Common misconceptions

[ST]

Figured it's about time to start a thread on this subject. The purpose of this thread is to clear up numerous widely believed misconceptions in the realm of automotive transport (more specifically cars).

I'll start off with a couple of easy and extremely common questions asked a lot on this forum:

1. Was there a Phase IV GTHO?

2. Is the correct title for the 19" dark accent wheels found on the F6/GS 'Dark Agent' or 'Dark Argent'?

Please feel free to answer these questions (provide proof if necessary) and add your own.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Common misconceptions relating to cars....

* From what I have been told, seating 6 in a car with 5 belts is legal, providing all other belts are used. (Say, 4 on the back seat, 2 at the front).

* Give way to all traffic on the right of the roundabout. The amount of people I drive with who still stop dead at the line to allow an approaching car on the right way is worrying. The 'first in, best dressed' law has been in for many, many years now.

I may be wrong on the first one, but pretty sure I'm right. Can't quote / reference it as I'm off to work.

[Dave3911]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

* Give way to all traffic on the right of the roundabout. The amount of people I drive with who still stop dead at the line to allow an approaching car on the right way is worrying. The 'first in, best dressed' law has been in for many, many years now.

Unless your in victoria and the "traffic" approaching from the right is a tram, then you must give way.

There is an exception to everything ;-)

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

* Give way to all traffic on the right of the roundabout. The amount of people I drive with who still stop dead at the line to allow an approaching car on the right way is worrying. The 'first in, best dressed' law has been in for many, many years now.

googled it

Giving way when entering a roundabout
A driver entering a roundabout must give
way to any vehicle in the roundabout

there's not a lot of difference between that, and the old 'give way to the right' rule. some people think the new rule means they can just barge in if there's 1 car length of free space.

[prydey]

another misconception, esp on these boards - winning the sales race each month = more profit

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Common misconceptions relating to cars....

* From what I have been told, seating 6 in a car with 5 belts is legal, providing all other belts are used. (Say, 4 on the back seat, 2 at the front).

* Give way to all traffic on the right of the roundabout. The amount of people I drive with who still stop dead at the line to allow an approaching car on the right way is worrying. The 'first in, best dressed' law has been in for many, many years now.

I may be wrong on the first one, but pretty sure I'm right. Can't quote / reference it as I'm off to work.

1. Sorry you are wrong, all passengers must occupy a seat with a restraint and must wear that restraint unless exempt.

265 Wearing of seatbelts by passengers 16 years old
or older
(1) A passenger in or on a motor vehicle that is moving, or that
is stationary but not parked, must comply with subrule (2) if
he or she:
(a) is 16 years old or older; and
(b) is not exempt from wearing a seatbelt under rule 267.
Offence provision.
(2) The passenger:
(a) must occupy a seating position that is fitted with a
seatbelt; and
(b) must not occupy the same seating position as another
passenger (whether or not the other passenger is
exempt from wearing a seat belt under rule 267); and
(c) must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened.

Squeezing 4 people across the back seat of a car that is designed under ADR's to seat 3 on the back seat is illegal. It is law that all cars must have a seat belt for each seating position (according to the relevant laws to the date of manufacture of that vehicle) and each passenger is required to use that seat belt, unless lawfully exempt.

2. Although technically you are correct, you are required to give way to vehicles in the roundabout and not all vehicles to the right. This becomes a bit grey if you race cars into the roundabout. For example you approach the roundabout at a fast speed and you see on your right a car is almost in the roundabout but not quite there. You put the foot down to enter the roundabout but you misjudge the other vehicles speed. If a collision was to occur both drivers would have issues defending it as both were likely to have excessive speed for the conditions. Also you would have trouble defending yourself as it is difficult to prove that you actually entered the roundabout first. All it would take in the absence of witnesses is for the other driver to state he believed he was in the roundabout first and that you would stop. Because he was on your right and the basis of road law at intersections it to give way to the right, it looks bad for you.

Much better slowing down a little, covering the brakes and letting them through. I have on many occasions given way to a vehicle that was approaching a roundabout at a dangerous speed even though I was in the roundabout because I could see there was reasonable suspicion they were not going to stop and a collision was possible. Better to wait 10 seconds and get home safely.

Although the wording of the legislation states "give way to vehicles in the roundabout", it effectively means give way to the right (because cars in the roundabout are on the right). The legislation does not allow you to race another car to the roundabout and it is not a "first in best dressed" arrangement.

Having said that, if you can safely enter the roundabout and exit without disrupting other cars, you can do so even though another car may be approaching the roundabout on your right. The problem is if you misjudge it and a collision occurs, 99% of the time you will be in the wrong.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

1. Sorry you are wrong, all passengers must occupy a seat with a restraint and must wear that restraint unless exempt.

Squeezing 4 people across the back seat of a car that is designed under ADR's to seat 3 on the back seat is illegal. It is law that all cars must have a seat belt for each seating position (according to the relevant laws to the date of manufacture of that vehicle) and each passenger is required to use that seat belt, unless lawfully exempt.

What you have quoted mentions people 'over 16'. What is the rule for 15 year olds then? 12 year olds? I'm also curious of the wording of rule 267.

I work as a teacher. One of our afternoon duties involves supervising the entry of children into their cars. We open then close the car doors.

We have questioned on several occasions who is liable (morally or otherwise) when 5 kids load up into an obviously 5 seater car.

Anyway, rest assured that our principal has called the police on more than 1 occasion to report / follow up this behaviour and I also assure you that she has been told those parents are not breaking the law.

There is no reason for her to lie as she has no benefit from lying, and she is a very 'by the book' person who would rather report this behaviour when known than turn a blind eye.

265 Wearing of seatbelts by passengers 16 years old
or older
(1) A passenger in or on a motor vehicle that is moving, or that
is stationary but not parked, must comply with subrule (2) if
he or she:
(a) is 16 years old or older; and
(b) is not exempt from wearing a seatbelt under rule 267.
Offence provision.
(2) The passenger:
(a) must occupy a seating position that is fitted with a
seatbelt; and
(b) must not occupy the same seating position as another
passenger (whether or not the other passenger is
exempt from wearing a seat belt under rule 267); and
(c) must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened.

Not being a smart, but if I were 14 and sitting on the lap of a person wearing a belt, would I be breaking the law?

Is there further rules on what happens should all belts be occupied? I'm sure I followed it up after I was told (didn't believe it either) and found the wording of it.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

2. Although technically you are correct, you are required to give way to vehicles in the roundabout and not all vehicles to the right. This becomes a bit grey if you race cars into the roundabout. For example you approach the roundabout at a fast speed and you see on your right a car is almost in the roundabout but not quite there. You put the foot down to enter the roundabout but you misjudge the other vehicles speed. If a collision was to occur both drivers would have issues defending it as both were likely to have excessive speed for the conditions. Also you would have trouble defending yourself as it is difficult to prove that you actually entered the roundabout first. All it would take in the absence of witnesses is for the other driver to state he believed he was in the roundabout first and that you would stop. Because he was on your right and the basis of road law at intersections it to give way to the right, it looks bad for you.

Much better slowing down a little, covering the brakes and letting them through. I have on many occasions given way to a vehicle that was approaching a roundabout at a dangerous speed even though I was in the roundabout because I could see there was reasonable suspicion they were not going to stop and a collision was possible. Better to wait 10 seconds and get home safely.

Although the wording of the legislation states "give way to vehicles in the roundabout", it effectively means give way to the right (because cars in the roundabout are on the right). The legislation does not allow you to race another car to the roundabout and it is not a "first in best dressed" arrangement.

Having said that, if you can safely enter the roundabout and exit without disrupting other cars, you can do so even though another car may be approaching the roundabout on your right. The problem is if you misjudge it and a collision occurs, 99% of the time you will be in the wrong.

You are correct. Many of our rules have grey areas and I was not implying that you don't use common sense as well.

"First in, best dressed" is a figure of speech. Not all cars entering a round about are automatically on the right. If I were approaching an intersection cars entering prior to me can be to my left, my right or approaching directly ahead of me.

[chevypower]

It's obvious that it is not speeding that kills you. It's the rapid slowing down that kills! So NEVER SLOW DOWN!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What you have quoted mentions people 'over 16'. What is the rule for 15 year olds then? 12 year olds? I'm also curious of the wording of rule 267.

I work as a teacher. One of our afternoon duties involves supervising the entry of children into their cars. We open then close the car doors.

We have questioned on several occasions who is liable (morally or otherwise) when 5 kids load up into an obviously 5 seater car.

Anyway, rest assured that our principal has called the police on more than 1 occasion to report / follow up this behaviour and I also assure you that she has been told those parents are not breaking the law.

There is no reason for her to lie as she has no benefit from lying, and she is a very 'by the book' person who would rather report this behaviour when known than turn a blind eye.



Not being a smart, but if I were 14 and sitting on the lap of a person wearing a belt, would I be breaking the law?

Is there further rules on what happens should all belts be occupied? I'm sure I followed it up after I was told (didn't believe it either) and found the wording of it.



You are correct. Many of our rules have grey areas and I was not implying that you don't use common sense as well.

"First in, best dressed" is a figure of speech. Not all cars entering a round about are automatically on the right. If I were approaching an intersection cars entering prior to me can be to my left, my right or approaching directly ahead of me.

According to Australian Road Rules 2009, all children off all ages must have the age appropriate restraint and also must not occupy the same seating position as another passenger. Please see my reference below.

266 Wearing of seatbelts by passengers under 16
years old
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or motor bike)
that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, must ensure
that this rule is complied with for each passenger in or on
the vehicle who is under 16 years old.
Offence provision.
Note Bus, motor bike, motor vehicle and park are defined in the
dictionary.
(2) If the passenger is less than 6 months old, he or she must be
restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and adjusted
rearward facing approved child restraint.
Note 1 Approved child restraint is defined in subrule (7) and rearward
facing is defined in subrule (6A).
Note 2 See subrule (4B) if a passenger cannot safely be restrained as
required by this subrule because of his or her height or weight.
(2A) If the passenger is 6 months old or older, but is less than 4
years old, he or she must be restrained in a suitable and
properly fastened and adjusted –
(a) rearward facing approved child restraint; or
(b) forward facing approved child restraint that has an
inbuilt harness.
Note 1 Approved child restraint is defined in subrule (7) and forward
facing and rearward facing are defined in subrule (6A).
Note 2 See subrule (4C) if a passenger cannot safely be restrained as
required by this subrule because of his or her height or weight.
(2B) If the passenger is 4 years old or older, but is less than 7
years old, he or she must –
(a) be restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and
adjusted forward facing approved child restraint that
has an inbuilt harness; or
Rule 266(2)
substituted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(1)
Rule 266(2A)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(1)
Rule 266(2B)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(1)
Rules for persons travelling in or on vehicles Part 16
254 Australian Road Rules – February 2009 version
(b) be placed on a properly positioned approved booster
seat and be restrained by a seatbelt that is properly
adjusted and fastened.
Note 1 Approved child restraint and approved booster seat are
defined in subrule (7) and forward facing is defined in subrule (6A).
Note 2 See subrule (4D) if a passenger cannot safely be restrained as
required by this subrule because of his or her height or weight.
Note 3 In relation to paragraph (b), subrule (4E) permits an approved
child safety harness to be worn instead of the sash part of a lap and sash
seatbelt.
(3) A passenger who is under 4 years old must not be in the
front row of a motor vehicle that has 2 or more rows of
seats.
(3A) A passenger who is 4 years old or older, but is less than 7
years old, must not be in the front row of a motor vehicle
that has 2 or more rows of seats unless all of the other seats
in the row or rows behind the front row are occupied by
passengers who are also under 7 years old.
(4) If the passenger is 7 years old or older but under 16 years
old:
(a) he or she must be restrained in a suitable approved
child restraint that is properly adjusted and fastened; or
(b) he or she:
(i) must occupy a seating position that is fitted with a
suitable seatbelt; and
(ii) must not occupy the same seating position as
another passenger (whether or not the other
passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt
under rule 267); and
(iii) must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and
fastened.
Note In relation to paragraph (b)(iii), subrule (4E) permits an approved
child safety harness to be worn instead of the sash part of a lap and sash
seatbelt.
(4A) Subrules (2), (2A), (2B) and (4) do not apply if the
passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under rule 267.
(4B) If a passenger cannot safely be restrained as required by
subrule (2) because of his or her height or weight, he or she
must be restrained as if subrule (2A) applied to him or her.
(4C) If a passenger cannot safely be restrained as required by
subrule (2A) or (4B) because of his or her height or weight,
Rule 266(3)
substituted by 5th
(seatbelt) pkg,
Item 2, and again
by 7th pkg. Item
9(2)
Rule 266(3A)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(2)
Rule 266(4)
substituted by 5th
(seatbelt) pkg,
Item 2, and
amended by 7th
pkg. Item 9(3)
Rule 266(4A)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(4)
Rule 266(4B)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(4)
Rule 266(4C)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(4)
Rules for persons travelling in or on vehicles Part 16
Australian Road Rules – February 2009 version 255
he or she must be restrained as if subrule (2B) applied to
him or her.
(4D) If a passenger cannot safely be restrained as required by
subrule (2B) or (4C) because of his or her height or weight,
he or she must be restrained as if subrule (4) applied to him
or her.
(4E) In the case of a passenger sitting in a seating position that is
fitted with a lap and sash type seatbelt, it is sufficient
compliance with subrule (2B)(b) or (4)(b)(iii), as the case
may be, if, instead of using the sash part of the seatbelt, an
approved child safety harness that is properly adjusted and
fastened is used to restrain the upper body of the passenger.
Note Approved child safety harness is defined in subrule (7).
(5) The driver of a public minibus or taxi is exempt from
subrules (2), (2A) and (2B) in relation to a passenger if:
(a) there is no suitable approved child restraint available in
the minibus or taxi for the passenger; and
(b) if the minibus or taxi has 2 or more rows of seats — the
passenger is not in the front row of seats; and
(c) there is not another law of this jurisdiction requiring all
passengers in a minibus or taxi who are the same age as
the passenger to be restrained in an approved child
restraint.
Note Public minibus and taxi are defined in the dictionary.
(6) For this rule:
(a) an approved child restraint is available in the motor
vehicle for a passenger if an approved child restraint is
fitted in the vehicle and is not occupied by someone
else under 16 years old; and
(b) an approved child restraint or seatbelt is suitable for a
passenger if it is suitable for restraining, or to be worn
by the passenger.
(6A) For this rule, a child restraint that is properly fastened and
adjusted:
(a) is forward facing if, once it restrains a passenger, his or
her head is closer to the rear of the vehicle than his or
her feet;
(b) is rearward facing if, once it restrains a passenger, his
or her feet are closer to the rear of the vehicle than his
or her head.
Rule 266(4D)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(4)
Rule 266(4E)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(4)
Rule 266(5)
amended by 7th
pkg, Item 9(3)
Rule 266(6A)
inserted by 7th
pkg, Item 9(5)
Rules for persons travelling in or on vehicles Part 16
256 Australian Road Rules – February 2009 version
(7) In this rule:
approved booster seat means a booster seat approved, for
the Australian Road Rules, under another law of this
jurisdiction.
approved child restraint means a child restraint approved,
for the Australian Road Rules, under another law of this
jurisdiction.
approved child safety harness means a child safety harness
approved, for the Australian Road Rules, under another law
of this jurisdiction.

The difficulty here is the Australian Road Rules are model rules for the states to compile their own enforceable legislation on. Most states have changed their legislation to reflect these model rules but there are some differences. If you provide you state I may be able to look it up if it does not require me spending 3 hours clawing through legislation. In the meantime, this is what QLD has to say on the matter

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT--ROAD RULES) REGULATION 2009 - SECT 266

266 Wearing of seatbelts by passengers under 16 years old
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or motorbike) that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, must ensure that this section is complied with for each passenger in or on the vehicle who is under 16 years old.

Maximum penalty--20 penalty units.

(2) If the passenger is less than 6 months old, the passenger must be restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and adjusted rearward facing approved child restraint.

(2A) If the passenger is 6 months old or older, but is less than 4 years old, the passenger must be restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and adjusted--

(a) rearward facing approved child restraint; or
(b) forward facing approved child restraint that has an inbuilt harness.
(2B) If the passenger is 4 years old or older, but is less than 7 years old, the passenger must--

(a) be restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and adjusted forward facing approved child restraint that has an inbuilt harness; or
(b) be placed on a properly positioned approved booster seat and be restrained by a seatbelt that is properly adjusted and fastened.
(3) A passenger who is under 4 years old must not be in the front row of a motor vehicle that has 2 or more rows of seats.

(3A) A passenger who is 4 years old or older, but is less than 7 years old, must not be in the front row of a motor vehicle that has 2 or more rows of seats unless all of the other seats in the row or rows behind the front row are occupied by passengers who are also under 7 years old.

(4) If the passenger is 7 years old or older but under 16 years old--

(a) the passenger must be restrained in a suitable approved child restraint that is properly adjusted and fastened; or
(b) the passenger--
(i) must occupy a seating position that is fitted with a suitable seatbelt; and
(ii) must not occupy the same seating position as another passenger (whether or not the other passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under section 267); and
(iii) must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened.
(4A) Subsections (2), (2A), (2B) and (4) do not apply if the passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under section 267.

(4AA) It is a defence to a prosecution of a driver of a motor vehicle for an offence against subsection (1) for noncompliance with subsection (4) if the driver proves that the offence happened in circumstances that made compliance with subsection (4) unreasonable or impractical.

(4AB) However, the defence is available only if at the time of the offence--

(a) the passenger was occupying a seating position that is not fitted with a seatbelt; and
(b) there is no requirement for that seating position to be fitted with a seatbelt; and
(c) all passengers in the vehicle who are exempt from wearing a seatbelt are complying with section 267(8).
(4B) If a passenger can not safely be restrained as required by subsection (2) because of the passenger's height or weight, the passenger must be restrained as if subsection (2A) applied to the passenger.

(4C) If a passenger can not safely be restrained as required by subsection (2A) or (4B) because of the passenger's height or weight, the passenger must be restrained as if subsection (2B) applied to the passenger.

(4D) If a passenger can not safely be restrained as required by subsection (2B) or (4C) because of the passenger's height or weight, the passenger must be restrained as if subsection (4) applied to the passenger.

(4E) In the case of a passenger sitting in a seating position that is fitted with a lap and sash type seatbelt, it is sufficient compliance with subsection (2B)(b) or (4)(b)(iii), as the case may be, if, instead of using the sash part of the seatbelt, an approved child safety harness that is properly adjusted and fastened is used to restrain the upper body of the passenger.

(5) The driver of a taxi is exempt from subsections (2), (2A) and (2B) in relation to a passenger if--

(a) there is no suitable approved child restraint available in the taxi for the passenger; and
(b) if the taxi has 2 or more rows of seats--the passenger is not in the front row of seats.
(6) For this section--

(a) an approved child restraint is available in the motor vehicle for a passenger if an approved child restraint is fitted in the vehicle and is not occupied by someone else under 16 years old; and
(b) an approved child restraint or seatbelt is suitable for a passenger if it is suitable for restraining, or to be worn by the passenger.
(6A) For this section, a child restraint that is properly fastened and adjusted--

(a) is forward facing if, once it restrains a passenger, the passenger's head is closer to the rear of the vehicle than the passenger's feet; or
(b) is rearward facing if, once it restrains a passenger, the passenger's feet are closer to the rear of the vehicle than the passenger's head.
(7) In this section--

approved booster seat means--

(a) a booster seat or cushion that complies with--
(i) AS 1754-1991; or
(ii) AS/NZS 1754-1995; or
(iii) AS/NZS 1754-2000; or
(iv) AS/NZS 1754-2004; or
(v) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to that standard; or
(b) a child restraint that--
(i) is incorporated in a vehicle; and
(ii) is of the type mentioned in the Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 34/01--Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings) 2005 (Cwlth), clause 34.8; and
(iii) complies with that clause.
approved child restraint means a child restraint that complies with--

(a) AS 1754-1991; or
(b) AS/NZS 1754-1995; or
(c) AS/NZS 1754-2000; or
(d) AS/NZS 1754-2004; or
(e) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to that standard.
approved child safety harness means a harness that complies with--

(a) AS 1754-1991; or
(b) AS/NZS 1754-1995; or
(c) AS/NZS 1754-2000; or
(d) AS/NZS 1754-2004; or
(e) another standard the chief executive considers is at least equal to that standard.

So, in the situation that you have given of 5 kids + driver which equals 6 in a 5 seat car (meaning 2 kids are sharing one seating position) is a big fat illegal according to both the references I have provided.

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

2. Although technically you are correct, you are required to give way to vehicles in the roundabout and not all vehicles to the right. This becomes a bit grey if you race cars into the roundabout.

I was told a story a while back 2nd hand of a bloke who got done for speeding in a roundabout, in which the police booked him because he broke the 25km/h speed limit set on all roundabouts. Which sort of makes sense.

So I had a look at the NSW legislation for Roundabouts and couldn't find a single word regarding speed in roundabouts. So I guess thats out.


There are alot of common conceptions on things that cars can be defected on, yet the laws regarding these are not in the Road act, does that mean these don't exist?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Airmon

I was told a story a while back 2nd hand of a bloke who got done for speeding in a roundabout, in which the police booked him because he broke the 25km/h speed limit set on all roundabouts. Which sort of makes sense.

So I had a look at the NSW legislation for Roundabouts and couldn't find a single word regarding speed in roundabouts. So I guess thats out.


There are alot of common conceptions on things that cars can be defected on, yet the laws regarding these are not in the Road act, does that mean these don't exist?

Things like speed in roundabouts often come under "driving with due care and attention". This is kind of a blanket rule that covers any act you do that has directly caused a crash or dangerous situation that is not covered under another segment of legislation.

For example, a Paramedic in QLD was clocked doing over 170 km/h in no traffic and good conditions whilst responding to a lights and sirens case by what I believe was a camera unit. This was in a sedan that was more than capable of that speed and it was a clear motorway with no intersections.

The case went to court and although under QLD legislation there is no limit on how high over the speed limit an emergency vehicle can go, the legislation does state they have to use "due care and attention". The magistrate found the officer guilty of failing to drive with due care and attention as he did not believe exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 km/h could ever be considered using due care and attention.

In reference to a normal driver, this term "due care and attention" is difficult to find in the QLD road rules but that does not say it is not there or not in some other relevant legislation (basically I can't be bothered looking). I have on many occasions heard the police refer to this term or similar at the scene of crashes.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Things like speed in roundabouts often come under "driving with due care and attention". This is kind of a blanket rule that covers any act you do that has directly caused a crash or dangerous situation that is not covered under another segment of legislation.

For example, a Paramedic in QLD was clocked doing over 170 km/h in no traffic and good conditions whilst responding to a lights and sirens case by what I believe was a camera unit. This was in a sedan that was more than capable of that speed and it was a clear motorway with no intersections.

The case went to court and although under QLD legislation there is no limit on how high over the speed limit an emergency vehicle can go, the legislation does state they have to use "due care and attention". The magistrate found the officer guilty of failing to drive with due care and attention as he did not believe exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 km/h could ever be considered using due care and attention.

In reference to a normal driver, this term "due care and attention" is difficult to find in the QLD road rules but that does not say it is not there or not in some other relevant legislation (basically I can't be bothered looking). I have on many occasions heard the police refer to this term or similar at the scene of crashes.

Mate, sometimes you focus too much on legislation, yet then cite a case. While it is highly relevant and the foundation of many laws, and the beginning of many legal concepts, it is always further enhanced or defined in caselaw (sometimes more narrowly than the general use of the words would imply, sometimes wider). Some of the things people mention is found in interpretation of legislation by a judge, and therefore will only be, until the legislation is updated to include it, found in cases. Look at all the legislation you like, some things just wont be there because its only in the caselaw.

I believe the current legal interpretation is a driver is supposed to slow to a suitable speed before entering a roundabout that will allow them to stop without entering the roundabout if they need too. And to nip in the bud before it starts, I would suggest arguments relating to my super duper brakes and expensive tyres mean I can go faster than say a normal Laser on cheap Chinese tyres is probably not going to carry much weight.

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Although the wording of the legislation states "give way to vehicles in the roundabout", it effectively means give way to the right (because cars in the roundabout are on the right). The legislation does not allow you to race another car to the roundabout and it is not a "first in best dressed" arrangement.

Having said that, if you can safely enter the roundabout and exit without disrupting other cars, you can do so even though another car may be approaching the roundabout on your right. The problem is if you misjudge it and a collision occurs, 99% of the time you will be in the wrong.

cars in the roundabout doesn't necessarily equal on the right - a long vehicle can enter a roundabout to your left and is not considered to have "cut you off" as they're already in the roundabout you have to wait.

There was a case in the news here a couple of years ago. a woman entered a roundabout, a speeding vehicle entered to her right after her and they collided. the court found her in the wrong as she should have given way to her right, even though the other driver was speeding. it apparently took her 2 appeals to have that verdict changed and to have herself cleared.

The rules are pretty unambiguous. If you enter the roundabout first, you have right of way - since you are then "in the roundabout" and anyone else - to the right or otherwise must give way to you. Hard to see how they can get that wrong. The point I suppose is the old choice between rights and self-preservation. It is your right to enter if there is a vehicle to the right which hasn't quite reached the roundabout - even if that vehicle is speeding. However you're probably better off waiting and avoiding the hassle of a collision. Unless the right hand side of your car could do with a respray at someone else's expense, then go right ahead and let them run into you - just hope you survive it.

also it would usually be pretty clear who was in the right if there was a collision. Someone actually failing to give way to a vehicle already in the roundabout to their right would probably be hit in the front quarter. If they were in first and got hit it would probably be the rear quarter, unless they're going VERY slowly...

Originally Posted by prydey

there's not a lot of difference between that, and the old 'give way to the right' rule. some people think the new rule means they can just barge in if there's 1 car length of free space.

I suppose that in the majority of cases where people aren't speeding 1 car length is enough so that it wouldn't be considered "barging in" - traffic would probably just flow nicely. Which is what roundabouts are supposed to achieve. People unnecessarily waiting for cars approaching from the right are probably responsible for a lot of traffic congestion...

I do think there are way too many people who don't understand roundabouts. I got to one the other day where the other 3 entries to the roundabout had cars all sitting there waiting for each other. the bloke to my left should have gone as I hadn't reached the roundabout yet. I just went through and then they all went on their way. I wondered what might have happened if another person like them had been in my position and had stopped there. They'd be gridlocked. They might have been still there now like those 2 Dr Seuss characters...

[FPV+fteT3]

Roundabouts = chicane enter at speed and straightline hitting the apex even if you have to use all the available lanes.

They are not chicanes but some people use them as such.

[adelaidecrows02]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Common misconceptions relating to cars....

* From what I have been told, seating 6 in a car with 5 belts is legal, providing all other belts are used. (Say, 4 on the back seat, 2 at the front).

* Give way to all traffic on the right of the roundabout. The amount of people I drive with who still stop dead at the line to allow an approaching car on the right way is worrying. The 'first in, best dressed' law has been in for many, many years now.

I may be wrong on the first one, but pretty sure I'm right. Can't quote / reference it as I'm off to work.

Mate of mine who is a detective told me this is correct.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by adelaidecrows02

Mate of mine who is a detective told me this is correct.

Be very careful here, it will depend greatly on the state legislation, in QLD it is clearly not.

I have also checked NSW state road law and having 4 occupants in the back seat of a car with three seat belts is clearly illegal there too. Both NSW and QLD road laws are almost direct copies of the Australian Road Rules 2009 in this respect.

Perhaps in the state the detective works he may be correct, in NSW, ACT and QLD he is not.

[adelaidecrows02]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Be very careful here, it will depend greatly on the state legislation, in QLD it is clearly not.

I have also checked NSW state road law and having 4 occupants in the back seat of a car with three seat belts is clearly illegal there too. Both NSW and QLD road laws are almost direct copies of the Australian Road Rules 2009 in this respect.

Perhaps in the state the detective works he may be correct, in NSW, ACT and QLD he is not.

Yes, good point - I had intended to point out that this was for SA only

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by adelaidecrows02

Yes, good point - I had intended to point out that this was for SA only

I did try and research SA legislation but their website is crap, I did however note that for road rules they refer to the Australian Road Rules 2009 and provide a link (which didn't work). So it seems that they use the Australia Road Rules and if this is the case (note I said IF), either the detective is wrong or it was a while ago and the legislation has changed.

Don't say that or we'll have laws where we can get busted for taking off "slightly too quickly" even though the police don't have a way to measure it, and neither do us drivers.

Don't look now but there already is and has been for a long time. My brother got done and in the infringement it was worded something to the effect of "excessive acceleration". He revved up his SS ute and dropped the clutch at a set of lights, took off really quick and won the traffic light drags (even though the car next him was not actually racing him). The problem was there was an unmarked cop behind him at the time.

[F6T]

Originally Posted by ST

Figured it's about time to start a thread on this subject. The purpose of this thread is to clear up numerous widely believed misconceptions in the realm of automotive transport (more specifically cars).

I'll start off with a couple of easy and extremely common questions asked a lot on this forum:

1. Was there a Phase IV GTHO?

2. Is the correct title for the 19" dark accent wheels found on the F6/GS 'Dark Agent' or 'Dark Argent'?

Please feel free to answer these questions (provide proof if necessary) and add your own.

As to 1, yes there were four GTHO ph IV built. 1972 as XA's. Three for Bathurst and 1 for private sale.

As to 2, for the love of God, it is Dark ARGENT - argent being the French word for silver. They are a dark silver rim.

Good idea for a thread mate.

[yift]

Originally Posted by F6T

As to 1, yes there were four GTHO ph IV built. 1972 as XA's. Three for Bathurst and 1 for private sale.

Good idea for a thread mate.

Actually there is only 1 Phase 4, its the only one with HO on the I.D tag. the other 3 that were built are only GT's.

[F6T]

you see!!! common misconceptions...

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by F6T

yes there were four GTHO ph IV built. 1972 as XA's. Three for Bathurst and 1 for private sale.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I dont know what sorta misconception there is here??
Do you mean how many were built?

Originally Posted by yift

Actually there is only 1 Phase 4, its the only one with HO on the I.D tag. the other 3 that were built are only GT's.

Originally Posted by F6T

you see!!! common misconceptions...

Ha ha ha that is gold! Not a very good start! Let's try and make it that people only with traceable facts respond as it will only keep the misconceptions going otherwise. Can we sort out the XA Phase IV answer before we move on as well! I did have an AMC mag that documented this but I will need to find it somewhere, unless someone else beats me to it.

OK I got one, it is legal in S.A, to drive a car while sipping from a stubbie or a tinnie. The only criteria are that the driver must not be in control of a motor vehicle over the prescribed limit of .05. Not sure about anywhere else. Closing this loop hole is before parliament now though I think.

Bud Bud

[xr gr8]

Driving in WA with a can or stubbie is classed as street drinking and is a no no.

[F6T]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Ha ha ha that is gold! Not a very good start! Let's try and make it that people only with traceable facts respond as it will only keep the misconceptions going otherwise. Can we sort out the XA Phase IV answer before we move on as well!

Bud Bud

Well, Wikipedia states as follows:-

In 1972, the XY series Falcon was replaced by the XA Falcon range. Production of the XA based 1972 Falcon GTHO Phase IV commenced in mid-June 1972, but production was stopped due to a "Supercar Scare". The Sun-Herald had run this as a front page lead article (with banner headline in large capital letters) on Sunday 25 June 1972: "160mph 'Super Cars' Soon". A copy of that front page is shown at the start of a Phase IV documentary.

Four vehicles were built when production was stopped. Three were built as race cars for the Bathurst 500 in October, and one made it off the production line for sale to the public. The four vehicles were sold by Ford Australia, but the Phase IV was never officially released.

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

OK I got one, it is legal in S.A, to drive a car while sipping from a stubbie or a tinnie. The only criteria are that the driver must not be in control of a motor vehicle over the prescribed limit of .05. Not sure about anywhere else. Closing this loop hole is before parliament now though I think.

Bit of a red flag to a bull though. Cop sees you having a beer while you're driving, I think you're definitely going to be pulled over for a breath test!

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by ST

I'll start off with a couple of easy and extremely common questions asked a lot on this forum:

1. Was there a Phase IV GTHO?

.

I dont know what sorta misconception there is here??
Do you mean how many were built?

[ZDI-970]

you do have to indicate when merging at the end of overtaking lanes... so many people dont...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by D3v[]

you do have to indicate when merging at the end of overtaking lanes... so many people dont...

No only if your lane ends, as in there is clear demarcation that it is your lane that is ending.

If your lane is the one that continues on or there is no demarcation then you do not indicate.

N.B. Demarcation means you have to cross a line to enter the other lane.

[ZDI-970]

Originally Posted by flappist

No only if your lane ends, as in there is clear demarcation that it is your lane that is ending.

If your lane is the one that continues on or there is no demarcation then you do not indicate.

N.B. Demarcation means you have to cross a line to enter the other lane.

thats what i ment thanks for makin it clearer though

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by D3v[]

you do have to indicate when merging at the end of overtaking lanes... so many people dont...

AND AT THE SPEED OF THE ROAD YOU ARE MERGING ONTO

Originally Posted by Scotty85

Here is a REALLY common misconception:

AUs are ugly.

C'mon people, secretly you ALL love them

Agreed