Only one EV charger at home?!...

[Rod Speed]

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it.

The road rules are online, for learner drivers who
have to pass a road rules test at the motor registry
office on a machine before actually being tested
with human tester in their own car or the driving
school car in person on real roads.

> I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)

Or someone claimed that and didnt have a clue.

> But if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

Yeah, completely stupid.

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allowscars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so,

No. But the rules do vary a bit state by state.

which catches out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that
nothing will by turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to
cross.

Most of ours do have a separate light for the pedestrians,
mainly so they dont end up half way across the road when
the lights change with clear indication that the light is for
the pedestrians with a little picture of a person that changes
color and an audible signal for blind people.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road
has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught
out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find
any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-great-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning
into the same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning
car has priority over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole of
AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even
when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian
crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the
side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to turn
left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all the
rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra crossings
and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its left.

 

[rbowman]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:04:52 +0100, NY wrote:

I;m not sure who hates cyclists more: car/lorry drivers or pedestrians.
I remember I was out for a walk with a friend on the Ridgeway Path which
is an off-road route which is open to walkers, cyclists and horse
riders. We were walking two abreast, but if I heard a cyclist coming up
behind me or saw one coming towards me, I tried to move behind my friend
so as to create a gap for the cyclist to pass. Almost every cyclist
passed as wide and slow as possible. And yet my friend started yelling
at me: \"Why are you making it easy for them? Don\'t let them come past.
They can stay behind us.\" It was a very strange bloody-minded reaction:
I saw a side to her that I\'d never seen before in the several years I\'d
known her. I could understand it if the cyclists had been riding
dangerously fast/close to us, but I didn\'t see any of that. But you get
that: groups of people who walk n-abreast across the whole width of the
track or the pavement alongside a road, and moan if anyone coming
towards then (even another pedestrian) wants to get past.

The pedestrians and bike riders get along pretty well around here. Even on
the single track for MTBs there is very little conflict. I usually hear
them coming and get out of the way.

There is one trail where I\'ve been waiting for a conflict. It leads up a
gulch with a small creek and is steep in parts so a bicyclist can get up a
good speed on the downhill run. It is also frequented by black bears.
Someday I expect to see a bear coming off the trail riding a bike.

The worst feature are what are know locally as bulb-outs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension

\"Poorly designed curb extensions can pose a hazard to cyclists, as they
force cyclists from their position at the road side (or in a roadside bike
lane) into the narrowed gap. \"

All of ours are poorly designed afaik.

They\'re still sorting out eBikes. They are banned on some of the single
track trails but so far there hasn\'t been a major problem in town. The
potential is still there.

In the summer months the police have bike patrols. It gives them a
presence at the twice weekly concerts in the park, the farmers market, and
other events that would be difficult with a car or motorcycle.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-great-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case but has been changed. And it was only one
state in AU, not the whole of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have
a vague memory of a diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T
junction rather than a crossroads.

there was also a change to tees.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any rule
that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even when
going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian crossings
which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the side that it is
indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to
*force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and therefore to give
way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which wants to go straight
ahead.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all the
rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra crossings and
not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its left.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <op.16jwl9p6byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:59:54 +1000, Ian Jackson
ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.16h9u0j4byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road
has priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I certainly hope not! However, I\'d accept proof, if supplied.

We have the road rules online.

I talk to an Australian (in Australia) every morning. When I asked him
about this rather strange rule, he was pretty vague about it, and
thought that it might sort-of exist, but no one obeys it.

If there\'s a long string of traffic following you, easing off your speed
monetarily to let someone turn right \'across your bows\' (or to pull out
from a side-road) is simply considerate driving, but it obviously has
its dangers if it\'s an enforceable law.

--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <op.16jxwashbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:



\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor
road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has
caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t
find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-gr
eat-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning
into the same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning
car has priority over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole
of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws
will only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to
ignore any rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic
lights - even when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping
at pedestrian crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a
vehicle on the side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Tell that to the cyclists of today - they won\'t believe you!

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to
turn left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its left.

--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:55:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

 

[Peeler]

On 15 Jun 2023 02:53:40 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

The pedestrians and bike riders get along pretty well around here. Even on
the single track for MTBs there is very little conflict. I usually hear
them coming and get out of the way.

There is one trail where I\'ve been waiting for a conflict.

Have you, you abnormal blabbermouth? <VBG>

<FLUSH rest of the unavoidable wordy senile crap unread again>

--
Self-admiring lowbrowwoman telling everyone yet another \"thrilling\" story
about her great life:
\"In a role reversal my mother taught her father to drive. She was in the
back seat when he took his first test, trying a little telepathy: \"release
the handbrake. release the handbrake\'. He didn\'t, stalled the engine and
failed. The next time went better.\"
MID: <kafp0uF6vi1U5@mid.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:22:48 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
\"This is just a hunch, but I\'m betting you\'re kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:05:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent\'s tall stories:
\"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem.\"
Message-ID: <h88tt7FplhkU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Tim+]

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 14/06/2023 16:53, rbowman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:54:16 +0100, NY wrote:

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even
when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian
crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the
side that it is indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark
roads so as to *force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and
therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which
wants to go straight ahead.

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations
of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual
campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

https://www.kxlh.com/news/missoula-county/missoula-in-motion-offering-
free-bike-lights

The city has created a lot of bicycle lanes as well as pedestrian/bike
trails. I\'ve gotten wimpier about riding in traffic with age so I
appreciate them. What I don\'t appreciate is people riding on sidewalks
with a perfectly good bike lane available.

The problem is when a dedicated off-road cycle track exists (eg a
pavement/sidewalk that is marked with a white line and icons for
pedestrian and bicycle) but cyclists still insist on using the road,
making it harder for faster vehicles to get past them. When I was on a
cruise that went to Amsterdam, we went on a coach tour and the guide
pointed out how many roads had a segregated cycle track alongside the
road, and she said that in the Netherlands it is the law that cyclists
must use a cycle track and not a road if a track exists. We could do
with that law here.

In the Netherlands where such dedicated tracks exist they are generally of
a much higher quality than the ones here in the UK. Cyclists will
generally use whichever route is fastest, safest or most convenient. Often
dedicated cycle paths here here are none of those. A common problem with
simple painted lanes at the side of roads is that they accumulate all the
debris and broken glass etc swept aside from the main traffic lanes.
They’ve been designed to demote cyclists to second class road users and to
keep them out of the way of cars.

A well designed and maintained cycle path is a joy to use. Sadly they’re
few and far between. We need properly designed and maintained lanes
*before* any change in the law.

Tim




--
Please don\'t feed the trolls

 

[Rod Speed]

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote

New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road
has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has caught
out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t find
any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)
But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-great-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case but has been changed. And it was only one
state in AU, not the whole of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I
have
a vague memory of a diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a
T
junction rather than a crossroads.

there was also a change to tees.

Nope, not in Australia.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will
by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws will
only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore any
rule
that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights - even when
going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at pedestrian crossings
which have people on them, not overtaking a vehicle on the side that it
is
indicating to turn). Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to
*force* a car to turn left from the right-hand lane, and therefore to
give
way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane which wants to go
straight
ahead.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all the
rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and
not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its left.

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 18:57:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
\"This is just a hunch, but I\'m betting you\'re kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

 

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:18:51 +1000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.16jxwashbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:



\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor
road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has
caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t
find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)
But
if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west.
Apparently
this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago
and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-gr
eat-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning
into the same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning
car has priority over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole
of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which
catches
out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that nothing will
by
turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws
will only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to
ignore any rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic
lights - even when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping
at pedestrian crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a
vehicle on the side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Tell that to the cyclists of today - they won\'t believe you!

Bullshit.

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to
turn left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

No different to a car doing that/

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its
left.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:00:34 +1000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.16jwl9p6byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:59:54 +1000, Ian Jackson
ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In message <op.16h9u0j4byq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:





New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic which
wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a minor road
has priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I certainly hope not! However, I\'d accept proof, if supplied.

We have the road rules online.

I talk to an Australian (in Australia) every morning. When I asked him
about this rather strange rule, he was pretty vague about it, and
thought that it might sort-of exist, but no one obeys it.

He is wrong and it is trivial to check that because the road rules
are online in all states.

If there\'s a long string of traffic following you, easing off your speed
monetarily to let someone turn right \'across your bows\' (or to pull out
from a side-road) is simply considerate driving, but it obviously has
its dangers if it\'s an enforceable law.

That isnt what is being discussed.

Read the first para again.

 

[jon]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:18:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <op.16jxwashbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:



\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic
which wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a
minor
road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has
caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t
find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)
But if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid
one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west.
Apparently this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a
long time ago and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound
has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-gr
eat-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning into the
same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning car has priority
over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole
of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which
catches out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that
nothing will by turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to
cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws
will only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore
any rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights
- even when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at
pedestrian crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a
vehicle on the side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Tell that to the cyclists of today - they won\'t believe you!

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to
turn left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its
left.

Hopefully the cyclist will see you left indicator

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <u6ev8h$de4l$3@dont-email.me>, jon <jon@nospam.cn> writes

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:18:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <op.16jxwashbyq249@pvr2.lan>, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:54:16 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:



\"Jasen Betts\" <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:u6c2jb$jdi$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org...
On 2023-06-14, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2023 02:46, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:04:14 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
New Zealand and/or Australia has a rule that oncoming traffic
which wants to turn right (your left) across your path into a
minor
road has
priority over you.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

I\'m evidently wrong. I\'m sure I\'ve read about a rule that has
caught out
drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the
opposite way round. But I\'ve just looked now and Google doesn\'t
find any
reference to it. I\'m beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-)
But if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid
one.

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car
turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west.
Apparently this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a
long time ago and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound
has priority)

Here\'s a write-up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/35-years-of-give-way-eccentricity-the-gr
eat-new-zealand-give-way-u-turn-a-decade-on/LSFRV33VDSYGQHJSJB7N6PNVOA/

Ah, so it used to be the case

No it did not. What used to be the case was BOTH cars turning into the
same side road, not what you claimed, that the turning car has priority
over the NON TURNING car.

but has been changed. And it was only one state in AU, not the whole
of AU, plus NZ. I\'m still puzzled because I have a vague memory of a
diagram showing the counter-intuitive priority at a T junction rather
than a crossroads.

Clearly an example of The Mandela Effect ;-)

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to
turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which
catches out pedestrians who aren\'t aware of this and thing that
nothing will by turning because it\'s got a red light and so start to
cross.

I\'m pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.


\"Have to\" is very different to \"will\" :-(

And I imagine, as is the case the world over, any road traffic laws
will only apply to motor vehicles, and bicycles are allowed to ignore
any rule that they find inconvenient (stopping at red traffic lights
- even when going straight ahead or turning right, stopping at
pedestrian crossings which have people on them, not overtaking a
vehicle on the side that it is indicating to turn).

Not the case in AU, bikes have the same rules as motor vehicles.

Tell that to the cyclists of today - they won\'t believe you!

Hell, here in the UK we even mark roads so as to *force* a car to
turn left from the right-hand lane,

Doesnt happen in AU.

and therefore to give way to a bike in the left-hand (bike-only) lane
which wants to go straight ahead.

Doesnt happen in AU.

Recently, UK drivers were reminded that \'going straight on\' has
priority. So if you want to turn left into a sideroad, a cyclist on your
left, who is going straight on, has priority. We must therefore
carefully check that there are no cyclists sneaking up from behind, who
are determined to commit suicide by insisting on undertaking you.

Before you think I\'m being anti-bike, I *do* cycle - but I obey all
the rules that I would if I was a car, about traffic lights, zebra
crossings and not overtaking a car that is indicating left on its
left.

Hopefully the cyclist will see you left indicator

There are occasions when you night need to be well out into the road in
order to do a sharp left turn - but usually not so far out that another
motor vehicle has room to squeeze in between you and the kerb. Even if
there WAS room, it would be a damned silly driver who ignored your left
turn indicator, and squeezed in on your left, intending to go straight
on.

However, many a cyclist. coming up from behind, will ignore the driver\'s
intention, and take the vehicle\'s position as an invitation to pass on
the left - and will obviously come to grief if the driver fails to spot
him. Despite this, the law now firmly puts the blame on the driver if an
accident occurs.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:20:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
\"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL\"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-8118292c547e@googlegroups.com>

 

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:16:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
MrTurnip@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
\"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage.\"
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 

[SteveW]

On 15/06/2023 03:53, rbowman wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:04:52 +0100, NY wrote:

I;m not sure who hates cyclists more: car/lorry drivers or pedestrians.
I remember I was out for a walk with a friend on the Ridgeway Path which
is an off-road route which is open to walkers, cyclists and horse
riders. We were walking two abreast, but if I heard a cyclist coming up
behind me or saw one coming towards me, I tried to move behind my friend
so as to create a gap for the cyclist to pass. Almost every cyclist
passed as wide and slow as possible. And yet my friend started yelling
at me: \"Why are you making it easy for them? Don\'t let them come past.
They can stay behind us.\" It was a very strange bloody-minded reaction:
I saw a side to her that I\'d never seen before in the several years I\'d
known her. I could understand it if the cyclists had been riding
dangerously fast/close to us, but I didn\'t see any of that. But you get
that: groups of people who walk n-abreast across the whole width of the
track or the pavement alongside a road, and moan if anyone coming
towards then (even another pedestrian) wants to get past.

The pedestrians and bike riders get along pretty well around here. Even on
the single track for MTBs there is very little conflict. I usually hear
them coming and get out of the way.

There is one trail where I\'ve been waiting for a conflict. It leads up a
gulch with a small creek and is steep in parts so a bicyclist can get up a
good speed on the downhill run. It is also frequented by black bears.
Someday I expect to see a bear coming off the trail riding a bike.

The worst feature are what are know locally as bulb-outs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension

\"Poorly designed curb extensions can pose a hazard to cyclists, as they
force cyclists from their position at the road side (or in a roadside bike
lane) into the narrowed gap. \"

All of ours are poorly designed afaik.

Some, but only some, of ours do have a bike lane that goes straight through.