door Jozef » 18 okt 2017, 12:45
Dear GRO,
I feel that in this case, it's not just a language problem, as the site is rather confusing about the rules to apply in case of reduction of the number of lanes.
In lesson 2, you very well stress that one of the conditions for having to apply the zipping procedure is that the traffic is heavily slowed down. However, in lesson 20, you don't stress that the procedure explained there is not valid if the traffic is heavily slowed down.
Moreover, the title of lesson 20 is:
Giving way to the right on an intersection
Therefore, it was a mistery to me why, in a lesson with this subject, you talk about what to do in case of a reduction of the number of lanes when there is no traffic jam, as there is no intersection and this has nothing to do with giving way to the right.
Indeed, you write about it:
Bij een vermindering van de rijstroken langs rechts krijgt de meest rechts rijdende bestuurder (de blauwe auto), die ingevolge de aangebrachte signalisatie (bord en pijlen) verplicht is zich met zijn voertuig van de wegvallende rechterrijstrook in de voor hem links gelegen rijstrook te bewegen, voorrang van rechts.
In die omstandigheden maakt het uitwijken naar links van deze bestuurder, die in die rijbeweging steeds zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan blijft, geen verandering van rijstrook of manoeuvre uit.
Info Uitspraak Hof van Cassatie: Rolnr: C990341N 24/11/2000
Wrong, my dear friend!
This has really nothing to do with giving way to the right and is not at all what the sentence states !!!
You can find the sentence under
http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/Jurida ... g=nl&jur=1. Key in "van" 24/11/2000 and "tot" 24/11/2000 and press Enter. The sentence states:
De meest rechts rijdende bestuurder, die ingevolge de aangebrachte signalisatie verplicht is zich met zijn voertuig van de wegvallende rechterrijstrook in de voor hem links gelegen rijstrook te bewegen, geniet voorrang door doorgang; in die omstandigheden maakt het uitwijken naar links van deze bestuurder, die in die rijbeweging steeds zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan blijft, geen verandering van rijstrook of maneuver uit.
This is the same priority you owe oncoming drivers if you want to turn to the left on an intersection or somewhere else. It is completely different from giving way to the right.
My suggestion:
- Take away the procedure in case of a reduction of the numbers of lanes from lesson 20, and put it in lesson 2, where you explain the zipping procedure, so that there, you can clearly explain the difference between both procedures.
- For the procedure when there is no heavily slowed down traffic, replace "voorrang van rechts" with "voorrang van doorgang". This is the correct term. The Cassation court often uses incorrect terms in Dutch, like in this case "voorrang door doorgang". And as often, In the French version, it is "priorité de passage", which is correct.
Dear GRO,
I feel that in this case, it's not just a language problem, as the site is rather confusing about the rules to apply in case of reduction of the number of lanes.
In lesson 2, you very well stress that one of the conditions for having to apply the zipping procedure is that the traffic is heavily slowed down. However, in lesson 20, you don't stress that the procedure explained there is not valid if the traffic is heavily slowed down.
Moreover, the title of lesson 20 is: [b][u]Giving way to the right on an intersection[/u][/b]
Therefore, it was a mistery to me why, in a lesson with this subject, you talk about what to do in case of a reduction of the number of lanes when there is no traffic jam, as there is no intersection and this has nothing to do with giving way to the right.
Indeed, you write about it:
[quote]Bij een vermindering van de rijstroken langs rechts krijgt de meest rechts rijdende bestuurder (de blauwe auto), die ingevolge de aangebrachte signalisatie (bord en pijlen) verplicht is zich met zijn voertuig van de wegvallende rechterrijstrook in de voor hem links gelegen rijstrook te bewegen, [b][color=red][u]voorrang van rechts[/u][/color][/b].
In die omstandigheden maakt het uitwijken naar links van deze bestuurder, die in die rijbeweging steeds zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan blijft, geen verandering van rijstrook of manoeuvre uit.
Info Uitspraak Hof van Cassatie: Rolnr: C990341N 24/11/2000[/quote]
Wrong, my dear friend! [b][color=red][u]This has really nothing to do with giving way to the right and is not at all what the sentence states[/u] !!![/color][/b]
You can find the sentence under http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/JuridatSearchCombined/?lang=nl&jur=1. Key in "van" 24/11/2000 and "tot" 24/11/2000 and press Enter. The sentence states:
[quote]De meest rechts rijdende bestuurder, die ingevolge de aangebrachte signalisatie verplicht is zich met zijn voertuig van de wegvallende rechterrijstrook in de voor hem links gelegen rijstrook te bewegen, geniet [b][color=red][u]voorrang door doorgang[/u][/color][/b]; in die omstandigheden maakt het uitwijken naar links van deze bestuurder, die in die rijbeweging steeds zo dicht mogelijk bij de rechterrand van de rijbaan blijft, geen verandering van rijstrook of maneuver uit.[/quote]
This is the same priority you owe oncoming drivers if you want to turn to the left on an intersection or somewhere else. It is completely different from giving way to the right.
My suggestion:
[list]
[*]Take away the procedure in case of a reduction of the numbers of lanes from lesson 20, and put it in lesson 2, where you explain the zipping procedure, so that there, you can clearly explain the difference between both procedures.
[*]For the procedure when there is no heavily slowed down traffic, replace "voorrang van rechts" with "voorrang van doorgang". This is the correct term. The Cassation court often uses incorrect terms in Dutch, like in this case "voorrang door doorgang". And as often, In the French version, it is "priorité de passage", which is correct.
[/list]