Restricted speed signage?

[oneofsix]

Yes this has already happen with no passing lines.

Once upon-a-time they meant "Even if you are sure you can see, you can't - there is something obscuring your vision of on coming traffic so don't pass"

And I took them seriously.

Now they are everywhere, used just to ensure everyone travels at the speed of the lowest common denominator.

This ensures higher traffic densities, higher accident rates and the resultant increase in funding that the NZTA get.

So now, yellow lines mean check for cops, use your own judgment, pass if you think its safe.

yep and they are painted for cages, now do they think the cagers would react if the painted the yellow lines based on trucks? Ok where there is a place where say a dip in the road causes you to possibly think you have the visibility when you don't but otherwise the general overtaking rule should apply and no yellow paint. Just cause some idiot cause a yellow line to be painted there doesn't make it unsafe. My first encounter was one painted in perfect visibility because there was a side road, ignored the fact you could see down the side road as well.

[MSTRS:Me]

Since the use of yellow lines for 'traffic calming' they have been turned into a joke, just like the 30kph signs. Relying on their presence (or lack of) to tell you what to do is a hiding to nothing.
There is one spot on SH5, heading towards Napier at the end of the plains, where the road dips and veers left before climbing back into sight. The dip is deep enough to hide a truck. There are NO yellow lines there and if you didn't know the road...

[Lelitu]

Since the use of yellow lines for 'traffic calming' they have been turned into a joke, just like the 30kph signs. Relying on their presence (or lack of) to tell you what to do is a hiding to nothing.
There is one spot on SH5, heading towards Napier at the end of the plains, where the road dips and veers left before climbing back into sight. The dip is deep enough to hide a truck. There are NO yellow lines there and if you didn't know the road...

this is where you need double yellows.
where even a sensible person, applying the rules correctly, would be deceived by geography into thinking visibility is better than it is.

there are lots of places that have double yellows that are just silly.
either so obviously unsafe to pass that anyone that does is clearly guilty of dangerous driving
or so obviously safe except in peak traffic, as to make a mockery of the markings

[steve_t]

this is where you need double yellows.
where even a sensible person, applying the rules correctly, would be deceived by geography into thinking visibility is better than it is.

there are lots of places that have double yellows that are just silly.
either so obviously unsafe to pass that anyone that does is clearly guilty of dangerous driving
or so obviously safe except in peak traffic, as to make a mockery of the markings

Bear in mind that overtaking at 104 km/h to get past someone going at 80-90km/h does mean you're on the wrong side of the road for quite a long time

[MSTRS:Me]

this is where you need double yellows.

Why? Only a problem in one direction. The other way, there is good visibility because of the topography.

[oneofsix]

Bear in mind that overtaking at 104 km/h to get past someone going at 80-90km/h does mean you're on the wrong side of the road for quite a long time

and because you are "creeping" past them they speed up to match you without even realising they are doing it.

[Bassmatt]

Bear in mind that overtaking at 104 km/h to get past someone going at 80-90km/h does mean you're on the wrong side of the road for quite a long time

Someone (AA perhaps) calculated the time required and if my recollection is correct it was around 30 secs on the WRONG side of the road.
Fuck that, my philosophy is wot until past. Takes about 5 seconds.

[steve_t]

Someone (AA perhaps) calculated the time required and if my recollection is correct it was around 30 secs on the WRONG side of the road.
Fuck that, my philosophy is wot until past. Takes about 5 seconds.

5 seconds? Should be less than that. Leave enough space in front of you to accelerate and already have a decent speed differential between you and the car you're passing so that the time in the wrong lane is minimal. I always facepalm when I see idiots driving up the arse of another car and then pull out to pass only to have it take them AGES to accelerate and get past. They spend way too much time in the wrong lane.
But yeah, same for me with WOT. No way I'm going past another vehicle at 104km/h. If I get busted, I'll cop the fine but spending the least amount of time on the wrong side of the road is generally more important to me than money. Big long straights are obviously less of an issue

[davereid]

100 km/hr is 27.7 metres per second.

If you pull out when 2 seconds (stopping distance) behind the car you intend to pass, and pull in two seconds in front of it you have 120 m of vehicle space to pass, more of less.

if you are doing 4 km/hr faster than the vehicle you are passing you are doing 1.1 m per second more than he is. It will take you 109 seconds to complete your overtaking legally.

You will have travelled more than 3 km.

[Berries]

Be they temporary, necessary or no, those speed signs are legal as/when displayed.

Well that's not strictly true and I would hope that before going in to enforce a temporary speed limit the Police actually check the layout of the site against the approved Traffic Management Plan to make sure what is out there is correct. Too often, especially when it comes to 30 and 50km/h limits on the open road, the site is not set out in accordance with COPTTM leaving its legality open to question.

[Lelitu]

Why? Only a problem in one direction. The other way, there is good visibility because of the topography.

my bad for assuming, I figured if the dip compromised visibility from one end
then it would from the other as well

apparently I was wrong.