Right of way?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Right of way?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1215539 15-Jan-2015 15:50

gzt: The geekzone page composition finds Jarledb guilty of posting a long link without inlining and therefore messing up the page formatting. It finds Jaxson to be his unwitting accomplice quoting the same link. Where's Peter Reader when you need him? ; ).

Hehe, and I made it even worse posting another Google Maps link the same way. Mea culpa.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1215540 15-Jan-2015 15:53

mdooher

I'm guessing you are correct that the LT act 2004 is cannonical. In theory the road code is only providing best practice of how these rules apply in practice without being comprehensive. Ie; the LT Act 2004 is cannonical and the road code is just an interpretation of these rules for particular situations with no guarantee of being 100% comprehensive.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1215549 15-Jan-2015 16:23

gzt:
mdooher

I'm guessing you are correct that the LT act 2004 is cannonical. In theory the road code is only providing best practice of how these rules apply in practice without being comprehensive. Ie; the LT Act 2004 is cannonical and the road code is just an interpretation of these rules for particular situations with no guarantee of being 100% comprehensive.

Every driver should carry this and refer to it before making any decision :P

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html

Xile

155 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#1215552 15-Jan-2015 16:25

To start with why was the OP in the right lane? Nothing obvious in the video to show he needed to be there, in which case he is failng to keep left.
2.1 Keeping left

(1) A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.
(2)
(3) A driver may drive in the right lane in the direction of travel when driving on a multi-lane road if—
- (a) the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
- (b) the driver is passing; or
- (c) the left lane is unavailable to the driver; or
- (d) the driver is required by any provision of this rule to drive in the right lane; or
- (e) a variable lane control downward-facing arrow sign indicates that the driver must drive in the right lane; or
- (f) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
- (g) the traffic in all other lanes is congested; or
- (h) the traffic in every lane is congested.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1215556 15-Jan-2015 16:28

KiwiNZ:
gzt:
mdooher

I'm guessing you are correct that the LT act 2004 is cannonical. In theory the road code is only providing best practice of how these rules apply in practice without being comprehensive. Ie; the LT Act 2004 is cannonical and the road code is just an interpretation of these rules for particular situations with no guarantee of being 100% comprehensive.

Every driver should carry this and refer to it before making any decision :P

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html

Every driver should have at least read it :)

I really think every driver should be tested on it...but that's an argument for another time...

Matthew

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1215575 15-Jan-2015 16:40

mdooher:
KiwiNZ:
gzt:
mdooher

I'm guessing you are correct that the LT act 2004 is cannonical. In theory the road code is only providing best practice of how these rules apply in practice without being comprehensive. Ie; the LT Act 2004 is cannonical and the road code is just an interpretation of these rules for particular situations with no guarantee of being 100% comprehensive.

Every driver should carry this and refer to it before making any decision :P

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html

Every driver should have at least read it :)

I really think every driver should be tested on it...but that's an argument for another time...

They are tested, eventually with the licence test.

Seriously though I think if in depth knowledge and having to know the full ACT would bring about more accidents due to indecision and doubt.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1215606 15-Jan-2015 18:56

Just rewatched it both drivers were being ignorant, why didn't the driver videoing move left? Why were they in the right lane to begin?

Toyota needed to not speed up once it was rear of the b pilkar.

Both dicks equally.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1215614 15-Jan-2015 19:34

KiwiNZ:
jarledb: I don't think I am infallible. and I would have probably been better to move over to the left lane. BUT, there was no race here. I was coming through the turn and had to slow down before the turn to wait for the train crossing barrier that had just gone up.

I was driving on Highway 2 that was taking a left turn and I was accelerating to the speed limit in a normal way, was not in a race or trying to get before the Toyota.

My understanding of the situation was that the Toyota was coming out of the roundabout and entering into highway 2, and therfore had to yield to me. But I am starting to understand from the discussions here that its not that clear cut. Will be looking out extra carefully in these types of intersections in the future.

I will say that the intersection in question is poorly designed and some what ambiguous

You are right.

It is a bloody terrible piece of road design.

You have two lanes merging at speed with no gradual merging zone and no clear give way indicated.

That must be really bad at a busy time of day.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1215629 15-Jan-2015 19:42

JWR:
KiwiNZ:
jarledb: I don't think I am infallible. and I would have probably been better to move over to the left lane. BUT, there was no race here. I was coming through the turn and had to slow down before the turn to wait for the train crossing barrier that had just gone up.

I was driving on Highway 2 that was taking a left turn and I was accelerating to the speed limit in a normal way, was not in a race or trying to get before the Toyota.

My understanding of the situation was that the Toyota was coming out of the roundabout and entering into highway 2, and therfore had to yield to me. But I am starting to understand from the discussions here that its not that clear cut. Will be looking out extra carefully in these types of intersections in the future.

I will say that the intersection in question is poorly designed and some what ambiguous

You are right.

It is a bloody terrible piece of road design.

You have two lanes merging at speed with no gradual merging zone and no clear give way indicated.

That must be really bad at a busy time of day.

and a railway crossing to boot.

It is the only bad thing about Ahuriri though

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1215716 15-Jan-2015 22:47

dickytim:

Both dicks equally.

Today we are all dicks ;)

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1215741 16-Jan-2015 00:01

JWR:

You are right.

It is a bloody terrible piece of road design.

You have two lanes merging at speed with no gradual merging zone and no clear give way indicated.

That must be really bad at a busy time of day.

Actually, since it's technically illegal to occupy that right lane being merged into unless all the lanes are congested (read: not at speed, unless "crawling" counts as speed) or passing (read: not occupying the lane for very long) then it's all kind of academic really.

Oblivian:
The done thing in Queensland. Move right a lane if free to allow unhindered merge.

I know my approaches on the way to work, and leave merge space ahead while keeping flow speed. Then you get muppets who don't come up to the flow speed and decide its fun nearly slamming into the side of you is easier than slotting into the hole you left..

Hah! In my experience the done thing in Queensland is to accelerate as much as possible to block the attempted lane change of a nearby vehicle and honk the horn if they dare to try and get into a gap in front of or behind you.

Taxis are the worst. Nearly been totaled on the M7 by one not bothering to check for clear space at 90km/h merging in.

jarledb

Webhead
3257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1215747 16-Jan-2015 01:05

Kyanar:
Actually, since it's technically illegal to occupy that right lane being merged into unless all the lanes are congested

Interesting. Do you have a source?

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1215749 16-Jan-2015 01:19

jarledb:
Kyanar:
Actually, since it's technically illegal to occupy that right lane being merged into unless all the lanes are congested

Interesting. Do you have a source?

I think he is wrong on the 'technically' and 'illegal' part.

You should be in the left hand lane - unless its congested, you are overtaking, or you intend to turn right soonish, or other obvious reasons - like lane closed, crash etc..

Bung

6480 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1215755 16-Jan-2015 06:00

jarledb:
Kyanar:
Actually, since it's technically illegal to occupy that right lane being merged into unless all the lanes are congested

Interesting. Do you have a source?

Xile has quoted the "keep left" rule from the Legislation also linked.

No one can say from the video evidence what you may have in the left lane beside you. The camera has the same blind spot essentially as the Toyota driver would have had regarding your vehicle.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1215778 16-Jan-2015 06:50

this is how i see it. both are right and both are wrong.

the law asks both drivers to work it out. somehow they both did without hurting car or people.

think of it like cutting into a free flow traffic from a T junction during congested peak hours. if you dont cut in you will stay in the intersection for another hour.

but despite being pretty legal, i think the toyota was being discurteous. he was probably behind dashcam car (we cannot know from that angle) and sped up to overtake the dashcar by the end of the merge but failed to do so. whether he exceeded the speed limit we also won't know. but he mandated the dash car to yield to prevent a rear ending.

now the question, if the dashcam car rear ended the toyota, is the rearender always at fault?

that's all rhetorical, as i really have better things to do with my time energy and blood pressure, and i pick my battles

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6