Road rules I'd like to see changed/implemented

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Road rules I'd like to see changed/implemented

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3086983 9-Jun-2023 16:23

I'm not sure if there's a specific rule for this, but I'm sure it'd come under dangerous driving - I was cycling home last night and a woman driving towards me on a very busy road was applying eyelash makeup in the flip down mirror with solid on coming traffic!

Last week, in a similar place, I was nearly wiped out in the cycle lane by a chap drifting across in preparation for a lefthand turn 100m down the road. He got close enough that I could see the phone he was playing with on the passenger seat beside him.

I wonder what tonight will bring!

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3086985 9-Jun-2023 16:31

RunningMan:

If it has been changed, it was a very long time ago - here's the 1976 version:

7. Changing direction-

(1) Except when regulation 6 hereof applies, any driver intending to turn to enter another roadway or a vehicle entrance-
(a) To the left, shall move as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway before reaching the point at which he wishes to turn, and shall keep as close as practicable to the left side of the roadway throughout his turn:
(b) To the right, shall move as far as practicable to the right without encroaching on any lanes not available to him (or, in the case of a roadway not marked in lanes, without encroaching over the middle of the roadway) before reaching the point at which he wishes to turn, and shall turn as directly as possible
to a similar position on any roadway he enters.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subclause (1) (b) of this regulation, it shall not be an offence for a driver if, in the interests of safety, he moves his vehicle as far as practicable to the left of the roadway on which he is travelling and slows or stops his vehicle in advance of the point where he intends to turn to the right until the roadway is clear of other traffic

Source

it was certainly in there in the 2000's. there was even a nz quiz night on tv and it was one of the questions. there is a change in 2007 but i can't find what was changed.

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3086987 9-Jun-2023 16:35

rogercruse:

[ve made clear that my last point '...new light could glow at a more intense colout based on speed...' was a suggestion, hence the word 'could' and not 'should'.

Clearly something to inform a following driver that you are slowing down... and / or something that informs the active cruise control of the following vehicle allowing convoys of vehicles to exchange information, etc????

its called using your eyes. if you cannot tell a vehicle is slowing down or speeding up you should not ever be driving.

tweake

2391 posts

Uber Geek

#3086991 9-Jun-2023 16:43

well just to stir things up a bit here, how about getting rid of the impeding traffic flow rules ?

most places now have so much traffic its not really a real thing anymore. also as its not a defined rule its wide open to interpretation and abuse. also open to big differences in expectation. getting rid of it puts an end to the old feral "your going 1 km slower than me, your holding me up and thats illegal so get out of my way" nonsense. downside of course is how do you deal with those who stop in the middle of the motorway to meditate?

please discus.

Senecio

2710 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3086996 9-Jun-2023 17:04

MikeB4:

I would like to see the fines for parking in mobility parks without permit and parking across the footpath raised to $500 and enforced tow away

Rather than increasing the fine we should break one of their legs. Lets see how they like parking down the back of the parking lot when their mobility is compromised.

dukester

475 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3088014 9-Jun-2023 19:22

mudguard: Yeah that's what I wondered. You'd have people approaching from either side and then you don't know if you can go until the carry on straight, or they turn across in front of you.

When you approach a roundabout, you know that unless a vehicle going around is not indicating, it will pass in front of you. If it’s indicating it will exit before you. To my observation it works because everyone seems to follow the rule. In NZ, half the people follow the roundabout rule, the other half don’t so you never know what someone who isn’t tindicating is up to as they are likely to exit the roundabout with no signal.

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#3088018 9-Jun-2023 19:40

dukester: [snip] In NZ, half the people follow the roundabout rule,

That's a pretty generous estimate.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1049 posts

Uber Geek

#3088067 9-Jun-2023 21:46

MikeB4:

I would like to see the fines for parking in mobility parks without permit and parking across the footpath raised to $500 and enforced tow away

I'd go the other way, and scrap the rule (parking on the footpath) altogether...

Sure, where there is space to safely park on the road, and not the footpath, those that park on the footpath are douchebags.

However, in those streets where it's either too narrow, bus route, then I get parking on the footpath. If it means protecting what could be possibly be some peoples most valuable asset, do it. Having it towed, damaged, or worse still, written off, would you really want to do that\subject someone to that?

Can't be having 1 rule in 1 area and one in another.

Scott3

3963 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3088070 9-Jun-2023 21:58

tweake:

a lot of that is simply not practical. NZ has an old fleet, it has a lot of rural users who use offroad vehicles. people simply could not afford to upgrade.

even something a simple as changing to 50mm tow ball would be horrendously expensive because 50mm are rare here. it would mean most trailers would need new hitches as well as most vehicles need new tow ball. you might as well go up to the USA sizes and be able to use their cheap mass produced trailer hitches.

you can drive 6000kg vehicle on a car license, ev or not. over 3500kg requires COF and weight is weight. ev makes no difference from a safety standpoint.

On the tow-balls, 50mm while not as common as 1 7/8th, is not rare by any means. And the cost of a new ball ($25 from supercheap auto) is hardly onerous... For Trailer couplings, many larger trailers already have duel fit couplings, but again the cost is hardly onerous ($60 for a trojan T993963 from marine deals).

Should note that while a minority, a decent chunk of the fleet is allready on 50mm. Any car with a euro style towbar, any euro caravan, most towball mount bike carriers etc.

Yes it would be a one off cost, but I think is well worth saving the ongoing cost of supporting two near identical (but incompatible) tow ball sizes. And of course the safety advantages of eliminating the risk of having a 50mm coupler fitted to a 1 7/8ths ball (if the ball is worn they can come apart).

-----------

The majority of my suggestions are free (other than the cost of the law change). Some like changing the FBT exemption so it only covers single row (single cab) utes would be revenue positive).

Some of the bigger cost ones are below:

Change the law from allowing vehicles to emit viable smoke for no more than 10 seconds to not allow the emission of viable smoke (10 year grandfather period). - A lot of vehicles that belch smoke either need repair, or have been modified causing this situation. These vehicles can be fixed, yes this comes at a cost, but I feel it is worth it in benefits to the health of New Zealanders. Some vehicles were built such that they emit a puff of smoke on acceleration, these are unlikely to be able to be fixed, but I don't think we should be allowing smoke belching in perpetuity, hence the 10 year grandfather clause:
Emissions sniffer test. Would add a small cost (perhaps at 3 years old, and every 2 years after that, to have the test done). Not a big deal in my mind. A small number of vehicles would fail and need to have their engines fixed (or modifications reversed), I feel the cost of this is again worth it for our air quality.
Require immobilizer on fresh imports. Pritty much all NZ new cars get this allready, and a decent chunk of used imports. For the used imports that don't it's about a $400 retrofit. Social harm caused by the combination of criminals and easy to steal car's is high, so I feel the cost is justified.
Cargo van bulkheads at first registration. Yes, will add a cost, but big safety gains.
Truck side / rear underun protection. Again I think it is worth the cost.
DRL's or allways on headlights on new car's - Most have this allready, and it is a fairly minor wiring (or software) change to add this ability in the factory, most will have it allready engineered for markets that allready require this.

---------

On increasing the light EV limit from 3,500kg to 4,250kg. You are correct on licencing, however I want EV's up to 4250kg to be able to run on a WOF and the full speed limit.

The threshold is arbitrary anyway, and I just want to favor EV's a little, as basically without this larger electric cargo van's are going to struggle to be viable as their payload will be eaten into by the battery pack.

Wellingtondave

156 posts

Master Geek

#3088079 9-Jun-2023 23:19

Mehrts:

Being able to cross traffic light controlled intersections if there's no other traffic.

E.g. 3am in the morning stuck at a red light for what feels like an eternity when there's zero people around is a little frustrating.

How about they, the RCA, stop being crap and change the timing / use the sensors as they could be? Law change / enforcement not required.

Scott3

3963 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3088082 9-Jun-2023 23:33

Wellingtondave:

Mehrts:

Being able to cross traffic light controlled intersections if there's no other traffic.

E.g. 3am in the morning stuck at a red light for what feels like an eternity when there's zero people around is a little frustrating.

How about they, the RCA, stop being crap and change the timing / use the sensors as they could be? Law change / enforcement not required.

Usually in the small hours of the morning, the wait times are short due to a combination of short cycling or sensors.

Still, it seems so pointless sitting at each red light for 20+ seconds, with no opposing traffic flow. overseas in some locations flashing amber is used late at night, so drivers can follow the give way rules, avoiding the pointless delay.

fe31nz

1228 posts

Uber Geek

#3088137 10-Jun-2023 01:30

Mehrts:

Being able to cross traffic light controlled intersections if there's no other traffic.

E.g. 3am in the morning stuck at a red light for what feels like an eternity when there's zero people around is a little frustrating.

That is a traffic light fault - usually a faulty sensor so it does not know your car is there and will never change to your phase until someone else triggers a different sensor that makes it change to your phase. Log a fault with the relevant authority. Crossing an intersection that is on red is not safe at any time, as you can often not see what the lights are showing for the other phases. One of the other phases is likely to be green and you can not actually see that. Any vehicle that does see a green is not likely to see you crossing your red in time, and will also likely be moving fast as it will have seen the green from some distance away. So that is a recipe for a fairly high speed t-bone crash. DO NOT EVER RUN A RED LIGHT! If the lights wanted you to be making your own decisions, they would be showing flashing amber on all lights and the right hand rule would apply.

The usual traffic light sensors are RF aerial loops cut down into road that are tuned to a resonant frequency. When something is near the loop or enters the loop, the frequency changes and the detector on the sensor will see the change and change it output to "detection" instead of "empty". The detectors are designed so they mostly fail by sending "detection" continuously, but it is possible (though rare) to get a detector to put out "empty" all the time. The design and placement of the loops is something that needs someone experienced doing it. You can get loops that are not sensitive enough to see bicycles, for example, if the detector settings are wrong or the loop does not have enough turns or the wrong wire, or is cut too deep. And lots of them will see trucks with high beds as multiple vehicles (they will detect each axle as a vehicle). The loops degrade with age - as vehicles pass over them, the road surface deforms a little with the weight and that squashes or moves the loop wires slightly, so eventually they can break. Which may not prevent them from carrying the RF signal if it is a high enough frequency and the break is small, but will degrade detection performance. So they do need to be checked and replaced after a few years.

There are several different uses for the detectors. There are usually stop line "presence" detectors, that tell if a vehicle is over or near them. These need to be set up so that they will not detect a vehicle in the next lane. Further back from the intersection there may be "dynamic" detectors whose job is to do a rough count of the vehicles crossing them, so the lights can calculate how long to stay green to clear all the waiting traffic. The dynamic detectors can also detect arriving traffic and extend the green to allow that traffic through before changing to the next phase. A typical setup for a green phase will have a fixed minimum green time (a safety time), a variable minimum green time calculated from the dynamic detector count, and a maximum time beyond which it will not extend the green for newly arriving traffic. Depending on the layout of the lanes and where the loops are placed, a call for the lights to be changed to a phase can be done from the dynamic detectors, so that potentially the lights can already be green when the vehicle arrives at the stop line. Not all lights are set up this way. The presence detectors at the stop line will always be set up to call the phase, but if you are one of the idiots who rolls forwards over the stop line in order to get away faster when it goes green, you will often find that you have rolled far enough off the loop so it can not see you any more and will cancel the call for the phase - so the lights will never go green for you until you reverse onto the loop again or some other vehicle calls the phase.

When a sensor fails in "detected" mode and it is a sensor that call that phase, there will be a continuous call for that phase, so the lights will be applying their maximum green times on the other phases and going back to the phase with the faulty sensor all the time, and staying there for the maximum green time. That can mean a very long wait in the middle of the night with no other traffic around if the faulty detector is on a different phase from the one you want to go green. You should also report this sort of fault.

When there is no call for another phase, the lights may be programmed so that the maximum green time is not applied, and that phase will remain green until a call for another phase occurs. Then, since the maximum green time has already been exceeded, the lights will immediately start changing to the called phase. Phases where there is no call that normally happen between the running phase and the called phase can be optionally skipped, but in some cases there may be a reason why they will not be skipped and you will see the lights do other phases with no traffic before going green for the calling vehicle.

Another option for programming lights is "dwell red" where if there is no call for any phase all the lights will go red and the first phase to get a call will go green as soon as the call arrives (as long as the minimum red time has expired). This is what you want for middle of the night intersections where the traffic is going to arrive randomly from any direction, as it means that the lights can go green as soon as a vehicle crosses the dynamic detector and you may not even need to slow down if the dynamic detector is far enough back from the stop line. Unfortunately, use of dwell red seems to be rare these days, and a lot of lights in the middle of the night are set to a mode where one phase is given a phantom call if there is no traffic so the lights will always go back to that phase and they are set to stay on that phase until there is a call for another phase. Lights should only be using that mode if the default phase is a main road where there is a decent amount of traffic even in the middle of the night, and the other phases are rarely needed at that time. So if you frequently encounter traffic lights that really should be using dwell red in the middle of the night, ask the local council nicely to please do that.

The settings for lights normally change with the time of day (and date) so that on work days at peak hours different settings will be used from off peak times and different settings again for the very low traffic at night.

All of the above can also be modified by "area control" where a central control computer can send coordinating signals to lights in that area (often an entire city) to get the best traffic flows across the area. Area control can significantly increase the amount of traffic that can flow through the lights - it can actually double the amount of traffic it takes to eventually cause grid lock. But sometimes you will see lights do some strange things when the area control turns on and takes over from local control. It is not uncommon for you to see a phase that has just gone amber go to red and then straight back to green again. Good area control will often let an entire "platoon" of vehicles get greens from several lights in a row so they all flow through them together.

Senecio

2710 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3088145 10-Jun-2023 06:38

WyleECoyoteNZ:

However, in those streets where it's either too narrow, bus route, then I get parking on the footpath....

So pedestrians need to enter the road to go around the car parked on the footpath?

RunningMan

8953 posts

Uber Geek

#3088147 10-Jun-2023 07:21

WyleECoyoteNZ:

I'd go the other way, and scrap the rule (parking on the footpath) altogether...

I hope for your sake that you never have mobility issues or children, both of which can make it difficult, dangerous and frightening, if not actually impossible to get to where you need to go when the footpath is obstructed.

It's a rule there to help the most physically vulnerable people in our society by, but benefits every pedestrian by giving a safe environment to walk in. It's a lot more than just a courtesy thing - it can cause some people to be totally barricaded in a a street and unable to get out.

alasta

6701 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3088158 10-Jun-2023 08:56

WyleECoyoteNZ:

However, in those streets where it's either too narrow, bus route, then I get parking on the footpath. If it means protecting what could be possibly be some peoples most valuable asset, do it. Having it towed, damaged, or worse still, written off, would you really want to do that\subject someone to that?

Ummm...you do realise that there is this thing call pedestrians, right?

I would like to see Wellington City Council doing proactive enforcement of footpath parking in the suburbs. I am sick of having to phone them to report offending vehicles, and when the enforcement officer arrives several hours later the vehicle is long gone.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9