New & amended Qld Road rules

Mike DID,

I agree with you about the middle lane hoggers..

The "keep left " rule applies (or should) no matter how many lanes there are.

The rule does not say keep middle.

If you are in the middle lane and there is nothing in the left hand lane then thats where you should be.

Staying in the middle lane effectively turns a 3 lane highway into a 2 lane highway with an inside lane often being the quickest lane....

OK, I'll 'fess up. I'm a middle lane hogger. When we're travelling in a place where we have not been before I like to travel in the centre lane because it gives me time to change lanes to whatever lane I need to be in for various exits, deviations etc. I also tow a 3.5 tonne van, so I'm not going to be doing 100+KPH either.

If you haven't travelled a road previously it is not difficult to find yourself stuck in the left lane and you need to be two lanes to the right to continue to your destination. Of course Aussie drivers, being kind and considerate as usual, will ignore your indicator and close ranks to ensure that you can't get to the lane you need to be in.

So I'm a hog.

Cheers

Russ

How many Exits to the right have you seen on 3-lane roads which are 90km/hr+ ?

G'day Mike,

many times more than you have, obviously.

Cheers

Russ

Mitza, I think you misunderstand the concept of speed limits - the posted speed is the MAXIMUM speed allowable in good conditions. There is no law to state that you must drive at that speed and in fact, if conditions deteriorate, drivers should slow down and "drive to the conditions" rather than just hurtling on mindlessly at the posted speed limit. This includes road conditions (eg. rough/uneven surface) or weather conditions or even vehicle conditions (eg. a 45 Series Landcruiser won't handle the curves (or wind) like a modern sedan etc. not to mention that a "slow" driver could be nursing an 'injured' vehicle home, or using a 'space-saver' spare wheel).

I agree, it's annoying to be stuck behind slow drivers who build up 'fan clubs' behind them by not allowing/assisting people to overtake, and as a commercial driver trying to keep to a schedule/timetable I know that only too well. But to expect people to "stick to the speed limit, no exceptions" seems not to be a well considered view.

Perhaps another consideration might be fuel economy. To give an example, my early model Jackaroo used around 12.0L/100km, but after an engine rebuild, I was advised not to exceed an engine speed of 3,000rpm which, in top gear was around 85km/h. Driving at the reduced speed on the highway reduced fuel consumption to less than 8L/100km - hardly an insignificant saving.

A speed limit is a limit, not a target. If you're not comfortable at a certain speed on a given piece of road, slow down and get to where you're going to alive.

I'm in Port Douglas at the moment after towing my van here from Hobart. I'm sitting on 95 km/hr usually.
The most frustrating thing about the overtaking lanes on the way up is that I'll slow down to about 80 to enable as many of the 'fan club' drivers to go past as possible.
What usually happens is the lead driver will just cruise on past instead of giving it a good squirt for 200 metres and as a result I'm left with a good deal of fan club members still behind. Not to mention the mad scramble to be in front of me as the left lane has to merge.Had one idiot nearly run me out of road.
I'm always on the lookout for trucks and let them go past at the earliest opportunity.

My vehicle will tow at 110km/hr but I see no need and it's much better on fuel at 95.

In W.A i think it is 10 km/h on some major roads But i could (and often are)be wrong.

Has anyone ever worked out how much extra time it would take over say 100Km's if you dropped from 100kph to 90kph. I know from experience my patrol drops from around 12L/100 to 10L/100 with a 10kph drop in speed.
I reckon it would be a great idea to drop all speed limits by at least 10kph and save lives and fuel. Police would get a much greater revenue from those not wishing to keep to the lower limits. Everyone wins.

We would of course lose a few minutes of travel time.

In NSW you can drive at any speed below the speed limit - as long as it's not the right lane where the limit is greater than 80km/hr.

We could dramatically reduce road fatalities and fuel usage if the government made the maximum speed limit 30km/hr EVERYWHERE.

Frankly, with few exceptions the speed limits are way below the safe speed in a modern car with a competent driver.

There is no excuse for not travelling at or near the posted speed limit, unless the road or climatic conditions are abnormal. If you or your vehicle aren't capable of that you should be off the road.

If you are temporarily unable to maintain a safe speed you should pull over at every opportunity to let others past.

The few exceptions I mentioned above include the twisty two lane road west of Renmark before the turn off to Burra. It is posted at 110. It should be 90. In the NT I have no need to travel at 130 kph because fuel usage doubles.

Where people single handedly decide that everyone behind them should travel more slowly, the road toll increases.

"If it's 60 stick to 60 and if it's 100 stick to 100. Is not that complicate"
I don't think you were misunderstood at all. Your statement is very specific and not prone to mis-interpretation.

"Driving slower just for saving in fuel is a selfish attitude, not caring about the danger others are exposed."
What a load of rot. If people are unable to safely overtake then perhaps they shouldn't be driving at all.

Despite all that I believe that "keep left unless overtaking" should be the law on multi-lane roads (no need for a speed limit that it applies above) and that fog lights should only be used when there is enough fog that warrants their use.

Moose,

What I said should be taken as general rule...of course there are exceptions and when I posted the message I didn't think about the ramifications and the fact that some people then to be quite literalistics...

What you said about overtaking can be applied to driving too: If people are unable to drive close to speed limits then perhaps they shouldn't be driving at all.

When you take the driving exam they have a tick box for progress, meaning that if you drive too slow they thick that...don't know if they have something similar for overtaking :) lol

I ussually do the overtakes quick (switch in 3rd gear and watch as the rrp jumps to 5500 in seconds), so If I have to overtake you ever you will know :) lol

c'on Mitza, your taking a wavvy line here...the subject is moot,
but it never seems to amaze me what people try to construct between the lines in this forum, often having to become so literally pendantic....

reality is, on a 3+ multi-lane, letting the slower traffic use the second lane is considered because it allows the right-hand-lane carbo-burning-world-destroyers too switch over the left-hand exit lane without altering thier rate of progress...I get annoyed with left-lane hoggers who jam up the exit lane on a expressway...

Mitza replied:

Driving slower just for saving in fuel is a selfish attitude, not caring about the danger others are exposed.

People who are too concerned about carbon footprint should consider Prius or using a bycicle.

END QUOTE

I wonder if you would travel at the limit if you were towing a LONG and full height caravan. I doubt it !

90 Km in 110 Km is fast enough for me. I KNOW what can go wrong !

What about you ?

Dunedigger

Pity if your a learner-driver, 80kph, red P-plater 90 kph, green P-plater 100 kph

according to Mitza these ppl aren't suppose to be on our roads and god forbid if Mitza ever tows a 6x4 trailer with a load of gravel trying to go over 70kph will see both vehicle and trailer horizontally oppose to the roadway

I was enlighted. Thank you very much for feedback.

Previously, it was only illegal to install a radar detector in a car. So people (trucks) installed them in the trailer.

Thanks Rob.Never knew about this one as radar detectors are still legal over here (wa).But it just goes to show how ingenius some people can be.

Drive with you lights on low beam during the day when required and if you must.

Fog lights are not required unless the conditions require them, some of these lights are blinding in the day without conditions for their use, thus a ban is good.

Its about time and obviously there are a lot that agree.

Cheers Tony

G'day Holden4th,

I agree. If they've got their lights on, at least I can see them. I seem to remember a campaign of 'Lights on for Road Safety' some years ago.

While I also think that the 'doof-doof' brigade who seem to drive around with foglights on are only doing 'cos they think it's cool, there are advantages. Ask the authorities in Scandinavian countries and elsewhere why it's mandatory to have lights on in the daytime. Ask any motorbike rider for that matter.

To the knockers, if you're being blinded by the fog lights of some Richard Cranium's WRX, then their lights are wrongly adjusted and I suspect there's already a law to cover this. Fog lights (when used in fog) are meant to keep the beam low and spread. If it's high powered and ill-adjusted, it's just going to reflect back from the fog droplets and blind you further.

Check out Link to Daytime Running Lights for what is on the drawing boards "To reduce the incidence of crashes by improving vehicle conspicuity".

I have to admit to driving with either low beam or fog lights on when touring off the main roads (not much point on a divided highway). I'd rather be (hopefully incorrectly) thought an idiot than to have a head-on with someone who hadn't seen me. YMMV.

I guess there's always two sides to any discussion?

Cheers,
Chris

PS: Spell checking this took over 10 minutes. Come back, David!

There is no need to drive in clear daylight with foglights on. There is simply no argument here. The "It's so others can see me - for safety - I use them as daytime running lights etc etc..." is a complete crock. If these are reasons, then why can't the 'doof doofs' use normal healights? Because there is no 'wank value' in boring old headlights!
If you are touring off the main roads in clear daylight, use your headlights.

Holden4th

The roads you describe are the worst possible roads for fog lights to be used.

Properly adjusted Low Beam aims the beam to the left; fog lights aim it straight ahead, but a few metres ahead of the car.

However, on an undulating road, fog lights, just before they reach the crest of the undulation will be momentarily aimed straight along the road into oncoming driver's eyes.

There's one spot near my home where I would prefer the oncoming drivers to leave their lights on high beam and turn the fog lights off; its a combination of a small undulation and a corner that can leave you visionless for about 50 metres.

You don't have time to flick high beam to warn the other driver, but even if you did his lights are not on high beam he won't turn them down

Nargun, I think you've summed it up there: "Properly adjusted Low Beam aims the beam to the left; fog lights aim it straight ahead..."

Low beam headlights are sheilded so they won't shine in the eyes of oncoming drivers (providing the light is correctly adjusted). Foglights don't have this shielding and focus the light differently afterall, they're intended to be used in different conditions. This is why foglights are illegal during clear weather, but can be very effective during foggy weather.

Personally, I find the Commodore foglights to be the worst - they might as well just leave their hi-beams on too!

The biggest problem with the fogwits is that they always have their headlights on as well as their foglights. If it were foggy, this would dramatically increase the glare - which is totally dumb: and if it were clear, why use foglights at all - headlights (dipped) do the job. I also have a problem with the idiots who drive with only parking lights in misty conditions, this does nothing to increase visibility.
And while we're on the subject, what about the cretins who use their rear foglights in a country which is very seldom foggy enough to need them (unlike Europe) and in any case should be turned off (equivalent to dipping headlights) when someone approaches from the rear, and is already aware of the presence of a vehicle in front.

Jules

I turn low-beams on after I start the engine.

This is after repetitive cases of morons pulling out in front of me - a Pajero is not hard to see !

You obviously haven't driven in India or Indonesia yet!

Or Kuala Lumpur, where the white lane lines are purely there for show, and the shoulder is fair game as an overtaking lane during peak hour.....
Would be a waste of time putting up signs.
They have the same attitude of "I'll drive where I want" The difference is that no one cares 'cos they ALL drive with that attitude, therefore they are all happy!

Rod,

I am originally from the UK (many years ago) where undertaking is illegal except in certain circumstances to do with one way streets and traffic flow etc.

However sitting in the 2nd lane is still not keeping left.
If you are travelling below the posted limit (as indicated in your post) and the person in the left lane is travelling at the posted limit then, there is no law that states he has to change 2 lanes to get around you because you are not in the left lane.

But I am sure that someone sitting in the right hand lane could use the old, "I am travelling at 110 so no one should be overtaking me" or I stay in the right lane because "This allows me to overtake slower vehicles"

Now in a perfect world and all that. :)