h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We're supposed to be getting a reasonably significant road rule change in NZ (this year?). We have a right hand rule for turning*, which is apparently the opposite for the rest of the world that drives on the left. The right hand rule makes complete sense to me (intuitively and rationally), but some people don't understand it.

I've been wondering how easy it is to get drivers to change, especially those of us that have been driving for several decades. It seems like an insane thing to me, although I haven't caught up on the rationale in this case, so it would be good to know what precedents there are internationally, and what mistakes have been learned from.


(* when turning you give way to any car on your right who is also turning. Cars going straight in any direction have right of way too)

Ah kea, it doesn't seem quite as simple as you put it:

>>(* when turning you give way to any car on your right who is also turning. Cars going straight in any direction have right of way too)>>

That last sentence is the crippler.
It took me quite a while but I should have it by now.

NZ drives on the left, same as UK.
In general terms:

If I'm turning off the main road into my estate, needing to cross oncoming traffic, I have right-of-way over someone in that oncoming traffic stream, who is also turning in there.
Unless, that is, there's traffic actually overtaking him, or about to - in which case I must not interfere in its progress & the other car may go first.

And that, children is the awkwardest bit, I can see clearly any other traffic - I'm facing it. The other car is reliant on his mirrors to make a judgement - not quite so clear.


When the rule changes it may well cause problems for me and my ilk...
I never had a problem on several visits to US. My problem came on return to UK after a year in US - it was really awkward for a week or so. Changing now - changing back - might be more awkward. This rule, as it stands, was more alien to me than was changing to US rules.

Can I have a diagram please?

<>

Wouldn't that cause a stalemate at a crossroads (with through-traffic) if you were both attempting to turn right?

That doesn't seem to happen. Through traffic, passing the disputed road-end has overriding priority.
Actually, it's not so bad really. The first ten years are the worst.

<>

Agreed, but with Kea's description, those opposing the through-traffic (and both wishing to turn right) would be at logger-heads beacuse of the right-turn rule.

Not sure what you mean there DDD. The advantage of the right hand rule is that where the road is two single lanes (we don't know in Rod's case, but if he is applying the rule correctly then the oncoming traffic is in a double lane)... but in a single lane, the cars behind the car turning have to stop for the turning car that is giving way. So the turning car with RoW can cross oncoming traffic with ease. Otherwise it sits there in the middle of the road holding up all the traffic behind it.

I'll find a diagram

http://www.aa.co.nz/aadirections/driver/Pages/The-Right-Hand-Rule.aspx

*

Rod I see the AA gives your example as the reason for changing, but I don't get it. In that picture in the link, it's illegal for any car behind the red one to overtake the red one if there is traffic in the opposite lane. The AA may want to change the rule but it's because people are doing something illegal with it, not because the rule doesn't work.

http://www.aa.co.nz/motoring/aa-torque/speaking-up/safer-roads-and-vehicles/right-hand-turn/


This is funny, including a demand for an apology from the Queen for something The Telegraph printed:

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3594

Not sure what the rule is changing too though.

I'm not sure of the rights and wrongs, Kea, but your way is certainly the opposite of the way it is here in Ireland.

Apparently NZ is the only place left with this rule. I'm still curious how other places have managed when they're changed major road rules.

One country, I think it was Sweden, did a complete change of which side of the road they drove on, to get in line with other nearby countries. But it was a long time ago, when there wasn't so much traffic.

What did they do about all the cars that had the steering wheel on the wrong side? Or was it really really long ago?

I wonder if the change in NZ is because we have so many tourists. Permanent population is 4,000,000. Tourist population in any year is about 1,000,000. Many of those won't be driving, but many will (the big issue is people used to driving on the right, pulling out onto an empty road on the wrong side and then driving into traffic coming round the next bend. They now paint arrows on the road to show which side to drive on).

New Zealand adopted it from Victoria, to cope with trams. But NZ down't have trams any more, so retaining the rule doesn't make sense. As a newcomer to NZ, I've found that it's applied intermittently, not consistently, and has been the cause of some near-crashes where someone was applying it incorrectly.

It's time for NZ to join the rest of the world.

RF

Maybe, but the question was about how that's going to happen and what it's been like elsewhere whenever a rule like this has been changed. eg how long will it take for people to get used to it?

People move all round the world all the time, particularly from right-hand drive to left-hand drive countries, and they seem to adapt remarkably quickly to the new rules. In fact, whenever there's a change to something (like, say, a new Facebook? ) people initially moan and groan, then get used to it and move on. What, realistically, are the alternatives?

RF

Not so sure about that RF. I think tourists and others not understanding the road rules in a new country is a serious issue (see the example above, but one of the rationales for changing the rule here is so that furriners find it easier).

It's not like a new FB kind of change either. It's not that people find change irritating (although that's true). It's to what extent people will learn the new rule or not (or even know its existence), how difficult that will be, and the chaos that will ensue for a period of time. That's why I was curious about what had happened elsewhere.

It was Sweden that changed, in 1967. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H.

Before the change, most of the cars were foreign imports that had the steering wheel on the wrong side, so they were now on the correct side.

I've heard of changes to the way roundabouts operate in some countries as well, from "traffic coming onto roundabout has priority" to "traffic on roundabout has priority". France did this by putting up loads of signs, so that every roundabout had a give way sign at every entrance.

I heard that there was a case a while ago of a collision where the left-turner continued straight on and, in court, claimed his 'turning left' indication was just that - an indication, not an intention (and got away with it?).

To me, the nub of the thing is that NZ is unique in this sense and goes against everybody else's habit.

Mind you, as kea pointed out, on a road with two single lanes, it does make sense.

I guess I drive quite defensively (they used to teach this, don't know if they still do). If I see someone indicating I don't assume that they will actually be turning where I assume they will. Maybe they're turning into that car park just past that intersection, and have indicated for 3 seconds before they turn (which they are meant to do). So I tend to watch what the driver is doing as much as the vehicle and the road. I think alot of accidents happen because people are not paying that much attention.

Another scenario is if you come round a bend and run into a car stopped in the middle of the road, despite the person stopped being an idiot, you are still the one at fault. We're not supposed to drive round bends at a speed that is too fast to stop if something (eg a child) is on the road. But of course we all do.

The right hand rule works just as well with double lane roads If you are turning you always give way to through traffic (unless they are on a stop or give way sign). I can't see how that is different to a lefthand turning rule (which presumably is going to replace the RH one).

"We're not supposed to drive [dangerously]. But of course we all do."

I've never understood this about driving. I learned quite late - I was almost 26 before I passed my test. None of the rules seemed particularly unreasonable to me. Of course I break rules at times - I've been nicked for speeding twice. But it was a fair cop - I knew the limit, I knew how fast I was going. Can't complain.

And yet other drivers do, all the time. They do dangerous things, things that are against the rules we all sign up to when we get behind the wheel, and then complain when their rule-breaking causes problems. There are few other areas of life I can think of where criminals are not merely unrepentant, but actually indignant when caught or even criticised.

Why is this? Most of us manage to walk the streets each day and manage to do so without raping, killing, or robbing anyone. Most of us manage to go to the shops without stealing anything, and most of us are rightly condemnatory of those scum who can't manage these basic acts of civilisation.

And yet when we drive, we seem to lose all sense of civilisation. Rules become something to be complained about and ignored. People who suggest sticking to the rules are derided as "pedants" or worse. And people who proudly ignore the rules are indulged, even praised.

We don't, generally, tolerate people who can't operate in a civilised way. Quite often, we lock them up. Even when we don't, they're ostracised. Why are unrepentant, out-and-proud dangerous or just plain bad drivers not similarly lambasted?

There was a woman on Radio 4's Any Answers yesterday, bleating about the fact that whenever she drives down the motorway at 70mph, she's tailgated or flashed at by drivers behind her for going too slow. She did mention, however, that this always happened to her in the middle lane - the lane she customarily uses on the motorway. At no point did the host suggest that it was possible that the reason for her consistent harassment was not that every other driver on the road was aggressive, but rather that she was in the wrong. Bizarrely, she then said that her reaction was usually to speed up to 80mph - something she felt bad about. She felt she was being "forced to speed". The abdication of responsibility was infuriating, but not surprising, since one sees idiots of this stripe on every motorway, every day.

Then again, UK driving law bans learners from motorways, which does lead to the paradoxical situation that although almost everyone driving legally has to have passed some sort of test, hardly anybody ever gets a lesson on a motorway, much less gets tested on their understanding of how to use one. And despite this, motorways are, per mile covered, by far the safest roads to be on, even with numb dorises trundling oblivious down the middle at 68mph.