Searching \ for '[OT]New Zealand to confuse the unconfused, but the' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=new+zealand+confuse
Search entire site for: 'New Zealand to confuse the unconfused, but the'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]New Zealand to confuse the unconfused, but the'
2012\03\23@181515 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
>  For those who come from countries that drive on the proper side of the
> road (that'd be on the left :) ), NZ tends to surprise motorists with
> the car turning right across from you has right of way over a car
> turning left into the same street - or as I've read it called 'Gutter
> hugger turning'.
>
> As of tomorrow NZ'ers will now be confused by changing the road rules
> that allow the vehicle turning left has priority over that turning
> right across it. However all the other Commonwealth and ex Commonwealth
> countries visitors (Canada the notable exception) will no longer be
> confounded or surprised unless of course they've ' gorn native ' (sic),
> in which case they'll be confusingly confused.
>
> The question is has the government left a settling in period for people
> to get used to the new rules before prosecuting people for dangerous
> maneuvering?
>
> Colin

Yeah, I was there when they changed to that rule - the reasoning was that it is correct for roads where you drive on the left, if you consider the right Hand Rule correct for roads where you drive on the right ...

So they are now reverting to what used to exist.

But it is causing up and coming new drivers to fail as they are using the new rule before it comes into effect ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794292


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2012\03\23@190821 by John Gardner

picon face
....has the government left a settling in period for people to
get used to the new rules before prosecuting people for dangerous
maneuvering?

They do stuff like that here just to shake the tree..

2012\03\23@194057 by RussellMc

face picon face
We are changing back to the logical  rule that existed about ? 20 years
ago.
Back then they meddled with no proper reason at all and we have had this
aberrant and dangerous rule ever since.
They are now restoring the staus quo but are now meddling with another rule..

International status unknown but:

At present on an uncontrolled T intersection:
NZ - left side driving: A car coming up the T shaft and turning right has
priority over a car coming from their left and turning right across their
bow ino the T.
In right side drive countries that reads:  A car coming up the T shaft and
turning left has priority over a car coming from their right  and turning
left across their bow into the T.

They are changing that so the "main road" car now has priority.

If they had not done this our rules would again have been wholly symmetric
and consistent.
Can't have that, can we?


Russel

2012\03\23@200512 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, RussellMc <spam_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Both these new rules appear to be giving the same priority as we have
in the UK. I'd argue that the T junction one is also logical and
consistent.

I have to admit, when I drove in NZ I wasn't aware of the right turn
rule which is being changed - however my first trip (of 2) was almost
20 years ago, so by the sounds of things it may not have existed then?

Chris

2012\03\23@204827 by RussellMc
face picon face
Originally the  system was highly consistent, but nobody ever actually
spelled it out.

My summary , which worked 100%, was:

1. There is a priority order
- going straight
- turning left
- turning left.

2. Within the same priority level, give way to those on your right.

'In the rare cases where all is equal "road user courtesy applies" ' was
the official line.

The changed left turn priority restores the broken old system.
The new T intersection rule breaks it again.

1+1 sensible drivers at a T can use the old rule to advantage with the cars
passing passenger side to passenger side.
The new rule requires passing driver side to driver side and must block
passage of the car coming up the T stem.



On 24 March 2012 12:05, Chris McSweeny <.....cpmcsweenyKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2012\03\23@212242 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:47 AM, RussellMc <.....apptechnzKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Within the same priority level, give way to those on your right.
>
> The changed left turn priority restores the broken old system.
> The new T intersection rule breaks it again.

So other than the T intersection, which circumstances require rule 2?

Chri

2012\03\23@232403 by RussellMc

face picon face
> So other than the T intersection, which circumstances require rule 2?

Straight-straight at right angles at cross roads  is a pretty serious case :-)
Right-Right at crossroads on two adjacent roads.
R-R at cross-roads appraoching in opposite directions.


       Russell




On 24 March 2012 13:22, Chris McSweeny <EraseMEcpmcsweenyspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:47 AM, RussellMc <apptechnzspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> > 2. Within the same priority level, give way to those on your right.
> >
> > The changed left turn priority restores the broken old system.
> > The new T intersection rule breaks it again.
>
>
> Chris
>

2012\03\24@080053 by RussellMc

face picon face
> > With petrol prices up and a booze price war imminent, what do think the
> > message is for the UK motorist ? Mixed ?
>
> Don't use alcohol in your car ??
>
> Maybe I should buy a bigger block of land and plant rape or sunflowers,
> seeing my car is a diesel ...


FWIW, while individuals may manage to produce bio fuels economically,
it's not a viable energy source as a petroleum replacement, even if
taken to its illogical maximum.

I saw an extremely disturbing study which looked at all European
countries, assessed their areas of "spare" land, their efficiency of
production of agricultural products and the amount of bio fuels you
might theoretically be able to produce if you did the maximum you
could. It wasn;t enough AND some of the assumptions would have made
Murphy's day.

Independently, there are arguments that net energy output for biofuel
production is negative when placed in total societal context. No doubt
ithers would question the assumption set

Helium 3 from the Moon* will solve all our energy needs for the next
N,000 years, not too long after we have managed to learn how to wake
that particular Geni up and then how to keep it in its bottle. Always
assuming we are around that long :-).


        Russell


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-

2012\03\26@215923 by John Gardner

picon face
The relatively intellectually honest proponents of bio-sufficiency
talk about a planetary population in the 10^8 range.

Assuming the other 5-6 billion go quietly, presumably

2012\03\27@121549 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:59 PM, John Gardner <@spam@goflo3KILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> The relatively intellectually honest proponents of bio-sufficiency
> talk about a planetary population in the 10^8 range.
>
> Assuming the other 5-6 billion go quietly, presumably.
>

2012\03\27@122633 by John Gardner

picon face
My favorite...

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_yup_i_built_a_nuclear_fusion_reactor..htm

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...