Land Transport (Road User) Amendment [2011] Rule 61001/6 The Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule The government has agreed to change the give-way rules in order to improve road safety at intersections. Other proposed changes are a consequence of changing the give-way rules, or are required to align road user requirements with changes to the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 or to strengthen or clarify existing road user requirements. The change to the give-way rules was identified as a road safety priority in the government s road safety strategy, Safer Journeys New Zealand s Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020 (Safer Journeys). Public and stakeholder submissions during the development of the strategy strongly supported a change to the rules. Cabinet agreed to the changes in September 2010 and this amendment Rule gives effect to that decision. It is estimated that changing the give-way rules will reduce relevant intersection crashes by 7 percent and will save one life, 13 serious injuries and 84 minor injuries per year. Public consultation The yellow draft of the amendment Rule was released for public consultation on 17 May 2011, and consultation concluded on 24 June 2011. In total, 134 submissions were received from members of the public, stakeholders and industry. Twelve proposals were included in the draft amendment rule. Some submitters took the opportunity to put forward their thoughts and concerns relating to other areas of the Road User Rule not covered by proposals in the amendment rule. Some submitters also took the opportunity to comment on other unrelated areas of land transport not covered by the Road User Rule. These comments have not been addressed in this paper.
Purpose of this paper This paper has been prepared by the Ministry of Transport, following public consultation. It summarises the analysis of the submissions received on the proposals included in the amendment rule, and identifies any recommended changes to the draft amendment rule. People who submitted in their capacity as private citizens will be referred to by their allocated submission number only. Submitters on behalf of organisations will be identified by the name of the organisation. Analysis of submissions, by proposal Proposal 1: It is proposed to amend the Rule to require a driver when turning right at an intersection to give way to all oncoming traffic travelling straight ahead or turning left, unless a traffic sign or traffic signal requires the driver to stop or give way. One hundred-twenty four submitters commented on proposal 1. Ninety submitters indicated support for the proposal and while 27 submitters disagreed with the proposal. Seven other submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. Submitters identified a range of concerns with the proposal. All six Road Controlling Authorities and industry groups who submitted, supported the proposed changes to the give-way rules. Numerous submitters including the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons NZ Trauma Committee, the Southern District Health Board, Local Government NZ (LGNZ), road controlling authorities (RCAs), the Federation of Motoring Clubs Inc, Cycle Action Auckland, the Bus and Coach Association (BCA) and the Automobile Association (AA) all expressed concern that enough lead-in time needs to be given to local authorities and a comprehensive education campaign needs to be conducted. In particular, LGNZ and RCAs were concerned that little attention appears to have been given to implementation and that the costs imposed on local authorities are likely to be higher than anticipated. They commented that they would be seeking assistance from central government and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) to ensure implementation issues can be managed and local authorities are given sufficient financial resources to manage local education campaigns before the proposed changes come into force on 1 April 2012. Some submitters who supported the proposal commented that it should come sooner than the planned 1 April 2012 date. 14 submitters expressed concern that the change to the give-way rule will result in a higher safety risk for vehicles turning right at an intersection as traffic will build up in the centre of the road, thereby increasing the risk of head on crashes as well as increasing congestion. Other submitters, including Traffic Institute of New Zealand (Trafinz) and the Road Transport Forum
(RTF) expressed concern about the potential increase in crashes in the short period following the introduction of the amendment Rule. The RTF was also concerned that the change to the give-way rule would increase the risk to motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians being struck by vehicles turning left at intersections. The RTF felt that cars and truck drivers may unwittingly cross the path of cyclists and motorcyclists that venture up the left hand side of their vehicles. A number of submitters felt that aligning New Zealand s give-way rules with overseas jurisdictions was not a good enough reason to the change the rules. Some submitters commented on a number of overseas jurisdictions road rules and suggested similar changes in New Zealand. One of the main suggestions was in relation to a road rule in the United States where a driver who is approaching a red light, and there is no other road users around, is allowed to turn left. The Federation of Motoring Clubs Inc suggested that a vehicle turning right into a single lane driveway will have no room to pass a vehicle that may be exiting a single lane driveway. Other submitters, including Public Health Southland and Living Streets Aotearoa, also made suggestions that New Zealand should make it compulsory that drivers turning at any intersection (except a round-about) must give way to any pedestrians and/or cyclists crossing the road they are entering. Nine submitters believed that the changes would complicate the road rules unnecessarily and create more confusion. The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind was concerned that the proposed changes would not be communicated in appropriate formats to people with vision impairments. They offered to assist the NZTA in the preparation of these. The government has agreed that the change to the give-way rule will come into force on 1 April. This will allow sufficient time for an extensive education and publicity campaign to be carried out, and for RCAs to identify locations in their network that may be affected and need to be monitored. In deciding on this date, the government has been mindful that this is a significant change that will affect all drivers, and that the timing of the change needed to take into account high traffic periods such as the Rugby World Cup and Christmas holidays. The NZTA is developing an advanced communications plan in order to mitigate any confusion that may arise when the changes are implemented. The NZTA believes that the costs to local authorities will be small and most intersections will not require immediate change. NZTA intends to work with
RCAs to ensure consistent management of issues prior to implementation on 1 April 2011. Additionally, the education campaign will continue to run for a short period after the changes take affect to reinforce the requirement to motorists and minimise the risk of confusion on the roads. In response to the concern that the change to the give-way rule will result in a higher safety risk for vehicles turning right at an intersection, we disagree and believe that the changes will increase the safety benefits. The changes are estimated to reduce intersection crashes by seven percent and save one life, 13 serious injuries and 84 minor injuries per year. Additionally, right turning vehicles are usually impeded more by straight through traffic than opposing left turning vehicles. The proposed change to the rule will not affect that. The RTF was concerned that the changes will increase the risk of accidents for motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians being struck by vehicles turning left at intersections. We believe that if cyclists and motorcyclists comply with their legal responsibilities (to make the authorised movement from an appropriate lane and not to overtake moving traffic on the left if in the same lane) there will not be any increase in risk. Furthermore, if left turning traffic is not required to give way to right turning traffic, drivers will be able to concentrate on where they are going and have a better chance of avoiding any cyclists or motorcyclists. We agree with those submitters that stated that aligning New Zealand s giveway rules with overseas jurisdictions was not a strong enough reason to change our laws. However, as the main reason for this change is to improve road safety at intersections, aligning with international laws is an additional benefit. Comments from submitters about introducing road rules from overseas jurisdictions are outside the scope of this amendment Rule. They have previously been rejected because they create an unacceptable risk for pedestrians crossing with the signals. In response to the Federation of Motoring Clubs Inc concern about single lane driveways, we do not consider problems at single lane driveways will be exacerbated by the rule changes. Single lane driveways are generally low volume and if two right turning vehicles meet, general requirements to drive with due care for other road users dictate that the exiting vehicle will have to move before the entering vehicle can proceed, regardless of who is theoretically bound to give way. Living Streets Aotearoa and Public Health Southland made suggestions that the amendment Rule should make it compulsory for drivers to give way to pedestrians at intersections (with the exception of round-abouts). Drivers are already currently required to give way to pedestrians crossing with the green signal at intersections. Drivers entering or leaving a driveway are also currently required to give way to pedestrians on a footpath.
The NZTA is happy to take up the offer from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to assist in preparing information for partially sighted people. Proposal 2: It is proposed to amend the Rule to require all traffic from a terminating road at an uncontrolled intersection to give way to all traffic travelling on a continuing road. Eighty-three submitters commented on this proposal. Seventy-one submitters indicated support for the proposal, nine submitters disagreed with the proposal and three submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. Numerous submitters made the comment that the current Rule is not well known or obeyed by most drivers so the change was welcomed though it would have little effect. As in Proposal 1, some submitters were concerned that there would not be enough lead-in time before the change occurs and that an extensive education campaign needed to be carried out before the change takes effect. Submitter Y005 supported the proposal but suggested that it may be easier to erect Give Way signs at all of these intersections to make it absolutely clear. Other submitters, including the AA, expressed concern that this proposal would also involve removing give-way signs from these intersections. GHD supported the proposal but made the comment that changes may also need to be made to marking of roads when a continuing road is not obvious (eg. Y intersection). A number of submitters felt that if it was important for main road traffic to have right of way, then local authorities should make the intersection controlled. As with Proposal 1, the NZTA will conduct an extensive national communication and publicity campaign to inform the public of the new giveway requirements prior to implementation on 1 April 2011. This campaign will also run for a short period after the changes take affect to reinforce the requirement for motorists. For low volume intersections, it is difficult to justify the cost of installing and maintaining signs and markings. RCAs currently review the need for installing Give Way or Stop signs on a case by case basis and will continue to do so. Additionally, there is no intention to remove Give Way or Stop signs that already exist. RCAs are in the best position to determine this need and they must retain the ability to make such decisions.
We agree with GHD s suggestions and, as stated above, RCAs will need to be monitoring key intersections to determine which intersections will require adjustment. We disagree with submitters who believe all T-intersections should be controlled. The cost of installing a stop or give-way sign at every uncontrolled intersection could not be justified. We believe that this proposal will be clearer to follow in situations where controls are not present. Proposal 3: It is proposed to allow riders of motorcycles, moped and cycles using a bus lane that is controlled by a B (bus) signal to proceed on a white B signal. Riders of those vehicles would be required to comply with a yellow or red B signal. Forty-seven submitters commented on proposal 3. Thirty-eight submitters indicated support for the proposal and seven submitters disagreed with the proposal. Two submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. The majority of submitters supported this proposal and agreed that it would increase the traffic flow and was a logical suggestion. Of the few submitters who disagreed with this proposal, the main concerns raised were that bus lanes should only be for buses and that it will create other obstacles for bus drivers. Motorcyclists, mopeds and cyclists are already allowed to use bus lanes. This rule is not proposing to change this, but instead to clarify that these forms of transport may proceed when a B signal is displayed. Whilst the main purpose of bus lanes is to provide priority for public transport, the use of these lanes by cyclists, mopeds and motorcycles does not appear to cause any major risks or loss of efficiency, except where B signals might be used. These B signals may be made ineffective due to the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists, and mopeds which are currently not permitted to move when a B signal is displayed. RCAs have the power to exclude these vehicles from using bus lanes by by-law if they so choose.
Proposal 4: It is proposed to require drivers to limit their speed to 20 km/h when passing a stationary school bus on which a school bus sign with flashing lights is activated. Sixty submitters commented on proposal 4. Forty submitters indicated support for the proposal and eleven submitters disagreed with the proposal. Nine submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. Many submitters seemed to misunderstand the proposed change and commented on the 20 km/h speed limit that currently exists when passing a stationary school bus. These submitters felt that in rural areas this was an unrealistic speed to slow down to. Additionally, a number of submitters, including NZ Police, suggested buses be marked with a 20km/h sign, in order to alert drivers to the speed they should be travelling when passing a stationary school bus. Submitter Y019 highlighted that the objective of the proposal does not match the wording as the wording applies to a moving school bus where the driver has not turned off his lights. The proposed rule change is not addressing the existing 20km/h speed limit required when a driver is passing a stationary school bus with children embarking or disembarking. Instead, the proposed rule change is extending the situations when this must occur to also include school buses that are fitted with flashing lights. Enforcement of current rules is problematic as the police are required to demonstrate a number of variables before a prosecution can proceed with certainty. The proposed change should assist them in those situations where flashing light school bus signs are used. In response to submitters suggestions about a 20km/h sign being erected on school buses, this idea is currently being assessed in a trial under the auspices of the Traffic Control Devices Steering Committee. The results of that trial and possible options will be considered in the future.
Proposal 5: It is proposed to add a new pay-parking symbol ( P$ ) into the Rule. This symbol means that parking is permitted subject to payment of a fee. Twenty-six submitters commented on proposal 5. Nineteen submitters indicated support for the proposal, five submitters disagreed with the proposal and two submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asking questions about the proposal. Five submitters believed the proposal was unnecessary and a waste of money when adequate signage is already in place. One submitter supported it but did not want the proposed signage to be compulsory. The proposed parking sign ( P$ ) will not be mandatory. The P$ sign has been tested and found to have a high level of driver comprehension. It is expected to ensure that the message can be more easily read and seen by affected drivers. Proposal 6: It is proposed to replace the term taxi with small passenger service vehicle in subclauses 6.20(3) and 8.6(c) of the Rule. Twenty submitters commented on proposal 6 with 10 submitters indicating support for the proposal and nine submitters disagreeing with the proposal. One submitter made a comment (but neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal). Of the submitters who did not support the proposal, a common comment was that the proposal was a waste of time and expense and that the use of the word taxi is recognised world wide. It is not proposed to change the name of a taxi. This proposal is intended to include taxi within the definition of small passenger service vehicle and will provide further clarity by aligning the definition with other rules.
Proposal 7: It is proposed to place a time limit on a medical certificate that allows a vehicle s occupants to be excluded from being restrained by a seatbelt or child restraint while travelling in the vehicle. Twenty-eight submitters commented on proposal 7 with 22 submitters indicating support for the proposal and two submitters disagreeing with the proposal. Four submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. The main concerns raised by submitters were that the proposal should differentiate between temporary and permanent medical conditions and that permanent ones should not be subject to a two year time limit. Some submitters, including the Paediatric Society of NZ, Starship Trauma Service and Safekids New Zealand, made suggestions that the medical certificate for children should be limited to six months as it would be more applicable to children s growth. We agree with the comments that two years may be a short amount of time for ongoing or permanent conditions and too long for children s conditions. We suggest that medical practitioners should determine the time limit on certificates as they are best placed to fully understand the implications of the condition for seat belt use. The amendment Rule should require a medical certificate, that is issued on or after 1 October 2011, to be dated and specify for how long it is valid. We propose amending clause 7.11 of the amendment Rule to state that there must be a start date and an expiry date on medical certificates issued by medical practitioners on or after 1 October 2011, for the purpose of excluding vehicle occupants from being restrained by a seat belt or child restraint. Proposal 8: It is proposed to amend the Rule so that a bus driver is not obliged to ensure that his or her passengers are restrained by a suitable child restraint when the vehicle is being operated on the road. Thirty submitters commented on proposal 8 with 22 submitters indicating support for the proposal and six submitters disagreeing with the proposal. Two submitters made comments, suggestions and/or asked questions about the proposal. The main issue raised by those opposed to the proposal was that they believed that drivers should have the responsibility for ensuring the safety of all passengers. The Paediatric Society of NZ, Starship Trauma Service and Safekids New Zealand felt that a safety case had not been made in support of this proposal. Starship Trauma Service argued that it was inconsistent with the delivery of best practice protection of children as vulnerable road users.
Other submitters felt that it was appropriate that the requirement for a child to be suitably restrained was a responsibility of the parents. The previous rule inadvertently encouraged bus operators to remove seat belts from vehicles to avoid the issues arising from the driver responsibility of passengers wearing belts. This exception for bus drivers removes that pressure. It is considered that a bus driver must be able to concentrate on his driving rather than whether a passenger anywhere in the bus is wearing a belt or not. The driver does have a continuing obligation under clause 7.1 and 7.3 of the Rule to ensure passengers in the bus are safe. If passengers are moving around in the bus, standing or sitting in a way he or she considers dangerous, they should take appropriate steps to minimise harm. Proposal 9: It is proposed to align the Rule with the requirements in the Traffic Control Devices Rule that specify the length of time for which a school bus driver is allowed to operate a school bus sign that incorporates flashing lights. Twenty-six submitters commented on proposal 9. Twenty-two submitters indicated support for the proposal and two submitters disagreed with the proposal. Two submitters made comments, suggestion and/or asked questions about the proposal. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council supported the proposal but suggested a flashing speed value in addition to the sign proposed. Some submitters, including the AA and NZ Police, expressed concern about how this proposal would be monitored and enforced. NZ Police was concerned about the impact on bus drivers of ensuring that the flashing signs are deactivated within 20 seconds from the bus pulling away. It felt that bus drivers already have many other things to focus on as they are pulling away from the kerb and it would be an unfair to subject drivers to a penalty if they failed to deactivate the sign in the 20 second maximum time limit. NZ Police suggested 30 seconds would be a more reasonable time. Other suggestions made by submitters that supported the proposal included, requiring buses to have some form of notification at the buses instrument panel so that bus drivers can be alerted if they have left their flashing lights on.
As in proposal 4, a 20 km/h illuminated sign is currently being assessed in a trial under the auspices of the Traffic Control Devices Steering Committee. The results of that trial and possible options will be considered in the future. In response to the AA and NZ Police s concerns, it is suspected that very few, if any prosecutions, will eventuate where the bus driver turns the lights on or off immediately outside the 20 second period. The most likely prosecution, if any, will arise from incidents where the driver is travelling at or near normal road speeds well outside the 20 second period. The 20 second period is about warning other road users that the bus is about to stop to drop off children, or has just dropped children off and is departing (children may be crossing the road). Twenty seconds is the maximum time and the driver can choose not to have the sign on when departing a stop if there are no children around (i.e. the driver has already picked them up). We agree with the suggestion to ensure that there is some device to make bus drivers aware that their flashing lights may be left on. It has already been recommended that an audible device be installed which is activated when the flashing lights are operating. Proposal 10: It is proposed to amend the Rule so that drivers approaching a pedestrian crossing controlled by a school patrol do not have to stop if children are obviously waiting to cross but where a school patrol sign is not extended. Thirty-nine submitters commented on proposal 10. Twenty-one submitters indicated support for the proposal while 11 submitters disagreed with the proposal. Seven submitters made comments, suggestions and asked questions about the proposal. NZ Police, the AA and the RCAs support this proposal. Members of the public as well as the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons NZ Trauma Committee, the Southern District Health Board, the Paediatric Society of NZ, Starship Trauma Service and Safekids NZ opposed the proposal. Their concerns were that the change would be disadvantageous to children as a special group of vulnerable road users and that the case made for the proposal has not adequately demonstrated the change is required to maintain and improve road safety. Additionally, they believe it sends the wrong message by allowing vehicles the right of way at pedestrian crossings designed for pedestrians. The Ministry of Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal, but asked the question, Has consideration been given to whether the person operating the school patrol sign will have difficulty with extending the sign on busy traffic days were there are few gaps between cars? They commented
that present rules allow for this as cars are expected to stop if people are waiting to cross. They recommended that if the proposed changes are made, that an evaluation of the workability of the rule is undertaken at a future date. This proposal provides further clarity for drivers who are approaching a pedestrian crossing that is controlled by a school patrol. This proposal makes it clear that when drivers are approaching a pedestrian crossing controlled by a school patrol and a school patrol sign is not extended, they do not have to stop. This is proposal is consistent with the school patrol rules set out in clause 3.9 of the Rule, which drivers are required to abide by. This is consistent with how NZ Police trains children that operate School Patrols. Children are trained not to extend the signs unless vehicles are outside preset marks (typically a tree, or lamp post or power pole) which are a fixed object either side of the pedestrian crossing. These marks are selected by the Police Education Officer (PEO) who trains the patrol. The patrol members are trained not to extend their signs unless an approaching vehicle is outside the mark. They are also trained to wait for groups of children to gather before extending their sign. Thus, children tend to cross in groups which improves traffic flow, particularly on busy arterial roads and State highways. It also reduces the number of individual crossings necessary during the time the patrols are operating. The proposed change to the Rule would remove the confusion for both drivers and school patrol members. Proposal 11: It is proposed to update the definition of parking in the Rule to align with the Traffic Control Devices Rule. Fourteen submitters commented on proposal 11. Eleven submitters indicated support for the proposal and three submitters disagreed with the proposal. Those who disagreed with the proposal stated that it was a waste of tax payers money and resulted in more red tape. We note the comments made by submitters and believe that the proposal will improve the clarity of rules.
Proposal 12: It is proposed to amend the definition of school bus so that a bus transporting school children on a school trip, and in which a seat is available for all passengers, is not required to be a school bus and be subject to the 80 km/h speed restriction and school bus sign requirements that apply to school buses. Thirty-four submitters commented on proposal 12. Twenty-one submitters indicated support for the proposal and 11 submitters disagreed with the proposal. Two submitters made comments, suggestions and asked questions about the proposal. The Ministry of Education, NZ Police, and the AA support this proposal. The main concerns raised by submitters who opposed the proposal were that a school bus is always a school bus and that this proposal would result in a higher risk of safety for school children. Some believed that this proposal would allow a double standard and inequity in the system. The BCA supported the objective proposal, but suggested amendments as it had concerns about the consequential effects on clause 5.6(1) of the Rule. The BCA expressed concern that the change to the definition of school bus will result in other road users passing charter vehicles embarking/disembarking school children at a speed greater than 20km/h than is required for school buses. In response to submitters concerns, this proposal does not stop a school from requiring a bus carrying its students on a school function to display a school bus sign or for bus operators to do so on their own volition. Decisions on whether to display a school bus sign or not are to be considered by either party in relation to the nature of the trip and the possible risks. Proposed suggestions for the re-drafting of the amendment Rule appear to further increase the complexity of the proposed changes. They suggest either specific exceptions for charter buses or provide clauses for a charter bus sign that would see motorists having to assess a wider range of factors to determine whether they have an obligation to slow to 20km/h or not. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that the embarking and disembarking of school children on school trips often occurs in dropping off bays or other such off-road areas. Consequently, a 20km/h speed limit for other motorists would not apply to a charter bus choosing not to display a school bus sign. :
Road User Amendment Rule 2011 Agree/Disagree Table - 134 Submissions Proposal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Supports 90 71 38 40 19 10 22 22 22 21 11 21 Comments, suggestions and 7 3 2 11 2 1 4 2 2 7 2 questions Does not support 27 9 7 9 5 9 2 6 2 11 3 11 Total 124 83 47 60 26 20 28 30 26 39 14 34