Alert: *NEW* & AMENDED NATIONAL ROAD RULES, FEEDBACK PLEASE

[Keepleft]

Here, you will see at Rule 217 a proposal for a NATIONAL prohibition on the use of FRONT fog lights in clear conditions, as WA and NSW have by way of seperate Regulations to the ARR.

Among many others, submissions close soon.

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Repo...ISNov20051.pdf


Jeremy H. Pritchard
Mot Adv-NSW

[Dave_au]

4.45 Using rear fog lights – Rule 217
Rule 217 prohibits the use of “rear fog lights” other than in fog or hazardous weather
conditions. However, concern has been expressed by all jurisdictions that there is no
similar requirement for the use of “front fog lights”. The ARRMG agrees that “front fog
lights” should only be used in the same circumstances as “rear fog lights”. This will
endeavour to address the carnival effect of multitudes of lights operating on the front of
vehicles, which simply confuses drivers that are being approached. It is intended to
provide definitions of both front and rear fog lights, combine the rule to include both front
and rear, and modify the heading.
The proposed amendment will allow all fog lights fitted to a vehicle, to be used in fog or
other hazardous weather conditions, thereby bringing consistency to the rule.
Impact: Even though this will require a behavioural change for some drivers, it is not
anticipated there will be any adverse impact on all road users.
Costs: The only costs imposed by this amendment are those that accompany the making of
amendments and advice to enforcement agencies and education to drivers. It is expected
that the costs to enforcement agencies and road authorities through education, will be
absorbed in existing processes that provide contemporaneous legislative review.
Benefit: The benefits are to achieve a cohesive set of rules that reflect community needs
and expectations, which will assist in reducing road trauma and ensure consistency for the
use of both front and rear fog lights.

[EBII Fairmont]

These people are a bunch of douche bags. Instead of coming up with stupid legislations like this, how about fixing roads which are dodgy and enforcing a system where cameras are used for the purpose of speeding and not revenue making.

Why doesn't the government make its own car forcing everyone to purchase, which will enforce all their dodgy rules and made in a way that the car can sense and know when to come to a complete hault or just to slow down.

I haven't read through the hole thing, so I am hoping that they have some decent ideas on improving safety.

[flappist]

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

[X ORSMXR]

Spoke to a copper at a car show tonight in Vic and said as long as they are not yellow in color then you can use them ie: the spot lights on the AU and BA at anytime

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by ORSMXR

Spoke to a copper at a car show tonight in Vic and said as long as they are not yellow in color then you can use them ie: the spot lights on the AU and BA at anytime

THAT is a current VIC allowance, THIS will CORRECT that, AND prohibit the use of white-optic AND selective yellow front fog lights in clear conditions, day or night.

I suspect we might (and I support this) get the 50 metre 'visibility maximum' rule for rear fog light use, as in Europe. Meaning these would not be used unless visibility is reduced to 50 metres or less. In England they stipulate 100 metres for both front and rear.

MISSING: Change to SPEED section to clarify the speed derestriciton sign in order to bring ARR into harmony with Australian Standard 1742.4 of 1999 and more importantly the UN Convention (UN) as the signs legal owner.

A High Court appeal on the horizon, maybe. Issue of National Metrology.

Folks DO take time out to read the changes and new rules, read carefully.

[qwigybo]

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

[GT-E]

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Originally Posted by qwigybo

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

Surely you cant be stupid enough to call that an argument!

You can still use them ANY time you like except when there is oncoming traffic ! You can still use them , just use your common sense , thats all !

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by qwigybo

i work nightshift and when travelling the 100km's to work there are a lot of kangaroos in the bushland, fog lights are a very big help as they illuminate the sides of the roads more thus showing up the roos earlier

My old car had these fog light at the bottom & i did the same thing, pointing them to either side of the road so i could see if anything was going to come out in front of me, which gave me more time to react. Not all of these fog light are bright & shine up into your face.

[Big Mike]

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...?

I simply 'can't' drive my BMW anywhere on the crappy low-beams. The Driving Lights fill the section of road infront of the car up to the low-beam spread. Thereafter obviously the high-beam kicks in, but certainly in city traffic with on-comming cars, I simply CANNOT SEE the road IMMEDIATELY ahead of me (15-20 metres) without my front driving lights. And while lighting up 500 metres behind me with red looks cool for the unninitiated, I hate pricks who leave rear fog lights on - they are like red HIGH BEAMS and serve a simillar purpose to dedicated FOG lights and high-beams with simillar impact on surrounding vehicles.
That's my two cents - but I'll read through that link soon; a.s.a.p.

[qwigybo]

yeah well i cnt really use mine as an arguement but i have reasoning for using them unlike the **** factor group who drive through the cbd with them on

[jabba]

I don't see why front fog/ driving lights should not be aloud to be used all the time, If fitted correctly they should pose no problem to oncoming traffic (same can be said about normal headlights). I drive with mine on because I like the extra light that fills the gap directly in front of the car and illuminates the curb and or gard rails on the side of the road.

Whats the law about driving with your head lights on during daylight hours?
How will this law assist in reducing road trauma?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...

In some States, yellow and white lights fog/day/driving lights are called "fog lights" in their respective legislation, I have spent hours researcing this and there are significant differences between the States on the use of driving/fog/day lights and this will rectify this. We are heading further down the National Law route.

[MrSparkle]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

The blanket you throw is infinitely too big. Lane splitting is only dangerous if it is done stupidly, ie. wrong place and wrong time. There are PLENTY of opportunities where it can be done safely.

This rule change won't stop me and a lot of others from doing it. It is remarkable how much I DGAF! :

[merlin]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

hmmm yeah OK mate, obviosuly you have never ridden a bike :

it is a revenue raising tactic to fleece more money - either that ir a law made by fat 60 year olds who probably find it hard to balance in a Prado.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by flappist

YES..... finally a road rule that has an actual sensible purpose.

In clear conditions there is enough bright light without any extra.

Of course the "look at me" brigade will burr up a bit........

I agree.

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

Best part I read is that they will be making Lane splitting illegal for motorbikes
Best thing they could do as it is a dangererous practice and should have been made illegal many years ago.

I hope so?
Is it illegal to pass a motorbike in the same lane?

[merlin]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Is it illegal to pass a motorbike in the same lane?

errr yes.

Did you know it is also legal for bikes to ride in Transit lanes and Bus lanes? Pretty good time saver hey?
:

[Trevor 57]

It always amazes me that bike riders go crook about people not seeing them, then when the law gets chaged to protect them they still go crook - amazing!

Most car drivers don't check blind spots, which is where bike riders are vunerable, you guys know that.

And yes I have ridden bikes and even owned a couple.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

It always amazes me that bike riders go crook about people not seeing them, then when the law gets chaged to protect them they still go crook - amazing!

Most car drivers don't check blind spots, which is where bike riders are vunerable, you guys know that.

And yes I have ridden bikes and even owned a couple.

All well and dandy but how is this law going to "protect bike riders". The motorcycle obby group in this country is kicking up a huge stink about this and you know what their major drawcard is? The government cannot produce one single example of where lane splitting caused death or serious injury to anyone period.

Let me just define what we are talking about as well - this is moving between lines of stationary vehicles, there is little to no risk to anyone. We are not talking about moving at speed between vehicles which I agree is very dangerous. Although of note it is actually legal to lane split in just about every country in the world (in California it is legal at speed) - in order to reduce traffic congestion.

Originally Posted by merlin

hmmm yeah OK mate, obviosuly you have never ridden a bike :

it is a revenue raising tactic to fleece more money - either that ir a law made by fat 60 year olds who probably find it hard to balance in a Prado.

I have ridden for many years ,but when im in a car and a p!ss week 250cc bike pulls up beside me and expects to take my lane ....FORGET IT, im quicker and it's my lane ,and even if you Merlin were there splitting my lane you would want to be watching the lights and be quick off the mark ,because I sure will ..
You have to earn my lane ,don't slow me down. Well thats the reason you split lane isn't it ,you hate to be slowed down by traffic ,so do I

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by merlin

... The government cannot produce one single example of where lane splitting caused death or serious injury to anyone period....

Is the new/propopsed law differentiating between mobile and stationary cars/trucks/buses, I would guess not.

[Casper]

I'm not too worried about motorbikes lane splitting at all. If done correctly I dont even notice them go by and, if done incorrectly, they get to hit over 1 1/2 ton of steel traveling at 100+ kph... and I am pretty certain I'll win (and I'm insured). If they choose to do it and take the risk.. and then screw up.. thats their choice. As for me, I pay due attention to all road users be it trucks, cars, motorbikes and even pushbikes. If they fail to take the same due care and, in a motorbikes case, do not provide me with a chance to react as they are going too fast or doing a dangerous overtaking move, thats their issue to deal with when it all goes horribly wrong.
Personaly I wont ride a motorbike anymore as I do not feel I have adequate skills or control on one but I've seen many who are fine and can safely ride them.


As for the fog lights... I cannot remember a single time I have been dazzled or confused by them. I dont have them on my car so I'm not supporting myself, I simply have never had an issue with them, not even on the multitudes of HSV's that feel they must be on at all times.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Stampy

I have ridden for many years ,but when im in a car and a p!ss week 250cc bike pulls up beside me and expects to take my lane ....FORGET IT, im quicker and it's my lane ,and even if you Merlin were there splitting my lane you would want to be watching the lights and be quick off the mark ,because I sure will ..
You have to earn my lane ,don't slow me down. Well thats the reason you split lane isn't it ,you hate to be slowed down by traffic ,so do I

These "pi$$weak" 250's you sepak of are still going to leve most cars for dead up to the speed limit so I don't see the issue. But really its also common sense on the riders part to - I see why you would split if your not going to take off quickly.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Casper

I'm not too worried about motorbikes lane splitting at all. If done correctly I dont even notice them go by and, if done incorrectly, they get to hit over 1 1/2 ton of steel traveling at 100+ kph... and I am pretty certain I'll win (and I'm insured). If they choose to do it and take the risk.. and then screw up.. thats their choice. As for me, I pay due attention to all road users be it trucks, cars, motorbikes and even pushbikes. If they fail to take the same due care and, in a motorbikes case, do not provide me with a chance to react as they are going too fast or doing a dangerous overtaking move, thats their issue to deal with when it all goes horribly wrong.
.

Exactly you make a good point - it is the riders risk and believe me most riders are very scared of what 1.5 tonnes of steel is going to do to them when things go wrong. Personally I ride appropriatly to conditions and only split when the gap is wide enough and traffic is stopped. Unfortunatley some don't and give the whole community a bad name. I guess its like any minority really.

[deesun]

If you think that useing your lights such as those on a BA gives you more time to react in clear conditions then thats B**lsh*t. The only extra time it would give you would be to stop and clean up the damage/carnage. Those lights and any other fog light only fill up the space between the front of the car and headlights.If you think you can react and stop in that distance then you are kidding yourself.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by EBII Fairmont

These people are a bunch of douche bags. Instead of coming up with stupid legislations like this, how about fixing roads which are dodgy and enforcing a system where cameras are used for the purpose of speeding and not revenue making.

Why doesn't the government make its own car forcing everyone to purchase, which will enforce all their dodgy rules and made in a way that the car can sense and know when to come to a complete hault or just to slow down.

I haven't read through the hole thing, so I am hoping that they have some decent ideas on improving safety.

Gee that made sence, NOT. If you don't have anything constructive to say then don't.

[merlin]

Heres some other interesting stuff from these new proposals:

4.9 Giving way when turning at an intersection with traffic lights – Rule 62

Rule 62 describes to whom a driver must give way at an intersection with traffic lights.The definition of traffic lights includes traffic arrows: therefore, a driver turning right at anintersection in accordance with a green traffic arrow must give way to any oncomingvehicle, even though the oncoming vehicle may be proceeding through a red traffic light.
Drivers complying with green lights have an expectation that drivers will comply withopposing red traffic lights, without such a belief, traffic flow would be severely impeded.The proposed amendment seeks to rectify this situation by removing the obligation on adriver turning in accordance with a green traffic arrow, to give way to other road users whohave disobeyed the rules for red traffic lights.

So at present you must give way to someone running a red light!

4.49 Using radar detectors and similar devices – Rule 225
Rule 225 prohibits a person from driving a vehicle if the vehicle has in or on it, a devicefor preventing the use of, or detecting the use of, a speed measuring device. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been occasions when these devices have been carried inor on a trailer attached to the motor vehicle. The intent of the ARR was to prevent the use of these devices whether they were in or on the motor vehicle or a trailer attached. It is
intended to clearly state that such a device cannot be in or on a trailer.
The proposed amendments seek to introduce words that prohibit devices for preventing theuse of, or detecting the use of, a speed measuring device, being carried in or on trailers.

Lol - some of you are very creative!

It is suggested by the ARRMG, that walking on the side of the road in the same direction as and immediately adjacent to other traffic, is inherently dangerous. It is intended to require pedestrians, if walking on a road, to walk on the far side of the road so as to face oncoming
traffic unless it is impractical to do so. This will provide the pedestrian greater protection as they will be aware and see all oncoming traffic, enabling them to take some action should the traffic be approaching too close.

Interesting

Additionally, concerns have been expressed by many jurisdictions regarding the carriage ofchildren on the pillion seat of motor bikes, an inherently dangerous practice. It is also intended to prohibit a child under eight years of age from riding as a passenger, unless in a
sidecar.

Not sure what to say here....

4.60 Driver to have proper control of vehicle – Rule 297
Rule 297 requires a driver to have proper control of a motor vehicle at all times. However, there are no specific circumstances that identify proper control. Anecdotally, the incidence
of drivers and riders having children or animals in their laps while driving, is increasing. In such circumstances it is difficult to demonstrate that the driver did not have proper control of the vehicle, unless the behaviour results in a crash. Even so, it is still difficult to prove that the child or animal was a contributing factor. In reality, the unpredictable conduct of a child or animal on a drivers lap, in a moving motor vehicle, is itself an unacceptable safety risk. It is intended to prohibit a driver from driving a motor vehicle
with a child or animal in the driver’s lap. This concept is to be extended to riders of motor bikes with animals being carried on the petrol tank of the vehicle.

: :

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

I think there's a difference between "fog lights" and "driving lights"...?

I simply 'can't' drive my BMW anywhere on the crappy low-beams. The Driving Lights fill the section of road infront of the car up to the low-beam spread. Thereafter obviously the high-beam kicks in, but certainly in city traffic with on-comming cars, I simply CANNOT SEE the road IMMEDIATELY ahead of me (15-20 metres) without my front driving lights. And while lighting up 500 metres behind me with red looks cool for the unninitiated, I hate pricks who leave rear fog lights on - they are like red HIGH BEAMS and serve a simillar purpose to dedicated FOG lights and high-beams with simillar impact on surrounding vehicles.
That's my two cents - but I'll read through that link soon; a.s.a.p.

I can assure you of a fine. They are NOT driving lights, this you can see by looking at the CERTIFICATION marking on the lens, the letter "B" TELLS YOU the lamp is a front fog light.

AS MUCH as *you* HATE people using rear fog lights, many feel the same about *you* using front. Calling them 'driving lights' will not protect you from a fine.

A front fog light has a reach generally 10 - 35 metres out and a flat-fan shaped beam pattern.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by jabba

I don't see why front fog/ driving lights should not be aloud to be used all the time, If fitted correctly they should pose no problem to oncoming traffic (same can be said about normal headlights). I drive with mine on because I like the extra light that fills the gap directly in front of the car and illuminates the curb and or gard rails on the side of the road.

If your not satisfiedwith you low beam performance, up grade the bulbs to PLUS 50's or 30's.


Whats the law about driving with your head lights on during daylight hours?
How will this law assist in reducing road trauma?

You can use you low beam AT ANY TIME.

NOW, Under Hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility you *must* have you low beam on, AND/OR front foglights if so fitted. It is against the law to only use 'park lights', as these are insufficient to give oncoming vehicles adequate warning when in such conditions. Their real purpose it to show a cars front outline when the low beam filament has failed.

* Front fog lights are not daytime running lamps. And I see no need for these either.
* The UN Convention allows the use of front fog lights at night in clear conditions ONLY when driving on winding, mountainous roads.