Some funny looking buses on East Row

johnboy 9 December 2010 31

buses?

Martin has sent in the above collage with this note:

East Row, City is clearly marked as being for Buses Only. Yet in around 15 minutes today (9 December), 9 private vehicles and one taxi used this street (8 if you count the Mazda which went through twice as one vehicle). Here is a compilation of some of these vehicles.

(Lucky he didn’t catch me on my bicycle)


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to Some funny looking buses on East Row
Filter
Order
ML-585 ML-585 12:15 am 14 Dec 10

… a Hiace commuter is a bus. even if it only has 11 seats. Check the tams website:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/143016/ApplicGuidelinesBusAccreditation_-_Part_1_-_Mar_09.pdf

But if you don’t want to read all that heres the inportant bit:

“Under section 10A of the Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) Act 2001
(the Act), the meaning of a bus is “a vehicle built mainly to carry people that seats
over 9 adults (including the driver)”.”

And before you say the sign means only public buses, I AGREE WITH YOU. But it could be made more clear to out of towners. like instead of “buses excepted” maybe it should say “Action buses excepted”

Interesting. The Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) Act 2001 deals with (as the name suggests) Public Passenger Services such as operation and accreditation. Section 10A states “in this Act bus means a vehicle ….”

But the “No Entry – Buses Excepted” sign falls under the control of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 which references the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 and the Australian Road Rules – which states what I have said earlier: a bus is a vehicle which seats more than 12.

So in the ACT a vehicle can be accredited to operate a bus service if it seats between 10 and 12 adults, yet under the Australian Road Rules it is not considered to be a bus.

Waltaroo Waltaroo 6:42 pm 13 Dec 10

Ml-585 if you read my other comments you will see that I agree with you, there is no reason for these car to be there.
But the title is “Some funny looking buses on East Row” and a Hiace commuter is a bus. even if it only has 11 seats. Check the tams website:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/143016/ApplicGuidelinesBusAccreditation_-_Part_1_-_Mar_09.pdf

But if you don’t want to read all that heres the inportant bit:

“Under section 10A of the Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) Act 2001
(the Act), the meaning of a bus is “a vehicle built mainly to carry people that seats
over 9 adults (including the driver)”.”

And before you say the sign means only public buses, I AGREE WITH YOU. But it could be made more clear to out of towners. like instead of “buses excepted” maybe it should say “Action buses excepted”

ML-585 ML-585 12:22 pm 12 Dec 10

Waltaroo said :

Like neanderthalsis said Toyota Hiace commuter vans are buses under Qld law (and ACT law). I said looks like a bus because there is a chance that is not a commuter. And by chance I mean like there is a chance the moon is made of cheese.

As already mentioned above, to be a bus it must seat more than 12. While Toyota Hiace Commuters are available as 14 seaters, rental companies especially use 12 seaters so that they can be driven with a Car licence (and are therefore not a bus).

But regardless of how many it seats, the Hiace Commuter is still breaking the law. The turn lanes into East Row at the London Circuit end have now been marked as Bus Lanes. For those who haven’t followed previous threads about what can and can’t use a bus lane: a privately operated (i.e. non public) bus is not authorised in a bus lane.

And for those of you who think that this is a minor problem and nothing to get concerned about: what you will say when another pedestrian gets killed by a vehicle travelling through the City Bus Station illegally? Will you tell their family that they have bigger things to worry about?

Kerryhemsley Kerryhemsley 3:19 pm 10 Dec 10

This one ranks with the recent post about the lawn not being mowed outside a government building in Barton.

Canberra is a special place.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 2:13 pm 10 Dec 10

Danman said :

Clearly some people have nothing to worry about.

O.M.G. You saw someone break a road rule.

Id have a full time job at RA if I had to post every time someone broke a road rule.

I was having a bit of a go at the OP for being a whinging teenage girl.

astrojax astrojax 12:42 pm 10 Dec 10

good on ya, martin. and to those who suggest the access is lawful, from my understanding, the access to the docks behind the iga and bailey’s corner is through the interchange from mort street only, with there clearly being signposted and an arrow on the roadway for the exceptionally dim to ensure those leaving the dock area turn back along the interchange towards mort street. how hard is it?

as hard as not driving on the median strip because a car or three ahead of you is blocking your passage to the right turn lane at lights ahead of you which are red, or changing lanes over unbroken lane lines across commonwealth avenue ’cause you couldn’t be arsed waiting another three seconds or so when the broken lane markings kick in, or… [/rant]

+1 to mysteryman

Waltaroo Waltaroo 12:38 pm 10 Dec 10

ML-585
Like neanderthalsis said Toyota Hiace commuter vans are buses under Qld law (and ACT law). I said looks like a bus because there is a chance that is not a commuter. And by chance I mean like there is a chance the moon is made of cheese.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 12:21 pm 10 Dec 10

spoonalious said :

Get over it. Who cares? Surely you have bigger things in your life to worry about.

Ever driven in Jakarta, LA, or Paris?

TIL the main problems with Canberrans.

I’m sick of this reasoning. “Hey, some other craphole is worse than us so we shouldn’t bother trying to maintain higher standards”. There will always be some place worse than where we are but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make the effort to improve.

EvanJames EvanJames 10:01 am 10 Dec 10

I am glad to see that the numberplates are not blurred out. There is no requirement to blur numberplates, in general, but people seem to think they have to do it. You really don’t.

In any case, the only two traffic infringements policed in Canberra are speed, and alcohol. Everything else is allowed.

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 9:54 am 10 Dec 10

ML-585 said :

Waltaroo said :

Bottom left looks like a bus to me.

The Australian Road Rules defines a bus as “a motor vehicle built mainly to carry people that seats over 12 adults (including the driver)” – so the Toyota Hiace does not qualify as a bus.

vg said :

Are you 100% sure all the people you have pointed out are breaking the law?

Yes.

I think you may find that the new Hiace commuter vans actually seat 15. The older model seated 13 and technically (in QLD at least) you need an MR licence to drive it, but if you took out the single seat behind the rear door, it became perfectly legal to drive on a car licence.

Limp Jimmy Limp Jimmy 9:46 am 10 Dec 10

JasonW1956 said :

How long did it take to put together that collage?

My bubble suit has a small hole and I can’t go outside without it, anyone know a good repairer around town???

Could be a collage and I might be wrong, but to me it looks very much like a… MONTAGE!!!!!!!

Anything that we want to know
From just a beginner to a pro,
You want a montage (montage)
Even Rocky had a montage (montage)

Anything that we want to know
From just a beginner to a pro,
You need a montage (montage)
Ooh it takes a montage (montage)…

p1 p1 8:37 am 10 Dec 10

vg said :

Martin. Are you 100% sure all the people you have pointed out are breaking the law?

Care to elaborate on your statement in light of recent posts vg?

edglass edglass 7:39 am 10 Dec 10

What makes a bus is in the eye of the beholder.

ML-585 ML-585 12:05 am 10 Dec 10

Waltaroo said :

Bottom left looks like a bus to me.

The Australian Road Rules defines a bus as “a motor vehicle built mainly to carry people that seats over 12 adults (including the driver)” – so the Toyota Hiace does not qualify as a bus.

The sign in the photo (NO ENTRY – BUSES EXCEPTED) can be found at the entry to East Row at Mort St/Alinga St (just after the laneway to City Walk/Garema Court). All of the vehicles in the photo drove through East Row without stopping – and as has already been stated there are no driveways, parking areas or loading zones in East Row anyway. None of these vehicles had any reason to use East Row other than as a way to avoid travelling along Northbourne Ave.

vg said :

Are you 100% sure all the people you have pointed out are breaking the law?

Yes.

Ceej1973 Ceej1973 11:55 pm 09 Dec 10

How long did it take to put together that collage?

Rosencrantz said :

“East Row is also the only way of accessing some carparks under Govt buildings in the vicinity (eg. the Garema Court carpark) and for delivering goods to the retailers in Bailey’s Corner, so let’s not get too self-righteous.”

My thoughts exactly.

If you enter and leave by the Northbourne or Mort Streets accesses that is, and not the London Crt access, so lets get a little bit self-righteous!

JasonW1956 JasonW1956 9:59 pm 09 Dec 10

How long did it take to put together that collage?

mistertim mistertim 9:52 pm 09 Dec 10

bd84 said :

He makes a good a good point that the sign should actually except buses and local traffic (I.e delivery vehicles and employees/owners required to access the buildings in that area).

It already does. The sign as you drive into East Row from Mort St (past the new ACTEW building) says something to the effect of No Entry, Buses and Local Traffic excepted. The Buses Only sign is at the London Cct end of East Row (and in the exit to Northbourne Ave from whatever that street is). And if you didn’t believe that, perhaps question why there are parking spots at the top of Garema Place near King O’Malleys.

That said, you occasionally see cars driving out via the London Cct or Northbourne Ave exits, but not often – most people who legitimately drive through East Row do the right thing.

Danman Danman 7:23 pm 09 Dec 10

Clearly some people have nothing to worry about.

O.M.G. You saw someone break a road rule.

Id have a full time job at RA if I had to post every time someone broke a road rule.

bd84 bd84 7:12 pm 09 Dec 10

He makes a good a good point that the sign should actually except buses and local traffic (I.e delivery vehicles and employees/owners required to access the buildings in that area).

The police do patrol east row fairly regularly and I have seen them pull over cars driving directly through there. All about the timing..

DJ DJ 7:11 pm 09 Dec 10

Rosencrantz said :

East Row is also the only way of accessing some carparks under Govt buildings in the vicinity (eg. the Garema Court carpark) and for delivering goods to the retailers in Bailey’s Corner, so let’s not get too self-righteous.

Clearly some people have nothing to worry about.

Yes, but from the other end where the road markings clearly allow them…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site