On Gininderra Drive there are keep left unless over taking signs west bound going up the hill just before the intersection with Gungahlin Drive and east bound just past the intersection with Kingsford Smith Drive.
Under the road rules keep left unless overtaking applies on roads with a speed limit greater than 80km/h or where signs as described above are seen. In relation to the signs the road rules say that it applies:
Rule 130
(3) A keep left unless overtaking sign on a multi-lane road applies to the length of road beginning at the sign and ending at the nearest of the following:
(a) an end keep left unless overtaking sign on the road;
(b) a traffic sign or road marking on the road that indicates that the road is no longer a multi-lane road;
(c) if the road ends at a T–intersection or dead end — the end of the road.
So the way I read that keep left applies more or less between Kingsford Smith Drive and Moat Street. Now of course no one every obeys this rule, but I find it odd that the whole stretch is considered under the rules to be a keep left unless overtaking road zone, but it only has signs at each end. How are those that enter from the numerous sides roads meant to know.
ACT government should either remove the signs, or put up repeater signs after each intersection and of course enforce the rule is the latter was done.
Loading ...
CraigT said :
How am I being a cock if all I am doing is obeying the law?
RadioVK said :
Lol. Come on, please please pleaes give me another ‘hypothetical’ with a premise so ridiculous that it undermines your own *cough* argument *cough*.
How about … hypothetically, let’s assume that somone has discovered conclusive proof of a reptoid conspiracy to enslave the population of the earth, and is being chased by reptoid agents in a two-lane 80 zone on Hindmarsh Drive. Now, while there’s no legal requirement for everyone to stick to the left lane so that people can speed past them on the right-hand-lane, but in this instance, failure to do surely prevents this person evading the reptoid agents and revealing the truth to the world at large. Indeed, acting as an ‘obstacle’ by driving in the right-hand lane at the designated speed limit will actually significantly raise the chances of this person being caught and killed by the reptoids.
Therefore, we can conclusive assert that people who refuse to drive in the left-hand lane (regardless of the road regulations) are agents of the reptoid conspiracy.
Jim Jones said :
That would be a no then?
The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate the potential consequences of a particular assumption. If you’re having trouble grasping that, I can’t help you.
Aeek said :
Oh look. Its the exact type of moron that cant drive I referred to. Three whole lanes! Wow! This is Canberra. The parkway/Gininderra drive/any main artery in this town is hardly the Trocadero during peak hour. I could get from the left lane at 1730 on any of these roads to the right lane and make my turn driving a T-34 tank in reverse within a few hundred metres of the turn. Do me a favour and sell your car and start using public transport – you shouldnt be on the road.
No. I’m just saying that if you automatically get into the right lane when you get behind the wheel you are a moron that cant drive and shouldn’t be on the road.
I think some people are courtesy confused with law.
CraigT said :
Um … yes it does. It’s impossible to be an ‘obstruction’ if you’re doing the speed limit.
Again, the left-hand lane is not the ‘I’m a better driver than everyone else so the speed limits don’t apply to me’ lane.
Also, you might want to rethink your defintion of ‘co-operating with others’, which seems to be limited to: ‘Out of my way, I’m a motorist.’
RadioVK said :
What, a ‘real argument’ like: just assume that someone will DIE if they aren’t allowed to speed on the road and YOU’RE STOPPING THEM SPEEDING AND KILLING THEM!!!
Bwa aha ha hhahah ahaha … yeah, nice one Aristotle!
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
That is a complete non-sequitur. The speed limit has nothing to do with your apparently deliberate obstruction of the road.
Just co-operate with others on the road and stop being a cock.
Gerry-Built said :
They are one of the strangest roadworks zones I have ever seen.
When they first started the building they weren’t there, but that area was where loads of deliveries came in and the tradies parked. They started building the concrete road in the middle of the median without any roadworks signs, but they appeared midway through. Originally they covered the signs at night but only west bound. Once they finished the concrete the signs disappeared for a few days only to reappear and since then they haven’t covered them.
The current situation is there is no roadworks nor larger deliveries. The whole building site is fenced off, so no obvious need for the slow zone. Not that many obey it, and those that do end up, as you mentioned with a car right up their hammer.
voytek3 said :
Aren’t you one of the ones who was saying that if the majority of drivers are speeding then speed-limits shouldn’t be enforced? Bloody hypocrites.
voytek3 said :
You do not seem to understand the road laws.
RadioVK said :
Ummm, what exactly are the consequences of my actions?
voytek3 said :
So you stay in the left lane and cross at the last second on say Hindmarsh Drive which is 3 lane.
True, I’d have to be a moron to take heed of you.
On the topic if Ginninderra Drive – with the roadworks in Charnwood – where the new emergency services hub is, does anyone know what the deal is with the 60 signs? They had shadecloth covers, as if they are to be covered over when not in use, but they always seem to be uncovered… and bugger me if every bugger sits with the nose of their car almost touching my rear bumper when I’m doing 60 along there…
Here it is: Keep left on ALL roads unless overtaking or immediately before you have to make a turn. If you sit in the right lane you do not know how to drive and shouldn’t be on the road. If this was enforced at least four fifths of Canberra drivers would be off the roads.
Morons take heed.
annus_horribilis498638″]
annus_horribilis said :
Do you see the word MERGE anywhere in my post? No. If it was a merge, specifically a form one lane then yes I would have had to go in behind as the vehicle in front has the right of way. (not so with a line cross merge though but that is besides the point here)
What I said is where “two lanes became side my side” (of course I meant side BY side). Ie I was on the exit off Commonwealth Ave which is a single lane on the left, the other car was on London CCT which is a single lane on the right and they they come side by side just before the Lakeside Hotel to form a dual lane road. The car in the right lane crossed to the lane I was occupying the moment he could, without any care for the fact I was not only in the lane but also partially beside him.
So no merge here, just a simple lane change.
Ahh yes, I see. Thanks for the clarification
annus_horribilis said :
Do you see the word MERGE anywhere in my post? No. If it was a merge, specifically a form one lane then yes I would have had to go in behind as the vehicle in front has the right of way. (not so with a line cross merge though but that is besides the point here)
What I said is where “two lanes became side my side” (of course I meant side BY side). Ie I was on the exit off Commonwealth Ave which is a single lane on the left, the other car was on London CCT which is a single lane on the right and they they come side by side just before the Lakeside Hotel to form a dual lane road. The car in the right lane crossed to the lane I was occupying the moment he could, without any care for the fact I was not only in the lane but also partially beside him.
So no merge here, just a simple lane change.
JC said :
Sorry, did you just say the vehicle in front of at a merge should have braked and dropped in behind you?
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
I’ll take that argument (or lack thereof) as an admission that, in the context of this hypothetical at least, that you simply don’t care about the consequences of your actions.
Jim Jones said :
Do you actually have a real argument, or is that it?