Bike cop learns me of bus lane law...

[The Pastor]

The sgin may not exclude motorbikes, or cars or anything. But the intention of the sgin is to exclude everything that isnt a bus.

There fore you will get pulled over by the cops for riding in a buss lane, and thats all that matters. Also you may find cars will follow you for riding in a buss lane (its happend to me!).

You might be able to get off the charge in court, but whats the point? Transit don't want you there and you have to take days off work to get off the charge, and that will cost you more than paying the fine, OR just riding in the lanes like everyone else.

[sAsLEX]

The sgin may not exclude motorbikes, or cars or anything. But the intention of the sgin is to exclude everything that isnt a bus.

There fore you will get pulled over by the cops for riding in a buss lane, and thats all that matters. Also you may find cars will follow you for riding in a buss lane (its happend to me!).

You might be able to get off the charge in court, but whats the point? Transit don't want you there and you have to take days off work to get off the charge, and that will cost you more than paying the fine, OR just riding in the lanes like everyone else.

oh they "intend" to follow the law, a classic defence.

How many bus lanes are in question here? Not too many, if they have an issue spend the few hundred and put up specific exclusion signs.

[peasea]

There was a thread on this last year where it was a big nono to use the bus lane on the motorway but okay to use the ones in town.

I too am interested to know if this is a legislation change or just a local Auckland change for specific bus lanes.

All of the above, can do it in the burbs (local council bylaws) can't do it on the m/way (transit) bloody confusing, got done for it myself, went to court, lost, more cash for the coffers.

[Max Preload]

No, The court has already ruled that "Buses Only" simply defines it as a bus lane. Motorcycles are not specified, and therefore are not specifically excluded. In order for motorcycles to be specifically excluded then they must be specified.

Can you quote a case? I'd be interested in knowing this if I stop, ummm, I mean get stopped.

[Jantar]

Can you quote a case? I'd be interested in knowing this if I stop, ummm, I mean get stopped.

No, I can't quote directly, but it was reported in one of the Northern papers earlier this year. It is also one of the reasons (maybe the main reason) that the police were told to stop issuing tickets to motorcyclists using the bus lanes on the motorway.

The whole point is that the Transit bylaw predated the legislation passed by parliament, and that rules and regulations passed by parliament take precedent over bylaws anyway. Transit still have the option of banning motorcycles from motorway bus lanes, but only if they erect specific signage.

[swbarnett]

I was sighted by a cop using the bus lane on the Esmonde Rd on ramp (before the new ramp was open but in the middle of the work). I got a letter accusing me of "driving in an unavailable lane". I sent them a letter back stating that it was unclear where the Esmonde Rd bus lane finished and the motorway bus lane started. They replied that:

There is a discrepancy in the law as motorcycles are allowed to use "bus lanes" unless stated "bus lane only". But you are not allowed to use "bus lanes" on the motorway.

There was a sign at the start of the on ramp but because it only said "bus lane begins" the charge was dropped.

So, my conclusions are these:

1. You may use council bus lanes throughout Auckland (already understood I think).
2. You may use on ramp bus lanes unless the word "only" appears on the sign.
3. The "only" restriction probably also applies to suburban bus lanes if it appears on the sign (as it does in Wellesley St. just east of Queen St. in Auckland)
4. You are not allowed to use the bus lanes actually on the motorway.

[Jabez]

This morning I was pulled over for riding in the City bound north-western motorway bus lane.

I said to the officer that there was no sign "specifically excluding motorcycles" as required by "Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004". He never mentioned the "Buses only" sign!

He asked me for my licence, which I proceeded to get out from my bag.
Conveniently I was carrying a copy of the above rule, which I showed the officer.
He asked if I wanted to argue this to a judge & I said yes!
He informed me that the Transit NZ bylaw has precedence over the "Law of the land"!!!

He asked me if I was a lawyer........

I said no & he effectively said don't tell him how to do his job!!

He then reiterated that I couldn't use the bus lane & asked if I would I like that in writing (ticket), I said no & so he got back in his car & waited for me to leave.



Now if it is indeed illegal to use the motorway bus lane & he wasn't just trying to scare me, he should have given me a ticketed!

Anyway I'm always up for a challenge, so I decided to do some investigation of my own.

BTW, I am not a lawyer, so the conclusions that I come to are my own opinion.

1, Check out his claim about "bylaws".
(As you will see I tend to like getting things from source, not hearsay!)

The "Bylaws act 1920” from Statutes of NZ:
14 Bylaw not invalid because subject-matter dealt with by statute

No bylaw shall be invalid merely because it deals with a matter already dealt with by the laws of New Zealand, unless it is repugnant to the provisions of those laws.


17 Part of bylaw only may be deemed invalid

If any bylaw contains any provisions which are invalid because they are ultra vires of the local authority, or repugnant to the laws of New Zealand, or unreasonable, or for any other cause whatever, the bylaw shall be invalid to the extent of those provisions and any others which cannot be severed therefrom.


Can't claim Ultra vires
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...wtype=contents
They have the authority!

But Repugnant may be a go'er:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repugnant
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=repugnant


2, Ok, what does the bylaw actually say?

August 2002 bylaw:
http://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/NZGZT/NZGazette90August02.pdf/$file/NZGazette90August02.pdf
Amendment August 2005 (note after 2004 rule):
http://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/NZGZT/NZGazette123Aug05.pdf/$file/NZGazette123Aug05.pdf

Ok, no where in this Gazette dose it even mention motorcycles, but note this statement at the end!

"Any reference in this bylaw to any statute or regulation is deemed to include all amendments and revisions made from time to time to that statute or regulation."


3, The motorway bus lane is legally marked as a bus lane, therefore...
"Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004"
bus lane means a lane reserved by a marking or sign installed at the start of the lane and at each point at which the lane resumes after an intersection for the use of—
(a)buses; and
[(b)cycles, mopeds, and motorcycles (unless one or more are specifically excluded by the sign)]

So I am legally able to use the motorway bus lane unless it has the symbol of a motorcycle inside a red circle with a diagonal line through it (just like the no cyclist & pedestrian signs at all motorway on ramps) which would specifically exclude motorcycles.



References:
Bylaw regulations:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...t=pal_statutes

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...wtype=contents

Ultra vires
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/brows...wtype=contents

Repugnant:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repugnant

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=repugnant

[Max Preload]

Fucking excellent work! Muchos bling for you!

I'm going to ride down the motorway bus lanes intentionally from now on, just to bait the pigs, carrying a printout of the relevant legislation and dare them to ticket me. I don't even care if it's the wrong conclusion. I'll happily to test it in court myself, just on principle. Screw their "policy" if it doesn't stack up.

[Max Preload]

Just a couple of minor corrections.

It's the "Bylaw Act 1910" not 1920...

The links don't work because of stupid frames. But here are PDF's of the pages.

[Sanx]

Excellent work, Jabez. I think the argument would come down to what constitutes a 'specific exclusion'. To me, a sign that says 'Buses only' - in effect, a specific inclusion, could logically be taken as an exclusion of all other vehicle types. However, the phrase 'specifically excluded' could be taken to mean that Transit NZ would have to put up a 'No motorcyles' sign, as you surmised.

The final decision, of course, would come down to a magistrate, and we all know how clued up magistrates are when it comes to legal matters. I suspect that if this formed the basis of your argument in court, the Police prosecutor would have little trouble convincing the magistrate that the 'Buses Only' sign did in effect constitute a specific exclusion of all other vehicle types. Magistrates, who are meant to carefully listen to both sides of the argument, seem to take anything the Police say as gospel.

However, if you got in front of a real judge, I suspect you'd have a far better chance of convincing him. Judges would be looking much more closely at the actual wording of the legislation involved. I also suspect that should you decide to appeal any magistrate conviction, the police would simply drop the charge. It's one thing losing in a magistrate court, it's another thing losing in a district court. If there's ont thing the Police prosecution team are afraid of, it's allowing people to use legislation to set precedents.

[Max Preload]

I think you could successfully argue, even at the JP level, that since the beginning of the motorway specifically excludes pedestrians and cyclists with individual signs, so that is the required level. Saying "Buses only" doesn't SPECIFICALLY exclude motorcycles or other vehicles entitled to use Bus lanes.

I might even spend some money having a lawyer look over this and put his/her interpretation on it.

[sAsLEX]

2.12Motorways


(3)A driver must not drive in an emergency stopping lane unless—

(c)a sign at the entrance to the lane indicates vehicles of a specified class or classes may use the lane during the time specified on the sign and the driver is operating a vehicle of that specified class or one of those specified classes.

hmm that might kill our argument! As it is not a bus lane per say? Though suggests the signage is still wrong.

[Jantar]

hmm that might kill our argument! As it is not a bus lane per say? Though suggests the signage is still wrong.

I believe that has been Transit's argument all along. Namely that they aren't bus ;lanes, but emergency stopping lanes. However as soon as they are signed with the words "Buses Only" they become bus lanes and the Bus lane rules apply.

Try and look at this whole concept through the eyes of someone who is not from Auckland, but happens to be riding over the motorway and has a good knowledge of the road rules. They see an empty lane marked "Buses Only" and no sign specifically excluding motorcycles. How are they to know that Transit has an interpretation that is different from the legislation?

[BevanPT]

Either way, you can't trust what a cop says anyway. I use the bus lane at the end of Lincoln Road (at the traffic lights) as I get the green "B" for bike signal and can change lanes without having to worry about cages. Mufti cop pulled me over last week trying to tell me I couldn't use it. Bit of an argument ensued after that and he ended up having to apologise once he got correct answer from headquarters. His excuse, he is used to the motorway bus lanes and didn't know about the different rules in the suburbs. A traffic cop that doesn't know the road rules - I would assume that the cop in the original thread doesn't actually "know" the rules and is just guessing.

[sAsLEX]

I believe that has been Transit's argument all along. Namely that they aren't bus ;lanes, but emergency stopping lanes. However as soon as they are signed with the words "Buses Only" they become bus lanes and the Bus lane rules apply.

Try and look at this whole concept through the eyes of someone who is not from Auckland, but happens to be riding over the motorway and has a good knowledge of the road rules. They see an empty lane marked "Buses Only" and no sign specifically excluding motorcycles. How are they to know that Transit has an interpretation that is different from the legislation?

I know that's how someone logical would view the problem, and they would probably follow through with a few signs specifically excluding motorcycles if they did not want them in the lane, but alas they are to ignorant to do that.

I got done a while back, before the 2004 thingy, for going through a bus lane at a set of lights in Auckland city. At the time all Auckland City bus lanes were advertised as being open to bikes. So I used it. Then got done as the intersection was under transit not the councils control!? and yet the cop who stopped me did not stop the tourist buses illegally using the intersection......yet again a case of the police not having full knowledge of the rules.... got off it after writing in, but what a pain in the arse, for doing something that according to all media I had seen was correct and the cop wouldn't have a bar of it no warning, and when questions over the Auckland Citys Councils view on bikes in bus lanes jsut used the classic "I will have to give you a ticket and you can contest it" ...... "as I really have no clue how to do my job"