Below I have reproduced, in its entirety, the text of an AA Directions Magazine article that featured in the Summer 2008 issue. It concerns the proposed changes to New Zealand’s give way rules. Interspersed throughout the article are my responses to the points they are making.

My position on the rule change is that I am not firmly for or against either version  of the rules. Rather I am aghast at the poor arguments and reasoning given to support a change.

The article starts with the following illustrative picture and caption.

There is evidence that our give way rules are a factor in the 2,560 intersection crashes, and one or two deaths, each year.

No mention is made whether this is a major factor. That there is no qualification to this statement tends to suggest it is not major at all. It is also stated here that intersections crashes account for approximately half a percent of the road toll.

This has been known in official circles for 10 years, but all efforts – by the Minister of Transport Safety, the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Agency, Police, local government, the Institution of Professional Engineers, Cyclists Advocates Network, Living Streets Aotearoa and the AA – to change the rule have been voted down by a Cabinet concerned it would be too hard for the public to cope with.

Note for now that the AA are contesting the view of Cabinet that the public are essentially stupid

The current give way rule was introduced in 1977 and holds that a vehicle turning right takes precedence over a vehicle turning left. The rule came from Victoria, Australia originally to assist trams on Melbourne’s streets.

Note how a single rule is being addressed here. The proposal actually contains two rule changes.

But Victoria changed back in 1993 and experienced a decline in intersection crashes as a result.

Today, New Zealand is the only country in the world with this priority rule. The most obvious deficiency with the existing rule occurs when two cars travelling in opposite directions reach a T-intersection at the same time.

A little effort with pencil and paper shows that the only situation in which this rule applies is that described. The inference that other such situations exist is misleading. They don’t.

In theory, the car turning right across the oncoming stream of traffic has precedence over the car turning left with the traffic behind it.

There’s no theory involved here. It’s the rule. Precedence belongs to the right turning car always.

But the car turning right may have to first give way to oncoming traffic following behind the turning vehicle. The driver of the car turning left has to guess – will the car turning right across the traffic wait for another car coming up behind to pass through the intersection? If so, there is time to slip around the corner. Or, will the driver turning right risk crossing in front of the car approaching from behind the one signalling left? In that case, the left-turning driver must wait.

When you are driving should you rely on guesswork? No! Perhaps the driver turning left can analyse the situation and determine what is possible and allow for that.

This supposed need for ‘guessing’ the intentions of other drivers is a core skill. Many drivers do not use their indicators correctly at many intersections. And even if every human in the area is behaving impeccably, other factors may suddenly come into play and you need to be able to react quickly. You must be able to analyse the situation. I think you’ll find the experts call this defensive driving.

At this point, the driver workload is very high for all parties, so pedestrians crossing the street or cyclists on the inside of the stream of traffic are at greatest risk of being overlooked and hit.

The workload is shared. Both drivers need to be aware of their surroundings which is a good thing.

Of course, this assumes the car signalling to turn left really intends doing so. Sometimes people are signalling because they have forgotten to turn their indicator off; anyone turning right across their path will get a very nasty surprise. Police attend 40 to 50 injury crashes of this type a year.

OK, time to return to the point above where the AA were contesting Cabinet’s view that drivers are stupid. Now the AA are proving Cabinet’s point!

Surely no-one can seriously seek to base rule changes on the basis of the breaking of other rules in the same system.

Then there is the situation which always confuses: two cars at an intersection, both wishing to turn right. A good example of this is when you are exiting from the car park and want to turn right to the opposite side of the road. Then another car stops on your left signalling to turn right into the car park you’re leaving. Under the current rule, if there is no traffic proceeding across in front of you (from the right), you have right of way over the car in the street signalling a right turn. The car waiting to enter the car park must give way – to the oncoming cars, and all the cars on their right, exiting from the car park. That can be a long wait in fast-moving traffic.

First of all, this is a completely different rule to what has been discussed so far.

Other traffic, once again, does not change the rule. In fact, the current left turn give way rule can actually help the car entering the car park, reducing his wait time.

In practice, many prefer to get out of the stream of traffic coming up fast behind them by disobeying the give way rule altogether.

There are those stupid drivers again, breaking the rules today. What makes you think they’ll not break a new set of rules when it suits them? Cabinet are looking smarter all the time.

However, consider this. The new rule will simply make the right turning car give way to oncoming, turning traffic making those wait times just as bad! It merely moves the problem. It does not get rid of it. The car entering the car park is still giving way to the same number of streams of traffic.

The alternatives are both simpler and safer. With a left-turn priority, when two cars reach the T-intersection together, the car turning left only has to check for hazards on the left, and turn.

The right-turning car must give way to everyone, so the risk of making a mistake is minimal.

But drivers are stupid and will take liberties as stated above. Left turning drivers will pay less attention to their surroundings. The right turning driver will get impatient, having to now wait for everyone, and will take risks.

At the car park exit, the car exiting always gives way; the car entering merely gives way to opposing traffic. Again, it’s simpler and safer.

Here’s a thought. You could achieve the same result for the exiting car (making him wait) simply by placing a Give Way at the car park exit. What does that cost? $50 of paint and labour and everyone already knows how to behave when they get there.

Which is why the rest of the world doesn’t use our give way system, and this in itself is important. New Zealand receives 2.4 million overseas visitors per year. Two-thirds of these are Australians, Britons and Americans who are more likely to self-drive than let a coach operator show them around. This means that in summer there could be up to 100,000 tourists at any given time driving on a foreign licence following the give way rules that they learned at home.

What proportion of these are Americans? Because they’re dealing with a lot bigger differences than just these rules! They have to swap their entire world around and they have additional rules in some places back home such as a free right turn (which would be left in New Zealand) on a red light! And let’s face it, the chances of a tourist seeing a Kiwi run a red light are pretty high, aren’t they? Tourists have to be especially aware and careful. I’ve driven in the UK and in Canada. Whilst driving on the other side of the road in Canada demanded a lot of concentration, I also had issues with UK road rules, markings and driver behaviour.

A change from the right-hand turner having priority to the left-hand turner having priority would require a transitional public education campaign, but the benefit would certainly be greater than the cost.

Note they are backing to talking about only one rule change again.

I don’t see it myself. All I see is shifting the problems and potentially adding confusion for a period after the changeover.

Here ends the AA article, but let us consider a final point. Exactly what does “give way” mean?

From the New Zealand Road Code:

Giving way means that the road user you’re giving way to (whether they are a driver, cyclist, pedestrian or any other kind of road user) doesn’t need to stop, brake or slow down, swerve or take any other evasive action to avoid you.

It does not mean that the left turning car (under current rules) must wait for the right turning car. It means the left turning car must not cause the right turning driver to stop, brake, slow down, swerve or take any other evasive action. Those last two words are key. If in turning left I ‘slip around the corner’ without causing you to take any evasive action (including aborting your intended turn) then I am not breaking the give way rule.

I like to summarise the concept of ‘give way’ as ‘don’t get in the way of’. All it takes are the fundamental skills that all drivers must have to drive safely. Here is my easy guide to giving way:

1. First and foremost, know the rules.
2. If anything with right of way over you could hit you, wait. Otherwise,…
3. Go. But…
4. Be prepared to have misjudged the situation and know what you need to do to avoid collision.

Follow those rules and no collisions will occur at intersections regardless of the rules in force.

You see the real issue with New Zealand roads is driver education. But that’s for another day.