Interesting road rule?

**dpex** · 17th January 2010, 16:42

I was informed today that there is a road-rule which asserts it is entirely legal to pass any stationary vehicle to the left or right.

Clearly, if this is the case then it must be legal to tool between two lines of 'stationary' vehicles at traffic lights, thus allowing a biker to go to the head of line, legally.

Has anyone any knowledge of or reference for this rule?

**CookMySock** · 17th January 2010, 17:47

Yes that is correct. Also, if the line of traffic is moving, you may pass the cars to your left.

However, the law is also clear that you may not pass any vehicle at any time over an intersection.

Steve

**Berries** · 17th January 2010, 22:28

Originally Posted by dpex

Has anyone any knowledge of or reference for this rule?

Just download the Road User Rule from here - http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/ru...004-index.html and you'll find the answer to a lot of forum questions. You'll find this covered in several sections - 2.3, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8. Knowing the Rule I am happy to do this every morning on the way to work, but if there is a cop car ahead I make sure they are actually stationary and only crawl past them. Read a bit more of the Rule and you will find that apparently you are meant to indicate when you change lanes. When you're splitting traffic you are constantly changing lanes, so if someone was being really really picky they could pull you up on that. Never heard of it being done, but it is there in the legislation. Good bed time reading this, would recommended it to everyone.

**mashman** · 19th January 2010, 09:44

just don't use the service lane to pass, the argument doesn't work then...

**Mully** · 21st January 2010, 10:24

Originally Posted by dpex

I was informed today that there is a road-rule which asserts it is entirely legal to pass any stationary vehicle to the left or right.

Yep. This has been covered before - AFAIK, someone (I believe it's Ixion) has a letter from some Big Cheese (tm) to that effect as well.

Not that I care, I regularly filter past cops on my commute. As long as you don't ride like a retard (in the cop's opinion), it's not an issue. In fact, I know of someone on this forum (name withheld for privacy reasons) who was pulled over and checked out for not filtering; the cop thought that was suspicious.

**Hanne** · 21st January 2010, 10:27

Originally Posted by Berries

apparently you are meant to indicate when you change lanes. When you're splitting traffic you are constantly changing lanes, so if someone was being really really picky they could pull you up on that. Never heard of it being done, but it is there in the legislation. Good bed time reading this, would recommended it to everyone.

Happened to one of the uni guys a few years back. (Admittedly he was doing other iffy things, including speeding with an L- plate). But you can get a ticket if not indicating and this guy did!

**Neshi** · 21st January 2010, 12:53

so on the freeway, if there is congestion and the traffic doesn't move, you may legally drive through the middle of the stationary vehicles?

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st January 2010, 13:23

Originally Posted by Neshi

so on the freeway, if there is congestion and the traffic doesn't move, you may legally drive through the middle of the stationary vehicles?

We don't have a 'freeway'. It's 'motorway'. Alright? The US hasn't taken over. Yet.

Cars may be moving...it's legal to pass within the same lane BUT to the right of the vehicle you are passing. You may only do so on the left if the vehicle is stopped. Otherwise, it's a ticket for 'undertaking'.

**CookMySock** · 21st January 2010, 14:04

Originally Posted by Neshi

so on the freeway, if there is congestion and the traffic doesn't move, you may legally drive through the middle of the stationary vehicles?

Yes, you may overtake your current lane of traffic on the right, even if it is moving quite quickly. Use your indicator! Proceed only if it is safe. Keep your speed differential down.

If the traffic is stationary, you may overtake them on the left or the right. Examine parked cars on your left very carefully indeed for occupants who might open a door in your path - you have been warned!

Steve

**crazyhorse** · 21st January 2010, 17:20

hmmmmmm just learnt something else

**rastuscat** · 22nd January 2010, 10:25

This really is a rehash. The law hasn't changed. It's legal to overtake on the left only if

1. The vehicle you are passing is stationary,
2. There are lanes marked on the road,
3. The vehicle ahead of you is turning right.

Remember though that just coz it's legal doesn't make it safe. Here in Chch we regularly deal with crashes where a motorcyclist is going past a stationary vehicle on the left, and it gets smashed by a car turning right from the other direction. Sure, it's the car drivers fault, but it's the rider that gets the broken leg.

**glyder** · 22nd January 2010, 10:40

The Passing on the left offence has been replaced by inconsiderately passing a vehicle traveling in the same direction nz

**CookMySock** · 22nd January 2010, 10:48

Originally Posted by rastuscat

Here in Chch we regularly deal with crashes where a motorcyclist is going past a stationary vehicle on the left, and it gets smashed by a car turning right from the other direction. Sure, it's the car drivers fault, but it's the rider that gets the broken leg.

It's not the car drivers fault. The law quite clearly states that there is no overtaking of any type across an intersection.

It's the riders' fault. You shouldn't overtake across an intersection or pedestrian crossing, even if there are lanes marked. It's foolish and dangerous and illegal.

Steve

**MSTRS:Me** · 22nd January 2010, 11:13

Originally Posted by DangerousBastard

It's not the car drivers fault. The law quite clearly states that there is no overtaking of any type across an intersection.

It's the riders' fault. You shouldn't overtake across an intersection or pedestrian crossing, even if there are lanes marked. It's foolish and dangerous and illegal.

Steve

A suburban street with driveways lining both sides does not constitute 'intersections'...for example.