Nelson man Norman Flounders, 79, has vowed to continue a four-year-long court scrap over a fine he got from Auckland Transport for driving in a bus lane.
The dispute has been through a hearing before two Justices of the Peace, the District Court and the High Court, and now looks set to go higher, with Flounders vowing never to pay the $300 fine and appeal to the Appeal Court.
The dispute arose from two instances, on 16 July and 20 July in 2020, when Flounders knowingly drove through a bus lane on Khyber Pass Road in Newmarket.
At the heart of the case is clause 2.3(4) of the Road User Rule, which sets out what is commonly referred to as the 50-metre rule. It provides an exception to the general rule (that you cannot drive in a special vehicle lane) if the driver drives in the lane to cross it to make a turn or leave the roadway, provided the driver uses the lane for the minimum length necessary to make the manoeuvre, for no more than a maximum of 50 metres, and gives way to vehicles entitled to use the lane.
Auckland Transport staff responded to Flounders dispute with a sketch map that showed the distance between the sign showing the start of the bus lane and the end of the bus lane was 77 metres.
Flounders argued that the bus lane was not continuous because it was bisected by a pedestrian crossing that was 17.5m wide. He said this meant there was actually two distinct bus lanes, and he calculated one to measure 9m and the other to measure 40m.
Both judges ruled that there was only one bus lane, not two, and that regardless of the actual length of the bus lane, Flounders used the bus lane for more than "the minimum length necessary to complete the manoeuvre".
I can see his reasoning. In fact, I apply the same to cyclist roads here in Germany. My city does not have a (guessing here) 3km long cycle road. We have 5 short ones and cyclists lose their priority whenever a road crosses.
But even with his argument I don't think he would be allowed to drive on the first section of the bus lane. After all he did not use that part to make a turn, he used that part to continue straight onto the other section of bus lane.
The argument was great for someone trying hard to find something, and assuming the picture in the article is the crossing concerned, I agree there's a pretty good case of it being two bus lanes.
Unfortunately they missed the important part of the law. They claimed it wasn't longer than 50 metres because the bus lane was bisected, but the important part was the part where you have to use the lane for the minimum necessary, 50 metres is an upper limit of what can be considered the minimum necessary, it's not an allowance that you can use 50 metres.