Collected some revenue today

[scumdog]

In sport, work, some leisure activities, or anything else governed by a set of rules, people will follow them without a second thought. They realise if everyone plays to the same set of rules the system must be fair to all. Yet when it comes to the road, the most deadly game of all, people think they have the right to analyse the rules and only follow those which they agree with.

Ain't THAT the truth!!

(If it was in a game that the rules were being broken in we would hear the screams of 'foul' and no-fair ref!' all the way to Africa.)

[flyingcrocodile46]

In sport, work, some leisure activities, or anything else governed by a set of rules, people will follow them without a second thought. They realise if everyone plays to the same set of rules the system must be fair to all. Yet when it comes to the road, the most deadly game of all, people think they have the right to analyse the rules and only follow those which they agree with.

That is probably why the rules of games never get changed eh.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Ain't THAT the truth!!

(If it was in a game that the rules were being broken in we would hear the screams of 'foul' and no-fair ref!' all the way to Africa.)

Off side! Get back behind the line. {edit.. I mean you, here, now}

[FJRider]

Right, back to the tea and shortbread. Deep breaths required.

What ... !!! No donuts .. ???

[pzkpfw]

I never wrote I was equating legal and safe. Luctor et emergo? You're emerging out your arse!

Yeah, I probably didn't word it well, but I was commenting on your habit of saying things like "Forget about the legality and being safe, it's only a red colour.".

This implies { red = illegal to go = unsafe to go }; i.e. that it's all the same thing.

(And again, I can't recall any time I've gone through a red, for any reason.)

[FJRider]

(If it was in a game that the rules were being broken in we would hear the screams of 'foul' and no-fair ref!' all the way to Africa.)

That's only when somebody endangers US. When WE do it ... it's a "Professional Foul".

Unless we get caught. Then ... it's no-fair ref.

Simple really ..

[Scuba_Steve]

The best way to avoid hitting a vehicle on the other side of the road is to blindly comply with the REQUIREMENT (it's law, not just a good idea), to STAY ON YOUR OWN FECKING SIDE OF YELLOW LINES.

Right, back to the tea and shortbread. Deep breaths required.

Do you happen to have the exact law about said yellow lines??? I've tried searching before but never managed to find the exact writeup surrounding it.

[Ocean1]

There is actually. As usual streetview wont give the best look at the road. It's the road between Alex and Roxburgh. This bit of the road is straight(ish) but rises and falls a few times ... and has caught a few out. (even with the double yellows ...

I was on it a month ago, don't recall that particular bit, I'll take your word that the apparent 500M of clear road... isn't.

And quoting an imbedded image is verboten ... especially when THAT particular post was a dig at Gremlin.

Fixt. No problem with sensible rules.

Believe it or not, there are things that are there that you might not see, sometimes. That's why people turn across the path of oncoming bikes. Trains too.

The folk who think it's okay to cross the centreline to straighten a piece of road don't allow for the fact that one day they might not see the oncoming thing they didn't see. Unlikely to be a train, but can't rule it out.

The best way to avoid hitting a vehicle on the other side of the road is to blindly comply with the REQUIREMENT (it's law, not just a good idea), to STAY ON YOUR OWN FECKING SIDE OF YELLOW LINES.

Right, back to the tea and shortbread. Deep breaths required.

There's always things we might not see. But there's the thing, nobody else is responsible for my safety, that's all mine. So nobody else gets to dictate how I deal with issues surrounding my safety. I don't unnescessarily straighten out corners by crossing ordinary white lines let alone yellow ones, but I will if I think it's safer for me to do so.

That happens very very rarely and I've never been pinged for it, but it has happened and faced with the same situation I'd do it again without hesitation.

I agree with Croc, also, yellow lines are becoming so prevalent in areas where passing is pretty safe that people who used to hold them as absolute gospel now more or less ignore them.

Right. Back to Black Label and curry.

[rastuscat]

Do you happen to have the exact law about said yellow lines??? I've tried searching before but never managed to find the exact writeup surrounding it.

Couple of bits of law, actually.

No passing lines are covered here

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
2.9Passing where roadway marked with no-passing line
(1)This clause applies if a driver is at or approaching a portion of a roadway where the road controlling authority has, in accordance with any enactment, marked a no-passing line applying to traffic moving in the direction in which the driver is moving.
(2)The driver must not pass or attempt to pass a motor vehicle or an animal-drawn vehicle moving in the same direction within the length of roadway on which the no-passing line is marked until the driver reaches the further end of the no-passing line, unless throughout the passing movement the driver keeps the vehicle wholly to the left of the no-passing line.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(6)

Keeping left (what we are discussing here) is covered here

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
2.1Keeping left
(1)A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.
(2)If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass.
(3)A driver may drive in the right lane in the direction of travel when driving on a multi-lane road if—
(a)the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
(b)the driver is passing; or
(c)the left lane is unavailable to the driver; or
(d)the driver is required by any provision of this rule to drive in the right lane; or
(e)a variable lane control downward-facing arrow sign indicates that the driver must drive in the right lane; or
(f)the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
(g)the traffic in all other lanes is congested; or
(h)the traffic in every lane is congested.

Just from memory, of course. I hope I got all the commas in the right place.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Couple of bits of law, actually.

No passing lines are covered here

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
2.9Passing where roadway marked with no-passing line
(1)This clause applies if a driver is at or approaching a portion of a roadway where the road controlling authority has, in accordance with any enactment, marked a no-passing line applying to traffic moving in the direction in which the driver is moving.
(2)The driver must not pass or attempt to pass a motor vehicle or an animal-drawn vehicle moving in the same direction within the length of roadway on which the no-passing line is marked until the driver reaches the further end of the no-passing line, unless throughout the passing movement the driver keeps the vehicle wholly to the left of the no-passing line.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(6)

Keeping left (what we are discussing here) is covered here

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
2.1Keeping left
(1)A driver, when driving, must at all times drive as near as practicable to the left side of the roadway unless this rule otherwise provides.
(2)If a driver's speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass.
(3)A driver may drive in the right lane in the direction of travel when driving on a multi-lane road if—
(a)the driver is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
(b)the driver is passing; or
(c)the left lane is unavailable to the driver; or
(d)the driver is required by any provision of this rule to drive in the right lane; or
(e)a variable lane control downward-facing arrow sign indicates that the driver must drive in the right lane; or
(f)the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
(g)the traffic in all other lanes is congested; or
(h)the traffic in every lane is congested.

Just from memory, of course. I hope I got all the commas in the right place.

Geeze look at all those rules and I bet that is only half of them. Way too complex. I dunno about the comma but looking at all that gobbldygook makes me feel like a coma is coming on.

That sort of stuff is for the gods and doesn't apply to us mere mortals. If t ain't written big and bold on the road in max 2 syllable words then it don't apply to us.

[Zedder]

Yeah, I probably didn't word it well, but I was commenting on your habit of saying things like "Forget about the legality and being safe, it's only a red colour.".

This implies { red = illegal to go = unsafe to go }; i.e. that it's all the same thing.

(And again, I can't recall any time I've gone through a red, for any reason.)

I wouldn't say writing it once makes it a habit. Anyway, I try to keep my posts economical for the readers sake.

It's good that you can't recall running a red light. Cheers.

[Coolz]

That is probably why the rules of games never get changed eh.

Nothing in life is a constant. It's called evolution. Though not all evolve.

[swbarnett]

No, I think you're being a safe rider/driver who is proud of keeping to a skill set and laws as opposed to other idiots who think it's ok to endanger themselves and others.

I was utterly gobsmacked to read a post about actually choosing to cross the double yellow lines both on a bike and in a car. Get the fuck off the road if you can't be bothered to do it properly and safely.

Blindly sticking to the rules does not make for a safe driver. Also, driving outside the rules doesn't necessarily make for an unsafe driver.

In sport, work, some leisure activities, or anything else governed by a set of rules, people will follow them without a second thought. They realise if everyone plays to the same set of rules the system must be fair to all. Yet when it comes to the road, the most deadly game of all, people think they have the right to analyse the rules and only follow those which they agree with.

Ah, but who sets the rules for a sport? Ultimately it's the players (the governing body usually being made up of current and retired players). On the road the rules are set by a bunch of beurocrats that know nothing about driving.

The folk who think it's okay to cross the centreline to straighten a piece of road don't allow for the fact that one day they might not see the oncoming thing they didn't see. Unlikely to be a train, but can't rule it out.

You do realise (so I'm told by the interweb) that the British police are taught exactly this technique as a valid way to "make progress" and it's taught to the general public as well?

[Gremlin]

You do realise (so I'm told by the interweb) that the British police are taught exactly this technique as a valid way to "make progress" and it's taught to the general public as well?

The only extension I know is IAM, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is based off the police training.

Cutting corners is certainly not taught or permitted as part of an assessment. Using your piece of the road to full extent is taught, increasing sight angles for safety and visibility.

[Coolz]

Blindly sticking to the rules does not make for a safe driver. Also, driving outside the rules doesn't necessarily make for an unsafe driver.

I will try your advice next time I'm driving a truck.