ACA - On the QLD'er who didn't keep left

[Quicklier]

If you watch ACA you're just as bad as the people that feature.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Quicklier

If you watch ACA you're just as bad as the people that feature.

Yeah. Real intelligent.


The dude was a complete ****er, the coppa shoulda put him on the ground and cuffed him!!

Still not real sure why it was put on television, it proved nothing.

[4.9 EF Futura]

"Who wants a moustache ride?"

So keepleft, would it be fair to say that NSW is fairly progressive with its road rules... and the other states tend to follow suit? From an uneducated perspective, this appears to be the case in SA - case in point being that we recently adopted the P1/P2 framework after it had been in operation in your neck of the woods for some time.

Is it not likely that other states will follow the NSW lead on matters like this? Or is QLD a shining outlier when it comes to the penalty for failure to keep left?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

pretty sure the law is 100km/h keep left unless over taking, anything below its form to lanes...something like that...i saw that same ACA segment the driver was a complete idiot and to say the cop was a kid in a uniform and that sorta stuff id expect his next '000' call to not be responded too ...

In Victoria it all multi lane roads sign posted at 80kph or higher.

[XAGSV8]

Don't know how that young cop had the patience to put up with that ****er. I would have lost my cool long before the arrest.

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by gregxr8

i was sent this in an email.

That's an urban legend, it cannot happen .. but it keeps people amused I spose.

As for the rest of the thread ... if one of 'ours' on here got a ticket for failing to keep left, I bet there would be plenty of complaining about cops wasting time.

[OLDFORDNUT]

watched this in amazement, i dont have anytime for revenue raisers but i would have not blamed this cop if he smashed that bloke from one end of his car to another, what a clown,and all done while kids are watching, then he contacts ACA for sympathy, pity there is no offence listed for utter stupidity.

[Keepleft]

EF Futura wrote: So keepleft, would it be fair to say that NSW is fairly progressive with its road rules...

In my view, yes - most certainly, but I'd like much more 'progress'! NSW has resisted over the years, rightly, many a Victorian 'road safety' proposal, we tend to listen to the community more and act on that where we can, the toughening up of NSW failure to keep left penalties is an example of that - the recent increases in the fine and demerit points allocated for the offence followed the NSW 'Country Road Safety Summit' a year or so ago, - people not keeping left was a point of anger by those attending, so the then Minister, Costa followed on through.

I'd like to increase in dollar terms this further, out to $500. This will take time.

and the other states tend to follow suit? From an uneducated perspective, this appears to be the case in SA - case in point being that we recently adopted the P1/P2 framework after it had been in operation in your neck of the woods for some time.

Yes, generally. That said, Australia as a whole also adopts 'positions' championed by such bodies as Monash etc and so on.

The graduated red P1, green P2 licensing stage stage was a NSW initiative, we studied research on this system from overseas jurisdictions (Sweden, EU at large and through domestic academics) and began implementation. It is focussed on the early 'vulnerable' years and seeks to control behavioural excesses, it expands into the defensive driving realm.

Australia is increasingly focussed on the defensive driver component. Advanced driving courses will be left for those wishing to do them at their own costs, and those in such professions such as security personal, police and certain emergency network drivers.

SA as you highlight adopted this NSW system (including Safe T Cam and with data matching shared between NSW and SA, but this is another story). Victoria then came on board, one of my concerns was that certain Victorian employees desired that the initial P1 'plate' would be green in colour, and that P2 would then have been red, effectively putting colour harmonisation at risk and causing identifier problems for the highway patrol around border regions, AND causing increased costs associated with plate production and distribution, after much advocacy and bitching - Victoria did the right thing and got it's colours 'right', in effect they are now the same as NSW and SA and QLD.

* SA as you know does not use the P2 green, if it does so, the plate will be green.

Queensland came on board and adopted the same. People will see many similarities, the primary core is harmonised, though a few state differences remain. It is desired, certainly by me, to also harmonise the hours a learner candidate must attain before being able to progress to the P1 level. My view is that Victoria with it's 120 hours has it right. It is likely that NSW will go to 100 hours, but I continue to push for 120. We will likely see a tidying up of the log books with odometer readings (Vehicle A, B C etc) expected to be entered for each trip undertaken, we'll see.

With time, I am hoping WA and Tasmania come on board. ACT has similar approach but more effort needs to be made.

The graduated licensing systems now developing will form what the Commonwealth advocates as The National Driver Training and Licensing Scheme', this kicked off December 15, 2004 in Canberra in an event hosted by then deputy PM Anderson and The Hon. Jim Loyd, Commonwealth Minsiter for Roads.

Is it not likely that other states will follow the NSW lead on matters like this? Or is QLD a shining outlier when it comes to the penalty for failure to keep left?

Penalities as applied to offenders for offences under Australian Road Rules or other state jurisdictional acts and regulations are purely jurisdictional matters. It is therefore a matter of each state government, or party, individual or group to champion that say XX regulations 'existing given offence penalty' be tightened up or not. It is clear this existing penalty under discussion needs such action by way of a dramatic increase.

Remember, Australia is a nation of what are effectively sovereign states, independent countries under a federalised system if you will, some of these states have seperate Constitutions to the Australian as you know, and they do have powerful legal bite, if utilised by a 'wise' legal team.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

As for the rest of the thread ... if one of 'ours' on here got a ticket for failing to keep left, I bet there would be plenty of complaining about cops wasting time.

Not from me, I would love this law to be eforced more heavily!

[GCFordChic]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Remember, Australia is a nation of what are effectively sovereign states, independent countries under a federalised system if you will, some of these states have seperate Constitutions to the Australian as you know, and they do have powerful legal bite, if utilised by a 'wise' legal team.

hmmm the way you have put it here doesnt really correspond to the changes in the strengthening of what was intented to be a weak federal government. Sure, the states have exclusive powers given to them in the Australian Constiution and the states have their own Constitutions, but it isnt as if they replace the Australian one. The fact that at the time of writing the (Australian) Constitution the intention was to allow the states to retain sovereignty and have a weak federal government to facilitate interaction between the states and international relations etc.

However, although roads/licensing/road rules/regulations etc have been at the sole discretion of the states, i would not rule out that, within a reasonable (no less than 10 years i would estimate) amount of time the federal government will find a way to constitutionally gain some (if not all) control over road rules and licensing requirements in the same way they have taken the majority of control from a traditionally state concern, workplace relations. The strengthening of the central government in this respect, seems to me, like a fairly reasonable matter. Particularly when it comes to a national system of driver licensing. However, the fact that the states have tried different things and are now adopting the seemingly best methods from other states, means we are slowly coming to a point where the licensing requirements and probationary periods are similar in all states. So although the states have control, essentially they are taking the socially responsible route and learning from the other states and formulating the same licensing avenues.

The states could do what they want, but in all reality no state government wants to be known as the ones that have the 'easiest' licensing requirements and the most relaxed road rules and policing of those rules.

(geez i think i waffle on too much! : )

[Keepleft]

KL wrote: Remember, Australia is a nation of what are effectively sovereign states, independent countries under a federalised system if you will, these states have seperate Constitutions to the Australian as you know, and they do have powerful legal bite, if utilised by a 'wise' legal team.

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

hmmm the way you have put it here doesnt really correspond to the changes in the strengthening of what was intented to be a weak federal government.

On the contrary, what I have written follows exactly what you are saying at this point of your text, though you might not actually 'see' it. . .

Sure, the states have exclusive powers given to them in the Australian Constitution and the states have their own Constitutions, but it isnt as if they replace the Australian one.

It isn't a matter of 'replacing' anything, nor is it a case where the Commonwealth 'gives us exclusive powers', on the contrary, it is the states that historically gave the Australian Constitution 'power' at its 1901 adoption following consultation. NSW today operates on the primary basis of its 1902 Constitution, not the Australian - for its day to day business. The NSW democratic system dates back to 1856 when Britain gave NSW and Victoria first 'parliamentary' government.

The fact that at the time of writing the (Australian) Constitution the intention was to allow the states to retain sovereignty and have a weak federal government to facilitate interaction between the states and international relations etc.

Going circles here, but yes, that is it in a nutshell. Remember when 'we' seek trade and business overseas, you will find it is the state premiers and their respective state departments who do most the advocating - on behalf of their own state, *benefit* then follows through to the Commonwealth. Naturally, the Commonwealth also does this, but its role is very much 'international relations', the collection of income and GST and administration of national defence.

Although the NSW police are a paramilitary police *force*.

However, although roads/licensing/road rules/regulations etc have been at the sole discretion of the states,

To a degree, in 1949 (1953-G) the Commonwealth of Australia contracted the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic on behalf of the states, we, the Commonwealth and jurisdictions are bound to this document to this day, it is something many a modern state public servant 'forget' or 'ignore', despite advocacy from their state employees of the time to contract the document, and a desire by the Commonwealth to sign it. That it is chosen to be ignored by some public servants, will only be to their agencies eventual legal peril I might add.

I would only add my desire to contract the 1968 version and to adopt most of the latest amendments to it, the Commonwealth cannot do this unless the states agree, AND THEY SHOULD. The Commonwealth can however, advocate its contract. Our contracting the 1949 version in international law, it is argued by some experts means our ongoing contactural arrangements with the later version 'automatically', this is something that requires determination by the High Court, for application, and perhaps to Geveva.

I would not rule out that, within a reasonable (no less than 10 years I would estimate) amount of time the federal government will find a way to constitutionally gain some (if not all) control over road rules and licensing requirements in the same way they have taken the majority of control from a traditionally state concern, workplace relations.

Only if the state so desires this, (such as been suggested in health), in any case, it will 'administer' the Commonwealth implementation. At some point, on some topic - certain state parliaments might feel a need to resist Commonwealth control over what they see as exclusive state rights issues.

Remember the Franklin dam issue in Tasmania, we has a situation where the feds then wanted to halt the dams construction. TAS wanted this to go ahead. We had a situation in policing terms where the then Australian Federal Police would have been sent to Tasmania to arrest Tasmanian police who were under Tasmanian government instruction to allow construction workers in.

Tasmania lost this one partly because of the impact in international legal terms, to UN 'World Heritage' listing:-)

The strengthening of the central government in this respect, seems to me, like a fairly reasonable matter. Particularly when it comes to a national system of driver licensing. However, the fact that the states have tried different things and are now adopting the seemingly best methods from other states, means we are slowly coming to a point where the licensing requirements and probationary periods are similar in all states.

I am an advocate of this Commonwealth system, have been since observing the initial adoption by the Commonwealth of our NSW system:-)

So although the states have control, essentially they are taking the socially responsible route and learning from the other states and formulating the same licensing avenues.

The states have 'ultimate' control in this, yes- they see reason to adopt its core as I wrote in my previous post, but they will carry some differences, that cannot be over-ridden by the Commonwealth. We as advocates, and the Commonwealth can continue to nag the states to tighten up certain aspects, regulations and punitive regulations.

The states could do what they want, but in all reality no state government wants to be known as the ones that have the 'easiest' licensing requirements and the most relaxed road rules and policing of those rules.

Sure, it could also be argued by a state 'that our new whizz bang system is even better', and could go adopt that instead. It would take a journey to the High Court of Australia to determine an outcome, but this is years down the track.

The jurisdictions are not all unreasonable in this topic, they see the 'new system' being implemented as proven, and see much potential for its further improvement over time. The system has to be cost effective and that is implementable from Broome to Melbourne, to Sydney and Cooktown.

I must quote one commonwealth MP who stated to me recently, 'we really don't have much power at all':-) I think he desires more.

Let me say this, we have Australian Standards, lets choose 1742.4 of 1999 - "Road Traffic Signs", this is a Commonwealth Standard under a Commonwealth Act, NOW the 'states' adopt this as typically 'MUTCD', (Eg in QLD it is so) its an American adoption called a "Manual Of Uniform Traffic Control Devices", in NSW - we adopt this under out "Road Design Guidelines", these you see are state legal adoptions, l.a.w that is state specific.

Now what if a state adoption of this commonwealth AS differs in relation to a road traffic sign? Well, much is dependent on the signs original source, if it is foreign the Commonwealth definition prevails, if it is a unique Australian design, it may or may not. My money with 'signage' is on the Commonwealth in any court challenge.

If the sign is at definition error in the Australian Standard, then its international meaning will be found true in court, here or in Geneva.

Now think of this, I decide to advocate that NSW, via the parliamentary process, will adopt a "mandatory requirement" that all new market vehicles under the MA, MB and MC categories after Februrary 1, 2009 are to be sold with a single hazard warning triangle compliant with United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 27, - could NSW do this??

YES, even though we have a Commonwealth Standard, (which of less quality). Here, the Commonwealth could do nothing to stop this, it is a states right. We cannot adopt measures that run contrary to ADR or ARR, but in relation to ARR's can adopt rules that supplement them.

An example of a state 'going it alone' was WA, where it adopted engine immobilisers as a requirement for new vehicles for registration, forcing the Commonwealth to play catch up.

Now, 'speed limits' or 'speed de-restriction allowances' BEYOND those of the two defaults regulated at ARR level REMAIN FULLY state matters, this will remain so, rightly. I am pointing out here my desire for national uniformity of the two defaults, but thats it.

You see, where I see a state lagging, I'll advocate Commonwealth action, where the Commonwealth lags behind, I'll advocate state based regulation.

[4.9 EF Futura]

FYI the only rule i could find the SA legislation was:

130(2) Driving in right lane on certain multi-lane roads

(as opposed to a failure to keep left)

Which carries a $140 fine.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

In NSW we'll land you three demerit points and a fine of $300+/-.

As usual this smacks of NSW RTA revenue raising...

Originally Posted by Keepleft

I'd like to increase in dollar terms this further, out to $500.

And this is even worse!

Why not have a sensible, ie smaller, fine and police the hell out of it.

I'm old enough to remember when an extra lane for overtaking was signposted "Slow vehicles use left lane". The ONLY people to obey this was Trucks and caravans.
This was, I believe, eventually changed to the current 'keep left unless overtaking' as nobody else wanted to be called a 'slow driver'.

People need to remember that when driving a vehicle the main objective is to get from point A to point B without impeding anyone else's progress.

[ADSXR8]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

People need to remember that when driving a vehicle the main objective is to get from point A to point B without impeding anyone else's progress.

Clever statement. Could only wish more persons took this opinion.

I heard on the Big Sports Breakfast yesterday, they where talking to Terry Butcher, the new Sydney FC coach that came from England. He was telling us about what a great city Sydney is, but he also mentioned Sydney drivers. The worst in the world. Dont let you in, cut you off. Just no respect.

In respects to NSW fines,

KEEPING LEFT
Drive in right lane on road with speed-limit over 80 km/h $179 3points Australian Road Rules
Rule 130 (1)(a)&(2)

but also

OVERTAKING
Overtake to left of vehicle $128 2 points Australian Road Rules
Rule 141 (1)

So, in NSW you are breaking the law undertaking, as much as the person sitting in the right hand lane

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Keepleft: In NSW we'll land you three demerit points and a fine of $300+/-.

GasOLane - As usual this smacks of NSW RTA revenue raising...

A fine has to be an effective deterrent, for each offence therefore what *actual* dollar value is this, in dollar terms not having regard demerit points???


Originally Posted by Keepleft: I'd like to increase in dollar terms this further, out to $500.

And this is even worse!

No, it is to combat those who continue to cause problems, and otherwise drive untidily, despite a wide NSW advertising campaign highlighting the penalty. Again, deterrence needs to be higher. You haven't seen my proposal for a penalty for the offence of doing a U-Turn multi-lane, have you?? This sits at around the $800 mark, but for now is weak and almost ignored . . .

Such powerful fines highlight the serious nature of the driving offences as seen by governments, or should be but is not always the case of course.

I would reduce dramatically the existing 1K plus fine for possession of a speed measuring device, UNLESS I see real evidence that the things are causing road deaths.

Why not have a sensible, ie smaller, fine and police the hell out of it.

Whatever this means? A fine has got to be a punitive measure, so the offender will know not to do it again. These are all voluntary contributions.

I'm old enough to remember when an extra lane for overtaking was signposted "Slow vehicles use left lane". The ONLY people to obey this was Trucks and caravans.

Yes, this had to do with various state road design guidlelines of the time and adopted North American practice, a mistake insofar as efficiency of road-use, and lane discipline is concerned. I too am old enough by the way.

This was, I believe, eventually changed to the current 'keep left unless overtaking' as nobody else wanted to be called a 'slow driver'.

Indeed, BUT, here in NSW we still use the sign ONLY IF the left lane starts as a new seperate lane off to the left AND IF that lane length totals no more than 1,000 metres. Typically on steepish uphill runs.

It takes years to make such lane layout changes, done typically at re-sheet time.

I am hoping the future will see that when dropping a third freeway lane, that the tapering off will start with the right lane, this will effectively mean the left lane is completely uninterrupted, and hence offer greater encouragement to use it. At the moment when expanding from two to three lanes in NSW you are fed into it automatically, the right lane starts as a new lane off to the right - from the two lane length.

Once this is all done, our lane layout cross sections will mirror those in England and Germany and the EU at large - mirror reverse.

People need to remember that when driving a vehicle the main objective is to get from point A to point B without impeding anyone else's progress

Concur.

[atec77]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

pretty sure the law is 100km/h keep left unless over taking, anything below its form to lanes...something like that...i saw that same ACA segment the driver was a complete idiot and to say the cop was a kid in a uniform and that sorta stuff id expect his next '000' call to not be responded too ...

In Qld its over 85k keep left , and failure to do so unless passing will result in a small fine.

[Keepleft]

ADSF6 - In respects to NSW fines,

KEEPING LEFT
Drive in right lane on road with speed-limit over 80 km/h $179 3points Australian Road Rules
Rule 130 (1)(a)&(2)

Stay tuned...

but also

OVERTAKING
Overtake to left of vehicle $128 2 points Australian Road Rules
Rule 141 (1)

So, in NSW you are breaking the law undertaking, as much as the person sitting in the right hand lane

You are permitted to overtake in the left lane in a marked lane.

But doing this could be construed that the party keeping middle is not keeping left.

[GCFordChic]

Keepleft,

In dissecting my post the way you did I think you failed to see my overall point. I might have to reply in more depth later when I am not meant to be working…
In the end all I was really saying was that the states, although intended to be made strong and independent in some matters, where the federal government is weak have the power to enforce the separate rules/regulations/licensing restrictions whichever way they want. However two things have influenced the states in regards to these matters, the actions of the other states and the federal government steadily growing stronger, while the states become weaker.

I must apologise for writing the exclusive powers are vested in the states in the constitution, I only realised when you cut up everything I said that I put it that way, when I was writing it, in my head, I meant the federal state not the states…but it didn’t come out that way. Additionally, in my attempt to write in more normal terms for everyone to understand I used ‘replace’ (as in the constitutions) but what I was really saying was although the states may have given the power to the Australian constitution, their own constitutions cannot replace the restrictions placed on them by giving power to the commonwealth in the Aus constitution.

I disagree that the federal government could take over the regulation of some road related issues only if the states agree to it. Sure, under section 51 (cant remember specifically which part, I would have to look that up, I think one of the last, say 35ish) the federal government can make laws regarding matters referred to them by the states, however, like I said, if the federal government wants to badly enough (albeit a little far-fetched that they would want the responsibility), they will find through some other legislative power under s51 a way to control licensing etc. Then with the section for inconsistency between the laws of the states and the federal gov (s109 I think… ‘bad memory, don’t throw information away just because you don’t need it this semester!) the fed gov laws are valid, whilst the states are not. They managed to find a way to introduce workplace laws which are currently seen as constitutional (until challenged, which they no doubt will be) so I am assuming that if they really want to they could find a loophole allowing them to do so.

In the end, the states’ control over these sort of matters (enforcement/licensing) has become fairly similar because they do not want to be the ‘relaxed’ state, because it could influence the amount of funding they get from the federal government. The reason is because the federal government is stronger than it ever was intended to be and can influence the decisions on these matters and essentially regulate it nationally, without having to have final responsibility for it. This is my overall disagreement with the original statement you made, which I quoted, the states don’t have ‘strong legal bite’ and don’t really act as ‘independent countries’ when the fed gov holds the purse and is gaining in strength.

PS. please dont dissect my post to address the points again, view it as a whole and address the entire thing, i think addressing individual sentences devalues the point i am trying to make. :voldar02:

Jennifer

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

Keepleft,

SNIPPED - READ ABOVE.

PS. please dont dissect my post to address the points again, view it as a whole and address the entire thing, i think addressing individual sentences devalues the point i am trying to make. :voldar02:

Jennifer

It's the cross-examination modus operandi of myself, borne of environmental factors in childhood (I am surrounded by lawyers and judiciary), done to clarify:-) So, don't take your work home with you and make the kids live it.

I see no real difference in what your stating from my own position, but I advocate actively (in this field of road transport) in each government jurisdiction and respective agency, have a long, but very discreet association with the reform process, since Keating kicked off the original NRTC and it's duties.

That is all an aside from my position that the states do have legal bite, which you disagree based in ongoing and historical development. In the washup, this will all generally depend on the case in question and outcome will be that decided by the courts.

You are a Republican qui? Or are you soley responding at a lawyer in training, or both?

You join Team ONE, I'll go Team TWO, IF I see a valid case reason to do so:-) I might actually join you otherwise.

Now, I'll set about those triangles as a NSW government initiative, you play Feds - wanna follow or obstruct, or just stand by?

Jeremy.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Now, I'll set about those triangles as a NSW government initiative, you play Feds - wanna follow or obstruct?

Depends on what colour is draped over the respective lecturns. In the current environment i suspect the fed may see political value in obstruction

[GCFordChic]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

You are a Republican qui?

You join Team ONE, I'll go Team TWO, IF I see a valid case reason to do so:-) I might actually join you otherwise.

Now, I'll set about those triangles as a NSW inititiave, you play Feds - wanna follow or obstruct?

Jeremy.

Hmm republican...my brain says yes, but my sentimental little heart says no. I am a closet Pom. Yes i will admit it, i was not born here and i come from 'the ol' country'.

I know what you mean about recent events and if they will change anything. I think ill wait till the High Court decides (and Kirby dissents like he enjoys so much : ) before i make a real prediction on what will happen to the federal system.

As for the Triangles...as the Feds...what i would say, or what i think they would say?


hehe this is great, havent been so distracted from uni work in a long time.

I guess I dont really make myself as clear on here as i seem to do in properly verbally discussing issues. I think i misunderstood parts of what you were saying because i personally like to write (and read) the development of my overall message, instead of just stating something and being asked to clarify it later. So i try to point out obvious things, give opinions from each side and then conclude with my general point of view (just like all good law students are meant to :Reverend: ).

Thats why i think i have personal problems in understanding your posts here.You are more inclined to address individual points, which i dont do unless in real time discussion, where if i were to misunderstand something you said, you could correct me straight away.

The joy of the internet (real time discussion) is counteracted by the fact that the way we write and the way we speak are different, yet we are expected to write logically at a speed we would normally speak....or maybe this is just my problem... : :

See because we communicate differently i think we disagree, but when i read it back for the 4th time or so, i start to see what you mean. Dammit, i am going to have to read everyones post 5 times now to make sure i know what they mean!!

[Scruba]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep. up here is sunny QLD it is very common to have the right lane blocked by some do gooder who is keeping the world safe by slowing down traffic.

Often the left lane is actually moving faster than the right.....

such is life....

True indeed...only yesterday I was driving to the hospital where my wife was rushed to with heart problems, to be slowed down below the speed limit of 100 because some idgit decided it would be a good idea to stay in the right lane doing 80!!

I make it a habit that if I am overtaking on a multilane and someone is going faster up my rear, i pull in to the left and stay there.

The rule is there for reasons such as safety, emergencies etc..

I wish people in Qld would purchase a current copy of the road rules booklet and be kept up to date with the new legislations that have been passed over the years since they recieved their licenses many moons ago.

Anyhoo, got to the hospital safely and saw the missus who is doing fine now.

Thanks,

Scott

[red_hotxr6]

The police officer was in the right, i will bet you any thing if the officer was about 30 he would have shut his mouth and took his ticket without so much as a by your leave.You noticed when the paddy wagon arrived there was no fuss or arguments.I wonder how his kids dealt with it the next day at school. Shame shame shame.

[AshMan]

Originally Posted by ADSF6

KEEPING LEFT
Drive in right lane on road with speed-limit over 80 km/h $179 3points Australian Road Rules
Rule 130 (1)(a)&(2)

but also

OVERTAKING
Overtake to left of vehicle $128 2 points Australian Road Rules
Rule 141 (1)

So, in NSW you are breaking the law undertaking, as much as the person sitting in the right hand lane

This is rediculous, can you imagine a 3 or 4 lane motorway/highway, 110km/h speed limit, with a horse trailer or pensioner/unexperienced driver WHATEVER, travelling at 95km/h with 500 cars behind waiting patiently for the inconsiderate ***** to move over?

I THINK NOT.

Either come down hard on people breaking the first law, or remove the second one completely.

I'm sick of archaica and "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type laws.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by AshMan

This is rediculous, can you imagine a 3 or 4 lane motorway/highway, 110km/h speed limit, with a horse trailer or pensioner/unexperienced driver WHATEVER, travelling at 95km/h with 500 cars behind waiting patiently for the inconsiderate ***** to move over?

I THINK NOT.

Either come down hard on people breaking the first law, or remove the second one completely.

I'm sick of archaica and "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type laws.

I think you'll find that overtaking on the left is allowed if there is a marked lane there..... so long as it's not the breakdown lane

[AshMan]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I think you'll find that overtaking on the left is allowed if there is a marked lane there..... so long as it's not the breakdown lane

Thats cool, I was just going by the previous statement.

There are alot of these catch 22 laws though.

[AshMan]

Some digestion for QLD'ers.

Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999

125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(2) For this section, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).

Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly—
A driver driving at a speed of 20km/h on a length of road to
which a speed limit of 80km/h applies when there is no reason
for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

AND

130 Keeping to the left on a multi-lane road

(1) This section applies to a driver driving on a multi-lane road
if—

(a) the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of
road where the driver is driving is over 80km/h; or
(b) a keep left unless overtaking sign applies to the length of
road where the driver is driving.

(2) The driver must not drive in the right lane unless—
(a) the driver is—

(i) turning right or making a U–turn from the centre of
the road; and
(ii) giving a right change of direction signal; or
(b) the driver is overtaking; or
(c) a left lane must turn left sign or left traffic lane arrows
apply to any other lane and the driver is not turning left;
or
(d) the driver is required to drive in the right lane under
section 159;5 or
(e) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or
5 Section 159 (Marked lanes required to be used by particular kinds of vehicles)
(f) the traffic in each other lane is congested; or
(g) the traffic in every lane is congested.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(3) A keep left unless overtaking sign on a multi-lane road applies
to the length of road beginning at the sign and ending at the
nearest of the following—
(a) an end keep left unless overtaking sign on the road;
(b) a traffic sign or road marking on the road that indicates
that the road is no longer a multi-lane road;
(c) if the road ends at a T–intersection or dead end—the end
of the road.

(4) In this section—
lane, for a driver, means a marked lane for vehicles travelling
in the same direction as the driver, but does not include a
special purpose lane in which the driver is not permitted to
drive.

AND

141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle

(1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a
vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless—

(a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle
can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of
the vehicle; or
(b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U–turn from the
centre of the road, and is giving a right change of
direction signal; or
(c) the vehicle is stationary and can be safely overtaken to
the left of the vehicle.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride past, or overtake, to the
left of a vehicle that is turning left and is giving a left change
of direction signal.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(3) In this section—
turning right does not include making a hook turn.
vehicle does not include a bus travelling along tram tracks, or
any vehicle displaying a do not overtake turning vehicle sign.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by AshMan

Thats cool, I was just going by the previous statement.

There are alot of these catch 22 laws though.

C'mon Ash - read the thread, I did clarify that earlier; 'in a marked lane'.

According to UK's DETR they did have a rule on their books in relation to motorway driving - that when on a three-laned section - one could not overtake (pass) using the left lane.

The effect was that people keeping left comming up on a vehicle in the middle lane 'keeping middle';- would have to indicate and move right, then right again, pass, then indicate left and move back into the middle lane, with the indicator continually left, then back into the left lane.

Eventually GB had the 'Clueless Campaign', designed to target those who keep middle unless overtaking.

Like Australia, they allow you to pass in the left lane, and if police see a driver keeping middle who is being routinely passed by traffic in the left, they will usually come to attention, as prima facie evidence for not keeping left.

Australia has some way to go before we improve our lot here, indeed it will take at least 10 - 15 years or so for a required generational change. NSW leads the way with "The Road Users Handbook" under the section "Driving on a Motorway" telling readers (since 1994) to keep to the left (most) lane, only moving to the middle lane, or right lane, if the need to overtake arises. It then says to merge back to the left lane once you have passed the slower traffic.

This text will be included in the handbooks of QLD and VIC, but will take time to overcome one or two state employees who cannot fathom or comprehend this 'Euro elitisim'.

For Jennifer, despite protestations of the British AA - "We don't wan't people walking down motorway emergency shoulders"; I continue my evil efforts at having this last bastion of triangle free Europe *mandate* what for them is ECE 27, to harmonise with the remainder of EU. With thanks to AIT, FAI and the European Transport Commission. It is time the 'directive' was acknowledged.

As one (lady) German CEO of a warning triangle company said to me of the matter, in response to Britains AA response; 'I am convinced the British are still afflicted with mad cow disease'!

I didn't mention the war.

[northey]

We Queenslanders are rightly proud people. Who just happen to have a lot of dickheads who drive on the right side of the 2 lane because they want to.
At whatever speed they want to. For as long as they want to.

I drove up the south side of the Cardwell range last weekend in the right lane ready to overtake a 55yo ******** (who for kms prior was weaving from side to side in his own lane). It's ok because he had no frigging idea he was doing it.

I wrongly thought he was going to do the right thing and move left and because I built up speed ready to overtake I nearly ran into the back of him.

When we got to the steep bit up top ( 80 metre length of 2 lane) he moved over for a second or so and then chopped back in. He thought I could overtake there.

Heading south from Cairns I got stuck behind a nsw idiot who thought it a good idea to tow his caravan at 70 kmh in a 100 zone. I stayed there for 20 minutes before I could get around him. And I had a car with some grunt. The poor people who had 4 wdrives would be still there.

[Full Spectrum]

In Victoria we have the law keep left 80kp/h and above. This should be enforced 60kp/h above or when more then 1 lane is present.
I don't won't to sound racist or anything but i know the Asian drivers love right hand lands. Until recently i thought they didn't have a clue how to drive. Then i learnt they are taught that way it's a disgrace, Keep in the right lane as to avoid cars turning left and cars parked on the left side, You do not need to brake as much less frustrations you then get to your destination at the speed limit easier. This is what they are taught. Now when you think about it it's right but it's very wrong and can't do anything about it under 80kp/h, It then comes down to driver courtesy. Which unfortunately is going out.
You always pass them on the inside when there doing 50 in 60 zones, Then 3 min later when your at a red light they pull up next to you.

I yesterday stopped for a lady to pull out from a petrol station she had to move into the middle of a 3 lane road to go to the far right i sat for 20 seconds to let her merge over to the far right. Not a simple thanks nothing. When I'm let out always show my appreciation twice.