Road Traffic Act

[Bubba Elvis XIV]

VISIBILITY

I can show you roads in Turku where if you don't pull on to the crossing you wont see sh/t cos the roads are full of parked cars....

[Mook]

VISIBILITY

I can show you roads in Turku where if you don't pull on to the crossing you wont see sh/t cos the roads are full of parked cars....

Shurley then you see more after the crossing than when you're sitting on it?

[Bubba Elvis XIV]

Well no cos the zebra crossings in Turku are right up to the 'box'..pretty much as they are in the diagram...so you have to sit on the pedestrian crossing...If you went past the zebra crossing you would be in the middle of the junction....does that make sense?

If you stop before the crossing you can't see far enough around...

Hard to explain and no time to make fancy pants pictures like that clever fellow, obviously just bragging about his skills with microsoft paint..

[umit]

I really don't see a problem othen that you simply don't know how to use this "right side" rule...

Look, if you don't have any signs on your piece of road it means you have to prepare for equal crossing and look out for those coming from the right. So does the "blue" car. They have to be prepared for yielding to THEIR right, thus they also pull towards the intersection slower than their original speed.

NO YOU ARE WRONG!!! If the intention of the blue car is to turn right, he knows that there is no need to prepare for yielding (except for the pedestrians).

thus the "blue" one will see that the intersection is ALREADY occupied. Noone expects you tpull back lut of the intersection to give way on your right if you are already there...

I totally agree with you on this, but unfortunately the practice is not the same. Please tell this to those who horn angrily when I pass in such a situation.

As for hoping to be given way while pulling out of the parking place - hello! That's what driving schoold instructors keep their eyes on while seating in a car with you - whether you checked your left mirror before pulling out and YIELDED if needed. If not - they'll make it very clear to you how big of a mistake you just made. Also because expecting the road traffic to slow down and queue for a parking pull out is against any logics. In driving SAFETY goes BEFORE chivalry.

I don't know how you came up with a conclusion that I meant I don't want to check the left mirror before pulling out of the parking place. Please read what I wrote carefully. It is nothing to the with the driver pulling out, but the one coming behind! And in my opinion slowing down the traffic for this reason is the same logic with slowing it down for pedestrians and right-comers...

[umit]

I wonder how this thread will end up in Kebabs

[Pursuivant]

http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/yesno.html

[chickensexer]

NO YOU ARE WRONG!!! If the intention of the blue car is to turn right, he knows that there is no need to prepare for yielding (except for the pedestrians).

No, I am right. If he is going to turn right then he needs to prepare for the turn - still slow down. Which STILL means that at the time when you see him you are already ahead of him, already in the intersection.

I totally agree with you on this, but unfortunately the practice is not the same. Please tell this to those who horn angrily when I pass in such a situation.

Geez. If I would give a dam about every angry honker in any country where I happened to drive, while I know I'm following the rules - I would be one big ol' nervous fellow. Well, not a fellow perhaps but you got the idea.

I don't know how you came up with a conclusion that I meant I don't want to check the left mirror before pulling out of the parking place. Please read what I wrote carefully. It is nothing to the with the driver pulling out, but the one coming behind!.

No, it is everything to do with it. Requirement to check the left mirror for the driver who is pulling out comes from this very simple fact that this driver is supposed to wait until he can go freely. Which logically comes out of the fact that main traffic drivers - the ones coming from behind - are NOT expected to yield to those pulling out.

And in my opinion slowing down the traffic for this reason is the same logic with slowing it down for pedestrians and right-comers...

Not to criticize your opinion but you seem to not look into the logic properly. Pedestrians are HIGHER priority at unregulated crossings. No logic needed, it's a clear rule. Thus no connection to the parking-pull-out case. "Right hand" rule is for EQUAL crossings. Pulling out of the parking place is UNEQUAL "crossing" - kind of like main road and side road. Thus no connection to the parking-pull-out case again.

I mean c'mon, I went to driving school 10 years ago, didn't drive much after that for several years and started driving regularly just recently... And even I remember those rules, following them makes sense to me and I don't have problems while following them. If something is done not the way you are used to elsewhere it doesn't mean that this something doesn't work or doesn't make sense.

[DMC]

I don't know any country where that would be the case. Do you?

Yes, for example in the UK.

Ah well, then you are mistaken, possibly led astray by your rather selective quoting. What I actually wrote was "The traffic already on the road does not have to give way to parked vehicles. I don't know any country where that would be the case. Do you?" As you have observed, some drivers do give way to parked vehicles rejoining the traffic, but they don't have to.

[riku2]

a) There is something wrong with the right has the right of way rule here, or

The problem here is the layout of the junction. The pedestrian crossings should be moved back from the junction so you don't have car drivers trying to do two things at once (look for pedestrians and look for other cars). Then there would be no trouble and probably less people being run over.
In the centre of HKI they do this with roundabouts which is even worse - a pedestrian crossing right at the exit point. No roundabout in UK would ever be made like that.
The idea of designing roads so that's hard to make mistakes (narrowing lanes, built out junctions, roundabouts) is taking a long time to arrive in finland

[riku2]

Many country roads in Finland are from the 50's, so that would only be logical.

and roads in uk were all built last year ? I don't think so. but in UK there are so many cars that they put some effort into designing the roads to get better throughput and also reduce the number of accidents, which may be linked to uk having far fewer deaths per bn km than finland does.

lower case is yet to arrive on road signs
And what would be the benefit in that?

It's easier and quicker to read. less time spent reading signs = more time spent paying attention to other cars and not running over pedestrians.

this link has nice picture of old UK signs and what replaced them 50 years ago. The old ones look a bit like finnish ones (all upper case, fussy arrows where they're not needed http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/wartoworboys/

Most road markings are repainted every spring, believe it or not. Stop lines at traffic lights are optional (not to mention largely pointless).

I haven't seem many repainted every year. perhaps places on ring I where the lanes bend because they didn't spend the money to rebuild bridges when they widened it. the tunnel roadworks near leppavaara are fun - make up your own lanes since the old lane markings are there as well as part worn out new ones through the roadworks.

stop lines at traffic lights: they might remind people to stop rather than go through the lights without seeing them, especially since there's not always a traffic light on the other side of the road (at least you get some exercise looking out your side window to see when the lights change from red to green).

and when roads are widened with extra lanes then the signs above should be updated to match (can be 1-2 years or more behind before the signs match the lanes again).

Any examples of this?

1: Ring 1 eastbound junction of hameenlinnanvayla. this was widened from 2->3 lanes. for at least 18months afterwards the overhead signs still said left 2 lanes ring 1, right lane only for tampere. even though all three lanes continued to ring 1 after the widening. no wonder everyone uses only the left two lanes of any road despite how wide it is.

2: continuation of ring 1 after itavayla exit in the direction of vuosaari. that road is now two lanes wide all the way to vuosaari. but overhead signs for many years said only the left lane was for vuosaari. result = unfamilar drivers all move to the left lane, when there are two lanes for the next 5km.

[MikeD]

and roads in uk were all built last year ? I don't think so. but in UK there are so many cars that they put some effort into designing the roads to get better throughput and also reduce the number of accidents, which may be linked to uk having far fewer deaths per bn km than finland does.

And in Finland we have a whole lot of roads with relatively little traffic, and most people are not too enthusiastic about having their tax money spent on bringing the road to Nowheremäki up to modern standards. Mind you, relatively few road deaths in Finland have anything to do with road design. The biggest problems are drunk drivers (although they usually only kill themselves or their passengers), old men who don't "see" the truck coming on the main road and pull out in front of it, and people who hit the oncoming truck on purpose. Add to that the fact that people dying of seizure when behind the wheel are classified as road deaths (I don't know if they do that in the UK as well) and that's pretty much it.

It's easier and quicker to read. less time spent reading signs = more time spent paying attention to other cars and not running over pedestrians

That's debatable and I would assume largely dependant on what you've used to.

stop lines at traffic lights: they might remind people to stop rather than go through the lights without seeing them, especially since there's not always a traffic light on the other side of the road (at least you get some exercise looking out your side window to see when the lights change from red to green).

Umm... perhaps people who don't see the traffic lights should not be driving?

[riku2]

Umm... perhaps people who don't see the traffic lights should not be driving?

as I wrote before

The idea of designing roads so that's hard to make mistakes is taking a long time to arrive in finland

the people who don't see traffic lights or are on the phone and go through red lights DO DRIVE (i've seen it), so you can either design roads where that kind of behaviour is hard or does not cause too much damage (like a roundabout - if you ignore it you end up on the middle on some grass) or you shrug your shoulders and say it's inevitable and have bad roads and more accidents.

but partly it's like you said - little traffic means not that many deaths and the cost from those deaths is not that great, so it's cheaper to let those few die than spend more on the roads to make things safer. in the uk there are a lot more people, so the costs are easier to justify. but generally explaining to parents that having their kid run over and killed was cheaper than improving a junction is quite hard. The finnish approach here is an emotional "Pysahdy ajoissa" campaign and in-consistent lowering of the speed limit to 40km/h on hupalahdentie instead of spending the money on the tunnel to extend turku motorway by another 1km.

[umit]

@chickensexer:

1- Right have the right of way rule: I don't know why we are still arguing on this subject. I know how this rule works, but I'm not happy to wait on the pedestrian crossing or in the intersection, I don't like being horned at me and I don't want to live with the fear that the driver coming from right would hit me before I pass or not...

And I think the only reason for this is: Obviously there is a design problem with these intersections and some -or let's say most of the- drivers making it even worse by thinking that since they are coming from the right they always have the priority. This also gives them right to horn or scare to death the other drivers (which are already in the intersection) who didn't let them to use this priority.

2- Rejoining traffic: I still remember your motto "In driving SAFETY goes BEFORE chivalry" however I still don't see any reason to endanger the traffic if I slow down or stop to give way to a driver willing to rejoin traffic. In my mentality it is similar to give your seat to an old person in the public transport or hold the door open for the people coming behind, at the entrance of Stockmann. I just expect them to be clever enough to understand I'm making them a favor and react quickly to take that opportunity.

And last but not least;

If something is done not the way you are used to elsewhere it doesn't mean that this something doesn't work or doesn't make sense.

The same applies to you... If something is not done the way you are used to elsewhere it doesn't always mean that this something is wrong or nonsense.

[Upphew]

2- Rejoining traffic: I still remember your motto "In driving SAFETY goes BEFORE chivalry" however I still don't see any reason to endanger the traffic if I slow down or stop to give way to a driver willing to rejoin traffic. In my mentality it is similar to give your seat to an old person in the public transport or hold the door open for the people coming behind, at the entrance of Stockmann. I just expect them to be clever enough to understand I'm making them a favor and react quickly to take that opportunity.

Two observations about that point:
1) you slow down (in worst case stop) -> someone behind you overtakes you. I see safety issue in your actions.
2) you expect someone to act fast to unusual situation, and by acting the way that doesn't make sense in unusual situation.

In traffic it is best to do as everyone does.

[umit]

Two observations about that point:
1) you slow down (in worst case stop) -> someone behind you overtakes you. I see safety issue in your actions.
2) you expect someone to act fast to unusual situation, and by acting the way that doesn't make sense in unusual situation.

In traffic it is best to do as everyone does.

OK... Forget about this. I won't give way to any Finn in this situation and won't expect to be given. Just one question: If it is likely to wait more than 2 minutes, should I stop the engine? Since it is against rules to idle more than 2 minutes...