts of the horn. ;)

There's no confusion if you want to turn right, instead of sitting in the middle of the road waiting for a chance or a tram to hit you, you approach in the left lane and stop in front of the traffic waiting at the lights. When the lights turn green you are at the head of the queue.

Terry Porritt
30-09-2010, 12:47 PM
I used to drive a bit in Europe on business in the 70s visiting machine tool firms and trying to sell to them. Germany and Switzerland were ok, just had to watch out for articulated buses/streetcars.

France and Belgium were countries to get through as quickly as possible in order to reach the sanity of Germany and Switzerland, though it was possible to understand their Gallic road rules, including priority to the right.

I never did get my head around Italian rules, if such existed, especially at those very very big multi-road intersections with traffic lights suspended on overhead wires, and where a red light seemed to mean race across.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 01:17 PM
To add to the above I may add I have had two minor accidents in my lifetime. The first was in Australia in the early 80's when I was stopped at a set of red traffic lights. Another driver behind me mounted the traffic island to get into a right turn lane and clipped the right rear of my Holden V8. He was driving a Volvo and I was under the impression that Volvos never had the right of way anyway as Holdens are superior.

The second was when I was backing up an Artic tanker to get out of the way of an A train tanker and this fence post jumped out and deliberately attacked the left front mudguard of the tractor unit. Possibly it may have been because it was a Ford Tractor unit I was driving but I doubt it very much. My fault entirely and I took the blame.

Nomad
30-09-2010, 01:21 PM
Simply because the cars behind you have the right of way if they are going straight through over a car turning right in front of them. Sheesh!

What you do is you are going to turn left and you do that from a position as far to the left as practicable. You look in your rear vision mirror(s) which are the reflective bits on the interior or exterior of the car. If you see a vehicle behind you which is not signalling then it would be reasonable to suspect it is going straight through but can't be relied upon. That vehicle has the right of way over the car turning right so therefore make your left turn.

A number of people only use these mirrors to have a shave or apply makeup however.

I have seen people with the stereo on full bore, can't hear sirens, don't use rear view mirrors and are totally oblivious to the fact there is a large fire engine behind them which being painted red and has red flashing lights and flashing headlights should be rather obvious.

Someone confirm this via the road code?

So I pull the left side but if there are cars behind me going straight, I don't have to give way to the opposite wanting to make a right turn.

I always believed if I make a left I need to give way to the car making a right.
The car behind me should never cross the centre yellow line so technically they should not be able to barge thru.

B.M.
30-09-2010, 02:40 PM
There's no confusion if you want to turn right, instead of sitting in the middle of the road waiting for a chance or a tram to hit you, you approach in the left lane and stop in front of the traffic waiting at the lights. When the lights turn green you are at the head of the queue.

Well Paul I find entering the Left Hand Lane in order to turn Right b****y confusing. :D

I shudder to think of the carnage if they introduced that one in Auckland, although, I believe I have noticed the odd Melbourne driver on the occasions Iíve plucked up enough courage to drive in Auckland. ;)

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 03:01 PM
Someone confirm this via the road code?

So I pull the left side but if there are cars behind me going straight, I don't have to give way to the opposite wanting to make a right turn.

I always believed if I make a left I need to give way to the car making a right.
The car behind me should never cross the centre yellow line so technically they should not be able to barge thru.

Agreed that vehicles should not pass on solid double yellow lines in the centre of the road at any time for any reason.

You do have to give way to the opposite traffic if they are turning right and you are turning left.

BUT if there is traffic behind you that is going straight through the right turning vehicle has to give way to them and therefore you can do your left turn if the right turning vehicle is waiting for the through traffic which they are obliged to do.

I don't know how I can explain it any better than that.

As to the road code we can more or less dump that as it is only an advisory document and is not the law as drafted together with all amendments as at the time you get pulled up by Police for an alleged infringement.

For example the road code says that all or most people in a vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times. The law, however, is somewhat different and there are exemptions. I was charged with not wearing a seatbelt a while back and decided to defend the matter. When it came to the Court case the Prosecutor said he was not ready and could not produce the evidence. I said I would agree to an adjournment but he decided to drop the charge. Why. I had an exemption under the law which I said nothing about to the officer that stopped me.

mikebartnz
30-09-2010, 03:51 PM
Simply because the cars behind you have the right of way if they are going straight through over a car turning right in front of them. Sheesh!

What you do is you are going to turn left and you do that from a position as far to the left as practicable. You look in your rear vision mirror(s) which are the reflective bits on the interior or exterior of the car. :DIf you see a vehicle behind you which is not signalling then it would be reasonable to suspect it is going straight through but can't be relied upon. That vehicle has the right of way over the car turning right so therefore make your left turn.

A number of people only use these mirrors to have a shave or apply makeup however.

I have seen people with the stereo on full bore, can't hear sirens, don't use rear view mirrors and are totally oblivious to the fact there is a large fire engine behind them which being painted red and has red flashing lights and flashing headlights should be rather obvious.
I was talking to an ambulance driver and he told me some amazingly stupid things people have done.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 04:07 PM
Try the quiz maybe.

http://www.aa.co.nz/motoring/licensingandtraining/drivertraining/learning-the-road-code/Pages/Road-Code-quiz.aspx

wratterus
30-09-2010, 04:39 PM
I'm a bit late here, I've been up the Abel Tasman for a few days. And am now having a few well deserved beers. :D

See this (http://pressf1.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?t=104930)thread. :)

I think it's great news.

PaulD
30-09-2010, 05:11 PM
I had an exemption under the law which I said nothing about to the officer that stopped me.

I wonder if there is a charge of wasting the court's time?

prefect
30-09-2010, 05:27 PM
I was talking to an ambulance driver and he told me some amazingly stupid things people have done.

Some people have died with a smile on their face when they have something done to them while driving.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 08:24 PM
I wonder if there is a charge of wasting the court's time?

If the copper had done the job he was supposed to I would not have got a ticket in the first place. Secondly you did not read the post properly as I did say the charge was withdrawn so it was not heard in court anyway. I give the Police my full name, address and date of birth and that's ALL I am required to tell them.

Greven
30-09-2010, 09:35 PM
Don't expect a complete change, on radio this morning a traffic engineer mentioned that some intersections could end up with a left turning lane with a Give Way where it made more sense to give right turning traffic a fair go :D


How will they make it obvious that you have to give way to right at these intersections, that they are not normal give ways?

This will hopefully mean people will only turn right at traffic lights. Otherwise there will be some huge queues as people wait forever to be able to turn.

PaulD
30-09-2010, 09:44 PM
If the copper had done the job he was supposed to I would not have got a ticket in the first place. Secondly you did not read the post properly as I did say the charge was withdrawn so it was not heard in court anyway. I give the Police my full name, address and date of birth and that's ALL I am required to tell them.

I don't expect the gory detail but if you have an exemption why not advise the cop at the time? Then he has the option of accepting your explanation or requiring proof of said exemption within 7 days. Your case got as far as being dropped at the last moment. Had you made any previous excuse or were you planning to whip out the get out of jail card only when you were in the dock?

PaulD
30-09-2010, 09:50 PM
How will they make it obvious that you have to give way to right at these intersections, that they are not normal give ways?

This will hopefully mean people will only turn right at traffic lights. Otherwise there will be some huge queues as people wait forever to be able to turn.

Wellington already has traffic lights by-passed by left turn filter lanes with a Give Way.

Unless some lights have a right arrow there'll still be huge queues.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 10:49 PM
I don't expect the gory detail but if you have an exemption why not advise the cop at the time? Then he has the option of accepting your explanation or requiring proof of said exemption within 7 days. Your case got as far as being dropped at the last moment. Had you made any previous excuse or were you planning to whip out the get out of jail card only when you were in the dock?

The cop was being a somewhat obnoxious person when he first pulled me over and therefore I decided to use my right to silence on the issue. I did tell him at the time that I was going to defend the matter so it was over to him to ensure he had the evidence to get a conviction.

If he had bothered to look in the back of my station wagon he would have seen 3 or 4 boxes which contained second hand books. At the time I was stopped I was delivering these to various people within the town in which I reside and at no stage did I exceed 50 KMH or if I did he did not mention it or charge me with it. You won't find it in the Road Code but if you are delivering goods and do not exceed 50 Kmh then you don't have to wear a seatbelt. It's the same exemption that covers Couriers around town but in my case I was not driving a courier van. But the law does not say you have to be driving a courier van does it?

So yes. I was going to whip out my get out of jail free card in Court as you put it.

As you may have noticed I enjoy a good debate and to be frank I was going to enjoy asking him a few questions in Court. I think the same exemption could be used for the people that deliver Meals on Wheels for example. To take it a step further it could be also used if I did the shopping once a week or fortnight for some Pensioners I know as well.

I will leave you to think about that and go find the relevant Acts and Regulations

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 11:19 PM
@ PaulD

Have a read of this:-

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303629.html

Note that you may not exceed 50 Kmh. And you charge for the service of dropping off the goodies even if only 10 cents a drop.

As always your further comment is invited.

I may add that if you don't know your rights you are going to get trampled on. And it's everyones right to be heard in Court as far as I am aware.

If the cop was to ask where was your last drop off point or your next drop off point you do not have to tell him do you? The official road code does not mention this regarding seat belts and that is why I say that the road code is not the law.

--Wolf--
30-09-2010, 11:30 PM
Couriers don't have the wear seatbelts? Whoa that's news to me.

Snorkbox
30-09-2010, 11:43 PM
Couriers don't have the wear seatbelts? Whoa that's news to me.

Couriers are not the only ones that have exemptions. If I got into a Vintage model T Ford I would not have to wear a seat belt either for example.

PaulD
01-10-2010, 06:13 AM
@ PaulD

Have a read of this:-

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303629.html

Note that you may not exceed 50 Kmh. And you charge for the service of dropping off the goodies even if only 10 cents a drop.

As always your further comment is invited.



I was aware of that. It's a shame you didn't get your day in court. It would have been interesting to see how your minimal charge stacked up as employment and the frequent interval issue. I don't see it in the same class as newspaper delivery but then I always did like watching the TV series "Misleading Cases".

Snorkbox
01-10-2010, 11:38 AM
I was aware of that. It's a shame you didn't get your day in court. It would have been interesting to see how your minimal charge stacked up as employment and the frequent interval issue. I don't see it in the same class as newspaper delivery but then I always did like watching the TV series "Misleading Cases".


I always liked that show too! My main point was to prove that the law is an ass as has often been said before by others far more qualified than I am.

Also to prove the point that if the Police don't know the law, or can't enforce it, then why should the general public have to obey poorly drafted laws.

PaulD
01-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I'm sure the reasons or the windscreen will hit you sooner or later :D

zqwerty
01-10-2010, 02:29 PM
My understanding of the expression 'the Law is an Ass" is that it is not implying that the law is stupid or idiotic but is in fact meaning that it may be able to be led to where-ever you may wish.

So in other words it can be made to follow motives to produce a desired result.