(//) to be brought back in the NT??

[MO]

Thanks Full Noise, now to try and locate it.

[Gabbs]

Interesting that the toll went up. Some of the country roads over in wa could do with some raising when you are traveling big ks on a straight road there is nothing wrong with sitting on a speed you are comfortable with. It's either that or leave it and just watch as people fall asleep and kill themselves.

[flappist]

Thanks for that fullnoise and FC, I just uploaded it to a remote server at the salt mine and don't have access from here to chop it up.

[Pedro]

Hey, "Keep Left", does the National ruling still apply to NT, seeing as it's a "Territory" and not a "State" ?

[z80]

I don't think they will increase limits now.

The federal govt wants streamlining of road laws as a condition of federal road funding.

So...it will be a no go over 130...then....120...then 110.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by z80

I don't think they will increase limits now.

The federal govt wants streamlining of road laws as a condition of federal road funding.

So...it will be a no go over 130...then....120...then 110.

Which they cannot do under the constitution.

[Piotr]

Originally Posted by flappist

Which they cannot do under the constitution.

Which section?

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by z80

I don't think they will increase limits now.

The federal govt wants streamlining of road laws as a condition of federal road funding.

So...it will be a no go over 130...then....120...then 110.

The speed limit Vs road funding is a bit of a urban myth. When the ALP brought in speed limits in the NT on the 1st of January 2007, it used the flawed road safety report (2006) that was put together by people like Harold Scruby, as an excuse to impose speed limits. It would be difficult for any guvment to argue that by imposing speed limits and a license demerit points system, it has made the roads a safer place. The stats for 2007 and 2008 would bare this out.

If the CLP choose to abolish the current 130 for the previous (//). Then it is their mandated right to do so.
My personal thoughts are that the red, white and black speed limit signs should be replaced with the yellow and black advisory signs. I think that 130 is probably a safe speed for drivers who have not had any experience driving out here, let alone at higher speeds than 130. It does take a week or two to come to grips at beiing able to cruise at speeds above 130.

And I believe that the feds cannot make funding to the states conditional. But they can over ride laws in the Territories. Think back to the NT Euthanasia (SP?) laws.

This still has a long way to go. 1st we need an election. I believe this will happen within about a month to six weeks. 2nd we need that CLP to win. This seems likely at the moment. And 3rd, we need polititicians to stand true to their word. The jury is out on that one.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

And I believe that the feds cannot make funding to the states conditional. But they can over ride laws in the Territories. Think back to the NT Euthanasia (SP?) laws.

Yes but they can't do it to one without doing it to all and they can't override "part" of a legislation.

If they take over NT's traffic laws then they take over Victoria's as well which would see all the speed camera money go to the feds.

They would also become responsible for enforcement.

What do you think are the odds of all the states letting that happen?

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes but they can't do it to one without doing it to all and they can't override "part" of a legislation.

If they take over NT's traffic laws then they take over Victoria's as well which would see all the speed camera money go to the feds.

They would also become responsible for enforcement.

What do you think are the odds of all the states letting that happen?

Its a tangled web, isn't it.... It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Funnily enough, it seems as if there is little or no will, on the NT police part, to enforce the current 130 limits. I had an experince a couple of weeks ago on the Stuart Hwy. It seems that as long as your vehicle looks OK and you are not doing anything stupid, the cops dont seem to care too much. I think that they, more than anyone, know what the causes of the carnage out here are. We can still cruise here at 140 to 150 and not get hassled.

[Green X]

Slightly Off-topic but

Just heard on the radio that the WA government is dropping speed limits in some metro's areas to as low as 30km/h For "Safty" but there have been no deaths in said arias due to speed that i know of.

The reason sited was Pedestrian safety.... Last i checked foot paths were for people roads were for cars and we have all been crossing roads with 60km/h + speed limits for well longer than i have been around.

There was also a article about how a traffic management program AKA Speed bumps, have reduced the average traffic speed from 55km/h to around 40km/h on a section of road..... Said road is posted as a 60km/h zone and is a duel duel lane main road!!!! WTF.

[Keepleft]

Green X - They will be referencing inner city CBD's only, *not* the built-up area default, change will not happen. Those select roads will have R4-1 traditional speed-limit signs. Similar discussion nationwide btw.

Some Local GovCo 'zones' similar in environment to CBD's - could get the same treatment, not worth the worry in my view.


Insofar State road law vs Federal in regards overriding power; to date, I'd rather be; a State! :-)

The States do collaborate via the Ministerial Council on national road rules, harmonisation matters re heavy vehicles, licensing categories, that sort of thing.

An example of a States 'power'; Victoria's move (Pallas) to mandate for new-market vehicles, for the purposes of achieving registration in that State, threatened:-), state-based regulations by 2010-2011 for both ESP/TC and side-curtain airbags. This has forced the Feds to play catch-up in relation to ADR creation for same, and impacts our UNECE harmonisation vehicle design rule adoption efforts, because frankly, DOTARS couldn't do a thing to stop VIC, except write and suggest (which they did). States rights and power to regulate!

WA did the same thing, it created a state-based requirement for Engine Immobilizers AHEAD of ADR. That action resulted in the Feds adopting the UNECE rule of same, sooner!

There is *nothing* stopping, say NSW, either by RTA, OR by one of the two political parties or independents; 'as policy', from mandating after XX date - for a single hazard-warning-triangle in cars, vans, 4WD's - and for safety vests. (Of course, we prefer a national approach to that, but we'll see). Naturally proposals would reference ADR categories, and equipment specs.

This is something many companies - manufacturers tend to forget, or not know - through ignorance.

Australia is and remains, effectively, a nation of sovereign states, its a reason why for example we have State Trade and Tourism Ministers:-)

NT, despite ARR adoption back in December 1999, opted out of ARR 25's rural default speed-limit, that wasn't challenged, and the ARR allowed "Under another law of this jurisdiction", it to do so, because not all States necessarily desire lowly Victorian speed-limit maximums:-)

The extent of the "UN Convention of Road Traffic", signed by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States & Territories, harmonises a few road related things, and these items, we, the jurisdictions, are not to diverge from.

Mind you, sometimes state employees forget this aspect too.

I periodically remind parties and independents to not be so willing to cede regulatory power and responsibility to Canberra. I also remind MP's to remind public servants occasionally, that it is parliament alone that creates 'enforceable law', and that staff/agency policy is *not* necessarily 'enforceable' - l.a.w.

NT and a State can re-use the (//) sign; ways and means despite the offensive moves to stop that happening.

I reckon most decent people have every right to be pretty angry about it all.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Green X - They will be referencing inner city CBD's only, *not* the built-up area default, change will not happen. Those select roads will have R4-1 traditional speed-limit signs. Similar discussion nationwide btw.

Some Local GovCo 'zones' similar in environment to CBD's - could get the same treatment, not worth the worry in my view.


Insofar State road law vs Federal in regards overriding power; to date, I'd rather be; a State! :-)

The States do collaborate via the Ministerial Council on national road rules, harmonisation matters re heavy vehicles, licensing categories, that sort of thing.

An example of a States 'power'; Victoria's move (Pallas) to mandate for new-market vehicles, for the purposes of achieving registration in that State, threatened:-), state-based regulations by 2010-2011 for both ESP/TC and side-curtain airbags. This has forced the Feds to play catch-up in relation to ADR creation for same, and impacts our UNECE harmonisation vehicle design rule adoption efforts, because frankly, DOTARS couldn't do a thing to stop VIC, except write and suggest (which they did). States rights and power to regulate!

WA did the same thing, it created a state-based requirement for Engine Immobilizers AHEAD of ADR. That action resulted in the Feds adopting the UNECE rule of same, sooner!

There is *nothing* stopping, say NSW, either by RTA, OR by one of the two political parties or independents; 'as policy', from mandating after XX date - for a single hazard-warning-triangle in cars, vans, 4WD's - and for safety vests. (Of course, we prefer a national approach to that, but we'll see). Naturally proposals would reference ADR categories, and equipment specs.

This is something many companies - manufacturers tend to forget, or not know - through ignorance.

Australia is and remains, effectively, a nation of sovereign states, its a reason why for example we have State Trade and Tourism Ministers:-)

NT, despite ARR adoption back in December 1999, opted out of ARR 25's rural default speed-limit, that wasn't challenged, and the ARR allowed "Under another law of this jurisdiction", it to do so, because not all States necessarily desire lowly Victorian speed-limit maximums:-)

The extent of the "UN Convention of Road Traffic", signed by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States & Territories, harmonises a few road related things, and these items, we, the jurisdictions, are not to diverge from.

Mind you, sometimes state employees forget this aspect too.

I periodically remind parties and independents to not be so willing to cede regulatory power and responsibility to Canberra. I also remind MP's to remind public servants occasionally, that it is parliament alone that creates 'enforceable law', and that staff/agency policy is *not* necessarily 'enforceable' - l.a.w.

NT and a State can re-use the (//) sign; ways and means despite the offensive moves to stop that happening.

I reckon most decent people have every right to be pretty angry about it all.

Good info KL. Thanks.

[Outbackjack]

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...91_ntnews.html


THE NSW-based Pedestrian Council has threatened to warn tourists from visiting the Territory if the Country Liberal Party forms government and scraps the 130km/h speed limit.

It said "hillbilly politics" was risking the lives of Australians.

Former Labor Chief Minister Clare Martin introduced the controversial speed limit on NT highways in 2007

The CLP campaigned strongly against the change and still includes a return to the open road as a key policy.

Pedestrian Council chairman Harold Scruby said Territory roads had a death rate six times worst than the rest of the country.

"I am linking this to a cult of hillbilly politics coupled with unbridled apathy," he said.

Mr Scruby, who lives in NSW, said the speed limit was introduced after he threatened Ms Martin to launch a campaign warning tourists to stay away from the Territory.

With the possible return to a CLP Government, Mr Scruby yesterday reissued this threat.

"The only thing these people will listen to is commerce. They won't listen to the cost of life and limb," he said.

"Tourism around the country is suffering, and we'll help it along".

But former NT Businessman of the Year Dwyn Delaney hit back at the comments by the group from "down south".

"At the end of the day, these laws haven't changed anything," he said.

"I don't think they are hillbillies for wanting the freedom to drive down the road and not get hit by a radar," he said.

Mr Delaney said he was recently hit with a speeding ticket in Queensland.

"It is a beautiful day, a beautiful road, no car in sight and you can get pinged and lose your licence."

Mr Scruby said a road death costs the Australian economy $1.5 million in loss of taxes and medical expenses. A brain damaged or disabled road victim costs $18.5 million.

"The rest of the country shouldn't pay for the hillbilly politics of the Territory".

[flappist]

Oh no oh no, if Harold says it is bad then I am not going.....


Or there could be a new slogan.

Northern Territory
Now with 100% less scrubies

And if one of our more clever digital artists has a few spare minutes a:

(//)

means

Scr(/)uby

[hame]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...91_ntnews.html


Mr Scruby said a road death costs the Australian economy $1.5 million in loss of taxes and medical expenses.

There must be lots of high income earners getting killed on the roads.

And it's nice to see it's all about saving lives not money.

[Franco Cozzo]

Wait, doesn't those "medical" expenses keep people in jobs? Doctor to see whats wrong, anesthetic man to put you out, surgeon to operate on you, nurse to help you in your bed, garbage man to take away the rubbish created and so on so forth?

Initial expense means more jobs, which then means more taxes for mr tax man?

(*tounge planted firmly in cheek*)

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Wait, doesn't those "medical" expenses keep people in jobs? Doctor to see whats wrong, anesthetic man to put you out, surgeon to operate on you, nurse to help you in your bed, garbage man to take away the rubbish created and so on so forth?

Initial expense means more jobs, which then means more taxes for mr tax man?

(*tounge planted firmly in cheek*)

Now thats thinking out side of the box...... but, its just wrong somehow....

[Bad Bird]

Don't ban high performance cars... ban Harold Scruby.

[Fev]

How can someone with such a severly warped perspective on reality and common sense aswell as receiving a universal hatred from all car enthusiasts (and if the general public knew they would too) still be in such a position of power?

[dom_105]

Ramblings of screw loose scruby

God you are a flog.

The NT has just had the worst year, in terms of road toll, since '87 Now what changed from 2007 to 2008 to cause this? I just can't put my bloody finger on it.

Since you were last here?- and as mentioned over at KeepNTLimitFree, a recent update to Australia's national road traffic sign Standard: "AS1742.4" has seen, as at the *NEW* 2009 edition, the removal of the R4-2 speed derestriction sign (//) completely.
...
It is a disgrace this has happened in my view, the R4-2 sign should have remained on our books.

Keep Left, is there anything legally stopping the NT Government knocking up some signs out of hours, or getting out there with a can of white spray paint and black electrical tape and going to work, if they had that intent?

[Outbackjack]

All betts are off. Its 130 for the next 3 years. But the current guv are hanging on by one finger nail, so all is not lost. They must keep their promises, thats not something that they are good at.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...21_ntnews.html

INDEPENDENT politician Gerry Wood will continue to support the Labor Government so long as Paul Henderson remains in the top job.

In exchange for his support, Mr Wood was given a range of concessions, including a bi-partisan Council of Territory Co-operation, major parliamentary reforms and the inside running on Budget talks.

Mr Wood said he was putting Labor on notice and giving the government a second chance.

Under the agreement between Mr Wood and the Chief Minister, Labor members are not allowed to cross the floor on any legislation, quit the party or challenge Paul Henderson for the leadership.

Mr Wood will have monthly meetings with Mr Henderson to discuss his issues and has threatened to rip up the agreement if the promises are not met.

A Council of Territory Cooperation will also be formed, to be comprised of two members each from the government and opposition and one Independent.

This council will be empowered to conduct inquiries and make recommendations on matters of public importance and major developments.

The first items on the agenda will be the $672 million strategic indigenous housing and infrastructure program, local government reforms, the planning scheme, the establishment of the new city of Weddell and the homelands policy.

The council will also be allowed to conduct public hearings and consult stakeholders and local councils.

An expert review panel will review the local of the Weddell prison and investigate the possibility of prison farms in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.

Mr Wood also made demands on the governments lands and planning policies.

A competition will be held for architects and town planners to design the proposed city of Weddell.

Future development on Middle Arm - with the exception of Inpex - must be approved by the Litchfield Development Consent Authority.

A town planner will be appointed to provide advice to the Minister.

A stronger Environment Protection Authority will be established with the power to investigate complaints and monitor water and air quality.

Mr Wood also secured major concessions for the rural area.

The Government will investigate sewerage infrastructure to Howard Springs and Coolalinga.

The Freds Pass Reserve will also get a significant boost in funding.

[MO]

Hhmm very interesting,I'm almost inclined to say that there is only a puppet government and the Territory is now a dictatorship.
Just how much power has this bloke got now.
Still it could be a good thing if he can be persuaded to drop the 130 and bring back the no limit.

[flappist]

Well so much for my holiday plans

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well so much for my holiday plans

You'll have to pop over to the Isle of Man, (//).

NT will keep. . . .

Originally Posted by dom_105

Keep Left, is there anything legally stopping the NT Government knocking up some signs out of hours, or getting out there with a can of white spray paint and black electrical tape and going to work, if they had that intent?

Ways and means around AS1742.4 of 2009 which has killed off the speed derestriction sign from use on Aussie roads, be that desired by political parties as policy, or road agencies.

[ute351]

Originally Posted by GTP 290

I know of a (//) sign that is just south of the QLD border in the tweed valley although you wouldn't want to be going much more than around 170-180 on the road.

I know you can't always take wikipedia's word for it, but I came across the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia

"The speed derestriction sign had different meanings in different states and territories. In the Northern Territory, they designated the end of speed restrictions. In Victoria they meant that the rural default speed limit applied, whilst in New South Wales, they indicated that the prima facie 50 mph (80 km/h) limit applied. New South Wales's prima facie 50 mph (80 km/h) limit, often signed by derestriction signs, was only enforced in cases where a driver's speed could be demonstrated to be excessive or dangerous in the context of prevailing road conditions. This was somewhat similar in principle to "reasonable and prudent" limits in other jurisdictions. This led to the widespread but misleading belief that no limit applied, and that derestriction signs indicated an "unlimited" limit."

[EDManual]

When is the next NT election?

That was the end of a No Confidence motion, that would have thrown them out of government, not an election.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by ute351

I know you can't always take wikipedia's word for it, but I came across the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia

"The speed derestriction sign had different meanings in different states and territories. In the Northern Territory, they designated the end of speed restrictions. In Victoria they meant that the rural default speed limit applied, whilst in New South Wales, they indicated that the prima facie 50 mph (80 km/h) limit applied. New South Wales's prima facie 50 mph (80 km/h) limit, often signed by derestriction signs, was only enforced in cases where a driver's speed could be demonstrated to be excessive or dangerous in the context of prevailing road conditions. This was somewhat similar in principle to "reasonable and prudent" limits in other jurisdictions. This led to the widespread but misleading belief that no limit applied, and that derestriction signs indicated an "unlimited" limit."

Your right, you "can't" take Wiki's word for it. Gave up on that page years ago.

The (//) sign IS an INTERNATIONAL road traffic sign. It is NOT, and NEVER WAS "the property" of any State or Territory parliament or road agency.

Meaning each COULD NOT, at UN Contract, give different meaning to the road user. The arrogance or ignorance of some parliaments, on 'bad advice perhaps', typically ALP over the decades - gave a different meaning to that taught in all OS countries that still used the sign correctly; Thailand, Malaysia, Germany, Southern Phillipines, Iran, Spain, Afrikan states etc.

The sign is held in the UN Road Traffic Convention, Road Signs & Signals portion, cataloged C,17a - "END OF ALL LOCAL PROHIBITIONS IMPOSED ON MOVING VEHICLES".

L, P1 & P2 drives can remain speed-restricted by 'license conditions'. Heavy vehicles can also remain speed-limited under (//) by virtue of ARR 25.

This was somewhat similar in principle to "reasonable and prudent" limits in other jurisdictions.

NO Australian state operated R&P despite this Wiki statement, - the reference applied to some States of the US, NOT AUS.

The sign is removed from AUS Standards as at 2009.

[Keepleft]

Update, 13 August 2009
NSW group threatens NT over speed limits (Harold Scruby)

"I am linking this to a cult of hillbilly politics coupled with unbridled apathy," he said.

Mr Scruby, who lives in NSW, said the speed limit was introduced after he threatened Ms Martin to launch a campaign warning tourists to stay away from the Territory.

Harold, Harold, Harold; you try very-hard, but no matter how hard and often you 'try', you just can't get it right can you??


Update, 24 August 2009 - NT speed limits 'working'
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...01_ntnews.html

Territory doctors from the Royal Australian College of Physicians wrote to the Northern Territory News to say they were "extremely concerned" at the CLP move to overturn the 130km/h rule.

The "doctors" can calm down a little, re-introduction of (//) is to apply to lengths of high-standard rural highway where it is quite pointless to have a speed-limit.

Doctors, need to understand, and this is NOT very difficult to comprehend dear's, is that since NT last had (//), *new* L-P2 category license holders since then introduced, WHEN on proposed (//) lengths of highway CANNOT EXCEED THE "LICENSE CONDITION" IMPOSED SPEED-LIMIT that can, and does apply typically to such holders, usually in the 80-100km/h range.

That means ladies, the inexperienced and immature CANNOT then go too fast.

Much 'dumb' hysteria applies by such groups.

If the "Royal Australian College of Physicians" NT membership, or others, were even remotely serious "about all things that can be done to reduce the road toll", you lot WOULD have advocated long ago, to mandate a triangle and safety vest per car, you would have advocated for a mandatory rear fog ADR rather than accept our useless 'optional' allowance.

Until the militant college membership mature somewhat, this advocate can take little notice. (Get my way in NSW and I'll have doctors *removed* from particular rescue choppers, unless requested per journey, this is the stuff for fit paramedics, not doctors taking the health system for a rort dollar ride).

Everything reader is political. What we have here is a sudden, ongoing organised campaign by more extreme-left personality types, who use 'the resources of the state against any party that might oppose their 'agenda'.


Update August 25, 2009:-
CLP in 130km speed limits U-turn
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...71_ntnews.html

Despite NT News getting the headline plain "WRONG", what we have here, as stated in description by CLP's Peter Chandler is "SPEED ZONING", and its all perfectly normal on most asphalt Aussie roads; where the same and lower speed-limits will apply to some lengths of currently 130km/h zoned highways, and speed derestriction simply applied to 'safer' sections of NT highway.

But not (//) as a rural default either, and that is livable, since 'default rural roads are usually 'tracks'.

Its really not that hard to understand.

Those who seek ongoing societal 'restrictions' need to learn this;- LIVE with speed and engineer and work for its ultimate safety, rather than against it. Your ongoing dumbing-down hysteria campaigns are doomed to failure, your actions bring speed-limits into disrepute leading to general non compliance, despite BIG scare fines and seasonal 'speed' campaigns.

Nobody likes an idiot who is obviously going too fast, and that has bugger all to do with (//) nor with with speed-limits.

[MO]

Maybe its time to turn the tables on scruby and threatening him with campaigns to lessen his $ income etc.