Editorial: Steering us in the right direction

Opinion

Visitors to this country often comment on what they see as a poor standard of driving. Belligerence, they say, is a byword on our highways, as evidenced by the likes of excessive speed, tailgating and a general lack of courtesy. This observation is, unfortunately, largely valid. For whatever reason, many New Zealanders take on a different, more aggressive persona when they get behind a steering wheel. If the first serious revision of the road code in 30 years can temper that trait, it will be a success.

The new rules, which came into force yesterday, remove many of the question-marks that may have cultivated bad driver attitudes. Their objective is to make the roads safer and to get traffic flowing more efficiently by reducing uncertainty. They are as much about clarification as change when it comes to what is expected of motorists at roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, roadworks and bus and cycle lanes.

The detail embodied in the new regulations leaves drivers and cyclists in no doubt about their responsibilities. If it is heeded, the seeds for improved behaviour will be laid.

Many other of the welter of changes amount to an updating of the law to take account of three decades of change. Some will be received more grudgingly than others. The traditional P parking signs, for example, now apply at weekends unless stated. Increasing weekend traffic and longer trading hours, first ushered in by legislation in 1977, are cited as the reasons.

Those deprived of free parking will feel less aggrieved if some of the other new rules are policed adequately. The likes, for example, of the tighter controls on cars with noisy stereos. This, for obvious reasons, was not a problem 30 years ago. Now, however, stereos and raucous exhausts are a considerable nuisance, so much so that attention to them is long overdue.

It is notable that another new rule prohibits exhaust systems being modified so they are excessively noisy. They must not be noticeably and significantly louder than the original equipment. An objective measuring test is being developed for this purpose. It seems reasonable to assume that a combination of police vigilance and warrant-of-fitness testing should be able to solve the problem quickly.

Many drivers would probably be much happier if the police focused more on this and other of the new regulations than innocuous speeding. A further rule meriting attention is that which says motorists must "at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway" unless there is good reason for doing otherwise. Keeping left has always been an accepted part of good behaviour, but too often discourtesy has rendered it redundant. The practice, having been spelled out, should now be reinforced.

The chances of that happening have been enhanced by the demerit points attached to breaches of the rule. Indeed, the new code places far greater emphasis on these penalties. Motorists accustomed to them being attached almost exclusively to speeding will find that is no longer the case. And if the police were to pay less attention to people travelling at 61km/h in a 50km/h zone, drivers would be certain to reap the implications of the wider application of demerit points.

The new code would make a greater contribution to safety if it had addressed the issue of drivers using hand-held cellphones. The Government has steered clear of that, and also the rule dictating that left-turning vehicles must give way to the right. It says more research is needed. Only on the question of the left-hand rule was that a reasonable conclusion.

Nonetheless, the new code has the potential to sponsor better driving habits if it is enforced adequately. Some rules, such as those governing behaviour at roadworks, tackle what have become sources of danger because of the lack of regulation and aggressive driving. None is unreasonable. Hopefully, they will even be the harbinger of a little more courtesy.