NZ | Roads + Infrastructure

[master_klon]

Too much drama around the give way rules changing, it's no problem at all.

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by master_klon

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

You'd think a decrease in intersection accidents is reason enough.

[master_klon]

Blame the intersection, or blame the incompetent driver?

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

[nealc]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

You'd think a decrease in intersection accidents is reason enough.

I don't see the numbr of incidents changing at all, it wasn't a difficult rule to work out, I learn't to drive with this rule, it's just going to confuse people for a few years, rather like when the old rule was introduced.

[nealc]

Originally Posted by master_klon

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

That's the outcome, then you'll see the public asking for it to be reintroduced.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by master_klon

Blame the intersection, or blame the incompetent driver?

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

Whys that? Your not even supposed to enter the intersection if you cant make it all the way across.

[master_klon]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

Whys that? Your not even supposed to enter the intersection if you cant make it all the way across.

Sorry, I was saying that "Why are we blaming the intersection, and not the drivers? I think its the drivers fault if they have poor judgement; they shouldn't have a license."

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by master_klon

Too much drama around the give way rules changing, it's no problem at all.

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

Having driven in both systems (Britain uses the system that NZ is changing to right now) I prefer the new rules. There is far less ambiguity and less chance for an impatient driver to pull some risky move simply because they got tired of waiting. A situation that befell me very often:

Driving down Millhouse Drive in Meadowlands. Want to turn left, car wants to turn right. I pull to the left ready to turn left but wait for the guy to turn right as the road rules used to say. Impatient moron behind me gets tired of waiting and skirts around me, frightening the driver who wants to turn right. I sit there waiting for him to turn right as the rules say. Driver turning right no longer wants to go so waves me to move, then realises he has a moment to turn and turns in front of me.

The new rules prevent this situation from occurring. They are far more clear and now rely upon drivers simply waiting for gaps rather than having to do this "should I or shouldn't I wait for that guy turning right before I turn left because he's taking forever as he's scared he's going to get cut up by that crazy guy behind me who is blowing steam out of his nose in frustration at being stopped from ploughing ahead 10kmph over the speed limit towards the next red traffic light".

[badbehaviour]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

A situation that befell me very often:

Driving down Millhouse Drive in Meadowlands. Want to turn left, car wants to turn right. I pull to the left ready to turn left but wait for the guy to turn right as the road rules used to say. Impatient moron behind me gets tired of waiting and skirts around me, frightening the driver who wants to turn right. I sit there waiting for him to turn right as the rules say. Driver turning right no longer wants to go so waves me to move, then realises he has a moment to turn and turns in front of me.

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by badbehaviour

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

I think that is the difference between "big city" and "small city". Auckland has a lot of drivers that engage in this kind of behaviour . I find that the traffic doesn't actually flow better with the right-hand rule due to the delays of "should I go or will someone cut me up" that occur with the right hand rule. It might be noted that I actually learned how to drive in NZ, not the UK so I am someone who was inside looking out when it came to driving in the UK for the first time on a trip back.

[nealc]

Originally Posted by badbehaviour

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

I've found the same issue when driving in the UK and Australia, I much prefer the rule we've just dropped, so much for progress, I don't see why we should be making allowances for old farts who never got used to the rule or immigrants who fail to adapt, it's now going to confuse all those who learnt to drive under it.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by nealc

I've found the same issue when driving in the UK and Australia, I much prefer the rule we've just dropped, so much for progress, I don't see why we should be making allowances for old farts who never got used to the rule or immigrants who fail to adapt, it's now going to confuse all those who learnt to drive under it.

I think it's a bit rich to blame "immigrants" as even those who learned to drive in NZ don't necessarily think it's the best rule. The rule is quite simple, but it is a bit frustrating and doesn't work on multi-laned roads very well at all. For single-lane roads it works very well as long as people obey it, but when they don't it can be dangerous.

The right hand rule used to exist in other countries. There is a reason they got rid of it and I think the NZ government thought the same.

[nealc]

Which other countries? And where they rhd countries like NZ?

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by nealc

Which other countries? And where they rhd countries like NZ?

Yes, Australia for one, specifically the state of Victoria. They used to have the rule until they scrapped it. I am not saying we should follow Australia on everything or everything they do is good (as it's not), however, I do think that when a country that has a very similar car culture to NZ, quite a similar urban form to NZ and a fair few cultural traits similar to those in NZ changes the law and has a lower crash rate than NZ it is worth considering. There is evidence out there published by the Automobile Association of NZ that the right hand rule does result in a good number of driver side impact crashes and so I think there is definitely merit to the suggestion. We'll just have to see how it goes!

Found some figures to back up my claim:

Originally Posted by TVNZ

New Zealand is the only country in the world to have the current right hand rule.

The existing rule came into effect in 1977. It was adopted from the Australian state of Victoria which had introduced it to assist trams on Melbourne's streets, according to the Automobile Association (AA).

But Victoria changed back in 1993 and experienced a decline in intersection crashes as a result.

The AA supported a change to the rule when it was proposed in the Safer Journeys strategy in March. It said there was evidence that the right hand give way rules are a factor in the 2,560 intersection crashes, and one or two deaths, each year.

A rule change might also help many of the thousands of New Zealanders who head overseas and jump into cars, blithely turning right at the first opportunity and wondering why they cop either abuse, or the front of the left turning car.

It is estimated changing the rules to align with other countries will reduce the social cost of accidents by about $17 million a year.

It would improve pedestrian safety at intersections, where there has been an 88% increase since 2000 in pedestrians being hit, many of them hit by a turning vehicle.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/righ...n-2012-3807731

[Dazzle]

Whoa...didn't realise we were the ONLY country that still had the right hand rule.
Obviously we tried to lead but the World did not want to follow !!!!

[KaneD]

The new rules are definitely a much needed improvement. The reasons why are pretty obvious if you consider the following point:

"When a driver makes a maneuver such as a turn or a lane change, the more directions they have to look in and the more variables they need to consider, the more risky and difficult the maneuver becomes since the brain will have to process more variables in a shorter period of time for each variable."

Rule #1

On that basis, if we look at the first of the two new rules, the rule where two opposing vehicles on the same main road are turning into the same side road. Here are the variables that each driver needs to consider:

Car Turning Right

New Rule

• Driver looks forward to see if there are any cars coming straight on, or turning left that they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there any pedestrians crossing the road they are entering.

Old Rule

• Driver looks forward to see if there are any cars coming straight on that they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there any pedestrians crossing the road they are entering.

Car Turning Left

New Rule

• Driver looks left to see if there are any pedestrians they need to give way to.

Old Rule

• Driver looks left to see if there are any pedestrians they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there are any cars turning right into the same road they are turning into
• Driver looks behind them to see if there are any cars going straight on that the car in front of them would need to give way to.

So as you can see, for the most part, the rules are pretty similar in complexity for the Right Turning car, but much simpler for the Left Turning car.

The problems under the old rule was that it was often difficult for the left turning driver to judge whether to turn or not if there was an oncoming car turning right. On wide roads, the car turning right would need to give way to an approaching car going straight on. This would allow the left turning car to turn safely without having to give way.

However it got tricky on narrower roads where the car going straight on traveling behind the left turning car would often stop and wait for the left turning car to proceed. This was sometimes necessary if there was not enough room between the left turning car and the road centerline. What would happen is a vicious circle where the Left Turning car would give way to the Right Turning car, who in turn would give way to the Straight On car, who would be waiting for the Left Turning car to go. When this happened, drivers often acted indecisively while each other was trying to gauge what the other car was going to do. If both drivers moved at the same time, collisions would often result.

Rule #2

Rule number 2 is where two right turning cars are at a T-Junction. One would be on the Main Road turning into the Side Road, and the other would be on the Side Road turning into the Main Road. The rule change specifically ONLY deals with situations where this occurred at a T-Junction where there was no Stop or Give Way sign.


Car Turning Right from the Side Road

New Rule

• They must give way to ALL traffic on the Main Road

Old Rule

• They must give way to ALL traffic on the Main Road except traffic that is turning Right coming from their Left.


Car Turning Right from the Main Road

New Rule

• They must give way to all traffic coming straight on

Old Rule

• They must give way to all traffic coming straight on
• They must give way to all traffic on their Right turning Right

So as you can see, all drivers will benefit from a less complex decision making process.

In addition, the old rule had two significant problems:

1) Cars turning right out of a side street would have right of way to right turning traffic on their left, but not traffic going straight on coming from their left. An annoying side effect of this was where a vehicle on the side road would be unable to see whether there was any traffic on the main road going straight on coming from the left because a car turning right would be obstructing their view.

2) The road code considers an intersection to be any legal road or private road or driveway where public had access to such as entrances to supermarkets, carparks, petrol stations etc. But for other "private" driveways such as your own residential property or a private business driveway, many considered that "All traffic Not on the Legal Road must give way to all traffic already on the Legal Road" was the rule. The problem here is that it is too confusing... A petrol station of a supermarket has a car park that the public can access and so their driveway entering a road is an intersection. But a small local doctors surgery in a house with 2 or 3 off street parks also has a driveway but that might not be considered an intersection, just like your own private driveway isn't considered an intersection either.

[Richard7666]

The Southland District Council's perceived support of a Haast-Hollyford toll road but blanket opposition to a private bus tunnel linking Queenstown to Milford Sound smacks of high level hypocrisy, a tunnel backer says.

Milford-Dart Ltd managing director Tom Elworthy told The Southland Times the proposed $150 million private bus tunnel, which would be built beneath Mt Aspiring National Park, would need a small area of bush cleared yet the road would require much more work.

"If we get clearance to build the tunnel we'll be cutting down four hectares of trees, but the toll road will need hundreds of hectares of trees cut, plus bridges built.

"None of the people in Te Anau who have objected to the tunnel on the basis that it would put the Unesco world heritage status of the area at risk have said a word about this 300km plus road that would destroy far more above ground terrain, and that hypocrisy is laughable and ridiculous."

The hypocrisy was exposed when the toll road's backers had a "positive" closed-door meeting with the council last month, he said.

On December 18 Southland District Mayor Frana Cardno and her councillors had their first meeting with the developers of the proposed Haast-Hollyford road, Westland District Property Ltd, and more discussions are planned.

Westland District Property chairman Durham Havill emerged from the meeting saying he was happy with its results.

"We came away with much more positive support than we expected after our plan was presented . . . ," he said.

The high level hypocrisy was evident because Milford-Dart had only one meeting with Ms Cardno in 2006, and she had made it clear she was not supportive of the tunnel, or any infrastructure development in the area, which now put her in a difficult position, Mr Elworthy said.

"She said then that she didn't want the tunnel or any roads, but since the proposal for the toll road has come along it seems she's said ‘lets talk' because the road would be good for Te Anau."

However, long-time Te Anau resident Ms Cardno said the meeting with Westland District Property took place during the last council meeting of the year, and suffered from time constraints.

"Plane flights were cancelled and there was a huge agenda at the meeting, and we had to cut the presentation by the Westland people short. We have not shown support of the project or even debated it, but further meetings will need to happen for us to get the full picture."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-tim...nnel-proponent

[cc71]

What NZ highways warrant (through their traffic volumes) being upgraded to four lane dual carriageway standard?

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by cc71

What NZ highways warrant (through their traffic volumes) being upgraded to four lane dual carriageway standard?

It depends on what traffic you consider enough to warrant 4L/dual carriageway.

In New Zealand, generally only roads with a current volume of about 20,000 VPD ever seem to get 4-laned though occasionally routes that are predicted to have a high growth level over a sustained period might get upgraded before then but it's rare. That pretty much limits such widening to the highways leading into and out of Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga, the two leading into Wellington, and very short sections in a few other urban areas - New Plymouth, Christchurch, Nelson, Whangarei etc.

In some countries, Australia for example I'm sure they try to plan for 4-laning of any road with greater than 12,000 VPD.

In Australia, almost all major new roads anywhere near a sizable city are planned to be 4-lanes minimum and have corridors designated as such, even if current traffic volumes only warrant a 2 lane road to start with. This makes it relatively easy and cost efficient to widen at a later stage when urban development requires.

Here in NZ, that is one thing that has traditionally has been done very poorly. There are numerous (relatively new) bridges, road corridors and other structures that seem to reflect very short sightedness in this regard - The Mosgiel Interchange on SH1 near Dunedin is a classic example of half-assing the job royally... The motorway terminates here and passes under the local road overpass as a 2 lane carriageway. The bridge was built in the 1990's and really should have been built to allow a future 4 lanes under it...

There are also numerous other road corridors around the country that I would almost guarantee will require 4 laning within the next 20 years - alas today, they allow development right up to the road edge....Stupid.

[Richard7666]

Once the four-laning of the Caversham section is complete, the Dunedin motorway will be four-lane all the way from Mosgiel to town.

I believe the criteria for a four-lane road in Invercargill must have been that "any right-of-way of greater breadthe than a footpathe shall have four lanes to accommodate oxen, provided it is traversed by no less than three oxen-waggons per day (excepting on the Sabbath when this number shall be two) between the hours of sunrise and sunset"