Phoebe F'wit - FAIL

[Ixion]

The Harold runs a column called 'Ask Phoebe' . In which a rather dopey , and decidedly bike-unfriendly chick answers questions from equally dopey readers.

In Tuesdays column she was asked "may motorcycles use the priority lanes on the motorway light controlled on ramps". She replied "No they may not - hah hah serves you horrid bikers right sucks to be you". Well, not quite, but that was the gist.

She is completely wrong. BRONZ have checked. With the onramp dude himself. Who says

No, on this occasion Phoebe has got it wrong, and will be publishing a correction very soon. Motorcyclists are able to use Transit Lanes, and the key reference is found in the provisions of the Road Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (designated as Rule 61001), which specifically provides at Clause 1.6 Interpretations: where it says "Transit Lane means a lane reserved for use of the following (unless specifically excluded by a sign at the start of the lane): (a) passenger service vehicles: (b) motor vehicles carrying not less than the number of persons (including the driver) specified on the sign: ... (d) motorcycles: ...."

Accordingly, and being signed as a Transit Lane, motorcyclists are able to use the motorway on-ramp priority bypass lanes (other than the one at Grafton Gully which signed for use by trucks only). The lanes are available for use 24 hours a day, and seven days a week.

Separately, arrangements are being made to install additional signs reinforcing the standard Road Rules that should make the position clear.

I shall await the retraction !

[BevanPT]

I sent her an email on Tuesday outlining the facts as per the Transit website and the definition of a "transit lane" included in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Also pointed out that she had given a different answer in a previous publication.

Her apology and retraction is in today's Herald.

[vifferman]

Good Work, Dr Ixion!
I too saw that piece, and thought, "WTF?!?" And yes, she seemed almost gleeful about bikes being unable to use the aforementioned lanes/ramps.

Speaking of ramps, I see that "they" are almost ready to open some more on-ramp lights on the Northern, coming out of Wairau Park. WHat a ballsed-up idea this is. Firstly, I communt past there every day, and can't say I've seen more'n a trickle of traffic out of there - porbably because there are three sets of lights near that on-ramp, which of themselves regulate traffic flow.
Fourthly, when they do unmask these lights, WTF is it going to do to traffic at the aforementioned lights? It's already a massive snarl-up at most times of the day, but especially in the mornings.
Whoever's responsible is a Dick. It doesn't solve anything, just makes it look like the traffic flow on the motorways is better, by stuffing it up for all the roads leading to the on-ramps so controlled. One would imagine (if one had imagination) that the persons responsible are "Traffic Engineers". If so, surely they should be thinking about the overall traffic movement, and how efficient (or otherwise) that is, not just wasting road-taxpayers' money on stupid ideas that give the appearance of working by moving the problem elsewhere?

[vifferman]

Her apology and retraction is in today's Herald.

Damn!
I skimmed her column, but missed that.

[Phurrball]

Here is the linky to the retraction.

[vifferman]

Thanks for the link - I was just about to look for the piece.

[Marmoot]

I don't know what that old grumpy threadstarter was complaining about...

It's a FREE column, and nothing is better than something free.

The column has been good, and even shed some light on the perpetual debate of "B" green light on bus-laned intersection (for which it turned out we CAN actually go when the "B" goes green. It stands for "Bus Lane", not "Bus & Bicycle").

[ManDownUnder]

Any link to the original article? I'd like to read it - get the feeling of the "glee"

[slofox]

Aargh she's just dopey - ya can tell by lookin' at 'er...........

[Usarka]

I apologise unreservedly. In the coming months, the signs will be changed to reflect this.

Why does it need this? So car drivers don't get all angry and burst a hernia?

Or does she mean all other on ramps will get signs saying "trucks only"?

[vifferman]

Or does she mean all other on ramps will get signs saying "trucks only"?

I bet.
Transit (or whatever bunch or bureaucratic tards are responsible) seem to be anti bikes.
Or perhaps it's really more like anti people.

[Ragingrob]

So, we are not entitled to use the "truck lane" down past uni then? Well, legally anyway? Stink!

[pzkpfw]

I've seen arguments about whether "Buses only" means "no bikes" or whether it means "Bus lane (that bikes, as usual, may also use)".

In the OP, is mention of a "Trucks only" sign on a transit lane meaning exactly that, trucks only, no bikes.

Does this then apply to bus lanes? Would the same logic apply? (I realise a "bus lane" isn't a "transit lane", but I'm looking at what "Buses only" means.)

[Jantar]

I've seen arguments about whether "Buses only" means "no bikes" or whether it means "Bus lane (that bikes, as usual, may also use)".

In the OP, is mention of a "Trucks only" sign on a transit lane meaning exactly that, trucks only, no bikes.

Does this then apply to bus lanes? Would the same logic apply? (I realise a "bus lane" isn't a "transit lane", but I'm looking at what "Buses only" means.)

There is provision in the legislation that allows motorcycles to use bus lanes unless they are specifically excluded. that means that motorcycles can use all bus lanes unless there is a sign saying (or representing) "No Motorcycles". Motorcycles are also permitted to use "Transit Lanes" unless specifically excluded. I understand that there is a provision for "Truck Only" lanes that are NOT Transit Lanes. I don't believe that there is the same legislation allowing motorcycles to use these ones.

However, if they are signed as "Transit Lanes" then motorcycles can use them.

[pzkpfw]

There is provision in the legislation that allows motorcycles to use bus lanes unless they are specifically excluded. that means that motorcycles can use all bus lanes unless there is a sign saying (or representing) "No Motorcycles". Motorcycles are also permitted to use "Transit Lanes" unless specifically excluded. I understand that there is a provision for "Truck Only" lanes that are NOT Transit Lanes. I don't believe that there is the same legislation allowing motorcycles to use these ones.

However, if they are signed as "Transit Lanes" then motorcycles can use them.

Yep, that's the stuff I was thinking about. A line in the OP implies a "Transit Lane" with "Trucks only" sign. That would make it all very contradictory like:...
Transit lane + "trucks only" sign = no bikes. (bikes excluded by not being specifically included)
Bus lane + "buses only" sign = bikes OK. (bikes included by not being specifically excluded)
Bus lane + "no bikes" sign = no bikes. (bikes excluded by being specifically excluded)

We pay folk too much to write these laws so badly.