Common misconceptions

[ST]

Hahahaha this is exactly what I meant, hopefully we can get and agree on some definitive answers here. I suggest only giving an answer here if you have some evidence to back it (link).

XWGT, too right about wikipedia mate.

[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.

[XR6_661]

Speeding Kills

&

Speed cameras are not revenue raisers.

GAME ON!

[saam]

Does Speed kill or speeding kill ??

[XR6_661]

Originally Posted by saam

Does Speed kill or speeding kill ??

Neither. Hitting a blockwork wall at 160kph and windsheild cannoning kills ya.

[noosacuda]

Originally Posted by XR6_661

Speeding Kills

&

Speed cameras are not revenue raisers.

GAME ON!

They're both true comments, Santa Clause told me so!

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by XR6_661

Speeding Kills

&

Speed cameras are not revenue raisers.

GAME ON!

LOL! Speed doesn't kill, well, not officially - as reflected by the figures. It's a misrepresentation based on a play on semantics.

Translated - quickly - "speed was a determining factor".

This can be applied to any fatal crash by investigators, and pretty much is. If you're doing 45km/h in a 50km/h zone, but it's pouring with rain and you kill someone, speed will be marked down by investigators as a "determining factor".

You're not speeding, but you were drivintg too fast for the conditions.

Playing on words like this helps raise the statistics needded to justify raping us repeatedly with 10in strap ons - otherwise known as fixed speed cameras.

Of course, the road toll has been in steady decline for the last few decades - based on the percentage of drivers killed, not the number of them. This is thanks to safety features like soft dashboards, air bags, crumple zones, ABS, blah blah.

But you'll never hear a politician admit any of this! They're too worried about making sure the media parades the raw numbers of people killed like some morbid footy tipping comp held between states each holiday period.

End rant...

[NAK302]

misconception.............that any 2 door falcon built before 1978 is a MUSCLE car.

[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 saam

Does Speed kill or speeding kill ??

Thats two questions.

The first is does speed kill? This question in its most basic interpretation must be a yes. If you were to constantly accelerate a human without protection of any sort, it will eventually get to a speed that the forces involved are beyond what it can cope with. Add protection and the limit then becomes the limit of the protection but eventually the forces overcome that. Look at it this way, even in a rocket there is a speed at which point the occupants would die.

As for the second question of does speeding kill? Here we go again, I will keep out of that one. I will only ask one question, do we really have to go through this again?

[kiwimark]

heres another one -

In NZ we suffer from people who drive 20kmp/h below the limit (100kmp/h) on the open road. There is also a subclass of this driver type that then speed up to the limit once we enter a passing lane and then proceed to slow down once through it. These drivers dont believe they are dangerous or cause accidents.

This is really painful as NZ's main highways are mostly single lane affair (outside of cities) and are by no means straight or flat...

[XWGT]

Common misconception # 99

"I am better than pushups"

[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.

[Windsor342ci]

I don’t know about other states, but in NSW they have recently introduced "Safety Camera". Red light and speed camera in 1. Hume Hwy between Liverpool and Parramatta Rd intersection is absolutely littered with them.... I’m all for nailing idiots. Unlike the old fashion speed cameras how you get 3 massive signs warning prior to the camera, these new ones only have 1 sign just before the intersection. I do not speed on purpose and don’t drive like an idiot but I've lost count of how many times Ive approached an intersection and slammed my brakes because I was at that unhappy medium of either drive normal and there’s a small chance I might get hit with the red light or speed up and no doubt get done with speed camera. Now add this on top of questionable weather conditions and towing a trailer loaded with xxxxkgs and you’re telling me these are out for my safety? I know the towing is not an everyday instance but even in perfectly normal conditions I’ve had mates pressed right up against their seat belts because I hit the brake....

[geckoGT]

Yellow Festiva

As for your question regarding school staff assisting the overloading of cars, that is a good one and I will get some answers but it will take some thought and research. I will pm you the answer if you like as it would take this thread considerably off topic.

[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?

[fmc351]

I think you'll find the reason for splitting up <16 and >16 is who wears the fine.

[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.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I think you'll find the reason for splitting up <16 and >16 is who wears the fine.

The way I read it is more about defining what level and type of restraint is to used for the different ages of children.

Having said that, it appears in QLD that if the passenger is under 16 years of age it is the driver that wears the fine. If the passenger is over 16 years of age, both driver and passenger have reference to penalty points in the legislation so therefore both could be fined.

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

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT--ROAD RULES) REGULATION 2009 - SECT 265

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 subsection (2) if he or she--

(a) is 16 years old or older; and
(b) is not exempt from wearing a seatbelt under section 267.
Maximum penalty--20 penalty units.

(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 seatbelt under section 267); and
(c) must wear the seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened.
(3) The driver of a motor vehicle (except a bus or taxi) that is moving, or that is stationary but not parked, must ensure that each passenger in or on the vehicle who is 16 years old or older complies with subsection (2), unless the passenger is exempt from wearing a seatbelt under section 267.

Maximum penalty--20 penalty units.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by fmc351

That one is a misconception.

Its moderated, and while it can be added to by many, over time, it becomes closer to the truth. They dont simply leave whatever someone wants to put up.

Misconception 2
Threads stay on topic.

Wikipedia is not a referencable source for any Australian university. That should be enough reason to believe it does have it's flaws.

[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.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by irish2

Wikipedia is not a referencable source for any Australian university. That should be enough reason to believe it does have it's flaws.

That is very true, but I have found it quite useful to find resources that can be used and referenced.

[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 fmc351

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.

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately in this environment the legislation is the most effective place to start. I refer to it because that is what I can look up in a reasonable amount of time. It is way too time consuming to wade through mountains of case law to find the most recent interpretation of that legislation. Just like there is no mention in legislation regarding the maximum speed an emergency vehicle can exceed the speed limit by, but there is in case law. I used the paramedic as an example as this is an instance of case law that I have researched although it was 6 years ago so I am a bit rusty on it.

To find the most relevant example of case law regarding speed in roundabouts could takes days of research, I have better things to do, but I do see your point and you are correct.

In my defence, at least I research it before giving unsubstantiated opinion, of course I could go deeper in the research but I don't get paid for it and this is just a hobby and an interest.

[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.

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Thats two questions.

The first is does speed kill? This question in its most basic interpretation must be a yes. If you were to constantly accelerate a human without protection of any sort, it will eventually get to a speed that the forces involved are beyond what it can cope with. Add protection and the limit then becomes the limit of the protection but eventually the forces overcome that. Look at it this way, even in a rocket there is a speed at which point the occupants would die.

Incorrect - and you answered it yourself - speed does not kill, however extreme acceleration can.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AWD Chaser

Incorrect - and you answered it yourself - speed does not kill, however extreme acceleration can.

That depends on how great the acceleration is, a person can survive a jet launch off an aircraft carrier or the launch of a nitro drag car, so as long as the rate of acceleration is less than that, it is not the acceleration that killed them.

So maybe not incorrect.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by irish2

Wikipedia is not a referencable source for any Australian university. That should be enough reason to believe it does have it's flaws.

While I never used it as the sole source, I have cited Wiki many times, I didnt simply pass, I received distinctions and a few HD's. I have a set of Britannicas here from my childhood, I wouldnt rely on those either, there is stuff that is now proved wrong, and some stuff it has never heard of. Wiki is just open about the corrections it needs to make.

As I said, go and edit something and see how that works. Its not quite what people seem to think it is.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The way I read it is more about defining what level and type of restraint is to used for the different ages of children.

Having said that, it appears in QLD that if the passenger is under 16 years of age it is the driver that wears the fine. If the passenger is over 16 years of age, both driver and passenger have reference to penalty points in the legislation so therefore both could be fined.

I think that is right, I believe both can be fined. But what I referrd to was the reason for splitting the ages in the legislation. Under 16 is solely the drivers responsibility in traffic law at least, maybe parents under something pertaining to child care issues, like DOCS.

Over 16

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:

I have no doubt differnet seatblets, seat restraints etc have some bearing too. But a 15 yr old sits in a normal seat.

Under 16

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.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Yellow Festiva

As for your question regarding school staff assisting the overloading of cars, that is a good one and I will get some answers but it will take some thought and research. I will pm you the answer if you like as it would take this thread considerably off topic.

No worries... Section this / clause that / subrule ... would give an asprin a headache!