1 May 2010

where are the ACT road rules?

| Aeek
Join the conversation
32

On the AFP website http://police.act.gov.au/roads-and-traffic/rules-and-regulations.aspx
we have two links
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/driver_licence/Road_Rules_Handbook
and the National Road Rules http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?documentid=00794

All well and good you might think but right at the top of the National Road Rules page:

Please note that the Australian Road Rules are model Rules only and have no legal effect. They form the basis of Road Rules of each Australian state and territory.

And on the first page of the Drivers Handbook (part A):

While this handbook is predominantly a training tool for learner drivers, it is also intended to assist ACT or visiting drivers, however it is intended as a guideline only.

Legislative provisions are contained in the Australian Road Rules 2003 and related Acts and Regulations. For further information please see page 13 of this handbook.

None of the links on page 13 lead to the real ACT road rules, just back to these two documents.

Join the conversation

32
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Good find but I just read through and it doesn’t tell me what I really wanted to know.

If there are any police folk on the forums I’d like to hear your thoughts of this situation:
I am driving down a three lane road, two going my way and one going opposite. I’m in the far left and there’s a car slightly behind me on the right. We both know this is going to a single lane due to the sign-age. Do I really have to put an indicator on since there is nowhere else for me to go?

Note I’ve never had any legal issues with this situation, just discussions/arguments with friends.

Not obstruct? That applies to everyone, and there is specifically no obstruction from being slower with reason. Note, bicycles are vehicles, riders are drivers.

125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

James-T-Kirk8:39 pm 03 May 10

Ahh – yes riding 2 abreast is totally fine, as long as there is less than 1.5m between the bikes.

And it should be read in conjunction with the other rule that says that bikes are not to obstruct vehicle traffic….

See, Bikes actually *are* the poor cousins on the road..

Na Naynia na Na!

🙂

James-T-Kirk said :

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider

James, what do you think this means? A simple translation:
1) riding 2 abreast is allowed
3) more is allowed when overtaking

James-T-Kirk3:27 pm 03 May 10

WHOOT – They just KEEP ON COMING!!!!

151 Riding a motor bike or bicycle alongside more
than 1 other rider
(1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride on a road
that is not a multi-lane road alongside more than 1 other
rider, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.
Offence provision.
Note Bicycle, motor bike and multi-lane road are defined in the
dictionary, and rider is defined in rule 17.
(2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a
marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked
lane, unless subrule (3) applies to the rider.
Offence provision.
(3) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle may ride alongside
more than 1 other rider if the rider is:
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under another law of this
jurisdiction.
Note Overtake is defined in the dictionary.
(4) If the rider of a motor bike or bicycle is riding on a road that
is not a multi-lane road alongside another rider, or in a
marked lane alongside another rider in the marked lane, the
rider must ride not over 1.5 metres from the other rider.
Offence provision.
(5) In this rule:
road does not include a road-related area, but includes a
bicycle path, shared path and any shoulder of the road.

Wow – I think I might have a sign made up for next time I am driving down the COTTER ROAD!!

James-T-Kirk said :

From the Road Rules…

“(2)

However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference
in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a
road does not include a reference to:
(a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law
of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian
Road Rules; or
(b) any shoulder of the road.
(3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that
is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling
along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the
road;

He he – So – If I am drunk as a skunk, and keep my car on the shoulder, then I am not on the Road !!!!!!

Whoot!!!!

A good point, unless this just forms the basis for laws, as advised by our resident SuperCop(TM).

James-T-Kirk2:48 pm 03 May 10

Whoopsies….. I just found this…..

248 No riding across a road on a crossing
(1) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a children’s crossing or pedestrian crossing.
Offence provision.
Note Children’s crossing is defined in rule 80, and pedestrian crossing
is defined in rule 81.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not ride across a road, or part of
a road, on a marked foot crossing, unless there are bicycle
crossing lights at the crossing showing a green bicycle
crossing light.
Offence provision.

Gosh darn!

James-T-Kirk2:28 pm 03 May 10

From the Road Rules…

“(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference
in the Australian Road Rules (except in this Division) to a
road does not include a reference to:
(a) an area so far as the area is declared, under another law
of this jurisdiction, not to be a road for the Australian
Road Rules; or
(b) any shoulder of the road.
(3) The shoulder of the road includes any part of the road that
is not designed to be used by motor vehicles in travelling
along the road, and includes:
(a) for a kerbed road — any part of the kerb; and
(b) for a sealed road — any unsealed part of the road, and
any sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the
road;

He he – So – If I am drunk as a skunk, and keep my car on the shoulder, then I am not on the Road !!!!!! Whoot!!!!

lots of cross-posts here – the riot was out of commission for over a day; anyone tell us why? jb??

as for privilege / right – a right is spelt out in legislation or accepted as law, something obliged to be provided and so you’d have right of redress if this infringed; a privilege, on the other hand, is simply something granted to you on the grantee’s good graces, and for which there is no obligation to provide… but like woody says, whence came this confusing dichotomy anyway??

a dictionary is something you, silentforce, could perhaps suggest when next someone asks what you want for your birthday… 😉

Been fine from here.

vg said :

“They form the basis of Road Rules of each Australian state and territory.”

There’s your answer Einstein. The ARR are our Road Rules

Law enforcement with this mentality, seriously scare me. If you cant tell the difference between ‘form the basis of road rules’ and ‘are road rules’, you have no business enforcing such laws. When even some of those in law enforcement dont understand this difference, how can joe public be expected to?

Thanks liability, I found the legislation when they first brought in the NRR but I’ve struggled lately, my search-fu was lacking.
I do remember variations on the NRRs that did make a difference, you’d think if we were all supposed to be using the roads to the same rules (in the ACT) that they’d make the actual rules obviously available.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:44 pm 02 May 10

Before We kick off too hard, what is the accepted definition (guidelines and Legislative) between a privilage and a right?

Want to Give us Some contaxt for why you’re interested? Nobody’s mentioned either in this thread.

You will be wanting to read the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 which has specific legislation for the ACT, in addition to that contained in the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Australian Road Rules Incorporation 2010 (No 1).

Copies of the legislation can be found at:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au

In layman’s terms, the Australian Road Rules is a set of basic traffic laws that all jurisdictions have agreed upon and enacted, and in addition to this each jurisdiction has its own specific legislation covering additional road rules not included in the Australian Road Rules.

“They form the basis of Road Rules of each Australian state and territory.”

There’s your answer Einstein. The ARR are our Road Rules

See- s6 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT)

The national road rules link is the correct one, each state is able to adopt and amend some parts of the laws. The ACT has adopted the national road rules under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, ref link:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/db_37271/default.asp

Below is a link to the latest version of the ACT version of the Australian Road rules, updated in March 2010.

Road rules website:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/australianroadrules

The actual PDF document:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2010-113/current/pdf/2010-113.pdf

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/0/2B9A128DAB5E29A2CA257494000AD70B/$file/NTCRdTranLegAustRoadRuleReg06_inuse.pdf

The Australian Road Rules is what the ACT Road Rules follows.

I don’t know where you got the paragraph saying they are model rules only, they are the rules, as legislated by the ACT Government and the Federal Government to be the rules that you follow when you drive.

Before We kick off too hard, what is the accepted definition (guidelines and Legislative) between a privilage and a right?

These terms have often been referred to in print and dabate over the years.

Can a contaxt be established before further discussion or is this shotgun as usual?

You mean we have no road rules, but only guidelines? That explains everything!

“The Australian Road Rules are applied in the ACT under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000. They are to be read with, and as if they formed part of that regulation (see s 6 (1)).”

That regulation is available here.

Also, that regulation is available here, which has some additional information on how the Australian Road Rules apply in the ACT in specific circumstances.

The Australian Road Rules, as applied in the ACT under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, are are available here at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au.

so what happend to prompt this

before any comments, even, this thread is no five on google when you search for the act road rules:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/move/driver_licence/Road_Rules_Handbook

this is as close as i can find easily, too…the ‘knowing the rules’ .pdfs seem comprehensive, if not given in legislative chapter and verse.

be a nicer world if everyone both read and complied with these rules, but fantasy is for films and books, what….

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.