15 Road Rules You Probably Didnt Know..

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by csv8

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...a60954297ae617

Number 3 and 5 ?????

3 relates 'road related area', it came into true force in 1999

Brings in all sorts of connotations in relation to race tracks - hmmmm

[MercurySilver]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

??? Lost me there.

I reckon its meant to say engine aussiblue

Bit harsh
Pulled over, in park off the road.....whats unsafe about it ffs???

[monzie]

I think you'll find service stations are deemed "public areas" just like Macca's and most public carparks.

[Sabantien]

... if people don't know the road rules, did they just bribe their way into a licence?

As for the taking out a cyclist with a car door, I had it happen to me many years ago.
I was in the cycle lane, with cars parked outside it. Just as I went past a car the dude opened is door.

While the cops visited me in hospital, they did nothing about it.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

3 relates 'road related area', it came into true force in 1999

Brings in all sorts of connotations in relation to race tracks - hmmmm

Race tracks are not designed for the public to drive on. It would have to be open to public traffic at all or most times. If you have to pay to drive onto the track then it isnt a road related area.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by superpursuit05

No,3. If they would only enforce it...We were stuck with 8 other cars in the Macca's drive thru in Maitland last week. Most drivers around us were on their phones!!!

Which means do you run the risk of being done on number five if you have to use the horn to get the ****** to move up when they traffic moves and they're still ******* around on the their phones??

I am guessing you don't really understand rule 5.

[aussiblue]

reckon its meant to say engine aussiblue

Yes; that makes senses; a keyboard button off to the left and right.

[cram_it_frog]

you would think that in the year 2015 that we would have a national drivers license and uniform road rules.

This never worried me living in Perth but now I am in Broken Hill I often go to both Vic and SA and up to Qld

But there is the same road rules for each state but there is slight differences

A good example when light bars started to apear on 4x4 each state had diferent idea on where to locate and how many , so many people got fined for getting on the wrong side of the law

Now that is fixed but what is wrong with a Australian drivers licence and registration all one price and NSW pink slip scratched

makes sense but state gov hate to relinquish income

[irvinnie]

They did introduce Australian road rules, however each state and territory couldn't agree to them. NSW was the only one that took them up (we even had hook turns in our legislation even though we had no trams). After a couple of years we went back to our own rules. The ones that really wish for standard rules between each state are truck drivers. It's hard enough to learn your own states laws never mind the other two or three you drive through.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by irvinnie

"road related area" is any of the following
[...]
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.

I think this would be a very "grey" area in a court of law? My driveway is considered private property for the purposes of the law and liability insurance, which means—in the extreme—that motor vehicles don't even have to be road registered to be driven (as per so-called paddock bombs) solely within that private property.

According to (d) someone could technically be ticketed for using a mobile phone with their vehicle parked in my driveway, engine and A/C running—a tradie, visiting friend, courier, taxi driver, even the home owner. So I couldn't really see a driver being successfully fined for phoning in a Macca's queue—which is also, legally-speaking, private property.

[PG2]

Originally Posted by SYZ

I think this would be a very "grey" area in a court of law? My driveway is considered private property for the purposes of the law and liability insurance, which means—in the extreme—that motor vehicles don't even have to be road registered to be driven (as per so-called paddock bombs) solely within that private property.

According to (d) someone could technically be ticketed for using a mobile phone with their vehicle parked in my driveway, engine and A/C running—a tradie, visiting friend, courier, taxi driver, even the home owner. So I couldn't really see a driver being successfully fined for phoning in a Macca's queue—which is also, legally-speaking, private property.

The difference is a Maccas drive thru is open to the general public for use - your driveway is not.

[Kingsley]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

I am guessing you don't really understand rule 5.

No, I'm guessing that rule is open to interpretation of the officer handing out the ticket.

[ute83]

(16) Keep left unless overtaking.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by PG2

The difference is a Maccas drive thru is open to the general public for use - your driveway is not.

his drive way from boundary peg to road is from peg back isnt

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by irvinnie

Think that one may be a small tale by your fellow truck driver as for an offence of use hand held mobile phone requires you to be driving. (Being in queue at a McDonald's drive thru satisfies that one) but being pulled over to the side of the road, or in this example parked in truck stop bay wouldn't be an offence. If he was given a ticket in that scenario he has every right to contest that one at court, in fact writing a letter to the station that issued the infringement notice might be sufficient.

As far as the RMS is concerned if you're sitting in the Drivers seat with the Engine running it's considered Driving time in your Log Book.

So Mr Plod might have a win in court on technicality.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by Sabantien

... if people don't know the road rules, did they just bribe their way into a licence?

As for the taking out a cyclist with a car door, I had it happen to me many years ago.
I was in the cycle lane, with cars parked outside it. Just as I went past a car the dude opened is door.

While the cops visited me in hospital, they did nothing about it.

When you sat your license did you have to learn every single law of the road?



Oh,,and when I first moved here I didn't have to answer a single question or do any sort of driving test to get my qld open license. Bit of a joke really. Of course I'm an awesome driver but plenty of my fellow nz'ers are just as inept on the road as some Australians.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Race tracks are not designed for the public to drive on. It would have to be open to public traffic at all or most times. If you have to pay to drive onto the track then it isnt a road related area.

Pits?

And if it is a 'club day' then the track is open, it has nothing to do with paying

In fact a bloke i know got booked in a paddock with the gates closed for .05 after a crash recently

[EB#]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

They left out a lot of things that drivers seem to be unaware of.

Originally Posted by ute83

(16) Keep left unless overtaking.

Ditto...... Except make it No.1 on the list..... every year.

[Trevor 57]

How many Victorians use their indicator to leave a round-about - it is law as well and has been since 1999 when we went National

What about giving way when doing a U turn, how many Victorian know they have to give way everyone (including pedestrians) when doing a U turn, you also must give way to people facing stop or give way give way signs

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by superpursuit05

Which means do you run the risk of being done on number five if you have to use the horn to get the ****** to move up when they traffic moves and they're still ******* around on the their phones??

the key word here is 'improper'. a horn is for warning ********* and other drivers, not for saying 'goodbye' or other messages that aren't warnings. If they don't move, you're 'warning' them that you may run up their klaker.

[XG_Falcon]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

How many Victorians use their indicator to leave a round-about - it is law as well and has been since 1999 when we went National

What about giving way when doing a U turn, how many Victorian know they have to give way everyone (including pedestrians) when doing a U turn, you also must give way to people facing stop or give way give way signs

I thought law was you only have to indicate off double-laned roundabouts, not the single-laned ones?

I could be wrong. I usually am

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by XG_Falcon

I thought law was you only have to indicate off double-laned roundabouts, not the single-laned ones?

I could be wrong. I usually am

Depends on size of roundabout, Vic law says indicate if practicable, one thing I've notice lately is people using right indicator when driving through with no turns

[LTDHO]

Nothing really new here. Just things people should already know

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

# 11 should have been brought up in the cyclist bashing thread.
It is legal to overtake them (if safe) over unbroken lines.

In Queensland they overturned decades of harsh road safety warnings to never even think of overtaking on double white lines when they brought in the ridiculous new raft of pushbike laws where all responsibility is taken out of the hands of cyclists and put onto car drivers.
The laws allow you to overtake on double white lines...an area we have always had drummed into us as an area never to overtake as it's not safe..."if you judge it safe to do so"...

Which is peachy keen.

As long as you completely trust the "judgement" of the person driving the other way to "judge" when it's safe to come over onto your side of the road to go around a cyclist....

[SYZ]

Does the phrase "if you judge it safe to do so" mean solely your judgement, or also that of the cop who attends the putative accident (!) or the oncoming driver, or the cyclist you were attempting to overtake?

In a court of law, and considering the absolute uniqueness of the accident scenario, whose judgement does the magistrate consider the most accurate? And why? There could in fact be four differing and subjective judgements made in determining the safety of your overtaking maneuver.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by SYZ

Does the phrase "if you judge it safe to do so" mean solely your judgement, or also that of the cop who attends the putative accident (!) or the oncoming driver, or the cyclist you were attempting to overtake?

In a court of law, and considering the absolute uniqueness of the accident scenario, whose judgement does the magistrate consider the most accurate? And why? There could in fact be four differing and subjective judgements made in determining the safety of your overtaking maneuver.

Assuming you're going to be around to argue the point after such an accident following someones "misjudgement"...
Double white line areas are mostly out on the highway, in 80 to 110 zone regions. Blind corners, crests of hills, areas where the sight line is obscured somehow.
I really don't want to be in an accident at those speeds because someone has stuffed up their estimates of distances and speeds and decided to overtake some wanna-be Olympic-cyclist-in-training using the public roads as his personal exercise track...

Some road rules are just plain stupid. And the cycle laws are stupider than most.
Take the example of what to do at a red light. If Mr Cyclist pulls up closer than a meter to your car (and there's "no requirement for cyclists to maintain any distance from cars", cars have 100% responsibility to maintain the meter clearance, not cyclists...cyclists can come closer than a meter to you, and it is then up to you to move further away from them), then when the light goes green, you do not just drive off...you must wait for the cyclist to decide to ride off, and then you have to "follow the cyclist until you find a spot to overtake with the required meter clearance". All of which could have been fixed by merely telling cyclists to stay out of the damn way of the heavy fast moving traffic in the first place...

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

[...] If Mr Cyclist pulls up closer than a meter to your car (and there's "no requirement for cyclists to maintain any distance from cars", cars have 100% responsibility to maintain the meter clearance, not cyclists...

And this is sheer lunacy. A bike weighs 15kg and a car weighs 1500kg. Which is the easiest and quickest to start/move/stop in order to avoid a collision? Einstein, where are you when our government needs advice on mass and the laws of momentum and inertia?

For all practical purposes (and the road rules) a bicycle is classified as a vehicle. Why then are cyclists not required to pass a test and/or carry a license?

[irish2]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Assuming you're going to be around to argue the point after such an accident following someones "misjudgement"...
Double white line areas are mostly out on the highway, in 80 to 110 zone regions. Blind corners, crests of hills, areas where the sight line is obscured somehow.
I really don't want to be in an accident at those speeds because someone has stuffed up their estimates of distances and speeds and decided to overtake some wanna-be Olympic-cyclist-in-training using the public roads as his personal exercise track...

Some road rules are just plain stupid. And the cycle laws are stupider than most.
Take the example of what to do at a red light. If Mr Cyclist pulls up closer than a meter to your car (and there's "no requirement for cyclists to maintain any distance from cars", cars have 100% responsibility to maintain the meter clearance, not cyclists...cyclists can come closer than a meter to you, and it is then up to you to move further away from them), then when the light goes green, you do not just drive off...you must wait for the cyclist to decide to ride off, and then you have to "follow the cyclist until you find a spot to overtake with the required meter clearance". All of which could have been fixed by merely telling cyclists to stay out of the damn way of the heavy fast moving traffic in the first place...

The passing on double whites is quite useful on mountain roads. They can be double whites the whole way, yet some sections have decent visibility. Doesn't take long to go out and around a cyclist doing ~10km/h up a steep incline. Definitely wouldn't want to be stuck behind one all the way to the top.

[SYZ]

Mt Dandenong tourist road (from Ferntree Gully upwards) is a classic example of poor road marking design. It's frequented by literally hundreds of Lycra louts on any fine weekend, wobbling all over the narrow one-lane each way road at 5km/h. At least 50% of this road is marked with double/single solid centrelines, despite the fact that there's places where you can easily see at least 500m ahead.

As cyclists in Victoria are legally permitted to ride two abreast, it's absolutely necessary that motor vehicles can pass cyclist by crossing double/single solid lines (providing it's safe to do so of course).

If I couldn't pass a cyclist safely in my XR8—in 5 seconds or so—then I'd have to consider handing in my license LOL.



Upgrade at Tremont. Line of sight to distant right-hand bend approximately 500m.