This was trimmed and toned down. Frustration was.. overwhelming. variable speed with 3 cars behind tooting as they did 25-40k and then braked for each intersection/drive and pulled over only to dinlge along again

Pulled out without checking fully at roundabout, and then the truck driver had to wave them on out of frame.

Scary to think the blue vehicle was leaving.. hate to think what could occur prior.

cadman:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

Sounds like Dunedin has caught up with Auckland's driving habits :-(

 

 

Quite the opposite...

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/9378767/Dunedin-drivers-the-worst-in-NZ

 

I knew we topped the country at something, now I know at what.

cadman:

 

As someone mentioned before - mandatory practical retesting every 10 years should be a minimum rather than simply taking a fee and checking their vision. Bad habits creep in. I would also add to that compulsory automatic driver's licence suspension for anyone that is at least partly at-fault in any accident until they are fully retested.

 

A couple of points ...

1) That would be approximately a 5 fold increase in testing requirements.  Where are the extra assessors going to come from?

2) In most accidents (not all) all parties have some fault. I base that on experience doing insurance claims for a rental car fleet.

3) Most accidents aren't reported to police.  Generally just those where people are injured or traffic control is required.  Police already investigated those and charge people if required. 

MikeAqua:

 

cadman:

 

As someone mentioned before - mandatory practical retesting every 10 years should be a minimum rather than simply taking a fee and checking their vision. Bad habits creep in. I would also add to that compulsory automatic driver's licence suspension for anyone that is at least partly at-fault in any accident until they are fully retested.

 

 

A couple of points ...

 

1) That would be approximately a 5 fold increase in testing requirements.  Where are the extra assessors going to come from?

 

2) In most accidents (not all) all parties have some fault. I base that on experience doing insurance claims for a rental car fleet.

 

3) Most accidents aren't reported to police.  Generally just those where people are injured or traffic control is required.  Police already investigated those and charge people if required. 

 

 

1.  Extra jobs.  Nothing wrong with that.  What is better?  Fix the problem, or band aid the symptoms?  The base problem is crap driving.  Having to fund some extra driving assessors is a relatively small cost compared with paying for (for hypothetical example) a teenage tetraplegic to live for a further 40+ years.  Certainly from the point of view of the example teenager, I'm sure they would prefer the accident had been prevented.

geoffwnz:

 

MikeAqua:

 

cadman:

 

As someone mentioned before - mandatory practical retesting every 10 years should be a minimum rather than simply taking a fee and checking their vision. Bad habits creep in. I would also add to that compulsory automatic driver's licence suspension for anyone that is at least partly at-fault in any accident until they are fully retested.

 

 

A couple of points ...

 

1) That would be approximately a 5 fold increase in testing requirements.  Where are the extra assessors going to come from?

 

2) In most accidents (not all) all parties have some fault. I base that on experience doing insurance claims for a rental car fleet.

 

3) Most accidents aren't reported to police.  Generally just those where people are injured or traffic control is required.  Police already investigated those and charge people if required. 

 

 

 

1.  Extra jobs.  Nothing wrong with that.  What is better?  Fix the problem, or band aid the symptoms?  The base problem is crap driving.  Having to fund some extra driving assessors is a relatively small cost compared with paying for (for hypothetical example) a teenage tetraplegic to live for a further 40+ years.  Certainly from the point of view of the example teenager, I'm sure they would prefer the accident had been prevented.

 

Extra testing etc is not the answer after all how many accidents and incidents caused by young drivers that are not long out from their last testing? Extra testing does not resolve issues like, unlicensed drivers, intoxicated drivers, drivers who believe the rules are optional for them, poor roads, aging car fleet etc etc etc.

MikeB4:

 

geoffwnz:

 

1.  Extra jobs.  Nothing wrong with that.  What is better?  Fix the problem, or band aid the symptoms?  The base problem is crap driving.  Having to fund some extra driving assessors is a relatively small cost compared with paying for (for hypothetical example) a teenage tetraplegic to live for a further 40+ years.  Certainly from the point of view of the example teenager, I'm sure they would prefer the accident had been prevented.

 

 

Extra testing etc is not the answer after all how many accidents and incidents caused by young drivers that are not long out from their last testing? Extra testing does not resolve issues like, unlicensed drivers, intoxicated drivers, drivers who believe the rules are optional for them, poor roads, aging car fleet etc etc etc.

 

Agree, it won't fix everything.  But it's certainly a rather large hole in current arrangements where people get tested once (twice?) when they first get their license then never again until they are nearing the grave.  Laws, road rules and indeed, road use changes so much in the 50+ years between the two.
Things like unlicensed drivers etc, penalties are not harsh enough.  Why do we even have recidivist drunk drivers being reported every week?  Why is it not punished sufficiently the first time such that they don't want to get caught a second time, let alone 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th times.
Policing more than just speed limits would be useful also.  Sure, excessive speed can and does cause issues, but then so does running red lights.  Someone else mentioned that the red light cameras would pretty much pay for themselves very quickly.

The hardest thing to fix though is driver attitude. 

cadman:

 

 

 

Yikes. "Totally possible"? It's compulsory! The rule is simple to remember - if turning, give way to traffic that is not turning.

 

Well that is exactly the issue. In most countries a green light means that you are free to go and all other traffic has a red.

Bung:

Can you be more specific maybe with an example?

Sure this intersection for instance

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.880636,174.7973924,3a,36y,112.13h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_UDt7xqyJ6NLw__I5qbT3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I first started driving here I've had many close calls thinking green meant I could go and the other side would wait for me.

I find this configuration pretty silly, there shouldn't be a green light if it isn't safe to go.

ScuL:

 

cadman:

 

 

 

Yikes. "Totally possible"? It's compulsory! The rule is simple to remember - if turning, give way to traffic that is not turning.

 

 

 

 

Well that is exactly the issue. In most countries a green light means that you are free to go and all other traffic has a red.

 

Bung:

Can you be more specific maybe with an example?

 

Sure this intersection for instance

 

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.880636,174.7973924,3a,36y,112.13h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_UDt7xqyJ6NLw__I5qbT3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

When I first started driving here I've had many close calls thinking green meant I could go and the other side would wait for me.

 

I find this configuration pretty silly, there shouldn't be a green light if it isn't safe to go.

 

 

 

I agree. Just as bad are the crossings designed by grade one idiots that give cars and pedestrians green lights at the same time, assuming all will be well....

If you are turning right you still have to give way if there is no green right turning arrow.

They do this at intersections that have a lot of right turning traffic because there isnt enough time in a phase of lights to get all of them through, and the removal of the red right turn arrow during the green straight though phase allows more traffic to turn right if its safe.

You would struggle in christchurch, most intersections are like that.

It makes sense especially if during one of the peak hours one direction may at times have more traffic than the other way. Its just a controlled right turn. like any other T intersection.

^^ to add to it, There is an over-rider covering these, so there shouldn't be any confusion when faced with a green and turning. Those leaving the centreline/direction of traffic must always give way. Green arrows are the extra 'its OK, I got this for you' convenience to wipe that.

MikeAqua:

 

cadman:

 

As someone mentioned before - mandatory practical retesting every 10 years should be a minimum rather than simply taking a fee and checking their vision. Bad habits creep in. I would also add to that compulsory automatic driver's licence suspension for anyone that is at least partly at-fault in any accident until they are fully retested.

 

 

A couple of points ...

 

1) That would be approximately a 5 fold increase in testing requirements.  Where are the extra assessors going to come from?

 

2) In most accidents (not all) all parties have some fault. I base that on experience doing insurance claims for a rental car fleet.

 

3) Most accidents aren't reported to police.  Generally just those where people are injured or traffic control is required.  Police already investigated those and charge people if required. 

 

 

 

1) Only initially and gradually, which could be balanced by the requirement for more bus drivers as those that shouldn't be driving are forced from the road. This would also steadily increase over the first 10 year period so the new testers could transfer to driving buses and demand changed. And where do we get most of the testers from now?

2) I'm not sure why you think that might be an issue?

3) Given insurance cover in NZ is around 97% of all vehicles IIRC, there's almost guaranteed to be a claim resulting from most crashes. So it's easy to identify those whose licences need suspending.

MikeB4:

 

geoffwnz:

 

MikeAqua:

 

cadman:

 

As someone mentioned before - mandatory practical retesting every 10 years should be a minimum rather than simply taking a fee and checking their vision. Bad habits creep in. I would also add to that compulsory automatic driver's licence suspension for anyone that is at least partly at-fault in any accident until they are fully retested.

 

 

A couple of points ...

 

1) That would be approximately a 5 fold increase in testing requirements.  Where are the extra assessors going to come from?

 

2) In most accidents (not all) all parties have some fault. I base that on experience doing insurance claims for a rental car fleet.

 

3) Most accidents aren't reported to police.  Generally just those where people are injured or traffic control is required.  Police already investigated those and charge people if required. 

 

 

 

1.  Extra jobs.  Nothing wrong with that.  What is better?  Fix the problem, or band aid the symptoms?  The base problem is crap driving.  Having to fund some extra driving assessors is a relatively small cost compared with paying for (for hypothetical example) a teenage tetraplegic to live for a further 40+ years.  Certainly from the point of view of the example teenager, I'm sure they would prefer the accident had been prevented.

 

 

Extra testing etc is not the answer after all how many accidents and incidents caused by young drivers that are not long out from their last testing? Extra testing does not resolve issues like, unlicensed drivers, intoxicated drivers, drivers who believe the rules are optional for them, poor roads, aging car fleet etc etc etc.

 

Oh it absolutely is the answer. It doesn't have to solve the problem of intoxicated drivers or unlicenced drivers. Your point about inexperienced drivers is irrelevant - inexperience is always going to be a potential problem. The 'ageing fleet' isn't even a problem. As for poor roads - drive to the conditions.

The problem is those that think themselves competent and in reality are anything but competent.

Which reminds me of something else I'd like to see: you should need a licence endorsement to be allowed to tow a light simple trailer.

Geektastic:

 

nzkiwiman:

 

Simple courtesy has disappeared from New Zealand - as soon as we get behind the wheel, everyone and everything doesn't matter

 

 

One thing I have noticed here is that it is a rare occasion indeed when anyone lets anyone else out of a side road or junction as a courtesy.

 

I used to do it religiously but now it's very much on a case-by-case basis except for not entering an intersection when I can't clear it (I often won't enter even if there is room on the other side if I judge the driver behind me to be the sort that will follow me across and block the intersection) . But often they're looking the wrong way at an empty road instead of looking for the gap I'm making an effort to provide. Even the headlight flash goes unnoticed even when they are thousand-yard-staring (I think 'looking' is perhaps an inaccurate description of what most drivers are doing). Sometimes someone else travelling the same direction as me will even use it to gain a single car length advantage.

ScuL:

 

cadman:

 

Yikes. "Totally possible"? It's compulsory! The rule is simple to remember - if turning, give way to traffic that is not turning.

 

 

Well that is exactly the issue. In most countries a green light means that you are free to go and all other traffic has a red.

 

 

 

But you are free to go... following the centreline of the road you're on. If you're going to deviate from it, you are turning so you apply the GIVE WAY rule.

Can't have it both ways. Not free to go if you still have to give way :D

Anyway, I have been here for almost 3 years now and have adapted to this strange rule, but understandably it still causes problems for people who are new to the country/visiting.