40km/Hr Speed Limit in Victoria (around Emergency Vehicles)

GG57 on 27/08/2018 - 14:57
Last edited 27/08/2018 - 15:17 by 1 other user

Victoria (and maybe other states) has a road rule that traffic needs to slow down to 40km/h when driving past stationary or slow-moving emergency or enforcement vehicles with flashing red, blue or magenta lights, or sounding an alarm (police, ambulance, fire and SES vehicles). This was introduced to protect those emergency personnel from danger as they move about to attend to accidents etc. On multi-lane highways / freeways where there is a median strip, this applies to all lanes travelling in that direction. On smaller roads / streets, it applies to both directions of traffic.

I don’t have a problem with that rule; if it eliminates only one incident it is worth it.

At times, I have observed traffic slowing to 40km/hr as a result of police dealing with a traffic offender, even where that matter is being attended to well away from the roadside. With larger volumes of traffic, the slow-down in traffic speed can be for several kilometres in length (and this increases the longer the situation remains current).

I wonder if a better solution could be implemented whereby the emergency services personnel only activate the vehicle emergency lights when they are within a prescribed distance from the roadside. That might require some type of ‘remote control’ to de-activate the lights if personnel are away (and safe) from the roadside, and re-activate the lights when they need to move closer to the passing traffic (e.g. to the drivers door). That would allow traffic to flow whilst personnel are not in danger.

What are your thoughts?

Automotive

Comments

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 27/08/2018 - 15:13
    -6

    When I see an emergency vehicle I move out of it's path as soon as it's safe to do so. Common sense really.

    • spackbace on 27/08/2018 - 15:17

      This isn't that.

      This is once they pull someone over (for example), when they're on the side of the road, passing traffic must slow to 40 kph

  • HighAndDry on 27/08/2018 - 15:14
    +4

    I wonder if a better solution could be implemented whereby the emergency services personnel only activate the vehicle emergency lights when they are within a prescribed distance from the roadside.

    It's a good idea in theory, but they're emergency personnel - I assume they have more pressing things to attend to than turning lights off and on, and I'd want them to have as few other distractions as possible.

  • EightImmortals on 27/08/2018 - 15:27
    +9

    It's redundant up here in QLD as everyone slows down to rubberneck at 5Kph anyway.

  • Archi on 27/08/2018 - 15:41

    the solution would be that the person being pulled over should find spot out of the way to stop, like an emergency break down lane or side street or petrol station or parking lot so that they don't affect anyone else on the road.

    • Euphemistic on 27/08/2018 - 16:23
      +2

      The person my not have a choice in pulling over, eg broken down, sick etc. the police may be simply be providing additional safety for a broken down car.

      The rule applies equally to ambulances as well.

      • Archi on 27/08/2018 - 16:43

        that's one of the scenarios… and I agree, and sometimes there isn't anywhere to go but to stop on the side of the road. but I'm also talking about some instances that a law enforcement vehicle pulls over a car and where the driver has an option to move out of the way into a safer area but doesn't.

        in the past on the few occasions where I have been requested to pull over. I do it on a side street or petrol station. I see others just stop and create a traffic jam.

  • one man clan on 27/08/2018 - 15:53
    +2

    Elvis said it: It's called rubernecking baby, but that's all right with me

  • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2018 - 16:06
    +3

    In NSW they encourage you to NOT slow down as it causes rear-enders and pile-ups.

    In nanny state SA it's 25km/h IIRC, though everyone drives at that speed all the time anyway.

    • GG57 on 27/08/2018 - 16:20
      +2

      The speed itself does not cause the rear-enders, but usually people not paying enough attention or not noticing what is happening in the traffic further ahead.

      My experience in SA was that everyone drove about 10km over the posted speeds as that was the tolerance, but I was out of Adelaide on more rural roads.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2018 - 16:21
        -1

        not noticing what is happening in the traffic further ahead.

        In other words they hit someone that has slowed down.

        In other words slowing down has caused a rear-ender.

        In NSW you'll often see cops windmilling their arm, gesturing for traffic to speed the f up, because guess what, they need an ambulance there stat and everyone is slowing it down.

        My mistake though, slower is always safer under all circumstances at all times.

        • norrisrules on 28/08/2018 - 07:52
          +3

          the person slowing down didn't cause the accident… the person not paying attention and running into them did.

          You're essentially saying I'm not allowed to slow down for any obstruction in front of me because you are unable to control your vehicle and that's somehow my problem.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/08/2018 - 12:09
          -1

          @norrisrules:

          I don’t think you understand the difference between cause and legal fault.

          If you think the car behind is the cause then you need to study up on physics.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 14:19
          +1

          @LoopyLou: hmmm, by your definition if someone ran into a bridge pylon then the builder caused the accident.

        • norrisrules on 28/08/2018 - 20:18
          +2

          @JVs tattered socks: Like… the physics of safe stopping distances? Or how about just straight up responsibility, I don't have any control over your car, that's your job. If you are following too closely to be able to safely stop in an emergency situation then you are not just legally at fault, it's just straight up your fault in every sense of the word.

          And to try and say that you are unable to even avoid a crash when someone is slowing down to 40km/hr is a pretty poor reflection of your ability to drive a car… But I guess they have to make road rules for the lowest common denominator and here we are…

    • Euphemistic on 27/08/2018 - 16:24
      +2

      Best check that, I thought they implemented the rule in nsw too.

      (Although this is another reason we should have one set of rules for the whole country)

      • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2018 - 17:19

        Good point. Around 15 years ago almost all the road markings in SA were shaved off and repainted because we were supposedly moving to national road rules.

        The changed markings didn’t really make a lot of sense either.

    • toniyellow on 27/08/2018 - 16:38
      +2

      From this Saturday it is a law in NSW as well.

      From 1 September 2018, a new road rule will commence to improve the safety of emergency workers when they are stopped on the road.
      The new rule requires motorists to slow down to 40km/h when passing a stationary emergency vehicle displaying blue or red flashing lights.

      http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/campaigns/slow-down-f…

    • Euphemistic on 28/08/2018 - 08:10

      Saw advertised that the law will apply in NSW from Sept 1

  • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 27/08/2018 - 16:28
    +1

    "In NSW you'll often see cops windmilling their arm"

    I noticed this happens in Holland as well.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2018 - 16:30
      +2

      I noticed other interesting things in Holland too.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 27/08/2018 - 16:32
        +1

        Same here, the roads tend to get clogged up. Really cheesed me off.

  • Godric on 27/08/2018 - 18:15
    +2

    I slow down anyway go get a good look as to whats happening

  • lainey13 on 27/08/2018 - 21:17
    +1

    "I don’t have a problem with that rule; if it eliminates only one incident it is worth it."

    How many incidents have occurred in the last 10 years?
    I'm pretty sure there have been more incidents of drunk idiots assaulting emergency services personal than cars hitting them.

    • BobD on 28/08/2018 - 07:55
      +1

      This all started because of an incident at or near Mittagong in NSW. A car broke down and the woman and the tow driver got cleaned up by some whacko not looking. That said, does this law apply to towies. Do they get any protection?

      • GG57 on 28/08/2018 - 10:12

        It does not apply to towies, which is strange as one was killed last year after being hit by a speeding car.

  • BobD on 28/08/2018 - 07:51
    +1

    In Victoria this rule also applies if the emergency vehicle is on a service road and if the road does not have a median strip then the rule applies to traffic on both sides of the road. Big problem in VIC is that if you do slow down as required then you run a real risk of being rear ended. Awareness of the law seems to be minimal.

    • GG57 on 28/08/2018 - 10:14

      And if you don't slow down, you also run the risk of being fined for the offence. Police have blitzes on this in parallel with other campaigns.

  • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 11:11
    +1

    People should always drive at a safe distance so they can stop in time if the person in front does a sudden stop. Someone/thing might run out on the road, there might be something that dropped off another vehicle in front of them, there might be a pothole, etc - you just don't know. The real problem is the morons who decide to dive into the gap nearly causing an accident - you see them weaving through the traffic; I really get a laugh when they get boxed in by a few cars around them and you sail past them in the lane you have stuck with.

    With most freeways the cops pull someone over in the stopping lane; which people shouldn't be driving on normally. Emergency vehicles will stop in the place that makes logical sense for what they are doing. I have no trouble with the speed limit if it makes these people safer, an extra few minutes on anyones journey is not a big issue.

    We were driving on a suburban street, one night, and suddenly there were people running around on the road. A pedestrian had been hit and people were going to help them; I'm sure they didn't realise just how invisible they were on the road. We didn't hit anyone but it certainly shook us up - the first rule when helping someone is make sure you aren't the next casualty.

  • Ughhh on 28/08/2018 - 16:01
    +2

    In regards to rear ending, unless you have to slam on the brakes, your should never and I don't believe you are ever expected to immediately go from 60 to 40kmph. Slow down slowly and you won't get rear ended.

    • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 18:07
      -1

      If a child runs out on the road I will be decelerating as quickly as I can to not hit it. The guy behind me should be driving in such a manner that he can also slow down and not run into me. Emergency braking happens for a number of reasons. The laws are the way they are for a reason.

      • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 28/08/2018 - 19:17

        Perhaps the person behind is a woman?…..

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 19:36

          using the generic "guy".

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 28/08/2018 - 21:24

          @try2bhelpful: you mentioned men in the post, very clear.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 21:37
          -1

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: as a general rule the "male" is used as a defalt - to make you happy I will always assume the female from now on as the default.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 23:07
          -1

          @try2bhelpful: edit

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 23:18

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Actually you have agreed that the "male" terms "he" and "guy" are not gender neutral - therefore I expect you will use the terms he/she or person instead of these from now on when the gender of the person being talked about is unknown. I look forward to you maintaining your own standards.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 29/08/2018 - 12:17

          @try2bhelpful: I don't remember signing off on that document….

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 29/08/2018 - 13:31

          @try2bhelpful: "he can also slow down and not run into me."

          Sure……

        • try2bhelpful on 29/08/2018 - 16:51

          @Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead:

          "If a child runs out on the road I will be decelerating as quickly as I can to not hit it. The guy behind me should be driving in such a manner that he can also slow down and not run into me. Emergency braking happens for a number of reasons. The laws are the way they are for a reason."

          This is exactly what I wrote - I did not mention the word "men" at any point. I used the words "he" and "guy" which have often been considered as gender neutral terms in general English in the past. However; I am willing to accept that these are now not gender neutral terms and that you fully expect people to use the expression "he/she" or "person" and drop "he" and "guy" as generic terms when there is any doubt the people being commented on are exlusively "males". I will also be happy to credit you with the reason for doing this if I have to correct others on this error.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 29/08/2018 - 18:33

          @try2bhelpful: "he can also slow down and not run into me."

          Yes, yes you did…..

      • Ughhh on 28/08/2018 - 19:22
        +2

        In regards to rear ending, unless you have to slam on the brakes,

        I said unless….
        Referring to emergency situations of course.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 19:50

          and your point is? The law expects you to drive in such a manner that you don't rear end the car in front of you. Are you going to tell them - "well it didn't look like an emergency situation to me so I just ran up the back of them" and expect to get off. The idea is to anticipate that there might be an issue and drive accordingly.

        • Ughhh on 28/08/2018 - 22:22
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:

          My Point is that you're arguing about something that I specifically said was an exception / arguing about something I wasn't talking about.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 22:34

          @Ughhh: the law, and logic, is you drive in a manner where you can stop. It is not an exception to expect the person may stop suddenly and to drive accordingly. A driver may stop suddenly for reasons you don’t find acceptable but you will still be at fault for driving in a way where you can’t stop.

        • Ughhh on 28/08/2018 - 22:50
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:

          Omg, exception as in that's not what my point is about, not exception in regards to law etc. I don't disagree with your point in safe distance, but you're arguing about something that I'm not talking about.

          I don't know how else to say you're arguing about something I'm not talking about specifically. Get some rest maybe.

          Go rant to someone else who's comment is more relevant.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/08/2018 - 23:05
          -1

          @Ughhh: I am not ranting I am just pointing out it doesn't matter why the person stopped it is up to you to keep the safe distance; this is not "arguing" it is pointing out the logic of safe distances. Not sure why you needed to make this a personal attack, just defend your point or don't.

        • Ughhh on 28/08/2018 - 23:24
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:

          OK my last attempt. My original comment

          In regards to rear ending, unless you have to slam on the brakes, your should never and I don't believe you are ever

          RE: Bolded line - inclusion of the word "unless" means that I'm not talking about situations where you need to slam on your brakes and do an emergency brake ie. A kid running across the road. Aka the point you've been making.

          I'm talking about situations where you don't need to slam Your brakes ie. there's a speed limit change sign from 70 to 60kmph and traffic is good. Or you see red blue lights way ahead.

          Just because you're legally in the right, doesn't mean you're being smart.

        • try2bhelpful on 29/08/2018 - 10:19
          -1

          @Ughhh: I fully understand what you are highlighting but my issue is that it doesn’t have to be an emergency for someone to stop suddenly and the smart way to drive is for the car behind to be able to stop without having an accident. I agree that people shouldn’t drive above the speed limit but if you are driving on roads where the way ahead is obscured you may well have to hit the brakes when you see the lights to be able to reduce to the relevant passing speed. The best thing to do is leave a decent braking distance and assume the person in front may brake at any time. If the car behind drives in this manner then it doesn’t matter what the car in front does whilst braking. I understand your point but it doesn’t change the law nor excuse the driver behind so I’m not sure of its relevance. However, I do agree that this point is exhausted.

        • Ughhh on 29/08/2018 - 13:22
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          I give up. Have a good day.

          Edit : hope you realise that breaking suddenly is dangerous even if there are no tailgaters. Hope you dont exercise this bad habit as a reflex on the highway.

        • try2bhelpful on 29/08/2018 - 16:41
          -1

          @Ughhh: If you want to look at a "bad habit" this would be travelling too close to the car in front so you run the risk of rear ending that car if they have applied their brakes "quickly". I am not in the "habit" of slaming on the brakes on the freeway as a standard exercise, nor advocating it, but I would expect that the person behind me would've left a sufficient gap if I need to do so. Have a good day yourself.

        • Ughhh on 29/08/2018 - 16:50

          @try2bhelpful:

          Your whole point is about tailgaters. If you actually read the Op and my comment, it was never about tailgating or being a tailgater. You've introduced a whole new unrelated topic to prove a point that no one was discussing about.

          You cant control what others do, but you can control what you do and how you can minimise accidents.

          I sorry you've still misunderstood.

        • try2bhelpful on 29/08/2018 - 16:54
          -1

          @Ughhh: I am not misunderstanding, I know exactly what you are saying - I'm just saying your point is not relevant to the issue. I don't think that braking excessively is a good idea, I just don't think it is a problem if you have left a sufficient gap.

          "You cant control what others do, but you can control what you do and how you can minimise accidents".

          This is exactly my point - if you leave the gap you won't have the issue.

        • Ughhh on 29/08/2018 - 16:56

          @try2bhelpful:

          Ive updated my previous comment.

          This is exactly my point - if you leave the gap you won't have the issue.

          You keep talking like you can only be the tailgater in the situation. What if you're the one being tailgated? You cant control what the tailgater is doing.

        • try2bhelpful on 29/08/2018 - 17:19
          -1

          @Ughhh: Then if I need to stop suddenly the person behind me will run up my rear end; however, if I have given myself a sufficient gap at the front I should be able to deal with any sudden deceleration of the car in front of me so I an stop in a more orderly fashion. The issue here is still the tailgater and not me - he/she is the one not driving in a safe manner. I agree that people should drive defensively, as indicated by leaving a gap, but if it comes down to it I will slam on the brakes to avoid running up the back end of the car in front and if the tailgater runs up the back of me then he/she can face the law.

        • Ughhh on 29/08/2018 - 17:33
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Again, you continue to be off topic, this thread was never about tailgating. Go rant on the tailgating thread https://www.ozbargain.com.au/search/node/Tailgater

          I pretty sure your trolling .

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 29/08/2018 - 22:16

          @try2bhelpful: Can you explain again please?

  • bongom on 22/04/2020 - 21:14

    Time for a rule change?
    https://www.whichcar.com.au/features/opinion-victoria-emerge…

  • SlavOz on 23/04/2020 - 00:45
    -1

    So I just read a story about 4 cops in Melbourne being killed when a big truck slammed into them while on the side of the road.

    This gets me thinking how long will our police force continue to endanger themselves and others with silly traffic stops. In this particular instance, it sounds like it was justified (car was likely stolen and doing well over the speed limit), but how many of these occur vs useless stops that are simply done to beef up fine numbers? Police should not be performing highway stops unless it's absolutely essential. We wouldn't need laws like this if they practised a little more safety themselves. Maybe don't pull over someone to hassle them about crooked P plates or going 5km over the speed limit while there are hundreds of cars whirring right past you every second. Not worth it.

    • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 05:55
      +1

      You’ve contradicted yourself. Do you want police to pull over drivers or not. Would you rather have a black box installed in your car and just get direct debited? Or have more cameras and get a text message when they deduct the funds?

      Emergency workers need the law to remain for when they HAVE TO work beside the roads.

      Drivers need to stop thinking the posted limit is what speed they think they have to drive at.

      A tragedy to be sure. drivers need to take more care on the roads, motor vehicles are deadly.

      • SlavOz on 23/04/2020 - 20:56

        I'm not contradicting. I'm saying that although this particular instance seemed like it was worthy to pull the driver over, there are many instances a day where police pull drivers over on the side of a dangerous road for nothing more than a random check up (read: searching for a reason to give out a fine) or for trivial offences.

        I agree drivers should definitely be more careful and that includes police. They are not above the rules of common sense which state that loitering around on the edge of a narrow high-speed road for no real reason is dangerous as hell.

        • Snake 4 on 23/04/2020 - 21:51

          loitering around on the edge of a narrow high-speed road for no real reason is dangerous as hell.

          It happened to be a six lane motorway.

        • Euphemistic on 23/04/2020 - 22:08

          Yeah. You did contradict. You said they shouldn’t be pulling people over for trivial reasons because it’s dangerous, but then you think it was justified to pull over this time. So which is it? Too dangerous to do, or not necessary because driver was ‘only spoeeding’. They didn’t know he was drug affected until tested roadside.

          • SlavOz on 24/04/2020 - 00:18

            @Euphemistic: It's not an either/or situation. It's both. I'm saying cops should pull drivers over on dangerous roads if there's a justifiable reason for it and also not pull them over for trivial reasons. Those things can exist simultaneously.

            In this particular case, it sounds like there was a justifiable reason. The cops called for backup as soon as they pulled the offender over so there was definitely notable suspicions of a crime being committed. On the other hand, if the cops are travelling along the M4 during peak hour traffic and decide to pull someone over for merging without a blinker or a P plate missing from one side of their car, they're just being idiots by endangering themselves and others for no real gain (unless you consider fine revenue a reasonable cause to risk lives for - I don't).

            Like I said, I hope this tragedy forces our police (and their leaders) to exercise some discretion the next time they think about pulling someone over.

            • Euphemistic on 24/04/2020 - 06:16

              @SlavOz: You don’t think that they already exercise discretion? It might seem trivial to you, but the law is black and white in most traffic infringement situations, you can’t break them ‘just a little bit’

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join