Still in dark on right-turn rule

The Government is looking at scrapping New Zealand's contentious right-turn rule, introduced in 1977. Here is a sample of emails about the rule that have appeared in the Good Oil column over the years. There is a common thread: confusion.

David: It "was introduced because it is a logical rule that speeds traffic through an intersection. The logic is simple. Left-turning traffic has more opportunities to turn safely than right-turning traffic. If the right-turning vehicle has the chance to turn, it should do so first and the left-turning vehicle should wait for the next opportunity. It is, in fact, similar in concept to 'left turn on red,' which is common around the world. The vehicle turning left at a red light has to give way to all other traffic, unless the way is clear."

The Good Oil: Not quite, David. Putting aside the obvious differences between left- and right-hand-drive countries ... Turning left on red is pretty much only allowed when you are turning into a one-way street. Turning right on red, however, has been legal in most US western states for more than 50 years. Some eastern states adopted the rule in the early 1970s to save fuel. In Canada, you can turn right on a red, but only after coming to a stop. In the European Union, it is illegal to turn on red unless a road sign says otherwise.

Erin: "To encourage vehicles to turn across the path of moving traffic is not improving traffic flow, but increasing the risk of being hit by another vehicle. Invariably, it is the left-turning vehicles who end up impeding traffic flow. Consider this: to turn left in NZ you must A) see if someone is likely to cross your path from the right, B) take your eyes off the traffic ahead and check the mirror for through traffic from behind, C) assess whether the through traffic can or will continue past you, D) assess if the person turning right will actually follow the rule ... and that all depends on whether or not an indicator has been used in the first place."

Mike: "David has simply repeated the original theory used to support the current rule when it was implemented some 30-odd years ago. The problem has always been traffic following the yielding left-turning car, but intending to go straight ahead. There is no supplementary rule to enforce those following cars to wait behind the left-turner, and they invariably pass the stationary car - sometimes by crossing the centre line and making the situation unsafe and unclear for the opposing right-turning car. What I do to minimise this is to indicate my left turn, but I do not move to the left side of the road/lane, obliging following cars to wait for me to turn rather than pass me."

Steve: "I hope Mike is joking as regards his blocking of following traffic when he is turning left at an intersection. Traffic following the yielding left-turning car but intending to go straight ahead isn't the problem; as the rule implies, they have the right of way. Therefore no "supplementary" rule is necessary, as none was intended. What was intended was that traffic should flow safer and easier at intersections. The problem is threefold: firstly, people don't know/understand the full content of the rule; secondly, the roads are generally not wide enough for straight-through traffic to pass through easily; and it's a law unique to this country. Result: indecision and confusion. Perhaps another problem has emerged; people like Mike who negate the intent of the rule by deliberately obstructing traffic."