The cynical view, which in this case (or anything political) is also the rational view, but not the one the protagonists see or admit to - to them it all makes perfect sense!
It’s really ‘pythonesque’ when you think about it - we probably have as many sets of road rules as we do states and territories, plus one - the national road rules, allegedly?? on what all others are based - so about 15 sets altogether? Though I imagine there’s not many police or council enforcers in Antarctica - and maybe Jervis Bay is just plod from NSW …
Not a “first world problem”… Just a First World bureaucracy problem!
Do the numbskulls who write this stuff ever test it in real world conditions… in combination with all of the other rules that exist - most written in the preceding decade!
I have a “sinking feeling” that despite the foregoing posts, at heart Australians love rules and regulations - maybe because they don’t trust their fellow Australians to make sensible decisions without rules to tell them what to do.
Our governments are proud of avoiding consumer friendly or nation building legislation unless there is something directly beneficial to them as pollies.
On the other side of the equation, the Victoria Road Rules were 523 pages last year and routinely grow as new and wondrous, often onerous rules are added, each enumerating violation after violation with the number of penalty units. Read “government income”. Many of the rules institutionalise common sense while others don’t pass the pub test for anything beyond technicalities aimed to catch motorists out. In comparison, the rules for the US state of Texas is 96 pages. Even allowing for differences in font and formatting that seems a message about what our governments and their institutions are and how they operate.
The disparity on their attention to good versus self serving values (eg $$$) is rife across the political spectrum.
Well said the BBG. Your pointed commentary is worthy of wider distribution - in order that our political masters see it! I will start the ball rolling on Twitter and Facebook.
Road Rules? Don’t get me started! I lived outside of Australia for 9 years and returned 3 years ago. I CANNOT BELIEVE the often illogical intrusion of The Nanny State into everything we do on a daily basis.
One small example - in South Australia it is legal for motorists to cross unbroken double lines in order to “safely” pass cyclists…
WHY are the lines there in the first place? Because the Road Safety authorities have deemed that section of road TOO DANGEROUS to cross the centre line!!!
I guess Road Rules and The Nanny State should become new topic headings in this forum.
I personally can accept a wheel just across a double line might happen to pass a bicycle and might be safe when “you” can see far enough ahead and conditions are appropriate, although I see your point.
Crossing a line can be by a few cm or a few m, and be very quick or protracted, perhaps thus safe to go around a bicycle but clearly unsafe to go around a vehicle, and there is a safety difference that is hard to put into a rule.
If a patrolman saw someone pass a bicycle on an uphill and went over the lines a bit I wonder how he would determine if it was “safely”, especially if a fine could be attributed. Conflict of interest? Seems a judgement call and I wonder who the arbiter is if it went to dispute.
I couldn’t find this particular thread so I’ll reply here.
Yes, a wheel “just across” a double line might be OK but in South Australia we have winding narrow hills roads and bike riders who seem to insist on “their right” to ride two and three abreast. In this case one is either required to sit behind them for kilometres or fully cross the double lines!
You could always just wait until it is safe to overtake the cyclist! It might hold you up for oh I don’t know maybe a minute or two so what’s the problem?
No - as a commuter I would not appreciate being stuck behind ANY vehicle/road block that could move over occasionally - just in order to allow the banked up traffic to pass.
In South Australia we have the (peculiarly named) (I think) “pull out zones”. After 9 years overseas I have been back in SA for 3 years and I still marvel at our road laws!
Victoria (Vicroads) deserves medals for turning the Road Rules into 547 pages and building. Some of the RACV value added is entertaining, to be kind to Vicroads.
I get the sense the motoring associations are dangerously close to becoming full time government apologists, while their service levels in the core business have dropped but they are doing all manner of other stuff only loosely related to motoring - not unlike walking into a post office with 20 other people there and finding you are the only one in the queue who *actually wants to post something
I think of them as company unions. Instead of fierce lobbying for common sense and simplicity they more often just extol “how good it is” or as the RACV did in the link I posted, reveal under the covers new regulations and fines, and try to clarify the road rules when they don’t make good sense (as well as when they do).
A road rule you probably do not fully comprehend - is it a window for police to get their act together, especially in the regions, or a clear invitation to overstep? They apparently have 2 or 3 hours to breath test you after an accident.
I only read that one an hour or so ago - what was even more amazing is when he fought it, they agreed to drop the charges if he didn’t go after costs !! how unethical is that ?
I’m extremely choosy about who I answer the door for - if I don’t want something from whoever is there, the chances of it being answered rarely if ever get better than “no chance at all”
Though I imagine there’s not many police or council enforcers in Antarctica - and maybe Jervis Bay is just plod from NSW …
