New motorbike lanes just south of Pekapeka.

[Dodger]

Been there for a while now :)

239086

[oneofsix]

Been there for a while now :)

239086

beware the local paramedic wants them filled with WRB. I bit ironic as the EMS (Emergency Medical Service) have just got themselves set up wit ha bike that would benefit from the pictured motorcycle lane.

[Dodger]

From what I hear from those in the know, it's meant to be a flush median strip, but looks like the paint work never got completed.

[sil3nt]

They have this just north of Huntly. Assumed it was for cyclists :bleh:

[slofox]

They have this just north of Huntly. Assumed it was for cyclists :bleh:

Are they not between two solid yellow lines there? I thought it was to stop opposing vehicles from crashing into each other...but I take your point. If all the cyclists were out there they'd be much easier to squash...:whistle:

[baptist]

Are they not between two solid yellow lines there? I thought it was to stop opposing vehicles from crashing into each other...but I take your point. If all the cyclists were out there they'd be much easier to squash...:whistle:

So it's not for Maha to ride in so he's an easier target for the paintballers then...:innocent:

[Dave-]

Are they not between two solid yellow lines there? I thought it was to stop opposing vehicles from crashing into each other...but I take your point. If all the cyclists were out there they'd be much easier to squash...:whistle:

because white lines can stop 35kT of force? :facepalm:

[pzkpfw]

From what I hear from those in the know, it's meant to be a flush median strip, but looks like the paint work never got completed.



No, it's a new "thing" they are trialing. Just a new sort of "white line" that's intended to keep the vehicles further apart. Like a flush median, but not.

The bugger is, the law that makes lane splitting technically legal, means we are not actually "allowed" to use it.

[mazz1972]

No, it's a new "thing" they are trialing. Just a new sort of "white line" that's intended to keep the vehicles further apart. Like a flush median, but not.

The bugger is, the law that makes lane splitting technically legal, means we are not actually "allowed" to use it.

But of course bikers do anyway, I drive that road every day to work in my car and see it often. Have gotten a hell of a fright twice in recent weeks, both times was following behind big trucks and bikes heading the opposite directing have come barrelling through the gap. Can't see them coming so how the hell are car drivers supposed to watch out for motorcyclists when idiots like that put themselves in ridiculous spots where they shouldn't be, and can't easily be seen. :ar15:

[oneofsix]

No, it's a new "thing" they are trialing. Just a new sort of "white line" that's intended to keep the vehicles further apart. Like a flush median, but not.

The bugger is, the law that makes lane splitting technically legal, means we are not actually "allowed" to use it.

How? It's not a flush median and they are white lines not yellow. Actually how does that work cause you cross one white line but you haven't crossed into opposing traffic and you aren't on the white line. Anyone done the research and got the reference on the law?

[nosebleed]

"If you can't see his mirrors he can't see you".

And If you can see the trucks mirrors then that puts you far enough behind to get a sight-line down the side of the truck, and therefore there will be no "surprises" heading towards you.

[allycatz]

Your all wrong, its for scooters :facepalm:

[p.dath]

If you have two doted white lines; would that not make it a three lane road?

The question then is which direction the middle lane.

[pzkpfw]

How? It's not a flush median and they are white lines not yellow. Actually how does that work cause you cross one white line but you haven't crossed into opposing traffic and you aren't on the white line. Anyone done the research and got the reference on the law?

The first white line to the right of the vehicle is "the" white line you are supposed to "obey".

After all, if bikes are "allowed" to ride on the right side of that line, why wouldn't cars be "allowed" to? And what would happen if vehicles coming in different directions were each "allowed" to drive to the second line to their right?

The whole point of that new parallel set of lines is to keep the vehicles further apart - and they thought of that when they defined the rules. (Which I'll try to google up).

[DR650gary]

They've got you talking and thinking so I'd say they have been a success so far. Ridden and driven them, can't see the problem.

Still can pass when safe to do so, too small to be called a lane so what exactly is the problem?:confused:

[mazz1972]

"If you can't see his mirrors he can't see you".

And If you can see the trucks mirrors then that puts you far enough behind to get a sight-line down the side of the truck, and therefore there will be no "surprises" heading towards you.

The truck was more to the right hand side of the lane so I would have had to sit almost right on the white line to have a clear view.

What made it worse was that the motorcyclist was passing another truck at the same time so he popped out from between them. Never would have expected that to happen.

[Latte]

If you have two doted white lines; would that not make it a three lane road?

The question then is which direction the middle lane.

Hospital :p

[p.dath]

I asked my contacts at the AA if they knew anything about this. This is the response I got back:


Yes, this is a new centreline marking which is being trialled at a number of locations around NZ. It is a low-cost way of preventing inadvertent centreline crossings by providing additional separation (1m) between opposing lanes. This treatment is used overseas where it appears to have been very successful at reducing crash severity, and particularly reducing head on crashes (20% crash reductions have been cited). It is being trialled on moderate-volume state highways and high volume state highways (presumably where road width is insufficient for other treatments).

You’ll find some more information on page 5 of the NZTA newsletter here: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pathways/docs/pathways-010.pdf and this press release: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/about/media/releases/1036/news.html

[oneofsix]

I asked my contacts at the AA if they knew anything about this. This is the response I got back:

that aligns with what was published in the local rag. I still have to read the links but suspect the actual legal position of the 'hospital lane' will remain unclear. This would mean they would have to reword centreline because these roads don't have one.

one article has the words "A median approximately one metre wide will be painted as a series of dashed white lines on sections of the highway" but the markings aren't as per a median they are marked as a double centreline (an oxymoron). A median would make over taking using the 'hospital lane' illegal. Then in the same article they say "installing a one metre wide centreline" so if you are between the two 'centrelines' you haven't crossed the centreline so you must still be overtaking within your lane???? or riding on the centreline ??

[mazz1972]

that aligns with what was published in the local rag. I still have to read the links but suspect the actual legal position of the 'hospital lane' will remain unclear. This would mean they would have to reword centreline because these roads don't have one.

one article has the words "A median approximately one metre wide will be painted as a series of dashed white lines on sections of the highway" but the markings aren't as per a median they are marked as a double centreline (an oxymoron). A median would make over taking using the 'hospital lane' illegal. Then in the same article they say "installing a one metre wide centreline" so if you are between the two 'centrelines' you haven't crossed the centreline so you must still be overtaking within your lane???? or riding on the centreline ??

Good question and it's pretty confusing.

The article in the second link twice calls the new markings a centreline, and once is refers to them as a median.

Why not just paint the friggin lines 1 metre wide?

[oneofsix]

Why not just paint the friggin lines 1 metre wide?

:yes::yes::yes:then cagers will understand why we complain about slippery painted lines. :rockon: Instead of preventing head-ons I reckon 1 metre wide painted centrelines would contribute to a few :facepalm:

Sentiment agreed with but there was an opening for comment:innocent:

I worry that they have gone with a 'good scheme' but the actual law is not in place. What happens if you do overtake along there, no on coming traffic, and just happen to not cross both sets of lines? Have you broken a law or not?

[nosebleed]

I asked my contacts at the AA if they knew anything about this. This is the response I got back:

... This treatment is used overseas ...

I bag's first guess where... VICTORIA

[mazz1972]

then cagers will understand why we complain about slippery painted lines.

Oops lol :facepalm:

[mazz1972]

I worry that they have gone with a 'good scheme' but the actual law is not in place. What happens if you do overtake along there, no on coming traffic, and just happen to not cross both sets of lines? Have you broken a law or not?

At Peka Peka there are two sections where one of the lines is yellow, the other white, therefore no passing on your side if you had to cross the yellow line, as usual. The rest of the road has two dashed white lines.

I don't see how it can be an offence cross either, or both of the lines, provided the line on your side of the road is white.

[XP@]

Use them every day, don't cross over the yellow bit or if trucks are coming the other way. Have never been close enough to the other side to cause worry. Hope they continue the trend....

I also like the poles separating the passing lane just up the road. They are really easy to see compared to WRB's and have not yet taken a major hit.

Thinking they could have just put up a WRB over the entire length, what we have is a fantastic improvement!