15 Road Rules You Probably Didnt Know..

[csv8]

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

Number 3 and 5 ?????

[carwant.com.au]

There is a few hoons driving WRXs that won't like 13!

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by carwant.com.au

There is a few hoons driving WRXs that won't like 13!

I think half the people driving under 25yo are guilty of that, let alone WRX owners.

[commodorenutt]

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

[nstg8a]

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.

Except the whole point of double white lines is it's unsafe to pass there... So how do you safely pass in an area that's unsafe?

[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.

[Silver Ghia]

Is 15 actually a road rule?

Otherwise I think this list shows how ignorant people, or at the least the writer of the article, are of the road rules.

Apart from the crossing over double lines to pass a cyclist or for roadworks. Wtf?

[nstg8a]

To be fair this article only mentions unbroken white lines, not double white lines.

[JC]

Originally Posted by csv8

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

Number 3 and 5 ?????

Not sure why #3 surprises anyone. Mobile phones and cars don't mix.....

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by JC

Not sure why #3 surprises anyone. Mobile phones and cars don't mix.....

Have a crash in a maccas car park and watch it turn into private property......

[olfella]

I like 10. Motorist must keep 1 metre clear of cyclists, but if we open the door and they run into it - we cop the fine?

[noflac52]

The heading of the article is a bit condescending. A reporter telling us that we don't know these rules rather than suggesting that we may not be aware of some.

In my experience it has been the other way around. Most reporters have very little idea of what they are covering in their reports.

[Kingsley]

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??

[cram_it_frog]

ok some one may be able to tell me what the situation for this is

I live in the outback and we use CB radio all the time mate passes you just say hi or over taking a truck ect

Now I had done this in front of a police officer in town talking on the CB while driving

so is this illegal or legal

[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.

[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.

[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.

[aussiblue]

live in the outback and we use CB radio all the time mate passes you just say hi or over taking a truck ect

Now I had done this in front of a police officer in town talking on the CB while driving

so is this illegal or legal

See, at least in WA.
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation..._homepage.html

265. Use of mobile phones
(1) In this regulation —
body, in relation to a mobile phone, means the part of the phone
that contains the majority of the phone’s mechanisms;
held includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver’s
body, but does not include held in a pocket of the driver’s
clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver;
mobile phone does not include a CB radio or any other two-way
radio;
use, in relation to a mobile phone, includes any of the following
actions by the driver of a vehicle —
(a) hold the phone;
(b) enter or place anything into the phone, or send or look at
anything that is in the phone;
(c) turn the phone on or off;
(d) operate any other function of the phone.

(2) A driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the
vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless —
(a) the phone is being used to make or receive a phone call,
other than a text message, video message, email or
similar communication, and the body of the phone —
(i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle
while being so used; or
(ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the
vehicle and is not being held by the driver, and
the use of the phone does not require the driver,
at any time while using it, to press any thing on
the body of the phone or otherwise to manipulate
any part of the body of the phone;
or
(b) the visual display of the phone is being used as a
driver’s aid in accordance with regulation 264 and the
use of the phone does not require the driver, at any time
while using it, to press any thing on the body of the
phone or otherwise to manipulate any part of the body of
the phone.
Points:
(a) during a holiday period: 6;
(b) other than during a holiday period: 3.
Modified penalty: 8 PU.
(3) For the purposes of this regulation, a driver does not use a
mobile phone if —
(a) a text message, video message, email or similar
communication is received automatically by the phone;
and
Road Traffic Code 2000
Part 18 Miscellaneous provisions
Division 2 Provisions for people in charge of animals
r. 267
page 294 Version 04-i0-00 As at 23 Dec 2015
Extract from www.slp.wa.gov.au, see that website for further information
(b) on and after the receipt, the communication itself, rather
than any indication that the communication has been
received, does not become automatically visible on the
screen of the phone.

[jaydee]

Mobile phones have to be on a street, because the offence is "... drove on Smith street Jonesville whilst using a mobile phone".
Not "in the drivethrough of Jonesville McDonalds".
At least that's in WA don't know about other states.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by jaydee

Mobile phones have to be on a street, because the offence is "... drove on Smith street Jonesville whilst using a mobile phone".
Not "in the drivethrough of Jonesville McDonalds".
At least that's in WA don't know about other states.

isn't a street from letter box to letter box of the property's (so from total property's edge) each side of the black stuff in the middle so they can book you for not wearing a helmet whilst pushing a bike (motorised or not) down the foot path

and well public property is an interesting one
our local freight rail terminal has truck transport companies and roads for them in their property with speed signs and official street signs with street names and the cops apparently don't have jurisdiction on them , they did book at least one on the premises and he coped it but others have told them as the signs say out front not public use so naff off

[aussiblue]

Ditto NSW http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org.au/pages/NSW-laws

300 Use of mobile phones by drivers (except holders of learner or provisional P1 licences)



(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless:



(a) the phone is being used to make or receive a phone call (other than a text message, video message, email or similar communication) or to perform an audio playing function and the body of the phone:



(i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle while being so used, or



(ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle and is not being held by the driver, and the use of the phone does not require the driver, at any time while using it, to press any thing on the body of the phone or to otherwise manipulate any part of the body of the phone, or



(b) the phone is functioning as a visual display unit that is being used as a driver’s aid and the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, or



(c) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle, or



(d) the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of this jurisdiction.



Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.



Note 1. Emergency vehicle, park and police vehicle are defined in the Dictionary.



Note 2. See rule 299 (2) for examples of driver’s aids.



Note 3. Subrule (1) is not uniform with the corresponding subrule in rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules. Different rules may apply in other Australian jurisdictions.



(2) For the purposes of this rule, a mobile phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle only if:



(a) the mounting is commercially designed and manufactured for that purpose, and



(b) the mobile phone is secured in the mounting, and the mounting is affixed to the vehicle, in the manner intended by the manufacturer.



(3) For the purposes of this rule, a driver does not use a phone to receive a text message, video message, email or similar communication if:



(a) the communication is received automatically by the phone, and



(b) on and after receipt, the communication itself (rather than any indication that the communication has been received) does not become automatically visible on the screen of the phone.



(3–1) This rule does not apply to the driver of a vehicle who is the holder of a learner licence or a provisional P1 licence.



Note 1. Provisional P1 licence is defined in the Dictionary and learner licence is defined in the Act.



Note 2. Rule 300–1 provides for the use of mobile phones by drivers who are holders of learner licences or provisional P1 licences.



Note 3. This subrule is an additional NSW subrule. There is no corresponding subrule in rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules.



(4) In this rule:



affixed to, in relation to a vehicle, includes forming part of the vehicle.



body, in relation to a mobile phone, means the part of the phone that contains the majority of the phone’s mechanisms.



held includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver’s body, but does not include held in a pocket of the driver’s clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.



mobile phone does not include a CB radio or any other two-way radio.



use, in relation to a mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver:



(a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in the vehicle,



(b) entering or placing, other than by the use of voice, anything into the phone, or sending or looking at anything that is in the phone,



(c) turning the phone on or off,



(d) operating any other function of the phone.



300–1 NSW rule: use of mobile phones by drivers who are holders of learner and provisional P1 licences

(cf RRR, cl 47F)



(1) The driver of a vehicle (except an emergency vehicle or police vehicle) who is the holder of a learner licence or provisional P1 licence must not use a mobile phone, whether or not held by the driver, while the vehicle is moving or is stationary but not parked.



Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.



Note. Emergency vehicle, park, police vehicle and provisional P1 licence are defined in the Dictionary, and learner licence is defined in the Act.



(2) In this rule, mobile phone and use have the same meanings as in rule 300.

Note. This rule is an additional NSW road rule. There is no corresponding rule in the Australian Road Rules.

[aussiblue]

Mobile phones have to be on a street, because the offence is "... drove on Smith street Jonesville whilst using a mobile phone".
Not "in the drivethrough of Jonesville McDonalds".
At least that's in WA don't know about other states.

But noting street includes emergency lanes and stopping in traffic light and stop/giveway sign, railway crossings and similar queues and parking in emergency lanes and "no parking" or "no standing" zones.

[Cav]

They left out fog lights

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by Cav

They left out fog lights

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

[irvinnie]

The Mcdonalds car park falls under the definition of a road related area (offences can occur on both a road or road related area)

(1) A
"road related area" is any of the following

(a) an area that divides a road,
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road,
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals,
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by irvinnie

The Mcdonalds car park falls under the definition of a road related area (offences can occur on both a road or road related area)

(1) A
"road related area" is any of the following

(a) an area that divides a road,
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road,
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals,
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.

should add that one off my fellow truck drivers in the same company was booked a short wiles back for being on his phone in a truck pull up bay on the side of the road with the park brakes on but engine running

engine was running to keep the aircon going