Comments for New Zealand Tour Map Travel Blog http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog Independent traveller views on NZ accommodation, touring and tourism. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:44:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 Comment on New Zealand Campervan Etiquette Guide by Kat http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/18/new-zealand-campervan-etiquette-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-15870 Kat Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:44:44 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=405#comment-15870 Had a great laugh with tip #7 and #8. Great guide here mate! Had a great laugh with tip #7 and #8. Great guide here mate!

]]> Comment on Road Rule Unique to New Zealand by Myrtone http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/09/road-rule-unique-to-new-zealand/comment-page-1/#comment-15788 Myrtone Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:33:32 +0000 http://nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=102#comment-15788 I'm from Victoria, Australia where we have also had this rule before and it was dropped in 1993 under national standardisation of Australian road rules. I read Jon's post and he claims he had an accident because of this rule, actually, he was talking to his partner. It would be best to pause the conversation in such a situation. But if this was on the phone, that is part of the problem. Talking on mobile phones while driving is a big distraction, even if it was hands free. If a right turner has to give way to all, this means much more delay and more traffic blocked behind the right turner. Since you drive on the left, the left turner does not cross oncoming straight through traffic but does merge with oncoming right turning traffic, unless there are multiple lanes to turn into. So if they give way to those turning right, this means the right turner only gives way to those not turning, which means less delay (on average) for turning cars and those blocked behind them. It is a simple matter for the left and right turners to analyse the situation and allow for what's possible, or better, use common sense and gestures. I wonder if <a href="http://sittingduck.co.nz/blog/2009/08/19/right-of-reply-on-right-of-way/" rel="nofollow">this article</a> explains why attempts to change the rule have been turned down, that they didn't get changed because of poor arguments given. And just how many tourists are dealing with many more differences (sometimes more significant) than just this rule? North American and mainland European tourists have to concentrate at all times because they are driving on the "wrong" side of the road. And how many of these tourists have additional rules in some places back at home such as free right turn on a red light in North America (which would be a left turn for us). And to New Zealanders who have driven in the UK and/or Australia, what issues did you have with the road rules in these countries? I find the arguments made in favour of changing the give way rule comparable to suggesting that Canada and the United states should either restrict right turn on red to intersections where a sign explicitly permits it (as in New York City and Germany, and is the case with left turns on red in New South Wales, which drives on the left) or drop it altogether. What might be argued in that case is this: Right turn on red can be a confusing rule and here is why. In New Zealand, and here in Australia, all turns are only permitted on a green light. In Australia (where we have left turn priority), if turning left on a green as one must usually do at a signalised intersection, one needs to check mostly for hazards on ones left (but may also need to beware of other traffic running a red light). In North America, it's essentially the same as here (apart from the left-to-right switch) if one is turning right on a green light, but if one making the same turn on a red, the workload (or at least the primary focus) is shifted the other way because you must give way to traffic facing a green light, which is on your left, though you also give way to pedestrians on a green man. Two different workloads are placed on drivers making right turns at the same intersection from the same street depending on the signal aspect sounds confusing, doesn't it? It also increases the chances of someone unexpectedly turning in front of and nearly colliding with those facing a green light. This might happen because of overtaking at intersection and the confusion it causes, for example. Not that it is a bad rule, this argument is an analogy. That fact is that right turn on red is basically like right turn at a stop sign (in right hand traffic). But even in North America, there are some locations where no turn on red is feasible, for one of more of the following reasons: 1 an unsufficient visibility distance; 2 a restricted geometric development; 3 an intersection presenting an unususal layout; 4 a pedestrian protected phase; 5 unhabitual manœuvres (as in the presence of two turning lanes); 6 more than three accidents over a period of twelve consecutive months caused by the right turn on red manœuvre (reevaluation criterion); 7 a significant number of pedestrians or cyclists likely to cross; 8 the proximity of a level crossing; 9 a conflict between the right turn on red manœuvre an movements of visually impaired people. If they had hook turns in downtown Toronto (unfortunately they don't and if they did they would be left turns from the right), or left turns on a red were permitted in Victoria, then hook turn intersections would presumably meet criterion three. If less than half of all signalised intersections meet these criteria, than it's fine to permit right turn on red (or left turn on red if your drive on the left) by default. But if (more than) half of all signalised intersections meet no turn on red criteria, then one should only permit right turn on red where a sign explicitly permits it, if at all. I’m from Victoria, Australia where we have also had this rule before and it was dropped in 1993 under national standardisation of Australian road rules. I read Jon’s post and he claims he had an accident because of this rule, actually, he was talking to his partner. It would be best to pause the conversation in such a situation. But if this was on the phone, that is part of the problem. Talking on mobile phones while driving is a big distraction, even if it was hands free.
If a right turner has to give way to all, this means much more delay and more traffic blocked behind the right turner. Since you drive on the left, the left turner does not cross oncoming straight through traffic but does merge with oncoming right turning traffic, unless there are multiple lanes to turn into. So if they give way to those turning right, this means the right turner only gives way to those not turning, which means less delay (on average) for turning cars and those blocked behind them.
It is a simple matter for the left and right turners to analyse the situation and allow for what’s possible, or better, use common sense and gestures.
I wonder if this article explains why attempts to change the rule have been turned down, that they didn’t get changed because of poor arguments given.
And just how many tourists are dealing with many more differences (sometimes more significant) than just this rule? North American and mainland European tourists have to concentrate at all times because they are driving on the “wrong” side of the road. And how many of these tourists have additional rules in some places back at home such as free right turn on a red light in North America (which would be a left turn for us).
And to New Zealanders who have driven in the UK and/or Australia, what issues did you have with the road rules in these countries?
I find the arguments made in favour of changing the give way rule comparable to suggesting that Canada and the United states should either restrict right turn on red to intersections where a sign explicitly permits it (as in New York City and Germany, and is the case with left turns on red in New South Wales, which drives on the left) or drop it altogether.
What might be argued in that case is this: Right turn on red can be a confusing rule and here is why. In New Zealand, and here in Australia, all turns are only permitted on a green light. In Australia (where we have left turn priority), if turning left on a green as one must usually do at a signalised intersection, one needs to check mostly for hazards on ones left (but may also need to beware of other traffic running a red light).
In North America, it’s essentially the same as here (apart from the left-to-right switch) if one is turning right on a green light, but if one making the same turn on a red, the workload (or at least the primary focus) is shifted the other way because you must give way to traffic facing a green light, which is on your left, though you also give way to pedestrians on a green man. Two different workloads are placed on drivers making right turns at the same intersection from the same street depending on the signal aspect sounds confusing, doesn’t it?
It also increases the chances of someone unexpectedly turning in front of and nearly colliding with those facing a green light. This might happen because of overtaking at intersection and the confusion it causes, for example.
Not that it is a bad rule, this argument is an analogy. That fact is that right turn on red is basically like right turn at a stop sign (in right hand traffic). But even in North America, there are some locations where no turn on red is feasible, for one of more of the following reasons:

1 an unsufficient visibility distance;
2 a restricted geometric development;
3 an intersection presenting an unususal layout;
4 a pedestrian protected phase;
5 unhabitual manœuvres (as in the presence of two turning lanes);
6 more than three accidents over a period of twelve consecutive months caused by the right turn on red manœuvre (reevaluation criterion);
7 a significant number of pedestrians or cyclists likely to cross;
8 the proximity of a level crossing;
9 a conflict between the right turn on red manœuvre an movements of visually impaired people.

If they had hook turns in downtown Toronto (unfortunately they don’t and if they did they would be left turns from the right), or left turns on a red were permitted in Victoria, then hook turn intersections would presumably meet criterion three.

If less than half of all signalised intersections meet these criteria, than it’s fine to permit right turn on red (or left turn on red if your drive on the left) by default. But if (more than) half of all signalised intersections meet no turn on red criteria, then one should only permit right turn on red where a sign explicitly permits it, if at all.

]]> Comment on Australians Arriving to Hunt for Gold by Patti W. http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/14/australians-arriving-to-hunt-for-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-14895 Patti W. Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:12:09 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=376#comment-14895 Hi Guys, I have always wanted to go to Australia and New Zealand to hunt for gold as I am a gold hunter here in gold country in Arizona USA. We do a lot of panning and sluicing here as well and we do use a lot of metal detectors. Mine is a Minelab like I see in your video. Some folks here in AZ also stick to gold pans and sluices but I love detecting above the others. A lot of the time we have to take a water tank out into the AZ outback.. that's what we call our mountain country. I really enjoyed your video. If you get a chance take a look at my website. I am going to try and learn how to do an RSS feed and a track-back to your site. Have a great day. Patti Hi Guys,

I have always wanted to go to Australia and New Zealand to hunt for gold as I am a gold hunter here in gold country in Arizona USA. We do a lot of panning and sluicing here as well and we do use a lot of metal detectors. Mine is a Minelab like I see in your video. Some folks here in AZ also stick to gold pans and sluices but I love detecting above the others.

A lot of the time we have to take a water tank out into the AZ outback.. that’s what we call our mountain country. I really enjoyed your video. If you get a chance take a look at my website. I am going to try and learn how to do an RSS feed and a track-back to your site.

Have a great day. Patti

]]> Comment on Eco-Friendly The Next Bubble by Eco friendly tourists http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/23/eco-friendly-the-next-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-14893 Eco friendly tourists Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:20:53 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=343#comment-14893 Eco friendly tourism, which is on rise, brings a lot of advantages like conservation of eco system, rare animals & conservation of beauty of exotic locations like Arunachal Pradesh, India. Just right beliefs & supportive yet small actions can bring that change around for our planet. Eco friendly tourism, which is on rise, brings a lot of advantages like conservation of eco system, rare animals & conservation of beauty of exotic locations like Arunachal Pradesh, India. Just right beliefs & supportive yet small actions can bring that change around for our planet.

]]> Comment on Bed Jumping by Motella http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/31/bed-jumping/comment-page-1/#comment-14819 Motella Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:54:12 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=353#comment-14819 Great post. You managed to get a jump on Close Up with Mark Sainsbury covering this phenomenon the other night. We also covered this on our blog in February: 'As moteliers, we host a lot of people from all walks of life. I have heard it said by many wise old moteliers that "if we knew only half of what goes on behind closed doors, we wouldn't sleep at night". What some of our guests get up to behind closed doors, we hate to speculate. As long as it is legal (or close enough!), is not disturbing others, nothing is wrecked and doesn't leave a mess - we don't care! When I first tripped across the website www.bedjump.com it made me initially recoil in horror. The website is devoted to people all over the world submitting ariel photos of themselves jumping onto motel/hotel beds! Soon, I was able to suppress the outraged motelier entrenched within me and have a good laugh. I guess in some way this website captures the childlike excitement of staying in a motel/hotel. It's irrelevant, naughty and fun. In a humorous way it celebrates travel and makes it a wee bit sexy - we like that!" Great post.

You managed to get a jump on Close Up with Mark Sainsbury covering this phenomenon the other night. We also covered this on our blog in February:

‘As moteliers, we host a lot of people from all walks of life.

I have heard it said by many wise old moteliers that “if we knew only half of what goes on behind closed doors, we wouldn’t sleep at night”. What some of our guests get up to behind closed doors, we hate to speculate. As long as it is legal (or close enough!), is not disturbing others, nothing is wrecked and doesn’t leave a mess – we don’t care!

When I first tripped across the website http://www.bedjump.com it made me initially recoil in horror. The website is devoted to people all over the world submitting ariel photos of themselves jumping onto motel/hotel beds!

Soon, I was able to suppress the outraged motelier entrenched within me and have a good laugh.

I guess in some way this website captures the childlike excitement of staying in a motel/hotel. It’s irrelevant, naughty and fun. In a humorous way it celebrates travel and makes it a wee bit sexy – we like that!”

]]> Comment on Small Town Sheriff by Ohakune http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/28/beware-of-the-small-town-sheriff/comment-page-1/#comment-14803 Ohakune Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:40:51 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=349#comment-14803 After going up and down on the unsealed road to Turoa Ski field, I got stopped for having a dusty back window and unclear rear number plate. No ticket but lots of attitude. After going up and down on the unsealed road to Turoa Ski field, I got stopped for having a dusty back window and unclear rear number plate. No ticket but lots of attitude.

]]> Comment on Eco-Friendly The Next Bubble by Motella http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/23/eco-friendly-the-next-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-14784 Motella Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:35:46 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=343#comment-14784 Hey, love the Hummer! The Qualmark Enviro-Green accreditation was a compulsive feel-good initiative forced upon the tourism industry at the height of the Nanny knows best culture of the Clark government. What Qualmark are doing is forcing the environmental and social mantra of "Responsible Tourism" upon the accommodation industry by making it a compulsive section in their quality assessment. This criteria was not requested and did not have any input from their biggest sector client, the motel industry. Although the Responsible Tourism criteria only forms 5% of the overall quality assessment, there is a real risk that this is the thin edge of the wedge. There is no doubt that this has been introduced with the intention of increasing its influence over time. A bit like boiling a frog. Qualmark has become bored with merely measuring quality and is now promoting environmental and social evangelism. Its assessors have now become environmental zealots and most of Qualmark collateral now seems to focus on environmentalism. They repeat the claim time after time that environmental credentials are being increasingly demanded from guests. We have yet to see quantifiable evidence of this and our coal-face analysis dictates that this is far from reality. Qualmark seem to have gone from assessing what they see to now telling businesses what they should see. Qualmark’s purpose appears to be compelling businesses to go down the environmental and corporate responsibility pathway because it is “good” for business. The unintended consequences of this agenda by Qualmark is the production of a whole lot of silly green wash being forced on operators that only wish to achieve another tick by Qualmark. The consumer is increasingly savvy and is extremely perceptive. They quickly determine that the product is not "real" and the cynicism will not stop at the remark about how the "towel policy is only being used to save the hotel money." The tourism industry is fuelled on carbon and the irony of an isolated country grandstanding its alleged green credentials in this way by unnecessarily raising environmental hysteria and guilt of travel is laughable. The last thing that tourism needs to focus on right now is a silly green-wash campaign that opens the country to unnecessary scrutiny from flat-earth environmentalists. In this dire economic climate, the industry needs to man-up, axe unnecessary "hug-a-polar-bear" programs, focus on self funded innovative sexy marketing and revert back to core single bottom line business activities. We believe that guests want a unique experience, value and QUALITY. Trendy environmentalism and corporate responsible socio-babble is OK if this is conducted by the business owners’ choice - but not by compulsion. Qualmark should stick to its knitting and pursue the virtues of benchmarking QUALITY. Hey, love the Hummer!

The Qualmark Enviro-Green accreditation was a compulsive feel-good initiative forced upon the tourism industry at the height of the Nanny knows best culture of the Clark government.

What Qualmark are doing is forcing the environmental and social mantra of “Responsible Tourism” upon the accommodation industry by making it a compulsive section in their quality assessment. This criteria was not requested and did not have any input from their biggest sector client, the motel industry.

Although the Responsible Tourism criteria only forms 5% of the overall quality assessment, there is a real risk that this is the thin edge of the wedge. There is no doubt that this has been introduced with the intention of increasing its influence over time. A bit like boiling a frog.

Qualmark has become bored with merely measuring quality and is now promoting environmental and social evangelism. Its assessors have now become environmental zealots and most of Qualmark collateral now seems to focus on environmentalism. They repeat the claim time after time that environmental credentials are being increasingly demanded from guests. We have yet to see quantifiable evidence of this and our coal-face analysis dictates that this is far from reality.

Qualmark seem to have gone from assessing what they see to now telling businesses what they should see. Qualmark’s purpose appears to be compelling businesses to go down the environmental and corporate responsibility pathway because it is “good” for business.

The unintended consequences of this agenda by Qualmark is the production of a whole lot of silly green wash being forced on operators that only wish to achieve another tick by Qualmark. The consumer is increasingly savvy and is extremely perceptive. They quickly determine that the product is not “real” and the cynicism will not stop at the remark about how the “towel policy is only being used to save the hotel money.”

The tourism industry is fuelled on carbon and the irony of an isolated country grandstanding its alleged green credentials in this way by unnecessarily raising environmental hysteria and guilt of travel is laughable.

The last thing that tourism needs to focus on right now is a silly green-wash campaign that opens the country to unnecessary scrutiny from flat-earth environmentalists.

In this dire economic climate, the industry needs to man-up, axe unnecessary “hug-a-polar-bear” programs, focus on self funded innovative sexy marketing and revert back to core single bottom line business activities.

We believe that guests want a unique experience, value and QUALITY. Trendy environmentalism and corporate responsible socio-babble is OK if this is conducted by the business owners’ choice – but not by compulsion.

Qualmark should stick to its knitting and pursue the virtues of benchmarking QUALITY.

]]> Comment on Tourist Guide to NZ Restaurants by Tass http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/24/tourist-guide-to-nz-restaurants/comment-page-1/#comment-14651 Tass Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:04:23 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=333#comment-14651 As habitual travellers we face the where to dine problem on an unfortunate hit and miss approach. I totally agree, the newbe looks for the busy factor in choosing a place to dine. Nicely put and probably could apply this advice the world over but as a future new visitor, can you please EXPAND on the how do you pick the good from the bad in New Zealand. Thanks Tass As habitual travellers we face the where to dine problem on an unfortunate hit and miss approach.

I totally agree, the newbe looks for the busy factor in choosing a place to dine.

Nicely put and probably could apply this advice the world over but as a future new visitor, can you please EXPAND on the how do you pick the good from the bad in New Zealand.

Thanks
Tass

]]> Comment on NZ Gold Fossicking by Gavin http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/15/nz-gold-fossicking/comment-page-1/#comment-14564 Gavin Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:18:46 +0000 http://nztourmaps.com/blog/2007/12/15/nz-gold-fossicking/#comment-14564 To find the locations of all public gold panning / fossicking areas in New Zealand check out http://www.paydirt.co.nz/public-gold-fossicking-areas-map.aspx Happy fossicking! To find the locations of all public gold panning / fossicking areas in New Zealand check out http://www.paydirt.co.nz/public-gold-fossicking-areas-map.aspx

Happy fossicking!

]]> Comment on Holiday Parks Prove Popular by Mrs Maxwell http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/03/30/holiday-parks-prove-popular/comment-page-1/#comment-14560 Mrs Maxwell Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:31:34 +0000 http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/?p=297#comment-14560 My family have a mini family reunion every easter around the North Island which includes 19 - 38 family members each year, and have genuinely enjoyed our experiences in camping grounds, except this Easter where we went to Redwood Camping Ground in Rotorua it was reasonably priced for sure but that is no different than any other camping ground the difference between this one and others was the state and the rude owners. There was rust on the fridge, something growing out of the carpet holes in the furniture and with the stuffing hanging out, some random persons old socks in the couch, no smoke alarm in a unit with 12 people in it and a locked back that had no key to it so if there had been a fire the 12 of us would have slept through it and those that didn't would not have been able to open the back door. On top of that the chain on the swing my daughter was on broke resulting with her landing on the ground and the owner running out to tell her off swearing at her in front of all her young cousins ranging from 4years old up, prior to this altercation we were asked when one of our late party were arriving, we assured them that they would be there the next day they were fine with that but after our altercation when our late party arrived she was told that they had given her room away. This as the owners was their choice and right to do so but I'm sure it was a decision made out of spite. This is not a experience I won't other people to make nor one I wish to repeat I am not sure if this is the correct forum but my only wish is that after this is read that it might prevent someone from having the same disasterous holiday in Rotoruas Redwood Camping Ground we had. My family have a mini family reunion every easter around the North Island which includes 19 – 38 family members each year, and have genuinely enjoyed our experiences in camping grounds, except this Easter where we went to Redwood Camping Ground in Rotorua it was reasonably priced for sure but that is no different than any other camping ground the difference between this one and others was the state and the rude owners. There was rust on the fridge, something growing out of the carpet holes in the furniture and with the stuffing hanging out, some random persons old socks in the couch, no smoke alarm in a unit with 12 people in it and a locked back that had no key to it so if there had been a fire the 12 of us would have slept through it and those that didn’t would not have been able to open the back door. On top of that the chain on the swing my daughter was on broke resulting with her landing on the ground and the owner running out to tell her off swearing at her in front of all her young cousins ranging from 4years old up, prior to this altercation we were asked when one of our late party were arriving, we assured them that they would be there the next day they were fine with that but after our altercation when our late party arrived she was told that they had given her room away. This as the owners was their choice and right to do so but I’m sure it was a decision made out of spite. This is not a experience I won’t other people to make nor one I wish to repeat I am not sure if this is the correct forum but my only wish is that after this is read that it might prevent someone from having the same disasterous holiday in Rotoruas Redwood Camping Ground we had.

]]>