New road rule (Vic)

Don't know about you but I'll pretend that this law doesn't even exist. Primarily because having to remember all of the new laws in place on the roads is going to distract me constantly from driving safely on the roads.

In fact I don't even know any of the lesser known laws and its going to stay that way as I am driving.

As far as I'm concerned all they can expect of me is that I don't speed and I don't overtake turning vehicles and that I keep my car in good safe condition. This stupid law is just as bad as the 40kph when passing a bus when the lights are flashing. I don't even bother slowing down when going past buses primarily because there is usually a fudge packer behind me on my tail and it would be dangerous for me to slow down for the very short 10 meters of road that I am going past when driving alongside a bus. They should expect me to do the very least and that is cover the brake. and that is exactly what I am going to continue doing.

Obviously if the bus is a few hundred meters away then I have the time to slow down and I do, but most times that is NOT the case and I am coming around a corner or going up or down a hill and I cannot yet see the bus and I almost always in bumper to bumper traffic.

They seriously expect me to drive at 60-80km/h and then slow down to 40 within a hundred meters or less??? when going past a 10 meter long bus? In heavily congested traffic?? do they have any understanding of physics at all??? What if I'm going around a bend at 60-80km/h and the bus is right there and a kid is running out in front of me? I won't have enough time to slow down..

In fact this same situation occured just recently with a bunch of dumbarse council workers in a truck who were closing the left lane on a 2 lane road that was 70km/h. I was coming around the bend just as a bunch of other people and trucks were, they closed the left lane within a hundred meters of a blind corner!!! in a 70 zone!!! and I nearly got *******ed by a truck behind me. He was an inch off my bumper by the time we stopped.

If the government doesn't like it then they can go and bloody well **** themselves with a dildo named voyager. Going where no man has gone before.

Laws like this which abuse the "you cannot claim ignorance of the law" really tick me off the most. So it should to you.

These laws are nothing more than liberal whinger legal chains so they can claim that you broke the law even though you've just accidentally killed someone. They are an attack on the very fabric of our humanity. Our abilities to drive safely on the road are limited by our human capabilities. They should not and cannot keep on forcing these hundreds of laws onto us and expect us to remember them all.

If I'm trying to remember what that obscure law was regarding going past an ambulance or a police car then I'm expending time that I should be spending scanning the road ahead of me and looking to the left for bike riders and looking at the intersection ahead of me for pedestrians, and keeping my car within the lane. and checking my mirrors and ensuring that I'm not speeding. I don't have the TIME for this ****.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by moneypit

Don't know about you but I'll pretend that this law doesn't even exist. Primarily because having to remember all of the new laws in place on the roads is going to distract me constantly from driving safely on the roads.

In fact I don't even know any of the lesser known laws and its going to stay that way as I am driving.

As far as I'm concerned all they can expect of me is that I don't speed and I don't overtake turning vehicles and that I keep my car in good safe condition. This stupid law is just as bad as the 40kph when passing a bus when the lights are flashing. I don't even bother slowing down when going past buses primarily because there is usually a fudge packer behind me on my tail and it would be dangerous for me to slow down for the very short 10 meters of road that I am going past when driving alongside a bus. They should expect me to do the very least and that is cover the brake. and that is exactly what I am going to continue doing.

Obviously if the bus is a few hundred meters away then I have the time to slow down and I do, but most times that is NOT the case and I am coming around a corner or going up or down a hill and I cannot yet see the bus and I almost always in bumper to bumper traffic.

They seriously expect me to drive at 60-80km/h and then slow down to 40 within a hundred meters or less??? when going past a 10 meter long bus? In heavily congested traffic?? do they have any understanding of physics at all??? What if I'm going around a bend at 60-80km/h and the bus is right there and a kid is running out in front of me? I won't have enough time to slow down..

In fact this same situation occured just recently with a bunch of dumbarse council workers in a truck who were closing the left lane on a 2 lane road that was 70km/h. I was coming around the bend just as a bunch of other people and trucks were, they closed the left lane within a hundred meters of a blind corner!!! in a 70 zone!!! and I nearly got *******ed by a truck behind me. He was an inch off my bumper by the time we stopped.

If the government doesn't like it then they can go and bloody well **** themselves with a dildo named voyager. Going where no man has gone before.

Laws like this which abuse the "you cannot claim ignorance of the law" really tick me off the most. So it should to you.

These laws are nothing more than liberal whinger legal chains so they can claim that you broke the law even though you've just accidentally killed someone. They are an attack on the very fabric of our humanity. Our abilities to drive safely on the road are limited by our human capabilities. They should not and cannot keep on forcing these hundreds of laws onto us and expect us to remember them all.

If I'm trying to remember what that obscure law was regarding going past an ambulance or a police car then I'm expending time that I should be spending scanning the road ahead of me and looking to the left for bike riders and looking at the intersection ahead of me for pedestrians, and keeping my car within the lane. and checking my mirrors and ensuring that I'm not speeding. I don't have the TIME for this ****.

is that you trump??

[pottery beige]

trumps been trumped

[Trump]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

trumps been trumped

What word starts with a B and ends in a D?

Originally Posted by Trump

What word starts with a B and ends in a D?

Yeah I'm super bad. I should edit the post and remove some words but I went out and got ice cream.

[olfella]

What happened to standardisation? I am happy to do 40 past school and traffic workers, so why drop it to 25 just for emergency workers?
They have a trial at our local school to 30.
So this means 40 for traffic and some schools while 30 for others and 25 past emergency vehicles who have lights and witches hats out anyway.

Why not leave it all at 40 then we all know where we stand and dont have to keep checking the speedo and running into things.

[Franco Cozzo]

Theres road rules?

I haven't been busted yet

[olfella]

Originally Posted by Trump

What word starts with a B and ends in a D?

Busted?

Why beat around the bush, 40, 30 or 25 is still too fast for a car if it hits someone.

Slow everything down to 20km/h (a pushbike is going pretty fast at 20km/h) and lets see what happens to small cars like a hatchback and a truck in a 80km/h zone.

The point is you cannot put these laws into practice safely when you are in heavily congested traffic.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by moneypit

Why beat around the bush, 40, 30 or 25 is still too fast for a car if it hits someone.

Slow everything down to 20km/h and lets see what happens to small cars like a hatchback and a truck in a 80km/h zone.

One word. Crunch.

Maybe someone should also take a bit of responsibility and stay behind barriers and only use crossings?

Originally Posted by olfella

Maybe someone should also take a bit of responsibility and stay behind barriers and only use crossings?

Yes. Exactly.

And if we cannot teach kids to not run and jump in front of fast moving traffic instead of using the crossing half a km down the road then what are we doing sending them to school to learn things?

Granted there are primary school kids who also take buses. Then why not put barriers on the front of buses which prevent kids from getting in front of the bus anyway? Therefore preventing them from running in traffic in a major blind spot for drivers going past.

Why arent the kids parents put to blame for their kids actions? I sometimes see kids without helmets who ride across four lanes of highway 80km/h traffic.

There are also ways of preventing kids from being let off on major highways. Force buses to drive down a suburban street to let kids off instead of on the highway.

There is also barriers which can be made to come up out of the road which can catch trucks and cars that want to go across a crossing. Either maliciously or not.

I also don't understand why there hasn't been more use of overhead crossings/bridges and underground road crossings.

Where is the logic in stopping two lanes of traffic on a major road for 20 kids? You could even have metal unloading/loading bays for the buses with heavily guarded waiting areas which can be synchronized to some street lights so kids can cross the road safely and not have the ability to jaywalk because they can be held in the waiting bay until all traffic has stopped. That waiting bay can even be extended by using fencing a quarter of a km in either direction.

I'm not sure what we should do about ambulances and police but I do know that they will require lights and speed signs on the rear of the police cars and ambulances so the people who don't read the newspaper rag and doesn't watch the crap thats on television can be told about the laws.

Suprise Suprise but there is a major part of society which doesn't keep in touch with all of the newest laws out there.

But instead of focusing in all of these alternatives they are focusing on punitive laws with harsh fines for laws that cannot be possibly enforced safely and cannot be safely followed without causing front/rear collissions. When it comes to the law they have to blame someone or else they don't have a case. So its very likely that if you run over a policeman or an ambo worker you will be charged for murder for simply not slowing down to 40km/h or whatever speed they pull out of their ****.

Its BS.

[XR6WGN]

It used to be 40 here in Adelaide but they dropped it down to 25 - standby Victoria, it may just happen to you guys too. That is, if the Government wants more revenue, opps, feels like the emergency workers are still in danger

http://www.news.com.au/national/brea...b34bd95bca1186

Notice how they blame the truck driver for going at the speed limit.

A Melbourne plumber screamed "run", sending people diving for safety as a semi-trailer ploughed into an ambulance and a police car on a Melbourne freeway.
The truck collected the parked ambulance, a police car and a car that had already crashed into a guard rail on a freeway interchange ramp in Dandenong North on Monday morning, police say.
Plumber Arthur Tsiligiannis, who'd stopped to help the car that hit the guard rail, screamed out as the truck approached.
"It was just one of those out-of-the-ordinary experiences that was just like watching a movie, and came out of nowhere," Mr Tsiligiannis told AAP on Monday.
"Everyone took a bit of a tumble to be honest. We all scattered and jumped in every direction trying to avoid contact with the truck."
He said there was no time to think and everyone at the scene just ran where they could to avoid the truck, most of them jumping a barricade and rolling down an embankment.
The truck driver, the car driver and Mr Tsiligiannis were all taken to a local hospital with minor injuries, Ambulance Victoria says.
"I'm a bit battered and bruised but I'm okay," Mr Tsiligiannis said.
Ambulance union assistant secretary Danny Hill said he understood it could have been much worse if Mr Tsiligiannis hadn't alerted everyone to the approaching truck.
The ambulance was towed from the scene with significant damage to its rear.
Mr Hill said the crash was a "perfect example" of why it's important that drivers go slow around crash scenes.
His union, the Ambulance Employees Australia Victoria, and others have campaigned for 40km/h speed limits around emergency services vehicles.
"There is a major risk to emergency services, bystanders and injured patients when other vehicles are approaching so fast ... and they're very dynamic scenes," he said.

A "freeway interchange ramp" more than likely the truck driver couldn't see them until it was too late. Yet the media thinks its still worthwhile blaming the truck driver for "exceeding the speed limit".

The allegedly "exceeding the speed limit" drivers are the witch and the government/media is the witch-hunters.

[joolz]

Here's more info from RACV with pics!

https://www.racv.com.au/membership/m...mergency-.html

[JAJH]

Originally Posted by trublu

You two guys just don't get it with this new law & why it is introduced.
Nothing hard about slowing down when hearing or seeing emergency vehicles warning systems operating.
This will teach the ignorant to pay more attention on the roads we use.

Maybe more to the point, you don't get it! As an ex-copper, just because your Police car has a siren and flashing lights doesn't mean you are an emergency vehicle unless responding to an emergency. Pulling over a vehicle for a licence check would not constitute an "Emergency" and therefore the provisions of the Emergency Vehicles Act have not been invoked correctly. The point to my post was if a motorist was booked for NOT slowing down simply because a copper had pulled someone over for a licence check, it would stand a good chance of being argued in court or the ticket withdrawn.

[Kil4Collingwood]

We will probably wind up with cops parked up on the side of the road with lights flashing and radar set up.

[roKWiz]

I can not see this working on the Hume Fwy where I do most of my driving.
Common practice when you see a cop pulling someone, you naturally change lanes, but 40kph !

The worst part is that they have the moral high ground and abuse that privelage repeatedly by calling out anyone who disagrees with them as immoral and unsafe. They (the media) even go as far as to say that anyone who is doing 80km/h in an 80 zone is 'exceeding the speed limit' simply because they chose to be safe and not slow down to 40 for a few meters and not have their hatchback rear ended by the truck or bus behind them.

Its not about immorality its about practicality and safety. You cannot stop or slow down two lanes of traffic from 80-110km/h to 40km/h for a few meters and not expect people to be injured in their cars and not have crashes which cost thousands.

Its incompatible with bumper to bumper high speed traffic.

It would be much better left as a suggestion and not as a law which will be broken, repeatedly, by everyone, because its unsafe.

And of course its wrong to disagree with authority which would have to be the scariest part of these laws.

[jakkes]

i have experanced this first hand 80-100 then bam 20-40 on the M1 heading south east out of melbourne and every lane too (4) never had it happen till that time and man it was not good it was like a Mexican wave thought it was a one off thing then bam again like a k down the road was wide eyed after the second time lol.

i don't think it'll happen like people are making out "but" if it happens like above there will be high chance of more accidents on the bigger freeways

[XR6WGN]

Well you know Adelaide Drivers can't see past their windscreens most times!! This morning, just before the Port Wakefield Road bridge, (Salisbury Highway heading west) opposite side of median strip, small nose to tail: Police car sitting there with lights flashing - ALL traffic doing 25. Get over bridge, no less than a KM up the road another small nose to tail: another Police car on scene with lights flashing!
So two fairly minor accidents within 2 KMs apart and traffic banked up / crawling for maybe 15 minutes to clear both. Yep all persons exchanging information, taking photos or awaiting tows were safe but you've got to ask if the whole situation could have been handled better - small use of lights to get cars clear of the highway and then switch them off and let traffic get on with it!!!

As I say Melbourne - you've got this to look forward to!!

[GASWAGON]

What about the poor truck drivers.....Especially semi's and B doubles.

They can't stop on a dime like modern cars can.

Bloody STUPID law!

[Kil4Collingwood]

People are already observing this new law, was heading home from mooroopna last night, and the police had turnbull road closed of due to the fatal bus smash yesterday.
Sitting behind a territory and a camry coming out of the 80 zone into the 100 sat back because I had a feeling about the camry and sure enough slams on the brakes, territory driver not expecting it nearly hit it.

[GO FURTHER]

Originally Posted by CoolBFWagon

What about the poor truck drivers.....Especially semi's and B doubles.

They can't stop on a dime like modern cars can.

Bloody STUPID law!

But they insist on tailgating and intimidating smaller vehicles on the road, knowing they could never pull up in an emergency! I.Q. Sub 100

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by JAJH

Maybe more to the point, you don't get it! As an ex-copper, just because your Police car has a siren and flashing lights doesn't mean you are an emergency vehicle unless responding to an emergency. Pulling over a vehicle for a licence check would not constitute an "Emergency" and therefore the provisions of the Emergency Vehicles Act have not been invoked correctly. The point to my post was if a motorist was booked for NOT slowing down simply because a copper had pulled someone over for a licence check, it would stand a good chance of being argued in court or the ticket withdrawn.

This is exactly what I was eluding to in my earlier Post.
when a cop pulls somebody over, I have no doubt they have training to make sure its a safe situation before anybody exits a vehicle.

An Accident situation is an entirely different matter. The last thing you want is an Ambo accidently stepping out on the road and getting collected when he's in a rush to save somebody's life.

note the VIC Roads link above has a pic of a cop car pulling somebody over as its example..

Either way this law is very hard to Police in the emergency situation but not so had in the fore mentioned licence check scenario.

I hope its not abused,

[Tassie f100]

Well according to the RACV link any vehicle with Blue and Red flashing lights operating is considered to be in an emergency in this ruling.I guess if its now law in Vic it will spread to all other states soon enough.

I wouldn't be suprised if this is part of a counter-terrorism law.

If they can call people who have an accident with a policeman or ambo nurse terrorists...

What makes me think this is this:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/natio...ng-police.html

Or Maybe they are thinking that Mr Hajab Hijab will be using cars and trucks in the future to take out public servants? Then claim it as an accident.

I can see the sense in this kind of law if that is the case. If there are cars or trucks that aren't slowing down then they are easier to identify as a potential risk. (And then get out of the way before being hit.)

Even so they still shouldn't be expecting us to hit the anchor on a busy highway, its darn dangerous.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by JAJH

Maybe more to the point, you don't get it! As an ex-copper, just because your Police car has a siren and flashing lights doesn't mean you are an emergency vehicle unless responding to an emergency. Pulling over a vehicle for a licence check would not constitute an "Emergency" and therefore the provisions of the Emergency Vehicles Act have not been invoked correctly. The point to my post was if a motorist was booked for NOT slowing down simply because a copper had pulled someone over for a licence check, it would stand a good chance of being argued in court or the ticket withdrawn.

Where does it say in the new law that the vehicles must be responding to an emergency incident, it says if these vehicles have their lights on when stationary then you must slow down, maybe you should understand what was stated.

[JAJH]

Originally Posted by trublu

Where does it say in the new law that the vehicles must be responding to an emergency incident, it says if these vehicles have their lights on when stationary then you must slow down, maybe you should understand what was stated.

I do understand what was stated and I am able to read. Yes, it does state you must slow down when the lights are flashing, but as previously mentioned, if an "Emergency Vehicle" was just sitting at the side of the road with the lights on and no apparent "Emergency", it could be argued the new law is unreasonable in those circumstances.
You don't need to continually try and correct me, I am able to comprehend. Unless you have a legal background, you may not understand the nuances of statute and the meaning of its' interpretation.

[Ben73]

Just get the road works stop/go people to stand at crash sites judging peoples speed. Apparently these people can judge a cars speed perfectly.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by simon varley

no different to slowing down for any other roadside worker really though, is it?

Except for roadworks, the zone starts with plenty of warning well out..."roadworks ahead"..."80k roadworks ahead"..."60k roadworks ahead"...etc. You have plenty of notice.
It;s not cresting a rise at 110 and seeing flashing lights and being expected to suddenly slow to 40 (or 25 for the poor sods in SA)...