The Original i30 Owners Club

GENERAL STUFF => GENERAL DISCUSSIONS => Random Chit Chat => Topic started by: rustynutz on March 08, 2011, 14:36:45

Title: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on March 08, 2011, 14:36:45
I thought it might be handy if we had the Road Rules available for those that would like to brush up on them...  :) 

I'll kick things off with the Road Rules for the Australian States/Territories.

Feel free to add your own Country's rules... :goodjob:

Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 22, 2012, 07:16:47
Added links (in the original post) for all the Australian States & Territories..... :D
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Pip on April 22, 2012, 12:48:13
Just had a quick look at the Vic rules... 500 bloody pages!  You have to be kidding me that we need so many rules, particularly the bicycle rules I
looked reasonably hard at.  :confused: :scared: :faint: :wacko:

I know some people just love rules... I prefer reasonably applied common sense where real rules are not necessary... Yeah, I know... but it's my opinion!
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 22, 2012, 12:57:03
Hehehe, pip, I couldn't agree more..... :razz:

And of course if you decide to travel interstate, you're also required to know their Road Rules.... :whistler:

Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Dazzler on April 22, 2012, 13:34:59
Hehehe, pip, I couldn't agree more..... :razz:

And of course if you decide to travel interstate, you're also required to know their Road Rules.... :whistler:

Very much agree with both of you  :goodjob: I'm going to be nervous opening our letter box for the next couple of months after our recent trip  :sweating:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: 2i30s on April 23, 2012, 11:35:21
Hehehe, pip, I couldn't agree more..... :razz:

And of course if you decide to travel interstate, you're also required to know their Road Rules.... :whistler:

Very much agree with both of you  :goodjob: I'm going to be nervous opening our letter box for the next couple of months after our recent trip  :sweating:
:honk: :TutTut: :censored: :groan:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: eye30 on April 23, 2012, 12:02:22
And of course if you decide to travel interstate, you're also required to know their Road Rules.... :whistler:

At least here in UK and Eire only one set of rules.
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: 2i30s on April 23, 2012, 12:13:09
And of course if you decide to travel interstate, you're also required to know their Road Rules.... :whistler:

At least here in UK and Eire only one set of rules.
Australia should do the same thing and make the road rules uniform throughout the country,not state by state.  :confused: :fum:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 23, 2012, 12:20:45
Not as easy as it sounds, Steve....especially when we have trams in some States.
And, uniform laws would mean that speed limits in the Northern Territory would be dropped to bring them into line. Would we really want to be travelling those vast distances at 100-110kph?  :eek:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 23, 2012, 12:27:11
Not as easy as it sounds, Steve....especially when we have trams in some States.
And, uniform laws would mean that speed limits in the Northern Territory would be dropped to bring them into line. Would we really want to be travelling those vast distances at 100-110kph?  :eek:

Perhaps they could just say the speed limit is 110. And leave the other little letters off.  :undecided:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 23, 2012, 12:29:05
and replace them with mph?  :p


Works for me.... :lol:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: 2i30s on April 23, 2012, 12:44:10
imagine cruising down the nulabour highway from end too end at 60kmh.  :honk: :sleeping: :rofl:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 24, 2012, 03:36:17
I'd imagine it would be bad enough at the 110kph limit, Steve.... :neutral:



Nullarbor Plain (5) longest straight road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbOwEwRwDsg#)


I must do the nullarbor before I croak..... :undecided:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: FatBoy on April 24, 2012, 08:30:34
I've driven the Nullabor twice.  Great road trip.  That "long straight" is very boring though.... and there is no radio stations to listen to.
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 24, 2012, 10:01:51
All things being equal, I should be doing it (east to west) next month as I've got to pick a car up from the Far East.  :)
It's donkey's years since I did it before, in fact the last time would have been in about 1990 with a missus, two little kids and a caravan.
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Dazzler on April 24, 2012, 10:09:58
I wouldn't like it (I like variety in my scenery)  :fum:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 24, 2012, 10:12:31
Not as easy as it sounds, Steve....especially when we have trams in some States.
And, uniform laws would mean that speed limits in the Northern Territory would be dropped to bring them into line. Would we really want to be travelling those vast distances at 100-110kph?  :eek:

Simple to do rustynutz, trams, no trams, what does it matter. If you encounter a tram the same rules should apply.
SA/NT are about the same land area & we are stuck at 100kmh absolute.  :neutral:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: rustynutz on April 24, 2012, 13:18:37
Not as easy as it sounds, Steve....especially when we have trams in some States.
And, uniform laws would mean that speed limits in the Northern Territory would be dropped to bring them into line. Would we really want to be travelling those vast distances at 100-110kph?  :eek:

Simple to do rustynutz, trams, no trams, what does it matter. If you encounter a tram the same rules should apply.
SA/NT are about the same land area & we are stuck at 100kmh absolute.  :neutral:

Good point re trams, Phil.....
Btw,  you still have 110kph limits on some highways & freeways.... :p
http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/roadsafety/safer_speeds/speed_limits (http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/roadsafety/safer_speeds/speed_limits)
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 24, 2012, 13:26:50
Yes that's right, my finger must've slipped. The freeway into town is 110, most of the way. Given our long distances between towns, I wonder why Europeans get to drive much faster that we can. We've got further to go and less snow, ice etc  :undecided:

BTW Last night I was breathalyzed  on the freeway by a hidden lone patrol. I was the only car on the road. The reason, for doing 90 kmh in 110 zone. I blew 0.000 so we both went on our way.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: babis_xo on April 24, 2012, 21:41:35
Given our long distances between towns, I wonder why Europeans get to drive much faster that we can. We've got further to go and less snow, ice etc  :undecided:

Good question, I'll try to answer that:

- The longer the distance is, the longer you remain exposed to the risk of a potential accident, so low speed is essential.
- The larger in area countries encourage low consumption by enforcing low speeds, otherwise they would need lots of oil imports.
- Big cars commonly sold outside Europe, used to have ridiculously soft suspensions and couldn't hold on the road.
- Europeans are better drivers :p
 :rofl: 

On the serious side now, Sweden and UK have the most dangerous weather conditions as with the lowest (by far) percentage of accidents (respect to our friends here)  :)
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 25, 2012, 00:18:42
Given our long distances between towns, I wonder why Europeans get to drive much faster that we can. We've got further to go and less snow, ice etc  :undecided:

Good question, I'll try to answer that:

- The longer the distance is, the longer you remain exposed to the risk of a potential accident, so low speed is essential.
- The larger in area countries encourage low consumption by enforcing low speeds, otherwise they would need lots of oil imports.
- Big cars commonly sold outside Europe, used to have ridiculously soft suspensions and couldn't hold on the road.
- Europeans are better drivers :p
 :rofl: 

On the serious side now, Sweden and UK have the most dangerous weather conditions as with the lowest (by far) percentage of accidents (respect to our friends here)  :)

Thanks Babis_xo, nice to see you here today.
Now for your comments

1 If I Drive faster, I'm not exposed as long  :mrgreen:

2 Government derive a lot of revenue from fuel sales, so let people drive as fast as they want.

3 Only in America, our suspensions are tighter if anything, as in i30!

4  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Come to Mt Panorama, let's see what Europeans can do.  :rofl:

Cheers  :razz:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 25, 2012, 01:52:31
 :lol: :lol: Let's make it on gravel  :)
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 25, 2012, 01:55:52
:lol: :lol: Let's make it on gravel  :)

That wouldn't be fair to him  :lol:

I nominate Surferdude to represent me  :lol:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 25, 2012, 02:03:09
Good choice  :goodjob:
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: babis_xo on April 26, 2012, 01:40:49
Ok, Panorama is a deal.
(click to show/hide)

I'll choose this vehicle (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Od22EB5_7E0/Svk-MWDDgoI/AAAAAAAAAoA/wPOFz9L5KWw/s400/%CE%93%CE%91%CE%99%CE%94%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%9F%CE%A3.jpg)
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 26, 2012, 09:45:55
I hope you don't end up making an ass of yourself.  :D
Title: Re: ROAD RULES
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 26, 2012, 09:48:19
You're so funny, babis-xo    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: kabukiman on June 17, 2012, 03:30:04
People fom Vic...

why can't anyone hold a lane here? or stay on their side of the road around a bend?

or park properly? or keep safe distances or change lanes safely? or learn when not to use fog lights? or remember to turn their lights on at night? or drive at a proper speed through car parks? or not drive through bike lanes? or give way at roundabouts? etc etc etc

grrrrrrrr
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on June 17, 2012, 12:04:36
People fom Vic...

why can't anyone hold a lane here? or stay on their side of the road around a bend?

or park properly? or keep safe distances or change lanes safely? or learn when not to use fog lights? or remember to turn their lights on at night? or drive at a proper speed through car parks? or not drive through bike lanes? or give way at roundabouts? etc etc etc

grrrrrrrr

$hit, have you been watching me in some of my videos  :Shocked: :-[
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on July 04, 2012, 07:06:42
Changes to the Victorian Road Rules (http://vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/RoadRules/Changes+to+the+Victorian+Road+Rules+2012.htm)

The Australian Road Rules 9th Amendment Package is nationally approved and commenced in Victoria on 30 June, 2012*

Frequently asked questions

Q:  What are the main changes in Victoria?
A:  The main changes include:

• A new offence for drivers not to block crossings
• A new requirement for drivers of heavy vehicles when setting out portable warning triangles to warn other road users about a stopped heavy vehicle or fallen load;
• Clarification of the 200 metre minimum following distance for road trains behind a long vehicle;
• Clarification of the rules for drivers at tram stops;
• Minor clarifications to ensure the relevance and enforceability of the rules.

Each change is explained in more detail below.

Keeping crossings clear

Q: What is the rule about blocking crossings?
A: A driver must not enter a children’s crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing if the driver cannot drive through the crossing because the crossing, or the road beyond the crossing, is blocked.

Q: Are there any exceptions to this rule?
Yes. An exception applies to crossings without traffic lights, where there is a pedestrian crossing immediately before the intersection. Drivers can enter the crossing to get a view of approaching traffic after the giving way to all pedestrians.
 

Heavy vehicle warning triangles

Q: What are the new requirements for drivers of heavy vehicles when setting out portable warning triangles?
A: There are changes to the distances that warning triangles need to be placed by the driver of a heavy vehicle (with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) over 12 tonnes). This applies to a driver of a heavy vehicle that has stopped or has a fallen load. 

On roads with a speed limit of 80km/h or more, if the vehicle is not visible for 300 metres in all directions, three triangles must be placed on the road:
• one triangle must be placed 200-250 metres behind the vehicle or fallen load,
• one triangle must be placed 200-250 metres in front of the vehicle or fallen load, and
• one triangle must be placed by the side of the vehicle or fallen load. 

On roads with a speed limit of less than 80km/h there is no change. That is, if the vehicle is not visible for 200 metres in all directions, three triangles must be placed on the road:
• one triangle must be placed 50-150 metres behind the vehicle or fallen load,
• one triangle must be placed 50-150 metres in front of the vehicle or fallen load, and
• one triangle must be placed by the side of the vehicle or fallen load. 
If the road is a one-way road or divided road (excluding painted medians), three triangles are still needed, but there is no requirement to place a triangle in front of the vehicle. The triangle should instead be placed between the vehicle or fallen load and the triangle behind the vehicle.


Following distances

Q: What is the minimum following distance for road trains and long vehicles?
A: The required minimum following distance for road trains and long vehicles (not on a multi-lane road or in a built-up area or when overtaking) is:
- for a road train behind a long vehicle – 200 metres;
- for a long vehicle (other than a road train) behind another long vehicle – 60 metres.


Sharing the roads with Trams

Q: What are the clarifications to the tram rules?
A: The rules have been clarified to cover the different types of tram stops, such as those with safety zones.

When the tram doors on your side of the road are open and there is no safety zone, drivers and riders must wait at the rear of the tram until the doors close and the road is free of pedestrians. 

A safety zone is an area of the road at, or near, a tram stop that has yellow safety zone signs and a traffic island or pedestrian refuge to provide passengers with a barrier between them and the road. Riders and drivers may pass a tram that is stopped at a safety zone stop.


*The timing may differ in other jurisdictions. Please check with the relevant road authority when travelling interstate.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Queen C on August 06, 2012, 12:33:09
People fom Vic...

why can't anyone hold a lane here? or stay on their side of the road around a bend?

or park properly? or keep safe distances or change lanes safely? or learn when not to use fog lights? or remember to turn their lights on at night? or drive at a proper speed through car parks? or not drive through bike lanes? or give way at roundabouts? etc etc etc

grrrrrrrr

Don't worry, it's not just Victoria lol. And lets not forget to mention the use of indicators. This is one of my pet peeves. 
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 06, 2012, 12:40:00
People fom Vic...

why can't anyone hold a lane here? or stay on their side of the road around a bend?

or park properly? or keep safe distances or change lanes safely? or learn when not to use fog lights? or remember to turn their lights on at night? or drive at a proper speed through car parks? or not drive through bike lanes? or give way at roundabouts? etc etc etc

grrrrrrrr

Don't worry, it's not just Victoria lol. And lets not forget to mention the use of indicators. This is one of my pet peeves.
Too true QC (Are you a barrister? :whistler:). I live in a suburb which has NO traffic lights; just lots of roundabouts and both locals and visitors seem to have no knowledge of the rules concering the use of indicators.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Queen C on August 06, 2012, 12:52:46

Too true QC (Are you a barrister? :whistler:). I live in a suburb which has NO traffic lights; just lots of roundabouts and both locals and visitors seem to have no knowledge of the rules concering the use of indicators.

No but my wallet wishes I was :D and that sounds like an absolute nightmare! I can't understand how difficult it is to use one. Especially as you don't even need to take your hand off the wheel. I guess some people were just lucky to find licenses in the bottom of their cereal boxes instead of toys :lol:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 06, 2012, 16:51:09
Roundabouts are something which are rarely done right. I don't see what's so difficult either.
My youngest daughter can even do it right (she had a good teacher  :lol:) but 90% of drivers just don't know.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 06, 2012, 22:11:51
Roundabouts are something which are rarely done right. I don't see what's so difficult either.
My youngest daughter can even do it right (she had a good teacher  :lol:) but 90% of drivers just don't know.  :rolleyes:
I have to say I prefer the roundabouts to traffic lights. More chance to "play". But then some guys think "playing" includes doing burnouts around the roundabouts. But if we had traffic lights, they'd be dragging off from the stop. :evil:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 06, 2012, 22:25:53
I didn't used to like roundabouts but now Devonport has perhaps a 100 I must say they do help traffic flow.. :goodjob: (many of ours are so small you don't get the chance to use the indicators on exiting)

While on this sort of topic I thought I'd comment on the duration of traffic lights...

It is a real shock and quite frustrating how much longer traffic lights stay on red in the big mainland cities compared with here in Tassie.. (probably 3 times as long) you don't think of these things and how they impact on you until you experience it yourself.. :confused:

Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 07, 2012, 08:48:50
You can still signal your exit on a small roundabout.  :confused:
Traffic lights can be very time-consuming.
Some seem to be programmed to change when triggered and others are obviously on a time cycle.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Queen C on August 07, 2012, 12:04:59
I'm a freak when it comes to indicating, I'll use it all the time. I still picture my instructor all those years ago barking instructions from the passenger seat that it's drilled into my head. As for lights, they can be a huge pain too. Especially when its peak hour and traffic is built up but yet the lights still only let about 3 cars through before it changes orange.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 07, 2012, 12:48:05
You can still signal your exit on a small roundabout.  :confused:

I'm talking really small  :P I'll have to try and find a picture ...
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 07, 2012, 13:13:56
You can still signal your exit on a small roundabout.  :confused:
Traffic lights can be very time-consuming.
Some seem to be programmed to change when triggered and others are obviously on a time cycle.
Trouble is some of them are so small that in order to signal your intention to exit, you are putting the indicators on BEFORE the previous exit, which is dangerously confusing.
Traffic lights are, like you say, either pre-programmed or triggered. But quite often the timed ones change at night to triggering on the side roads.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 07, 2012, 13:18:30
Trouble is some of them are so small that in order to signal your intention to exit, you are putting the indicators on BEFORE the previous exit, which is dangerously confusing.

thanks Trev.. "That is what I'm talkin' about.."  :whistler: :snigger:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: eye30 on August 07, 2012, 13:37:55
I'm a freak when it comes to indicating, 

With lights or hands  :lol:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 08, 2012, 05:56:48
Amazing thread - it took all of one message to go way off topic...

For the non-Aussies, we have what are called the Australian Road Rules, formulated by a federal transport department. It has reps from each of the states/territories and together they nut out the ARRs which would be good for all states/territories.

However, that's as far as it gets. The ARRs are non-binding on any of the states. Whilst they may adopt them in general, too many of them vary.

For example, in NSW I understand that U-turns are illegal unless signposted. Here in Vic, the opposite is true. (personally, I think the NSW idea is better, particularly for us motorcyclists who've been collected by dickwads doing U-turns, whether legal or otherwise).

If the federal government was able to, the best idea would be to have nationwide laws. So, Melbourne has unique right turn laws that deal with trams, so what? The same laws can apply in any state or city whether or not they have trams. if they do get trams then the rules are already in place. Otherwise, they can be ignored.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 08, 2012, 07:48:26
Amazing thread - it took all of one message to go way off topic...

Isn't the topic road rules?  :whistler:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 08, 2012, 08:14:12
For example, in NSW I understand that U-turns are illegal unless signposted. Here in Vic, the opposite is true. (personally, I think the NSW idea is better, particularly for us motorcyclists who've been collected by dickwads doing U-turns, whether legal or otherwise).

As far as NSW goes, I think you'll find that's the case only at intersections with traffic lights...in other cases you can pretty much chuck a U turn wherever if there's no signs saying you can't.   :undecided:

Personally, I like the Victorian setup as you can perform a U turn just about anywhere unless there's a sign (or a road rule) telling you otherwise...
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 08, 2012, 08:37:57
In W.A. you can execute a U-turn almost anywhere when it is safe and expedient to do so.
Exceptions are at traffic lights (unless there is sign stating it is allowed) and on one-way streets (of course).
And if you have a crash whilst making a U-turn it is deemed to have not been safe and expedient to do so.  :)
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Queen C on August 08, 2012, 11:06:51
I'm a freak when it comes to indicating, 

With lights or hands  :lol:

With my hands of course! :D ... there's another way to indicate? :O
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 08, 2012, 11:12:54
I'm a freak when it comes to indicating, 

With lights or hands  :lol:

With my hands of course! :D ... there's another way to indicate? :O

Spoken like a true Italian  :lol:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 09, 2012, 00:42:08

Personally, I like the Victorian setup as you can perform a U turn just about anywhere unless there's a sign (or a road rule) telling you otherwise...
I don't. I think that they're dangerous and too many people don't understand the basics of U turns, particularly the minor aspect that you shall give way to ALL traffic when doing them.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 09, 2012, 02:13:39
So the problem really isn't the road rule as such but people's lack of knowledge of the rules and their casual attitude to looking properly before performing one....  :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 13, 2012, 11:55:52
So the problem really isn't the road rule as such but people's lack of knowledge of the rules and their casual attitude to looking properly before performing one.... 

Well, to me that makes it a bad rule and therefore, a dangerous one, regardless of how it's treated by the bad drivers who can't competantly perform one.

So, for me, at least, the better idea would be to adopt the NSW rule, but to widen the scope of it to include all intersections, unless sign-posted otherwise.

Or, perhaps a TAC [1] campaign aimed at educating road users of the various road rules which are routinely linked to crashes when they are broken.






[1] TAC - Transport Accident Commission, Victoria's government owned "third party" insurance provider which drives a lot of road safety initiatives, given that it is a no fault, wholly funded insurance scheme to cover all costs arising from a crash where people are hurt or killed.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 13, 2012, 14:31:09
Well, to me that makes it a bad rule and therefore, a dangerous one, regardless of how it's treated by the bad drivers who can't competantly perform one.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one....... :eek:

Btw, I'd like to compare stats between the 2....  :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 14, 2012, 03:08:48

Btw, I'd like to compare stats between the 2....

I'm looking.

So far I've found this:

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10568/ (http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10568/)

Quote
8 September 2009. November brings changes to road rules in Victoria, with new requirements for U-turns, navigation devices and mobile phone use which will bring the State into line with nationally-set standards.

According to Roads Minister Tim Pallas the changes included preventing overtaking and U-turns over single unbroken dividing lines. Motorists will be able to perform a U-turn or overtake across broken dividing lines, or where there a no centre lines at all.

“U-turns alone have caused 19 deaths and 654 serious between 2004 and 2008. There were 1524 U-turn crashes in Victoria in that period. These changes will therefore have a significant impact towards improving safety on our roads,” Mr Pallas said.

A report from a SA university. Note, only Victoria permits U Turns at traffic light intersections. Elsewhere, they're permited only if a sign says so.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasr.adelaide.edu.au%2Fcasrpubfile%2F17%2FCASR017.pdf&ei=h7ApUKiRH62hiAfS2oHIBA&usg=AFQjCNHQm56hK7kGbOAZ90vx2UqZf93-TA (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasr.adelaide.edu.au%2Fcasrpubfile%2F17%2FCASR017.pdf&ei=h7ApUKiRH62hiAfS2oHIBA&usg=AFQjCNHQm56hK7kGbOAZ90vx2UqZf93-TA)

I don't have the time to conduct proper research. But, we (Victoria) are out of step with the rest of the country and that should not be the case.

During my limited research I found discussions on other forums where, for example, Victorians visiting in QLD were standout in that they ignored the "no U turn" rule because there were no signposts banning them.

The whole idea of having a National Transport Commission in Can'tberra set up to formulate road safety policies and the ARRs is to ensure a safe road network based on conformity of rules and standards.

Clearly that is not happening.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 14, 2012, 04:25:25

Btw, I'd like to compare stats between the 2....

I'm looking.

So far I've found this:

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10568/ (http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10568/)

Quote
8 September 2009. November brings changes to road rules in Victoria, with new requirements for U-turns, navigation devices and mobile phone use which will bring the State into line with nationally-set standards.

According to Roads Minister Tim Pallas the changes included preventing overtaking and U-turns over single unbroken dividing lines. Motorists will be able to perform a U-turn or overtake across broken dividing lines, or where there a no centre lines at all.

“U-turns alone have caused 19 deaths and 654 serious between 2004 and 2008. There were 1524 U-turn crashes in Victoria in that period. These changes will therefore have a significant impact towards improving safety on our roads,” Mr Pallas said.

A report from a SA university. Note, only Victoria permits U Turns at traffic light intersections. Elsewhere, they're permited only if a sign says so.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasr.adelaide.edu.au%2Fcasrpubfile%2F17%2FCASR017.pdf&ei=h7ApUKiRH62hiAfS2oHIBA&usg=AFQjCNHQm56hK7kGbOAZ90vx2UqZf93-TA (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasr.adelaide.edu.au%2Fcasrpubfile%2F17%2FCASR017.pdf&ei=h7ApUKiRH62hiAfS2oHIBA&usg=AFQjCNHQm56hK7kGbOAZ90vx2UqZf93-TA)

I don't have the time to conduct proper research. But, we (Victoria) are out of step with the rest of the country and that should not be the case.

During my limited research I found discussions on other forums where, for example, Victorians visiting in QLD were standout in that they ignored the "no U turn" rule because there were no signposts banning them.

The whole idea of having a National Transport Commission in Can'tberra set up to formulate road safety policies and the ARRs is to ensure a safe road network based on conformity of rules and standards.

Clearly that is not happening.

Interesting that one of the first things I read in that University report is:

Quote
We have located no research that indicates that a “U-turn permitted” treatment would be irresponsible.

While I can see where you're coming from, nothing I've seen so far points to the actual Victorian rule being dangerous.....To me the only issue is the difference between the States and the confusion it's causing.

While having uniform road rules would be mostly a good thing, us Victorian's have seen the problems changing our rules to the same as other States can cause, for example being able to overtake over a single unbroken line, which was allowed up until fairly recently but is now illegal.....
Roads that were perfectly safe for passing have now become a right royal pain in the bum as drivers/riders are now forced to play follow the leader for kilometre after kilometre, this is particularly bad driving the "Dandenongs" as many of the roads there have single unbroken lines.....  :fum:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 14, 2012, 12:05:10
The new no passing unbroken rule, I think, was aimed squarely at motorcyclists who frequent the Black Spur and other similar roads in the Dandenongs.

Short of making the roads there conform with standard line markings, it was easier and cheaper to simply enforce a blanket ban on overtaking.

My brother in law got pinged by the camo cops on the Black Spur last year because he wanted to get past an errant driver doing about 50 kays where it was safe to do 80. The guy was swerving a bit as he was taking photos with his phone's camera.

The cops didn't ping him, despite the obviously dangerous or careless driving, but rather, the BiL because he passed on a continuous line, which until the rule was changed, would've been a perfectly safe and legal maneuvre.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 14, 2012, 12:48:23
The new no passing unbroken rule, I think, was aimed squarely at motorcyclists who frequent the Black Spur and other similar roads in the Dandenongs.

I have no doubt you're correct Martin..... :mad:

But I'm sure they'll tell us it was only to bring us into line with other States.... :fum:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Lester on August 15, 2012, 05:53:44
When the Australian Road Rules (ARR's) came into being in the mid 90's, it was assumed that all States would take ALL the rules on boards.  WRONG..Victoria wanted to keep their U turns at traffic lights, Hook turns etc, other States also wanted to keep parts of their old laws.  So it was just a stuff up, as it still us.

In NSW we should have kept ye olde Motor Traffic Act.  Far simpler.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 15, 2012, 07:11:28
I really haven't got a lot of time for the "clowns" that think up some of the road rule changes for the Australian Road Rules, especially after the debacle when they tried to introduce rule 151A to stop lane splitting by motorcyclists.... :fum:
While some alterations do make sense, you gotta wonder at times whether it's a case of fiddling just to justify their positions...  :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 15, 2012, 08:23:51
While some alterations do make sense, you gotta wonder at times whether it's a case of fiddling just to justify their positions...  :undecided:

Exactly right, they're a bunch of w****rs  :fum:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 15, 2012, 17:44:54
While some alterations do make sense, you gotta wonder at times whether it's a case of fiddling just to justify their positions...  :undecided:

Exactly right, they're a bunch of w****rs  :fum:

Writers?  :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 15, 2012, 17:46:47
Of course  :tomato:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 15, 2012, 18:01:34
Oh.  :confused:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 19, 2012, 02:18:08
Have a read of the Age newspaper's Drive section for Saturday (18th Aug). It has a list of road rules comparing NSW to Victoria, the theme of which is about "little known rules that we all should know".

For example, it's OK to splash a pedestrian with water as you hit a puddle, but if you splash muddy water onto a bus then you'll be fined.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 19, 2012, 03:20:17
Thanks Martin...I don't usually buy newspapers, any chance of you scanning the article and posting it up?  :undecided:


*Edit: don't bother, found it online.... :D

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/the-road-rules-you-didnt-know-20120817-24bzf.html (http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/the-road-rules-you-didnt-know-20120817-24bzf.html)
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 19, 2012, 23:55:42
Thanks guys handy info seeing as likely to be driving around on the mainland sooner rather than later.. :D
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 20, 2012, 01:42:01
What I can't understand is, using demerit points as an indication, why is driving without a P plate such a heinous crime worthy of 3 demerit points when driving at night without lights, which logic would tell you is much more dangerous, only worthy of one point....  :undecided:



 
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 20, 2012, 01:55:57
Logic, we're talking about governments here :exclaim:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Lester on August 20, 2012, 02:49:51
I can tell you now when the new ARR's were implemented in NSW around 1996, the cops had very little input, they were not given the opportunity I can assure you, the WOFTAMS at the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority did the writing.  Then they expected the cops to enforce the new rules.
 :evil:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 20, 2012, 10:01:26
Sorry, bit what is a WOFTAM :question:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Shambles on August 20, 2012, 10:38:35
Sorry, bit what is a WOFTAM :question:
Don't waste your time asking... :P
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 20, 2012, 11:14:09
I'm curious, perhaps a PM, I won't sleep tonight.  :confused:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 20, 2012, 11:22:21
For you, Phil...  :)

http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/woftams.htm (http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/woftams.htm)
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: eye30 on August 20, 2012, 11:37:00
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 20, 2012, 12:20:41
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

The whole of Oz makes sense, but not too sure about Tassie  :rofl:
I mean, they're overseas.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 20, 2012, 12:52:23
For you, Phil...  :)

http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/woftams.htm (http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/woftams.htm)

 :hahaha:  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I am a bit naive at times.

There doesn't seem to be a thank you button on your post, so Thanks, Rusty  :goodjob2:

I can sleep tonight  :D
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: eye30 on August 20, 2012, 12:52:56
The whole of Oz makes sense, but not too sure about Tassie  :rofl:
I mean, they're overseas.

Do you need to show your Passport when travelling between the mainland and the Colonies?
 :rofl:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 20, 2012, 12:57:44
Tasmanians are not too particular, they let me in on several occasions  :whistler:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Queen C on August 20, 2012, 13:20:36
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

The whole of Oz makes sense, but not too sure about Tassie  :rofl:
I mean, they're overseas.

Lol! this made me giggle. Poor Tassie.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 20, 2012, 13:23:57
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

The whole of Oz makes sense, but not too sure about Tassie  :rofl:
I mean, they're overseas.

Lol! this made me giggle. Poor Tassie.

Yeah.. Poor Tassie  :blubber:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 20, 2012, 13:24:58
If we ever become a republic, we might invite you in.  :rofl:
Might.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 20, 2012, 13:27:09
If Gillard was still in Power we might abdicate  :P
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 20, 2012, 13:36:23
If Gillard was still in Power we might abdicate  :P

Good point.
Can I come too? Please?  :lol:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: mjt57 on August 20, 2012, 23:45:52
Thanks Martin...I don't usually buy newspapers, any chance of you scanning the article and posting it up? 

Ah, shit. Sorry, the link was supposed to be in the post.

As for the "logic" behind allocation of demerit points for various offences, yes, there are some mind boggling ones there.

I can't work out why not having a current rego sticker is a heavier fine than some offences that can actually kill people. It's a redundant requirement, given the resources that police have to ID car details these days.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 21, 2012, 00:54:32
We've done away with rego stickers in WA.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 21, 2012, 00:56:50
We've done away with rego stickers in WA.
Well, you'd better stay out of the Eastern States then - or bring your chequebook. :snigger: :wink:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 21, 2012, 01:04:31
We've done away with rego stickers in WA.
Well, you'd better stay out of the Eastern States then - or bring your chequebook. :snigger: :wink:

Interesting point.
If they aren't supplied by our state authority, it's a bit difficult to comply when visiting other states and territories.
I reckon that's a defence that would get you off.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 21, 2012, 01:57:31
As for the "logic" behind allocation of demerit points for various offences, yes, there are some mind boggling ones there.

I can't work out why not having a current rego sticker is a heavier fine than some offences that can actually kill people. It's a redundant requirement, given the resources that police have to ID car details these days.

Worth a look at this, it's a list of fines and penalties for Victoria:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4E18937B-C49F-4F9E-B498-1B6F7C3AAC86/0/FinesandPenalties201213.pdf (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4E18937B-C49F-4F9E-B498-1B6F7C3AAC86/0/FinesandPenalties201213.pdf)

We've done away with rego stickers in WA.
Well, you'd better stay out of the Eastern States then - or bring your chequebook. :snigger: :wink:

Pretty sure your car only has to comply with the registration requirements of the State it's registered in.....

BTW, registration labels will be abolished in NSW from 1 January 2013........
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 21, 2012, 05:00:59
We've done away with rego stickers in WA.
Well, you'd better stay out of the Eastern States then - or bring your chequebook. :snigger: :wink:

Interesting point.
If they aren't supplied by our state authority, it's a bit difficult to comply when visiting other states and territories.
I reckon that's a defence that would get you off.
It's a grey area. I think I previously mentioned on here the case of a young Qld P plater travelling in NSW with her parents. In Qld you can display L and P plates on the glass (as long as they aren't affecting visibility). In NSW they must be below glass level. Somewhere around Armidale an over zealous cop decided to book her for the "offence". She wasn't doing anything else wrong.
His position was, "make sure you know the rules before you travel interstate".

An approach by her and her parents to the NSW RTA was met with the same reply and the fine stood.

Last I heard the RACQ was taking up her case but I don't know the outcome.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 21, 2012, 05:48:55
Trev, I think you're confusing car registration with licence requirements.....   :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 21, 2012, 10:10:19
See. There you go again Rusty.
Gotta pick holes in everyone elses comments.
Just like Brian says.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 21, 2012, 10:25:20
So you'd rather I ignored your mistake then?  :snigger:






Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 21, 2012, 10:26:32
So you'd rather I ignored your mistake then?  :snigger:
It's not a mistake but yes, I'd be happy if you ignore my posts.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 21, 2012, 10:33:21
Well, that ain't gonna happen.... :lol:

Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 21, 2012, 11:53:55
I hope you were having a lend surferdude,

P plates is a licensing issue, Rego stickers is a rego issue.

In SA rego stickers are no longer issued, people are getting done for unreg vehicles, the govt's laughing all the way to the bank. :fum:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Surferdude on August 21, 2012, 13:28:38
I hope you were having a lend surferdude,


No.
It's simple really. The police are enforcing both issues. That was my point. I thought it was pretty clear.
In fact, it is.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 22, 2012, 00:49:31
You've had 2 people question it so I'd say it's not as clear as you believe.... :whistler: 
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Lester on August 23, 2012, 02:09:22
Detecting Unregistered vehicles is getting easier for the police, even with no registration labels.

Remember this piece of equipment... 'ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition)
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 23, 2012, 02:10:17
Detecting Unregistered vehicles is getting easier for the police, even with no registration labels.

Remember this piece of equipment... 'ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition)

Yes, amazing technology  :goodjob2:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Lester on August 23, 2012, 02:12:20
Detecting Unregistered vehicles is getting easier for the police, even with no registration labels.

Remember this piece of equipment... 'ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition)

Yes, amazing technology  :goodjob2:

G'day Dazzler does TASPOL have ANPR?  Every Highway Patrol vehicle in NSW has them these days.
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 23, 2012, 02:22:10
Pretty sure VicPol have them..... :undecided:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Dazzler on August 23, 2012, 02:24:46
I think so.. The State budget is very tight these days but think they got it before the last cost cutting. I hope so anyway, I am all for catching the dodgy unregistered drivers and crims  :goodjob2:

I like the term Taspol (sounds a bit like Interpol)  :happydance:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: rustynutz on August 23, 2012, 02:30:13
I like the term Taspol (sounds a bit like Interpol)  :happydance:

I was thinking more TadPol..... :p
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Lester on August 23, 2012, 03:11:39
I think so.. The State budget is very tight these days but think they got it before the last cost cutting. I hope so anyway, I am all for catching the dodgy unregistered drivers and crims  :goodjob2:

I like the term Taspol (sounds a bit like Interpol)  :happydance:

Well, let me see now..we have FEDPOL, NSWPOL, QLDPOL, VICPOL, TASPOL, SAPOL, WAPOL, NTPOL, and who could forget the MET ! :goodjob2:  We also have POLACC (Accident involving Police) but I did not like attending those nasty ones, when I was in..wait for it..NSWPOL for 36 years. :Shocked:

Sorry went off topic, back to it, the 'ARR's (Australian Road Rules.) Bring back ye olde MTA (Motor Traffic Act.) :whistler:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: eye30 on August 23, 2012, 10:30:55
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

Anyway back to cipot.  What are the chances of this happening?
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Phil №❶ on August 24, 2012, 10:43:24
 :offtopic:, apologies  :exclaim:
None, the states defend their parochial powers passionately. We have a major river "The Murray" which was the lifeblood for agriculture in SA. It is fed by a number of rivers in different states. Those states feel they have the right to retain water to such an extent that the Murray often no longer flows to the sea. The whole area, called the Murray Darling Basin is controlled by Queensland, New South Wales Victoria and South Australia which is bad enough, then add the Murray River Authority & the Federal government into the equation and  you get the biggest non agreement stuff up of all time.  :fum:
Title: Re: Australia
Post by: Doggie 1 on August 24, 2012, 10:57:49
Still think that the government should be considering a common uniform set of road rules for the whole of OZ and Tassie.

Anyway back to cipot.  What are the chances of this happening?

I actually think that it will happen eventually but will take considerable time.
It makes little sense to have different road rules in each state and territory and I know that it has been on the discussion agenda with successive state police ministers for several years.
What is lacking is political will. Not too many votes in it so it's a low priority issue.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal