What a plonker
Aotearoa / New Zealand
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
I bet he's never made a mistake in his life, and everything bad that happens is someone else's fault.
Or maybe he's just old, bored, and willing to waste some taxpayer dollars.
Aaah I love the guy. He's sticking to his guns. Costing the people of NZ hundreds and hundreds of thousands of kiwiroos, and will die on that hill in the courts of England. Declaring NZ is not a legal government entity.
What a charming little tale of David vs Goliath.
I'm just not that principled... I'm quite impressed at his stubbornness, to be honest!
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.