Is this illegal? Can't find any info on this

[F!ddl3r]

So I wrote my Full this past week, CBTA Full.... went well, did some training before the test (this was a really good idea) learnt a few new things.

I did well, not to many points against me except for cutting the centre road line when turning into a road. (see image) I got called out for riding the RED line and not the yellow line.
Now I understand this makes sense in a safety point of view (slippery road markings) but is it Illegal to cross this line? I cant find anything online so I thought I'd ask here.

The main reason I am asking, is because driving around the last few days I've been taking particular notice of this and on many roads you wouldn't be able to NOT ride over the line. And then what about solid lines? you'd have to cross the line... Just wondering what the legal stance is on this.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/TwistedPUNK1/roadrules_zps6097a3fc.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/TwistedPUNK1/media/roadrules_zps6097a3fc.jpg.html)

[haydes55]

It's not illegal, it's advised against in the road code. As I understand it

[Scuba_Steve]

It's not illegal, it's advised against in the road code. As I understand it

And in the wet it's slippery thanks to our shit paint :msn-wink:

[jellywrestler]

you will also have a more manageable take off on the yellow line, rather than the red

[Gremlin]

I think the only reason behind this is that lines have less grip than normal road, especially in the wet.

[haydes55]

Also to stop people cutting corners, be a good law abiding citizen, stay between the lines, don't cut corners, don't cross a yellow line!

[Gremlin]

...don't cross a yellow line!
Stop lines are yellow... :blink:

[unstuck]

Red line should be the front wheel, and the yellow line should be the back wheel, and you should have your right leg out and a different colored helmet. Just to keep things sensible .:Punk::Punk:

[awa355]

Also to stop people cutting corners, be a good law abiding citizen, stay between the lines, don't cut corners, don't cross a yellow line!

Wot 'E says, Govt knows best. :shutup:

Now, here's one to mull over, I'm coming up to a stop sign and want to turn left. The double yellow lines stop about 1/2metre out from the curb. If I ride my bike through the gap between the curb and the end of the yellow lines, have I ridden through a stop sign according to the law?.

[oneofsix]

Wot 'E says, Govt knows best. :shutup:

Now, here's one to mull over, I'm coming up to a stop sign and want to turn left. The double yellow lines stop about 1/2metre out from the curb. If I ride my bike through the gap between the curb and the end of the yellow lines, have I ridden through a stop sign according to the law?.

Yes you have ridden through a stop SIGN. The lines are only guides, read the code, it says something like stop before the intersection in a position so you can see the way is clear, sometimes the lines are short of the intersection, but f****ed if I would want to argue that one, and often you can stop behind the car at the lines and still see if the way is clear, good luck arguing that one as well, but I have used this at some intersections.

As to cutting the corner, you can legally cross white lines but to do what you did is cutting the corner and this is an indication you don't have control of the vehicle, therefore CBTA demerit. I have heard it used to identify drunks as well, they got him :lol:
Watch how many people bump the curb when parking, for licence testing this is defined as a crash , add a stall and you have a resit. In regards to the tougher tests making the roads safer I am sorry but in my opinion the OPs failure is more of a risk to safety than a parallel parker touching the curb (mounting the curb is totally different) or stalling.

[R650R]

Crossing that redline in early stage means technically you would be facing into oncoming traffic, briefly, so on wrong side of road even though you are turning.
I think this part of the test is more about encourage a predictable action during the turn for other road users. and also if you stray outside that prescribed course its then onvious to assessor that your not fully in control of where your bike goes. Bit like the parallel car parking, need to pass the test with it but after that I've never seen anyone ticketed for taking too long to park or abandoning an attempt... :facepalm:



Red line should be the front wheel, and the yellow line should be the back wheel, and you should have your right leg out and a different colored helmet. Just to keep things sensible .:Punk::Punk:

This! This is the best answer, 23471 viewers found this info helpful. Also you should lay a black line as evidence of lane position ;)



Wot 'E says, Govt knows best. :shutup:

Now, here's one to mull over, I'm coming up to a stop sign and want to turn left. The double yellow lines stop about 1/2metre out from the curb. If I ride my bike through the gap between the curb and the end of the yellow lines, have I ridden through a stop sign according to the law?.

The law is you need to stop behind the yellow lines somewhere. A lot of people don't realise with stop signs that if you are stopped behind another vehicle when they go you can as well as long as you have a clear view that it is safe to pull out. There is no law about how close you need to be to yellow lines.

[awa355]

The law is you need to stop behind the yellow lines somewhere. A lot of people don't realise with stop signs that if you are stopped behind another vehicle when they go you can as well as long as you have a clear view that it is safe to pull out. There is no law about how close you need to be to yellow lines.

That makes sense. If I'm second in line, I still stop and look although I'm aware of the 'go if its safe' ruling for the 2nd car. Guess I prefer to 'stop' at all stop signs, not just at some.

[Berries]

Now, here's one to mull over, I'm coming up to a stop sign and want to turn left. The double yellow lines stop about 1/2metre out from the curb. If I ride my bike through the gap between the curb and the end of the yellow lines, have I ridden through a stop sign according to the law?.
The intersection is controlled by a a stop sign so yes, you have. If you stopped you are fine, if you didn't then you failed to comply. The Rule is -

4.1 Giving way where vehicles are controlled by stop sign or give-way sign
(1) A driver approaching or entering an intersection on a roadway where the vehicles that are moving in the direction in which that driver is travelling are controlled by a stop sign at or near the intersection must—
(a) stop his or her vehicle before entering the path of any possible vehicle flow at such a position as to be able to ascertain whether the way is clear for the driver to proceed.

So you don't have to stop exactly at the line and I would argue that if you come to a stop behind a car that has stopped at a stop line and the visibility is such that you can ascertain the way is clear from that stationary point then you don't have to stop again at the line. This is the way I do it but not yet had a chance to argue the point. Given the increasing number of BS stop controls being put in, where visibility is way in excess of the requirements for a stop sign, I am sure it will happen.


I'm aware of the 'go if its safe' ruling for the 2nd car.
Not sure that that is written anywhere in a legal sense. The 2nd vehicle still has to stop somewhere before entering the intersection.

[BlackSheepLogic]

So you don't have to stop exactly at the line and I would argue that if you come to a stop behind a car that has stopped at a stop line and the visibility is such that you can ascertain the way is clear from that stationary point then you don't have to stop again at the line.

I always stop rather than following the car in front. I agree that sometimes you can see the way is clear, and technically you have stopped. However, I like my clean license and would rather not rely on being technically correct when discussing the finer points of law at the side of the road.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Yes you have ridden through a stop SIGN. The lines are only guides, read the code, it says something like stop before the intersection in a position so you can see the way is clear, sometimes the lines are short of the intersection, but f****ed if I would want to argue that one, and often you can stop behind the car at the lines and still see if the way is clear, good luck arguing that one as well, but I have used this at some intersections.

As to cutting the corner, you can legally cross white lines but to do what you did is cutting the corner and this is an indication you don't have control of the vehicle, therefore CBTA demerit. I have heard it used to identify drunks as well, they got him :lol:
Watch how many people bump the curb when parking, for licence testing this is defined as a crash , add a stall and you have a resit. In regards to the tougher tests making the roads safer I am sorry but in my opinion the OPs failure is more of a risk to safety than a parallel parker touching the curb (mounting the curb is totally different) or stalling.


When preparing for my restricted test (NZTA) I did a practice session with GTRMan. I stopped behind a yellow stop line and could not see properly to proceed. At this point it was explained the road code wants you to stop at that intersection rather than a rolling give way. If you need to position yourself beyond the yellow line to properly determine if its safe to proceed, thats ok.

Stalling is not a fail in the CBTA. I recently sat the CBTA full. Stalling is not mentioned in the IF (instant fail) list. Crashing is. As a matter of fact stalling was not mentioned at all in any context.

[MVnut]

I always stop rather than following the car in front. I agree that sometimes you can see the way is clear, and technically you have stopped. However, I like my clean license and would rather not rely on being technically correct when discussing the finer points of law at the side of the road.

The first instruction at a Stop sign is that you MUST STOP. The law assumes you know this means at the front of the queue (if any) ....you have not stopped if you have been (stopped) behind another vehicle (with full visibility) and then proceed through. It is a simple rule. Once you have stopped (at the line) you may proceed when the way is clear......why do so many get this wrong, it is not open to interpretation. Stop means Stop.

[oneofsix]

When preparing for my restricted test (NZTA) I did a practice session with GTRMan. I stopped behind a yellow stop line and could not see properly to proceed. At this point it was explained the road code wants you to stop at that intersection rather than a rolling give way. If you need to position yourself beyond the yellow line to properly determine if its safe to proceed, thats ok.

Stalling is not a fail in the CBTA. I recently sat the CBTA full. Stalling is not mentioned in the IF (instant fail) list. Crashing is. As a matter of fact stalling was not mentioned at all in any context.

Stalling isn't an instant fail, true, it's a critical error or some such wording. Know someone that suffered that in a car restricted test, also discussed it with the Baldies and Andrew during the mentor sessions, so unless it has changed since then it is still something to avoid.

[MVnut]

Crossing that redline in early stage means technically you would be facing into oncoming traffic, briefly, so on wrong side of road even though you are turning.
I think this part of the test is more about encourage a predictable action during the turn for other road users. and also if you stray outside that prescribed course its then onvious to assessor that your not fully in control of where your bike goes. Bit like the parallel car parking, need to pass the test with it but after that I've never seen anyone ticketed for taking too long to park or abandoning an attempt... :facepalm:




This! This is the best answer, 23471 viewers found this info helpful. Also you should lay a black line as evidence of lane position ;)




The law is you need to stop behind the yellow lines somewhere. A lot of people don't realise with stop signs that if you are stopped behind another vehicle when they go you can as well as long as you have a clear view that it is safe to pull out. There is no law about how close you need to be to yellow lines.

You are wrong, you must stop at the front of the queue:angry::angry::angry:

[Ulsterkiwi]

Stalling isn't an instant fail, true, it's a critical error or some such wording. Know someone that suffered that in a car restricted test, also discussed it with the Baldies and Andrew during the mentor sessions, so unless it has changed since then it is still something to avoid.

yup, understand, On the ACC course I did a few weeks ago Andrew went through a verbal description of the whole assessment and the score sheet/paperwork. Stalling was not mentioned once. Maybe he forgot. Its not mentioned in the paperwork.

[oneofsix]

yup, understand, On the ACC course I did a few weeks ago Andrew went through a verbal description of the whole assessment and the score sheet/paperwork. Stalling was not mentioned once. Maybe he forgot. Its not mentioned in the paperwork.

Bugger, I enjoyed teasing him about that, especially when he stalled at the end of the days training on the day we argued about it :laugh:

[Erelyes]

yup, understand, On the ACC course I did a few weeks ago Andrew went through a verbal description of the whole assessment and the score sheet/paperwork. Stalling was not mentioned once. Maybe he forgot. Its not mentioned in the paperwork.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/docs/cbta-course-guide.pdf

'Riding competencies
Where applicable, the following competencies will be assessed
during each riding task:
...
• stability/smoothness'

I would think it would come under that.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Bugger, I enjoyed teasing him about that, especially when he stalled at the end of the days training on the day we argued about it :laugh:

meh, I would still give him a hard time. When I finished the CBTA assessment, he took the lead and screwed up an intersection, incorrectly changing lanes. He was gracious enough to draw attention to it. I might have ribbed him a bit AFTER he signed my certificate :laugh:
I guess an expert rider is not one who always gets it right but reflects and thinks about the times he or she gets it wrong and tries to fix it next time......much like the majority of drivers and riders do across New Zealand............:corn::corn::corn:

[Ulsterkiwi]

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/getting/motorcycles/docs/cbta-course-guide.pdf

'Riding competencies
Where applicable, the following competencies will be assessed
during each riding task:
...
• stability/smoothness'

I would think it would come under that.

quite possibly it would. I was merely commenting there was not specific attention drawn to it always contributing to a fail. Crashing would do that however :msn-wink:

[oneofsix]

meh, I would still give him a hard time. When I finished the CBTA assessment, he took the lead and screwed up an intersection, incorrectly changing lanes. He was gracious enough to draw attention to it. I might have ribbed him a bit AFTER he signed my certificate :laugh:
I guess an expert rider is not one who always gets it right but reflects and thinks about the times he or she gets it wrong and tries to fix it next time......much like the majority of drivers and riders do across New Zealand............:corn::corn::corn:

yeah, got to be able to get one back for the dozens he pings me for :yes:

[Erelyes]

I guess an expert rider is not one who always gets it right but reflects and thinks about the times he or she gets it wrong and tries to fix it next time......

THIS is why I like CBTA.

When I sat the 'old' practical (L to R), I got nothing but the directions until we got to the testing station, at which point they said 'Let's go inside and sort you out a licence then'. OK, I guess that meant I passed.... ???

Whereas the R to L under CBTA was the opposite end of the spectrum completely - full of feedback, intelligent discussion and a bit of banter thrown in too!

[Ulsterkiwi]

THIS is why I like CBTA.

When I sat the 'old' practical (L to R), I got nothing but the directions until we got to the testing station, at which point they said 'Let's go inside and sort you out a licence then'. OK, I guess that meant I passed.... ???

Whereas the R to L under CBTA was the opposite end of the spectrum completely - full of feedback, intelligent discussion and a bit of banter thrown in too!

completely agree. Having experienced both types of test I have to say the CBTA is a much better way of determining your skill set. As the instructors are wont to say, you cant pretend to be skilful for longer than 10 minutes. More importantly its better preparation for riding on the road. I would love to see a similar approach to the driving test for car users.

[Gremlin]

The first instruction at a Stop sign is that you MUST STOP. The law assumes you know this means at the front of the queue (if any) ....you have not stopped if you have been (stopped) behind another vehicle (with full visibility) and then proceed through. It is a simple rule. Once you have stopped (at the line) you may proceed when the way is clear......why do so many get this wrong, it is not open to interpretation. Stop means Stop.
Law has already been quoted bud. There is no specific requiring you to stop at the line. You must be stopped in such a position that you have full visibility.

btw, laws are that long for a reason. There is no assumption.

[Erelyes]

First off, not aiming this at anyone in particular, but there's a startling trend on this site where a subject of law will come up, someone will post the legs&regs, then others will wade in with what can only be called opinion, which completely contradicts the law which has just been posted.


You are wrong, you must stop at the front of the queue:angry::angry::angry:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

[BlackSheepLogic]

The first instruction at a Stop sign is that you MUST STOP. The law assumes you know this means at the front of the queue (if any) ....

The law only assumes you can read.


It is a simple rule.

I thought so.

[R650R]

As at 1 January 2014 from the horses mouth:




Part 4
Stopping and giving way





4.1 Giving way where vehicles are controlled by stop sign or give-way sign


(1) A driver approaching or entering an intersection on a roadway where the vehicles that are moving in the direction in which that driver is travelling are controlled by a stop sign at or near the intersection must—

(a) stop his or her vehicle before entering the path of any possible vehicle flow at such a position as to be able to ascertain whether the way is clear for the driver to proceed


And from the road code:
Stop sign

At an intersection controlled by a Stop sign:
• come to a complete stop (do not just slow down)
• stop where you can see vehicles coming from all directions
• stay stopped until you have given way to all other vehicles (this includes cycles and motorcycles, etc)

:)

[MVnut]

As at 1 January 2014 from the horses mouth:




Part 4
Stopping and giving way





4.1 Giving way where vehicles are controlled by stop sign or give-way sign


(1) A driver approaching or entering an intersection on a roadway where the vehicles that are moving in the direction in which that driver is travelling are controlled by a stop sign at or near the intersection must—

(a) stop his or her vehicle before entering the path of any possible vehicle flow at such a position as to be able to ascertain whether the way is clear for the driver to proceed


And from the road code:
Stop sign

At an intersection controlled by a Stop sign:
• come to a complete stop (do not just slow down)
• stop where you can see vehicles coming from all directions
• stay stopped until you have given way to all other vehicles (this includes cycles and motorcycles, etc)

:)
Good luck if you have an accident I very much doubt your law will be on your side in front of a Judge

[Gremlin]

Good luck if you have an accident I very much doubt your law will be on your side in front of a Judge
Uh... the law is the law. If you have an accident, then as always, where do both sides sit in lieu of the law.

If you stopped, but then pulled out and someone hit you, then you'd likely be at fault (assuming a conventional situation) for failing to give way. Nothing has been said about stopping somewhere, then pulling straight out in front of traffic??

Plus, it's not "his law". It's "the" law. Judges can't over-rule law, but a decision can clarify law.

[R650R]

Good luck if you have an accident I very much doubt your law will be on your side in front of a Judge

:eek5: :rofl: :killingme: :killingme: :killingme:


Uh... the law is the law...
Plus, it's not "his law". It's "the" law. Judges can't over-rule law, but a decision can clarify law.

Cheers :)

[Berries]

...you have not stopped if you have been (stopped) behind another vehicle (with full visibility) and then proceed through.
How so?


It is a simple rule. Once you have stopped (at the line) you may proceed when the way is clear.
Oddly enough neither the line or the sign are mentioned in the legislation.


why do so many get this wrong, it is not open to interpretation.
That's exactly what I thought when I read your post.

[Erelyes]

I very much doubt your law will be on your side in front of a Judge

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/44/44856d74bd225692a79c6751f5497e26df246d07cee29a3ecc b6d7200ebf81ef.jpg

[MVnut]

OK well I will pose another question : if I am waiting stopped at the front of the queue and wanting to turn right, and you are the 2nd vehicle on the opposing Stop sign (with both the front vehicle and you wanting to go straight across the intersection.....I obviously must give right of way to the front vehicle but do I have right of way over you or vice versa. No traffic is to be seen on the road we wish to cross at any time.

[BlackSheepLogic]

OK well I will pose another question : if I am waiting stopped at the front of the queue and wanting to turn right, and you are the 2nd vehicle on the opposing Stop sign (with both the front vehicle and you wanting to go straight across the intersection.....I obviously must give right of way to the front vehicle but do I have right of way over you or vice versa. No traffic is to be seen on the road we wish to cross at any time.

Since I have my road code out today (different discussion) -

The give way rule applicable is:
If you are turning, give way to vehicles not turing. There is a perfectly good pictorial in the road code of this exact situation (page 161, 2014/2015 Road code of motorcyclist).

[MVnut]

Since I have my road code out today (different discussion) -

The give way rule applicable is:
If you are turning, give way to vehicles not turing. There is a perfectly good pictorial in the road code of this exact situation (page 161, 2014/2015 Road code of motorcyclist).

Before I posted the above question, I went to the Police Station for their opinion. Yes I (the right turning vehicle) give way to the first opposing straight through vehicle....and then the 2nd opposing straight through vehicle is under obligation to give way to me, assuming I had started to proceed and turn behind the 1st vehicle before the 2nd vehicle had entered the intersection

[Gremlin]

OK well I will pose another question : if I am waiting stopped at the front of the queue and wanting to turn right, and you are the 2nd vehicle on the opposing Stop sign (with both the front vehicle and you wanting to go straight across the intersection.....I obviously must give right of way to the front vehicle but do I have right of way over you or vice versa. No traffic is to be seen on the road we wish to cross at any time.
Assuming you are both at Stop signs (as there is an order of priority between give way and stop signs etc), then they both have right of way, as they are not turning and you are.

[MVnut]

Also the Police pointed out to me that while the 2nd vehicle may proceed through a Stop sign 'slowly' ....in other words don't gas it from position 2, the third etc vehicles in the queue may NOT proceed until stopped again. Apparently position 3 is never in a good enough position to make the call on safety etc......from the horse's mouth so to speak

[R650R]

Before I posted the above question, I went to the Police Station for their opinion. Yes I (the right turning vehicle) give way to the first opposing straight through vehicle....and then the 2nd opposing straight through vehicle is under obligation to give way to me, assuming I had started to proceed and turn behind the 1st vehicle before the 2nd vehicle had entered the intersection

Did they schedule a resit of your license while you were there? Of course if you are already entered into an intersection, eg past the lines and rolling then any other vehicle that has yet to move off has to give way.
But if your both in a Mexican standoff behind your respective yellow lines, turning always gives way to straight ahead.
All this of course is superceeded by prison rules mode whereby you give way to all bigger, fatter and rustier than your vehicle ;p

Maybe instead of random breath and drug testing we could have random pop quizzes at checkpoints on the roadcode...

[Berries]

Apparently position 3 is never in a good enough position to make the call on safety etc
It shouldn't be, because the way stop signs are supposed to be determined is a measurement taken 9m from the limit line along the main road. If you can't see 1.2x the speed limit then a stop sign should be installed, otherwise a give way sign should be sufficient. It is quite possible that the second vehicle has excellent visibility from their stationary position around 6 or 7m beyond the limit line. The third vehicle will be beyond the point where the measurement is taken so their visibility should be reduced. The problem is that quite a few stop signs don't meet the criteria -

Example 1. Crossroads with stop on one side due to poor visibility and give way on the other. Due to all the numb nut drivers who couldn't work out who had priority the council makes the give way sign with perfect visibility a stop sign.
Example 2. Crash at a give way sign where the driver failed to give way made in to a stop sign just because.
Example 3. Moaning residents complain to council and get a stop sign put up for the kiddies.

In all three cases compliance will be lower than expected because the visibility is ok but then there will be calls for enforcement and lots of tickets issued.

And finally, because ranting about stop signs is one of my favourite subjects, you have those that are correctly installed because from a drivers eye height the required visibility is not met, say for example due to some guardrail to the right of the intersection. On a bike (or a truck, or even a 4WD/SUV) you don't have the same constraints because you are much higher than a car driver and can see clearly for several hundred metres over the guardrail. You'll still get a ticket if you don't come to a complete stop though. DAMHIK.

I come back to an earlier suggestion I made, get rid of all stop signs and just enforce failure to give way which is what cause crashes. Failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign has never caused a crash. Perversely, after vehicle 1 moves off vehicle 3 assumes that vehicle 2 will keep going and just as the driver looks up the road to check the way is clear vehicle 2 comes to a complete stop and then gets rear ended. Not an uncommon occurrence at stop signs.

/rant

[MVnut]

I get things wrong for sure, I don't mind admitting that, but 42 years with a licence, approx 3 million km, no accidents, no tickets....can't be doing too much wrong

[DR650gary]

I can't be doing too much wrong

"Posting"













Just kidding

[Ender EnZed]

Also the Police pointed out to me that while the 2nd vehicle may proceed through a Stop sign 'slowly'

So you don't have to come to a complete stop at the line every time. Good to know.

[Gremlin]

So you don't have to come to a complete stop at the line every time. Good to know.
As long as you have stopped somewhere, with appropriate visibility.

Just be aware the cops will often enforce as per, stop at the line. I know a family friend was stopped, as the cop was further down the road and couldn't see that she had stopped. As always though, if you know the law... same thing as motorcycles being done in Transit lanes onto motorways.

[FJRider]

As long as you have stopped somewhere, with appropriate visibility.



The official wording is .. Stop in such a position, so as to be able to see that the way is clear.

Nowhere in any legislation is it written (or suggested) you must stop "At the line" painted on the road.

[mdooher]

The official wording is .. Stop in such a position, so as to be able to see that the way is clear.

Nowhere in any legislation is it written (or suggested) you must stop "At the line" painted on the road.

When I was on my Police recruit course I got reprimanded for stopping at the limit line. As my instructor pointed out, I had already stopped (I was second in the cue) and could see the way was clear so why did I stop again. He also said it was a great way to get rear ended.

However don't try this in Western Australia. There each vehicle must stop at the limit line.

[5150]

Only illegal if you get caught... :msn-wink:

[Old Steve]

I hate it when there's cars parked to the right of a stop sign so you can't see the oncoming traffic. You have to roll over the yellow lines until you can see that the road is clear. Then you have to stop again - you must "Stop in such a position, so as to be able to see that the way is clear" - while sitting further out into the stream of traffic than you feel comfortable with.

[avgas]

Turn out wide and turn in. Not only does it make any corner safer.....its also more fun.

[MarkH]

Only illegal if you get caught... :msn-wink:

If the cops didn't see it, I didn't do it!
(now where have I seen this? Oh yeah, in my sig!)