scuwp:I am not disagreeing that on occasion a red arrow is just plain silly. But there are engineering guidelines for all manner or traffic signals including when they should (or shouldn't) be used including Give Way and Stop signs.
I'm well aware of the criteria being the Traffic Control Devices 2004. I'm saying I believe the criteria is excessively geared toward perceived safety instead of actual risk.
There is no T-junction in NZ that actually needs a GIVE WAY or STOP sign - the give way rule already covers them all. In the past, it was sometimes necessary for the purpose of traffic flow to give a vehicle turning right into a side road an opportunity to clear the road for following vehicles going straight to get past by reversing the RoW with traffic turning right from the side road - of course they almost never get that opportunity now because they give way to left turning vehicles. I had to laugh when just 2 months before the change of the give way rule they put in a GIVE WAY sign at the T-junction at the end of our street where there had previously been no sign. A total waste of time and money. With or without the sign, 2 months later, the RoW was going to be the exact same!
scuwp:As already pointed out most of these control devices cater to the lowest common denominator, and increasingly because of the complex nature of some intersections. You only need to watch what happens when the lights go out at a major city intersection...chaos!!! The average human driver cannot compute complex traffic decisions in the time-frame expected.
Yes - NZ drivers are crap. You'll find no argument whatsoever here. NZers are under-trained and taught to pass the test, not how to drive and apply learned rules. And I was born and learned to drive here.
scuwp:If you think that the difference between 100km/h and 110km/h isn't a lot then perhaps a Year 9 physics recap is needed. E = mc2
Or Ek=½mv². Yes, I'm well familiar with that but I wasn't referring to kinetic as I thought you weren't when you said..
scuwp: For example I have a right to a reasonable expectation that other motorists will be traveling at the speed limit or less...
But kinetic energy has no importance until there's a collision from bad driving anyway. On roadways with separation of opposite traffic flows why is the speed limit no higher than rural roads with nothing but a white line separating traffic travelling in opposite directions? I know it's being looked at with a view to increasing them but I'm sure it'll be a minimal increase if any.
scuwp:I am not saying things are perfect, but if everyone consistently follows the same rules and behaves as generally expected under the laws of the road then that makes others judgements much easier.
It was this thinking I thought you were expressing regarding speed. Which is why said the 10km/h difference is why I said of 110km/h and 100km/h doesn't affect anyone. In the case of exercising sound judgement regarding approaching vehicles you should never expect anything - evaluation needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. It might be a problem if you were expecting them to be travelling at 100km/h and they were instead doing 140km/h. But as I said, I drive and ride with no expectations. For example, I don't expect the road around the next corner to be clear of traffic or debris.
In the case of ignoring red arrows when on a green light, people that you must give way to are actually none the wiser for you having ignored it. So where is the harm? Where is the potential for harm? And it doesn't exist, why is there even a red arrow? I know - lowest common denominator. They really are just a menace to traffic flow. The arrows, I mean. Actually, often both.
Trusted
ID Verified
