Weight Restricted Roads – Does it apply to me? (Follow-up)

Submitted: Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 13:57
ThreadID: 138931 Views:1583 Replies:12 FollowUps:31

A few months back I penned a blog-post and posted in the forum on this topic which generated some interest at the time.

Whilst my post was based on conversations I had with Local Council and Roads and Maritime (RMS) personnel in NSW, getting precise information on how this rule was interpreted and applied was somewhat difficult.

In one conversation I had with an RMS technical person I was informed that I would need to follow up with the policy area of the RMS and was told “good luck with that” they don’t even answer correspondence from other RMS departments.

Always one to take up the challenge I contacted my State Government representative and asked they seek clarification on my behalf. Now perhaps the wheels of government turn slowly and it has been a few months since I sought assistance, but I finally have received an answer to the question and proposition I put forward.

Following are links to the blog post and to the original forum discussion and associated comments.

And can I highlight once again, I don’t expect the police or local government enforcement officers will be hiding behind bushes waiting to catch people out on this, however be aware of the rule and understand the potential consequences of breaching it.

Noting, many vehicles have GVMs in excess of 3,000kg these days, one example being the popular Toyota 200 Series…

Response follows, highlighting it is the GVM of the vehicle that determines whether the sign is applicable or not - if you weigh over 3T or have a GVM over 3T than it applies to you...

And the picture of a truck is symbolic only (many people contacted me and said it only applied to trucks).

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

Back Reply Expand Un-Read 4 Moderator

Reply By: RMD - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 14:30

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 14:30
Baz.
I see the same in other states too. It is confusing for people to decipher or understand what is truly meant. I believe nothing is truly meant at all. The fact a bus which weighs at least 6 times that posted limit is allowed to drive there makes the sign idiotic. All the busses I have driven weighed around 15 tons or more, far more when loaded with bodies and luggage too. 50 people of average weight of 60 kg is 3 ton all by themselves without the bus. Crazy.
Here in the Socialist Republic of Victoria, you have to observe similar weight rules and definitely NO B doubles on some roads because of road damage reasons. BUT, if you pay Vic Roads, a subsidiary of the Socialist State, and receive a little certificate, you CAN drive your B double on that same road. Isn't it marvelous the strength and ability of paper in reinforcing the roadways of the land.
AnswerID: 627252

Follow Up By: 9900Eagle - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 17:37

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 17:37
Not being a socialist, communist, buddist or even a baptist, I would guess that they have a bit of leeway for school buses that might be only 12 seaters and on the truck side the permit will be for farmers moving produce. They will also have an exception to access their farms with there vehicles. This permit if obtained would also apply to builders and suppliers or others who need access.

It just means the road is not for general use over the 3 tonne limit.

Then again other capitalist states have the same laws, guess they have been infiltrated by socialists. How about keeping politics out of the forum.
3
FollowupID: 901229

Reply By: Mikee5 - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 15:15

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 15:15
Oh dear, that does not really clarify things. Do they mean GVM - a theoretical number written on a plaque on the vehicle, or do they mean the gross weight of the vehicle as measured on a weighbridge. A vehicle with a GVM of 3360 could actually weigh 2800kg on the road.
AnswerID: 627253

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 15:54

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 15:54
In my submission I highlighted that issue and they clarify it by referencing the weight to the GVM of the vehicle.

Given it was signed off by the Government Minister I wouldn’t second guess any meaning, but take it at face value...in which case it is clear.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901227

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:10

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:10
Noting, there are various signage relating to weight restricted roads.

“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901232

Reply By: Frank P (NSW) - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 17:28

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 17:28
I note that the letter says that the GVM limit applies to a vehicle OR TRAILER.

Trailers don't have a GVM. They have ATM and GTM. I wonder which applies.
AnswerID: 627255

Follow Up By: Nomadic Navara - Sunday, Aug 18, 2019 at 14:31

Sunday, Aug 18, 2019 at 14:31
You will find that the motor registry database has no provision for recording a trailers ATM. The trailers ATM is recorded in the GVM field. I would asume that the weight restrictions would apply to the ATM when they read GVM.
PeterD
Retired radio and electronics technician

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901307

Reply By: Batt's - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 18:00

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 18:00
Looks pretty easy to interperate if your vehicle weighs more than 3T you should't drive on that road. There are plenty of weight restricting signs around the country.
AnswerID: 627257

Follow Up By: Mikee5 - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 18:21

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 18:21
Actually your vehicle can weigh under 3T and you can still be fined, if the GVM is over 3T, even if the vehicle isn't loaded up to its GVM. According to the letter above.
2
FollowupID: 901230

Follow Up By: Batt's - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:12

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:12
Be a good arguement in court unless they have changed that rules across the board for all weight restricted signage as gvm does not usually come into play it's what you weigh at that time for light and heavy vehicles. If they have additional info on a sign then it should be followed.

Landy just put up a plc of what I was explaining while typing previous response.

0
FollowupID: 901233

Reply By: Baz - The Landy - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:16

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:16
Batts

A couple of points to make, firstly many people I’ve spoken to have incorrectly assumed that because the signage pictures a ‘truck’ that it doesn’t apply to your average light vehicle (anything under 4,500kg).

Secondly, are the authorities intending to capture the average Nissan Patrol or Toyota 200 Series with this restriction, or is the rule out of step with typical production light vehicles.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 627259

Follow Up By: Batt's - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:29

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:29
Don't know about the large 4wd thing may be a local doesn't like them, wrote to the council and a sign was put up to scare people but the info you got from them about it's meaning is incorrect on their behalf as it contradicts the rta rules which is the law so unless they change the sign to suit I would ignore it.
0
FollowupID: 901234

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:52

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 19:52
The letter is signed off by the Government Minister responsible for the RMS (RTA), I’d be very surprised if they’ve got it wrong as he would take it on advice from the RMS policy area...

But hey, posting my findings and investigations, I’ll leave it to you what you make of it.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901235

Follow Up By: Batt's - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:06

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:06
It dosn't matter who signed it off if the wrong sign has been errected then the public can't be procecuted due to the lack of correct info on it. All the correct info about how to interpret a sign is also on the rta site. Anyway I don't live near it, don't have to laugh at it when driving past or watch some delivery guys walking up the street to my house carrying a lounge I just ordered etc.
0
FollowupID: 901236

Follow Up By: Gronk - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:15

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:15
What about if you own a 200 series and you live along that road ?? Do you have to get an official exemption and carry it with you ??
1
FollowupID: 901258

Follow Up By: OzzieCruiser - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:28

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:28
My 5 seat family wagon has a GVM of 3070kg so I guess I would not be able to live on a street with the sign.
1
FollowupID: 901260

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:58

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:58
Gronk and Ozzie

Good questions. My understanding of this rule is that if you are restricted by the sign you cannot use the street or road as a ‘through road’ but if you are travelling to a location on a weight restricted road or if you live on it then you can use it.

My interest in this topic is because I am affected by it and wanted clarification on how they referenced the weight, which they have done by indicating it is GVM.

But putting that aside, the more important question is why we have a weight restricted road at 3,000kg which affects many popular light vehicles and is that the intention of the authorities?

And we should all be concerned with this rule as it is another restriction on larger 4WD vehicles - my suggestion is that you raise it with your 4WD club if you belong to one and have them lobby. against this rule, which is generally a local government direction.

Bear in mind the road that restricts a car with a GVM in excess of 3,000kg can have large buses travelling along it all day, everyday...



Cheers, Baz
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

2
FollowupID: 901262

Follow Up By: Member - McLaren3030 - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:01

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:01
Absolutely correct Baz with regard to living on the affected road. Same applies to Francis St. in Yarraville in Melbourne. Truck curfew during certain hours, but does not apply to trucks that have “business” in the street.

Macca.
Macca.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 901272

Reply By: IvanTheTerrible - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:43

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:43
104 No trucks signs
(1) A driver (except the driver of a bus) must not drive past a no trucks sign that has information on or with it indicating a mass if the GVM of the driver's vehicle (or, if the driver is driving a combination, any vehicle in the combination) is more than that mass, unless the driver is permitted to drive the vehicle on a route passing the sign under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note :
"Bus" ,
"combination" ,
"driver's vehicle" and
"with" are defined in the Dictionary, and
"GVM" is defined in the Act.
(2) A driver (except the driver of a bus) must not drive past a no trucks sign that has information on or with it indicating a length if the length of the driver's vehicle (or, if the driver is driving a combination, the length of the combination) is longer than that length, unless the driver is permitted to drive the vehicle on a route passing the sign under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 34 penalty units.
(3) The driver of a truck must not drive past a no trucks sign that has no information on or with it indicating a mass or length, unless the driver is permitted to drive the truck on a route passing the sign under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note :
"Truck" is defined in the Dictionary.
(4) This rule does not apply to a driver if the destination of the driver lies beyond a no trucks sign and:
(a) there is no other route by which the driver's vehicle could reach that destination, or
(b) any other route by which the driver's vehicle could reach that destination would require the vehicle to pass another no trucks sign.
AnswerID: 627260

Follow Up By: IvanTheTerrible - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:47

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 20:47
This is the one that really affects me more. The amount of backroads that have bridge limits that challenge my ute and trailer GCM



103 Load limit signs
(1) A driver must not drive past a bridge load limit (gross mass) sign or gross load limit sign if the total of the gross mass (in tonnes) of the driver’s vehicle, and any vehicle connected to it, is more than the gross mass indicated by the sign.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.
(2) A driver must not drive past a bridge load limit (mass per axle group) sign if the mass (in tonnes) carried by an axle group of the driver’s vehicle, or any vehicle connected to it, is more than the mass indicated by the sign for the axle group.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) In this rule:
vehicle includes any load carried by the vehicle.

Bridge load limit (gross mass) sign
Gross load limit sign
Bridge load limit (mass per axle group) sign
1
FollowupID: 901237

Reply By: Hoyks - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 22:01

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 22:01
There was a road past my parents place that had this weight restriction.

A dairy was down the end of the road, so the cattle trucks occasionally and milk tanker 2-3 times a week, but they didn't tear up the road anywhere near as much as the council garbage and recycling trucks.
AnswerID: 627264

Reply By: Ron N - Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 22:38

Wednesday, Aug 14, 2019 at 22:38
It's certainly very confusing wording, and nothing more than you'd expect from Govt legislation and politicians and bureaucrats.

But the bottom line is, the weight limit should be related to, and is effectively measured by, what weight the road or bridge can actually handle at the particular time.

Everything to do with trucking and truck loading is related to what the truck is actually carrying, and what it is CAPABLE of carrying.

I have owned multiple numbers of big trucks, including a 100-tonne spread-deck low-loader pulled by my 500HP V8 Mack Valueliner.

Everything you do with a rig like that, is precisely weight-measured, every loaded trip.
You are given road and bridge limits, and precise instructions as to operating conditions, as part of your permits.
All these instructions and operating conditions are purely designed to protect the integrity of road structures and bridge structures.

It's not about what the truck and low-loader is CAPABLE of carrying (which happened to be 132 tonnes GCM) - it is all about what the rig ACTUALLY WEIGHS, at any given time and trip.

But bureaucrats and politicians are obviously unaware of the difference between MANUFACTURERS ALLOWABLE Gross Vehicle Mass - and the Gross weight (mass) of the vehicle, as measured by scales, or a weighbridge.

To take this to its extreme limit of stupidity - say you had a bridge with a posted load limit of 25 tonnes - and you wanted to drive across it with your empty, Isuzu 8-wheeler tilt-tray (twin-steer, tandem drive) truck.

Now an Isuzu 8-wheeler tilt-tray truck, would only weigh around 10 tonnes empty. That's less than half the bridges posted load capacity.

But the Isuzu 8 wheeler has a 30 tonne GVM - so according to the bureaucrats and politicians, you would be penalised for breaking the law, by driving across the bridge, with an empty Isuzu 8-wheeler, because the truck is rated at 30 tonnes GVM.

This is bureaucratic interpretation gone mad. They don't even understand the practical interpretation of weight limit laws.

A good lawyer would get their interpretation of road signage weight restrictions thrown out of court.

Cheers, Ron.

AnswerID: 627265

Follow Up By: Batt's - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:39

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:39
Spot on Ron that's exactly why I said it wouldn't stand up in court regardless of who signed off on the document as your not breaking the law Thanks.
1
FollowupID: 901243

Follow Up By: Gronk - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:21

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:21
But you are breaking the law if the sign says a certain GVM and you're over it !!
It might be stupid, but it's still the law !
2
FollowupID: 901259

Follow Up By: Ron N - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 19:11

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 19:11
But the interpretation of "GVM", is precisely where the argument lies.

You can have a Rated GVM - what the vehicle is rated to carry as a maximum total weight - or you can have a Gross Vehicle Mass, which is the actual weight of the vehicle on the day.

Far better to have signage and wording that states a specific load limit in actual gross tonnes - which is what is actually calculated, and applied to roads and bridges, by road and bridge engineers.

I know what I would be arguing is the case, if I went to court - the actual gross weight of the vehicle on the day.

They contradict themselves by adding attached trailers to the load limit.

If you're adding a trailer to the total for the specified limit, you aren't increasing the vehicles rated GVM, you are calculating Gross Mass.

Cheers, Ron.
0
FollowupID: 901263

Reply By: Mal58 - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:25

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:25
So my 4WD is 2990kg, just 10kg under the 3T GVM limit.

It's actual weight is about 250kg under that.

So I assume that I am not breaking the letter of the law driving on a street with that sign.

What happens if I tow a trailer or caravan weighing 1.5t, can I legally tow it up that street ?






AnswerID: 627271

Follow Up By: Batt's - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:45

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:45
No you can't drive down that street if your vehilce by itself weighs 3t or more as you mentioned or if towing the combined weight adds up to be 3t or more.
At 2,999kg you are legal if towing or not towing.
1
FollowupID: 901244

Reply By: Member - Boobook - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:39

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 18:39
According to their own website, the minister can't even get it right.

It mentions actual weight - nothing to do with GVM

Road rules

Light traffic roads
If weight restriction sign is displayed for a road, you must not use that road if the total weight of your vehicle, including its load, is the same as or heavier than the weight shown on the sign.



The rule for GVM is a different sign and is below

Load limit sign
You must not drive past a BRIDGE LOAD LIMIT (GROSS MASS) sign or GROSS LOAD LIMIT sign if the total of the gross mass (in tonnes) of your vehicle, and any vehicle connected to it, is more than the gross mass indicated in the sign.
Tony
200 with 2012 Tvan Canning.
Happiness >= your perception of the events in your life minus your expectation of how life should be.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 627278

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 19:17

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 19:17


All very ambiguous, isn’t it Boobook.

We can get caught up in debate over definition (which is important, none-the-less)

But here’s the thing, whether it is weight, GVM, Tare weight - the more important question is why we have a rule that impacts many light vehicles driven by 4WD enthusiast’s...?

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Ps I have already questioned the definition with the RMS, and await confirmation.
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 901264

Reply By: OutBack Wanderer - Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 22:39

Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 at 22:39
Even though the symbolic truck sign has a 3 tonne weight limit, it is meant for ALL trucks that weighs more than 3 tonne either with a load (over 3 tonne) or just 3 tonne empty.

Lane Cove Council has a 2 tonne limit on nearly 75% of their streets, a nightmare for delivery drivers. As long as you have an address for delivery, the Rangers can't book you, no matter what size your truck, but, you must take the shortest route from a major road and exit on the shortest route to a major roadway.

I delivered everything to do with take-away industry to the Seventh Day Adventist Hospital in my twin steer Benz which weighed 8 tonnes empty, as long as the manifest read Hospital, nothing they could do.

If they used the sign as stated by law, every 4WD, Range Rover, Benz vehicles would be banned, but the sign with the symbolic truck, is meant for that, all trucks, cars are exempt in Council's eyes

There are Truck Route Atlas similar to the Road Atlas for all drivers. For the trucks in Vic. it shows different routes for different loads in 4-5 colours of the routes, so an inflammable load cannot go through any tunnels in Vic, same as NSW, wide loads in major cities usually have a police escort

Many towns in regional area's now have truck by-pass, motorists can use these by-passes too, avoids the CBD traffic

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 627281

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:57

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:57
Hi Outback Wanderer...

My discussions with two local government authorities (Parramatta & Hornsby) indicated the approach they took was that they worked on the Tare Weight of the vehicle for determining whether a vehicle is in breach of the regulation. Noting, it is local government authorities that put these restrictions in place.

Essentially if you are under 3,000kg Tare Weight, from their perspective they would not take action, however that doesn’t mean you would be legal if your total mass is over 3,000kg. The reality is they don’t appear to have the ability or inclination to weigh (light) vehicles roadside.

In my case the Tare Weight of the vehicle is under 3,000kg, but both the GVM and loaded mass is in excess of 3,000kg.

This is why I sought clarification of the rule and its interpretation, which indicates as far as the RMS is concerned the weight restriction is based on GVM. This was confirmed by the Government Minister responsible for the RMS (I'll take it at face value - but have already raised a question around this).

You are correct to say that many 4WDs are affected by this limitation, however the “truck symbol” is only symbolic, if you breach the weight limitation it doesn’t matter what you are driving.

Having said that, and as I have highlighted numerous times, it is most unlikely that any enforcement officer, whether council or police, are hiding behind bushes to catch out light-vehicles breaching the rule. But have an accident or incident on one of these weight-restricted roads in a non-complying light vehicle and depending on the severity of the accident, the police may charge you…

In practice the authorities may not care; in law it may be a different case. This could have numerous implications both financially and with regard to personal liability.

My “beef” is that the “symbolic truck" picture creates a false impression of what type of vehicle the rule applies to.

But importantly, the question needs to be asked, why are the popular range of light-vehicles (Toyota 200 series, Nissan Patrols, and a host of other vehicles) being captured under this rule and was that the intention of this rule when it was devised?

The reality is that many people are blissfully unaware that they are impacted, and in reality it may never be a problem – until something goes wrong.

Awareness is key...

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion as the perspective you have put on it appears to be the reality, at least in practice. But it may not be a legal defence...

Cheers, Baz
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901268

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:42

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:42
It's not just Landcruisers or Nissans Baz,

Australia's two most popular vehicles, the Hilux and Ford Rnger have GVMs of 3T or more. Even in 2wd versions.
Tony
200 with 2012 Tvan Canning.
Happiness >= your perception of the events in your life minus your expectation of how life should be.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901270

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:23

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:23
Hi Boobook

Absolutely, the list is long and potentially growing. There is a "host of other vehicles" affected.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the question I ask is why?



Cheers, Baz
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 901273

Follow Up By: tim_c - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:05

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:05
A 2T limit is farcical - this would prohibit a large portion of passenger cars.

It often seems to come down to NIMBYs buying property on main suburban roads and then complaining to local councils that people are driving trucks on the public road in front of their house. Well, if you didn't like traffic noise, maybe you should have bought a house on a quieter street. They don't care if the truck is empty or full, so I'd suggest the restriction applied to GVM is more about limiting the size of the vehicle using the road, rather than the actual weight (different story for weight-restricted bridges).

There is at least one road in ACT that I know of which has a 2T limit - it is the only road in/out of the area in that direction, and therefore a major thoroughfare. Local residents got upset because it was so busy (what, you didn't realise this before you bought your house there?!). Most of the traffic using that road would be in breach of the 2T limit (probably anything bigger than a Corolla would have a GVM greater than 2T).
1
FollowupID: 901278

Follow Up By: Ron N - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:43

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:43
My opinion is that the 3 tonne limit is a hangover from the 1940's, when the average "truck" was rated at 3 tons.

A "big truck" in those days was rated at 7 tonnes, and you were "big-time trucking", if you owned a 7 tonner.

Big "heavy-duty" utes were, rated at 10cwt or 15cwt (hundredweight) load capacity - 508kgs and 762kg - and your average car weighed a ton (1,016kgs) or considerably less.

Despite all the weight-reduction in todays vehicles, by the use of plastics and alloys, todays vehicles are considerably larger than what our parents and grandparents drove.

Todays 4WD's weigh more than the "heavy-duty" utes of the old days, thanks to "up-sizing", and a slew of "extras" such as bigger and heavier batteries, power windows, power steering, power seats, airbags, and electrical equipment and electrical accessories galore - which all come as standard fit today.

4WD vehicles were extremely rare to find in our parents and grandparents day.

Willys Jeeps of WW2 started the trend towards everyday 4WD's - now it seems everyone needs a 4WD, even though the standard of the roads today is a hundred times better than it was, even 50 years ago.

So, as a result, todays regular-size 4WD's fall into the range of the size measurement of the 3 ton trucks, of the 1940's.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the limits, apart from trying to keep commercial vehicles, operating on a constant basis, out of residential areas.

Every shop and small business has to have deliveries via 3 and 5 tonne trucks.
Buses (public transport and school) regularly move through residential streets.
Removalist trucks, most around 9 tonnes, have to regularly move through residential areas.
It's not like medium sized commercial vehicles are a rarity in suburban streets.

The weight/size limit restriction laws are an anachronism, they need to be updated to meet todays vehicles and roads.

Cheers, Ron.
2
FollowupID: 901280

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 18:07

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 18:07
Hi Ron

“The weight/size limit restriction laws are an anachronism, they need to be updated to meet todays vehicles and roads.”

Spot on, this is why I have highlighted the issue.

Cheers, Baz
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 901282

Follow Up By: Member - Warren H - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 20:43

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 20:43
Re anachronisms,wasn't there an issue about rego and tare weight in NSW around 1994 when the latest land cruiser exceeded 2000kg tare and as a result the cost of rego jumped? I remember a mate telling me that by removing seats, the spare, tools and having the absolute minimum of fuel you could get a weighbridge certificate of < 2000 kg saving $$$. My 94 Maverick/GQ had a 1990 kg tare and in Qld., rego at the time went by the number of cylinders anyway.
Interestingly with respect to 3t GVM limits, even my mid size Pajero has a GVM of 3030 kg, so banned!
NT Pajero
2007 Goldstream Crown

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

1
FollowupID: 901289

Follow Up By: Frank P (NSW) - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 22:53

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 22:53
"My discussions with two local government authorities (Parramatta & Hornsby) indicated the approach they took was that they worked on the Tare Weight of the vehicle for determining whether a vehicle is in breach of the regulation. Noting, it is local government authorities that put these restrictions in place."

What a ship of fools, posting a sign with a restriction on GVM and then policing it on the basis of tare.

They are idiots!

2
FollowupID: 901295

Follow Up By: Member - PhilD_NT - Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 08:54

Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 08:54
I'm glad I don't live in an area with a 2T limit as I would be in trouble with my Falcon ute. With just me onboard, no load in the rear and not even with a full tank it comes in at just on the 2T limit as weighed a few times on a weighbridge. GVM is 2805. Of course that is because it has a tipper conversion that eats into the GVM, but it does show that there are a lot of vehicles out there that are affected by such a low limit, if it was enforced.
2
FollowupID: 901297

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:21

Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:21
Hi Frank

I'd encourage you to write to your local MP and ask them why this restriction is in place affecting light-vehicles in NSW. If you belong to a 4WD Club, highlight the issue to them...

Phil...

You are right on the last comment "if it was enforced". For the most part it probably is never enforced, until there is an accident or incident...

Either way, it is a road rule that is in place and impacts many people - and for what benefit?

Cheers, Baz - The Landy



“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 901298

Follow Up By: Ron N - Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:32

Saturday, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:32
There are substantial numbers of road traffic laws that are poorly written, and poorly interpreted, and poorly understood.

The load limit for roads and bridges is supposed to be for road and bridge structure integrity protection.

The 3 tonne limit for dirt roads in suburban areas is being utilised as a "traffic calming" measure.

If there's one group of people I hate with a vengeance, it's those idiots called "traffic planners" - those people who give us badly-engineered roundabouts, massive speed bumps every 100 metres on perfectly good straight roads, zig-zag road layouts that throw oncoming vehicles into each others path, and which zig-zags do nothing to slow down loud motorcyclists intent on high speed dashes.

If these traffic planners or councillors are intent on restricting the size of vehicles in a street, they need to throw out this archaic signage that no-one takes any notice of, anyway - and which signage is rarely enforced - and start to develop some practical restrictions, on sizes and types, and volumes of vehicles, that utilise the street.

IMO, roads are built to be used - and those roads are fairly regularly upgraded. Why then, does every traffic planner promptly start to devise infuriating "traffic-calming" systems, to prevent any volume of traffic from using that road?

I think the practical signage is the "local road only" signage that I see, which advises motorists that the road is not designed as an arterial road, it is designed only to serve the local area, and as such, larger commercial vehicles are discouraged from using that road, as there are arterial roads that are a better route choice.

The simple fact remains that removalist trucks, delivery trucks, and buses, still need to access quiet suburban streets on a reasonably regular basis, and this puts paid to any idea that "3 tonne load limit" signage, is an effective method of severely limiting vehicle types and sizes on that road.

Cheers, Ron.
3
FollowupID: 901301

Reply By: OutBack Wanderer - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:30

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:30
In regards to trucks Baz, if you have a manifest of goods to be delivered or picked up in an area of weight limits, in an overweight vehicle, the law cannot touch you.
The Lane Cove Council's signage was, before the freeway was built, to stop the rat runners (read trucks) from taking a short cut through the quiet narrow streets of Lane Cove to rejoin the Pacific Hwy.

I enjoyed delivering my products to the SDAH hoping to get caught and sometimes did, and see the letdown on the Rangers face when he saw the delivery address, damn, lol. Also, how do ppl move addresses when moving from one house to another, moving vans are exempt too

For some strange reason, there are only trucks and cars, in regards to weight limits, you can see this when approaching toll roads, they even have different tolls for the different weights/heights of trucks

When it comes to tolls, again some operators use the symbolic signage, as a "one- size -fits-all-category" this includes not only rigid trucks but semi-trailers, the signage we see today including your photo, is symbolic because of the size of the sign, it is very hard to paint a semi-trailer on a 12'' inch aluminum sign

When some-one mentions the word trucks, what vision comes to mind? A semi? A Tautliner? A Flatbed? A 132 wheel open flatbed? A mining truck?
The symbolic sign is for all trucks it was never intended to exclude 4WD's or other vehicles that were above the weights

Just as an after-thought to bring a bit of humour with my truck, my trucks height was 4.3 mts high. I brought down the thick black cable you see at industrial sites, in Coffs Harbour, same again at Bega PO, and again at Grafton complex.
My best was every telephone line in a Burwood St. The Federal Govt. and various electrical retailers sent invoices to my company for damages.
My boss politely informed them, that all power lines must be 4.5 mts above ground level, lol.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 627286

Follow Up By: Baz - The Landy - Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:04

Friday, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:04
Hi Outback Wanderer

And that is my assertion, surely this rule was never intended to capture 4WD vehicles in the light-vehicle category - but it does unfortunately.

And that is a great anecdote...!

Cheers, Baz
“Those who don’t think
it can be done shouldn’t
bother the person doing it…”

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

2
FollowupID: 901275

Popular Content