Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[All states] Idea of a new traffic law act / regulation

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by pro-pilot, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. ‘Operating with reasonable care within prevailing conditions’

    So that if you are on a M-way. No traffic, no on / off ramps, 4 lanes wide and doing say 150 kph in a 100 zone. This should be allowed for vehicles that rate as, a) light enough to allow for changes in conditions rapidly (meaning mostly sports cars and bikes, not semi's or cars with trailers), b) Are fully roadworthy and certified for improved handling and performance.

    Also allow for a licence status on a person to reflect additional training and competence, so if the police officer needs to use their judgement. This would count towards assessing the situation.

    It also steps over the BS of police entrapment in behavioural rich areas that a 60 zones, three lanes, no traffic or pedestrians. And one is hammered for doing 70.

    It means that you would still be potentially pulled over. But the outcome is now based on the current situational circumstances including the abilities of your vehicle and self rather than a blanket law which in some instances is contrary to common sense.

    It also would be used for the opposite. So someone who is fanging at 100 in a 100 zone when other traffic is bottlenecked and doing 30, gets hammered.

  3. I can hear the squeaky lid of Pandora's box opening from here.
  4. Won't happen.

    A slight deviation of that idea would be to have an advanced driver/riding training scheme, perhaps consisting of 3 2 day courses, vigorous roadcraft sessions, with a theory and serious practical assessment session at the end. Would have to be a proper test of skill, reading traffic, the road conditions, maneuverability, etc.

    After you have that endorsement on your license there could be some regulations.. like allowed to do 130 on the freeway in non traffic, between 10pm and 6am, as long as you pass maneuverability tests for the car. Anything more than that won't really happen.
  5. I had an idea the other day:

    For an: At fault, other vehicle involved [or, your vehicle has to be towed] accident, including hit pedestrian:
    1st offence = 1 week license suspension.
    2nd offence in 3 years = 1 month suspension.
    3rd offence in 3 years = 3 month suspension.
    4th offence in 3 years = 6 month suspension.
    5th offence in 3 years = licence gone. Forever.

    & no other offence can result in more than 1 demerit point at a time.
  6. Interesting theory... I could see it bringing up issues though... It could/would/might work as purely a discretionary power/defence eg. okay we have caught you 50 over...but this isn't dangerous driving in your case (due to training, conditions etc)...so you keep your licence but here is a big fine... that might work.

    I doubt any government would ever introduce something like that though as it opens up a loophole/can of worms for argument. You would have to be very specific. People would try and misuse it as well. Which equals more expense and less revenue for the government. Plus I doubt many police/powers that be would support it (except for themselves). After all speed kills right?

    +political fall out over being soft on damned hooligans.
    +precedent how many cases would conflict. 150 is safe one day then isn't the next... different officers have different perspectives, so do drivers.

    Still good luck finding support on here. Until the government signs a road legally 150, you are only going to be flamed by half the people here. Similarly, to other threads where people believe 150 to be close to light speed.
  7. Pro-Pilot's proposal would be great - for us rational, responsible, capable individuals here at NR ( :p )
    For all the idiots out there without the nous to make genuinely good decisions on the road, I can see it being perceived as a licence to hoon.
    Yes, they would be picked up and clobbered by the law, but they would always complain about how their superior skills should entitle them to get away with it. And we would hear all about how unfairly the systems has treated them.

    Ktulu - I like it. Measured, sensible, effective. It'll never happen.
  8. The problem with that is the police will just be constantly pulling people over, than letting them go after a licence check. It would require a massive amount of police and HWY Patrol officers, and they have enough trouble getting enough as it is.
  9. Not unless you were performing a manouvre that was dangerous.

    Eg. 2am, Monash freeway, no traffic. You going 120-130 in a light vehicle. Cops see it and let it go.

    11pm sat night, medium traffic. You are changing lanes and sitting on 120-130. You get hit up.

    I mean logic applies, If someone is 'hooning', meaning:

    · Improper use of a motor vehicle, where the driver has intentionally caused one or more tyres to lose traction;

    · Exceeding the speed limit by 45 kph or more (or travelling at over 145 kph in a 110kph zone);

    · Engaging in a race or speed trial; and

    · Repeat ‘drive whilst disqualified’ behaviour.

    · Dangerous driving;

    · Careless driving;

    · Failure to have proper control of the vehicle; and

    · Causing a vehicle to make excessive noise or smoke.

    Then they get hit with this. It is still within parameters of existing law, it is giving resonable drivers / riders some leeway if conditions permit.

    The whole intent of this is to remove 'black and white' from all speeding cases.
  10. or we could just introduce autobahns for freeways and apply a consistent formula for speed limits around town and suburbs eg, suburbs 50 (i think thats fairly consistent now), 60 on the roads through suburbs, 70 for any dual carriageway with driveways, 80 for ones without, 100 for all country roads, etc etc

    I still can't understand that while the technology of cars and in particular brakes has increased, yet speed limits have decreased in the last few decades.
  11. how freakin hard is it for you lot to keep the number the needle is pointing at to be lower than the one on the sign??

    You have to share the road with lots of other people, many of whom happily bounce from lane marker to lane marker without a care in the world, let alone bothering to look for other traffic. Then you want a special class of drivers doing significantly different speeds to the rest of the traffic? How many more smidsy moments at cross streets and lights are you going to see? (And for restricted roads like freeways, you'll get people at 50 more than the surrounding traffic have people changing lanes under them).

    Argue all you like to get the limit itself changed, but anything else will not be enforcable without electronics, and unworkable without lots of driver training for everybody.
  12. more people/cars, more numpties, more people who don't understand english (eg STOP) and are allowed to get 20% of the license questions wrong, more people believing that all the safety boxes they ticked on the new car spec sheet will make them invincible and the car will stop in half the distance, more people finding running costs higher, so pay even less for tyres and run them until the air starts leaking out through the canvas, more young people on drugs, more old people on drugs, more young people trying to impress the chicks, more people trying to impress themselves, less people with the self control to not go bananas when their trip home might take them an extra 20 seconds, more cheap powerful cars, less driver training, a licensing system in which the reverse park is the most feared aspect by all participants, change in weather conditions mean drivers ignorant to what actually happens when it rains, more people unable to see through the windscreen because they are to lazy to clean it, more people unable to see through the windscreen because of water restrictions, more bloody lawyers convincing everyone that it is their right to everything now and sue the government if it doesn't happen, less quality parenting to get kids to take responsibility for their own actions, more baby boomers and grey beards believing they own the road, less care, less concentration, more music, louder music and more apathy!