Victorian Road Rule 79A Will Soon Include Yellow Flashing Lights

mapax on 31/05/2025 - 12:40

I am probably ruining future forum content, but the rule of slowing to 40km/h when passing vehicles displaying red, blue or magenta beacons is changing to include yellow in Victoria.

From 1 July, this rule (Road Rule 79A) will be expanded to include more vehicles like accident towing, breakdown towing, roadside assistance and all incident response services.
That means when you see flashing lights (red, blue, magenta or yellow) and workers on the roadside, you must slow down to 40km/h and pass safely

https://transport.vic.gov.au/news-and-resources/news/changes…

Don’t be like the people in this old YouTube video that was coincidently suggested just now whilst I was writing this post.

Automotive

Comments

  • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 12:45
    +10

    It is a stupid rule for any higher speed roads.

    If people were paying attention enough to what’s going on on the road they would slow down and move over appropriately with out having to be told.

    This 40kmph rubbish is dangerous for trucks and larger vehicles as other people in cars panic brake when they don’t notice till the last second.

    All well and good on a clear day on a wide straight highway, but on country roads, bends, hills etc and at night or in the rain its nuts…

    Edit: just watched that YouTube link… exactly 😂

    • Euphemistic on 31/05/2025 - 13:24
      +8

      If people were paying attention enough to what’s going on on the road they would slow down and move over appropriately with out having to be told

      Except they just dont do it. Its why there is a rule

      cars panic brake when they don’t notice till the last second.

      That is another problem in itself. Over the years 'we' have been conditioned that we should expect to drive at the posted limit everywhere with no obstructions. If there is a rule that says you have to slow down near flashing lights, then people need to learn it.

      IMO part of the problem is that we get new rules from time to time but the vast majority of drivers are not exposed to the new rules and don't learn them. We should move to more regular knowledge testing for drivers. Its dumb you can get a licence as a teenager and not have any refresher on those rules until you end up in a nursing home.

      • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 13:48
        +3

        Except they just dont do it. Its why there is a rule

        And the rule will be ignored by many and cause significant danger to those whom it is intended to protect. I understand the laws need to cater to the lowest common denominator in the intelligence department but that speed drop is dangerously low in some situations as mentioned above.

        I’ve been coming down a hill towards a bend in a road train and had them stopped on the edge of the bend lights on… literally nothing i can do short of cooking my brakes and tyres to get even close to 40kmph.

        Sometimes its just not practical or safe.

        I swear the people who pass these rules have never driven themselves in a car in their life.

        I do agree that there is an inherent large flaw with how they introduce new laws on the road.
        Many people never hear about the new laws till they get into trouble.

        Take roundabouts as an example, how many people still believe the give way to the right is the law? (Could vary by state)

        • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 14:40
          -7

          Seems to me like the problem is generally all Victorians,then. At least that vote >right<.
          Every time the govt tries a law to improve safety the whingathon starts. When the govt do nothing the usual whingathon continues.

          Do you seriously expect ppl to do the right thing on the road,in 2025 without being herded like cats or fined to oblivion?

          BTW here's some interesting facts. 'sometimes' ppl break or stop down in inconvenient places.It's up to road users to expect the unexpected as a part of being a road user. It's called situational awareness.I thought that was the bread & butter position of most truckies. Almost like a 6th sense.

          • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 15:35
            +1

            @Protractor:

            Do you seriously expect ppl to do the right thing on the road,in 2025 without being herded like cats or fined to oblivion?

            I don't expect people to do anything, the government does that.
            I just try to keep myself and others alive.

            sometimes' ppl break or stop down in inconvenient places

            Absolutely they do, i know I've personally been stuck half hanging over the fog line from mechanical issues.

            Thats why that law is stupidly dangerous.
            It doesn’t factor in other variables like road conditions and locations.

            It's called situational awareness.I thought that was the bread & butter position of most truckies. Almost like a 6th sense.

            I would dare say thats a large factor in why i have never had an accident despite the people driving like lunatics around me, i think i have pretty damn good situational awareness.
            Mix that with not being distracted and common sense and it’s almost like i don’t need to be give an arbitrary unsafe law to keep others safe and from having accidents… wild right?

      • p1 ama on 31/05/2025 - 19:10
        +4

        That is another problem in itself. Over the years 'we' have been conditioned that we should expect to drive at the posted limit everywhere with no obstructions. If there is a rule that says you have to slow down near flashing lights, then people need to learn it.

        The issue is that you can never create a rule for every possible scenario, and in Australia, we have conditioned drivers to become mindless drones who have very little driving ability, very little judgement, and very little ability to recognise danger. Having rules for everything creates the false sense of security that everything will be okay as long as they "stick to the rules". You can't make a rule for every conceivable situation where a driver should slow down to 40km/h.

        Drivers can obtain their license without anything more than passing a rudimentary test that requires them to basically drive around, check mirrors, and don't hit anything for 20 mins. There's absolutely no training on key risks whilst driving, what to do in various different scenarios, the basic courtesy of driving, how to regain control in an emergency, what to do if you aquaplane or hit black ice, how to judge what a safe speed is when on ice…etc.

        I'd hazard a guess that most drivers don't even know the braking distance of their car, or where their eyes ought to be scanning whilst driving at various different speeds and different scenarios.

        If you've ever obtained a motorcycle license, you'd understand how a driving training program could look - you need to do a course which takes around a day, you learn handling skills, you need to demonstrate capability across a broad range of scenarios (including complex roads) and other tasks.

        Ultimately, I personally don't even think this is enough. There are providers who do 1-2 day defensive driving courses, which I think should be mandatory for anyone getting their license. Even if we don't make it compulsory, there should be some incentives (e.g. if you do an accredited course, you get a rego discount, or a license renewal discount…etc.).

    • simplystu on 31/05/2025 - 17:28
      +3

      what we REALLY need …
      is movable electronic signage (the type that can be towed behind a car / assistance vechicles) … to be placed acouple of hundred metres earlier down the road.

      ESP in those areas where normal speed limit is 100/110 km/hr +++ blind corners (rural roads) + major road transport routes.

      I could elaborate more .. as had something similar occur on way back from Northam WA - Great Eastern Highway - about 2 months ago.

      Traffic went from 110km/hr - down to a crawl +++ right near a blind corner … just lucky more accidents didn't happen on the day … due to road trains frequenting this road +++ needing more space to brake/slow down.

      • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 17:47
        +1

        Any warning before is better than a arbitrary sudden drop of 60/70kmph at first visual contact.

        I know in the city in Perth (mainly the freeway or nearby highways, if you ring main roads they will get the bumper car out to push you off the road and if that doesn’t work, they will block a lane with the TMA truck (the one with the big slinky looking mount and signage on the back so they can take a hit) until you are sorted.

        had something similar occur on way back from Northam WA - Great Eastern Highway

        This is exactly where I have in mind and where I have seen some close calls, there are plenty of long bends and downhill stretches and the highway patrol will pull people over who choose to stop on those corners or sections.

        Ive seen a few close calls myself as people have come around and jammed the brakes on almost causing accidents- purely out of fear of getting fined.

    • Ughhh on 01/06/2025 - 10:28
      -1

      If people were paying attention enough to what’s going on on the road they would slow down and move over appropriately with out having to be told.

      This is the problem, people need to be told and there needs to be a way to hold people accountable for it to be taken seriously. Common sense is not so common.

      when they don’t notice till the last second.

      You can see the magenta/blue/yellow/ lights far far away. If you are only slowing down/braking heavily from 100 to 40kmph when you're right next to the lights because you didn't notice, the problem lies with you.

      • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 10:48
        -1

        This is the problem, people need to be told and there needs to be a way to hold people accountable for it to be taken seriously. Common sense is not so common.

        I agree.
        But disagree with the way they have chosen to do it.

        You can see the magenta/blue/yellow/ lights far far away.

        If your on a freeway/highway with light traffic sure.

        If you are on a winding road or they are in a crest, not really.

        If you are only slowing down/braking heavily from 100 to 40kmph when you're right next to the lights because you didn't notice, the problem lies with you.

        That is the issue, that is a lot of people. They are the ones who make that speed drop unsafe even in good conditions.

        • Ughhh on 01/06/2025 - 11:56
          -1

          If you are on a winding road or they are in a crest, not really.

          If you're not already slowing down on a winding road or in a crest, I would say you're not driving safely to conditions.

          They are the ones who make that speed drop unsafe even in good conditions.

          They as in the drivers who have control of their vehicle and choose to brake suddenly instead of slowly before they're right next to the lights?

          • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 13:05
            -1

            @Ughhh:

            If you're not already slowing down on a winding road or in a crest, I would say you're not driving safely to conditions.

            I would say you are wrong.

            One can be driving to the conditions and be confronted by an abnormal situation such as an emergency/recovery vehicle parked in a dip or bend on the road.

            Slowing down for every dip and bend is not necessary if the conditions allow you to safely travel that speed in normal circumstances, so it is ridiculous to slow down if not necessary on a long country road.

            They are the ones who make that speed drop unsafe even in good conditions.

            They= the people who don’t pay attention in the first place.

            They as in the drivers who have control of their vehicle and choose to brake suddenly instead of slowly before they're right next to the lights?

            Those who follow the rules are usually the ones who have to suffer the consequences of those who don’t.

            Im not suggesting people shouldn’t follow the laws lest they be hit, but rather, stating that it is usually the innocent that suffer the consequences of the stupid and inattentive.

            • Ughhh on 01/06/2025 - 15:55
              -2

              @El cheepo:

              such as an emergency/recovery vehicle parked in a dip or bend on the road.

              If you can't see what's ahead, then that itself is an unsafe condition /circumstance. To continue driving like its a plain straight road when you can't see ahead/around the bend is poor defensive driving.

              Those who follow the rules are usually the ones who have to suffer the consequences of those who don’t.

              Part of being in society.

              • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 16:24

                @Ughhh:

                If you can't see what's ahead, then that itself is an unsafe condition /circumstance.

                What is a safe speed for a car and or truck to do on a 110kmph sign posted road with dips and bends?

                If these 40kmph laws are designed to slow people who have no critical thinking ability to slow down for potential hazards, then logically those making the laws would make every dip and bend thats not clearly visible have a speed reduction.

                But that is not the case.
                Because it is not practical and usually not necessary. If people drive attentively most sudden situations can safely be negotiated.

                • Ughhh on 01/06/2025 - 23:04

                  @El cheepo:

                  What is a safe speed for a car and or truck to do on a 110kmph sign posted road with dips and bends?

                  It depends on the roads conditions, weather, driver skills etc. Just because it says 110kmph, it doesn't mean you have to do that all the time.

                  to slow down for potential hazards, then logically those making the laws would make every dip and bend thats not clearly visible have a speed reduction

                  I think you've failed to understand the purpose of the speed reduction. The speed reduction for lights is to protect the people/workers on the road more than the driver themself. I would argue driving to condition, which includes slowing down accordingly in situations where you can not see ahead is good defensive driving.

                  . If people drive attentively most sudden situations can safely be negotiated.

                  Yes, in a perfect world. If everyone was nice, there wouldnt be violence, murder, poverty, DV etc. It sounds like you're just relying on people being attentive to solve all road problems. From my experience in managing people, hope is not good enough, you need controls.

                  • El cheepo on 02/06/2025 - 01:27

                    @Ughhh:

                    It depends on the roads conditions, weather, driver skills etc.

                    Exactly my point.

                    Just because it says 110kmph, it doesn't mean you have to do that all the time.

                    Agreed.

                    I think you've failed to understand the purpose of the speed reduction.

                    Nope. I understand it.
                    I experience the same dangers when dealing with faults on the side of the road.
                    Albeit less often than the RAC or emergency services.

                    The speed reduction for lights is to protect the people/workers on the road more than the driver themself.

                    That is the idea, but if someone fails to slow down and rear ends a vehicle that did slow, that creates a larger danger to those standing around than if they had simply zipped by at normal speed. (Which obviously is dangerous too, but more predictable)

                    I would argue driving to condition, which includes slowing down accordingly in situations where you can not see ahead is good defensive driving.

                    I would too, but as you said above it is circumstantial and nobody (except grey nomads) putt along at 30kmph under the speed limit (until the over taking lanes where its open season) because thats ridiculous.

                    Not trying to sound like a know it all, but i spend most of my life on the road and can do between 150,000-250,000kms per year.
                    I’ve never had an accident in a truck in all my years due to defensive driving.

                    Im speaking from personal experience and observations about why I believe an arbitrary 40kmph rule is stupid.

                    What @grunntt says NSW changed it to below seems more logical and safe imo.

                    • Ughhh on 02/06/2025 - 06:59
                      -1

                      @El cheepo:

                      That is the idea, but if someone fails to slow down and rear ends a vehicle that did slow,

                      You don't want a road rule that's reduces hazards for ambulance and road workers, because a blind moron might not be paying attention and rear end someone who is…

                      You are accommodating to the lowest demoninator. Trusting and hoping people be nice is a naive solutuon. From my experience in managing people, you can't just rely on people being nice, good, smart, think and make good judgement all the time, you need controls and guidelines to reduce the probability . Exact rules need to be laid clearly, otherwise people will choose what is easiest for themselves. Most accidents happen because people thought they were using common sense and made the move/turn.

                      Are you against low limits on school zones too? What about going 100kmph on the street where you live?

                      • El cheepo on 02/06/2025 - 09:21

                        @Ughhh: Im going to go ahead and ignore that nonsense above as its a fruitless endeavour trying to explain to you that while i agree slower speeds are safer, the point of contention is dropping to an arbitrarily low speed with no warning.

                        As i said:

                        What @grunntt says NSW changed it to below seems more logical and safe imo.

                        But sure, your “managing” people experience probably translates to you knowing what happens out on the road better than people that actually work there. Want a job in government making stupid laws? 😂

                        Are you against low limits on school zones too? What about going 100kmph on the street where you live?

                        If thats what you think I'm saying, sure.

                        I feel sorry for anyone you “manage” with your comprehension abilities.

    • sareth on 01/06/2025 - 14:41

      If trucks cannot handle cars panic braking, they are too close.

      If someone ever gets rear ended for braking at any rate, it is never their fault.

      • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 15:25

        If trucks cannot handle cars panic braking, they are too close.

        I agree, In many cases that would be correct.

        Sometimes it’s unavoidable. Eg: if someone overtakes and cuts in close and then sees a reason to slow down (like emergency services) ahead.

        But thats not what we are talking about.
        I never mentioned a truck hitting a car, i mentioned a truck struggling to slow down to that speed with insufficient warning.

        If someone ever gets rear ended for braking at any rate, it is never their fault.

        Not correct.

        Brake checking and driving dangerously (eg: as mentioned above, cutting off a vehicle and braking) will land the person in front a at fault insurance claim and likely a dangerous driving charge if there is dashcam evidence.

  • GordonD on 31/05/2025 - 13:07
    +2

    This rule change has just come in in SA.

    Except in SA its 25 km/h.

    And in SA the speed limit becomes 25 km/h That's a bit different to other states where there is a maximum allowed speed of 40 km/h, and there's a specific offence and a fixed penalty in dollars and demerit points for exceeding that. In SA because the speed limit becomes 25 km/h you are booked for whatever amount you are over that. So, say, you got booked in a 110 km/h zone because you didn't notice the flashing lights and didn't slow down at all, you would be booked for doing 85 km/h over the speed limit. For that there is instant disqualification and seizure and scrapping of your car, plus a huge fine and lots of demerit points.

    I tried to get a letter published in the local media, which thought the whole idea was a good one, pointing out that this rule change to include the likes of road service vehicles was introduced at the instigation of the state "motorists" organisation whose servicemen were complaining that some drivers had come close to hitting them. My letter put the view that this pretty much put to bed the idea that these organisations exist to get fair treatment for motorists. I don't know whether it got published.

    Their servicemen apparently complained that when the car they had to work on stopped close to the edge of a multi-lane high speed road they had to first put out cones blocking off the inside lane, and thats when they nearly got skittled and the cones got sent flying quite regularly. How the hell is a driver in a line behind other traffic supposed to see half metre high cones on the road. Until the last minute.

    • randomusername2017 on 31/05/2025 - 13:11
      +1

      I tried to get a letter published

      Knocked back on word count 👍

      • GordonD on 31/05/2025 - 13:12

        Yeah, probably. Letters to the Editor don't give you an opportunity to argue your point. Only state it. And only get published if it agrees with the newspaper owner, the editorial policy on the issue, and the personal opinion of the letters editor.

    • kyle on 31/05/2025 - 16:30

      SA always likes to do things differently, like their lottery rules

      • pinsanity on 31/05/2025 - 21:20

        Don't touch the footballs or the pizza boxes lest you get Covid.

  • askbargain on 31/05/2025 - 13:25

    Hooray to RACV road assistance

  • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 13:27
    +6

    I'll be investing in some flashing lights, then.

  • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 13:28
    -3

    What's your point? For or against the rule change? Tell us. I mean it is your schtick.

    • askbargain on 31/05/2025 - 13:38
      +1

      What’s your point?

      • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 14:18
        -4

        Obvious.
        Well, to most ppl.

      • FireRunner on 31/05/2025 - 18:38

        Just to be contrary

        • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 18:53

          On the contrary.

  • SYLTB on 31/05/2025 - 14:13
    -5

    Gees! Daily tortures as at least 10 times slowing down for broken down, towed crap jap/kor cars i.e. toyotos et al.

    • MS Paint on 31/05/2025 - 14:41

      Come to think of it I've never seen a broken down VW on the side of the road.

      • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 14:42
        +3

        Still in the workshop

        • MS Paint on 31/05/2025 - 15:01
          +2

          That makes sense. Cheers

          Always fixing the mechatronics unit on that direct shit gearbox (DSG).

    • pegaxs on 31/05/2025 - 16:31

      Take a shot, @Jimothy Wongingtons?

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 31/05/2025 - 16:46
        +3

        Can I just do a six pack of Great Northern? I’m practically half way through this bottle of JW blue

  • GordonD on 31/05/2025 - 15:11
    -1

    People working on the side of the road for whatever reason are entitled to a safe working environment.

    But every day we encounter a situation where there are cars whizzing down the road without needing to slow down while people go about their business of whatever sort barely a metre or two away without concern, and no-one thinks there is a problem. They are called footpaths. So, are we going a bit overboard at times with all the "workplace safety" rules at road and roadside work sites?

    Me, I'd tell the motoring organisations to fit their breakdown vehicles with American police car style push bars. And if anyone needing their services chooses to park too close to the road edge they should be first asked with an outside speaker to move further off the road, or if they can't do that they'll be pushed off to provide the mechanic with a safe working environment.

    That is we demand both sides do their bit to improve safety, both requiring the drivers of passing cars to slow to a safe speed or change lanes, and requiring the person who wants their car worked on to stop as far as reasonably possible in the circumstances off the road. Very few fast roads don't have wide edges.

  • Mechz on 31/05/2025 - 16:20
    +3

    So does this mean anyone with their hazards on has yellow flashing lights?

    • GordonD on 31/05/2025 - 18:30
      +2

      No. Previously it was only for vehicles with red and blue flashing lights, which only specific vehicles are authorised to have fitted to them. Now they've added flashing orange lights, but only on vehicles doing specific jobs. So anyone can fit flashing orange lights, and park on the side of the road with them flashing, but as drivers approach they have to identify what job the vehicles is doing, and aren't required to slow down if it is not one referred to in the legislation. Which is ridiculous if its dark or raining or the job the vehicle is doing simply isn't clear. Tow truck, yes. Roadside assistance, yes. For others like road workers and mowers, they'll have to organise their own traffic controllers. At least that's the case here, that may end up differing from state to state.

      So is that clear enough? All vehicles with flashing reds and blues, and some with orange flashing lights, but you've got to figure out as you approach what they are and know whether the law inclues them.

      • Euphemistic on 31/05/2025 - 21:06

        but you've got to figure out as you approach what they are and know whether the law inclues them.

        Well you dont really have to figure it out. Its more important to slow down. This law is around emergency type work where workers do not have the ability to set up comprehensive traffic managment systems. Those that do have traffic management will often have alternate methods to slow traffic so youve got to slow anyway.

    • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 18:49

      I think the gist of the post is laws around safety are woke.

      • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 18:54
        +1

        I think the gist of the post is some laws around safety are stupid.

        Fixed it for you.

        • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 18:57

          In this case horses for courses.

          • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 18:59

            @Protractor: Not sure “woke” is the appropriate buzz word to use in this case.

            There is nothing “woke” about common sense.

            • GordonD on 31/05/2025 - 19:10
              +3

              @El cheepo:

              common sense

              The common sense approach would have been something like allowing the non-emergency services vehicles that you are required to slow for to a carry a sign with flashing red and blue lights on it and a warning to slow that before they started work they had to position a short distance up the road.

              I just get tired of the attitude on the part of those who write the rules that its OK to bash motorists with hugely disproportionate penalties for even the slightest transgression, because that's the only thing they respond to. Like huge fines and lots of points for checking your phone even if your car is stopped at the lights. They should be encouraging that.

              • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 20:44

                @GordonD: Do you really reckon a 5 minute breakdown should include a 20 min before and after sign placement? Enter the next thread whinge.
                I don't think it wouldn't matter what rule/law/regulation was introduced right now, because anti govt cookerism is rife (and highly contagious)

                • SlickMick on 01/06/2025 - 14:56

                  @Protractor: Yeah I'd have no issues with that. If you're going to stop in a dangerous place, that's the cost.

              • Euphemistic on 31/05/2025 - 21:10

                @GordonD:

                The common sense approach would have been something like allowing the non-emergency services vehicles that you are required to slow for to a carry a sign with flashing red and blue lights on it and a warning to slow that before they started work they had to position a short distance up the road.

                So what do you do while youre setting up said early warning signs? Do you need addtional early warning signs for the warning signs? That doesnt seem a common sense method. The whole idea of this rule is to give drivers a clear measage that slowing down is important for safety of roadside workers and to push more responsibility back to the drivers, not the workers.

                • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 22:11

                  @Euphemistic:

                  So what do you do while youre setting up said early warning signs?

                  Im not saying old Gordos way is the way to go, but how hard would it be to drop a light up sign 200 meters behind the problem vehicle in the case of a break down?

                  Obviously for police stops thats not possible, but neither is wiping off 60kmph in a large truck to get down to 40kmph with no early visible notice (on bends, down hill or in crests etc)

                  So what is the solution?

            • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 20:40
              -1

              @El cheepo: Woke was never a buzz word word. Using the word in the context of the 'right' & cooker movement is just another form of bleating.

              • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 22:03
                +1

                @Protractor: K

                Left right up down - doesn’t change the fact its a stupid rule.

                No anti government, no pro this or that.
                Just common sense.

                • Protractor on 31/05/2025 - 22:40

                  @El cheepo: What do the ppl in the firing line say?

                  • El cheepo on 31/05/2025 - 22:46
                    +1

                    @Protractor: Ever sat underneath the back of a trailer trying to fix a airbag booster on the side of a highway?
                    Or had to change a tyre on the drivers side?

                    I have.

                    I am aware of the dangers and understand what people working in those situations face.

                    Id rather people just back off and go a little wider around me than slam their brakes on and risk an accident that will hit me.
                    YMMV

                    • Euphemistic on 01/06/2025 - 07:11

                      @El cheepo:

                      Id rather people just back off and go a little wider around me than slam their brakes on and risk an accident that will hit me.

                      The problem with that is 'back of and go a little wider' means different things to different people. It needs a definition for those that are unaware among us.

                      Im not sure what the best definition is, but indo know that asking people to go a little wider for bicycles (1m/1.5m) doesnt seem to work largely because too many drivers have no concept of how far 1.5m is.

                    • Protractor on 01/06/2025 - 09:47

                      @El cheepo: Trucks aren't the only ppl who breakdown.If this new law is driven by those who are almost bowled over helping fix breakdowns and get traffic flow again , I think we owe to them to listen and act.
                      The backing off go wider thing might be fine in rural areas, but in suburbia etc, it would just add another layer of driver confusion.And traffic flowing both ways would be impacted.Or worse.

        • GordonD on 01/06/2025 - 09:47
          +1

          Did other states get the video of the crash in the dust storm in country SA last week? Video from a third vehicle shows the B-double appearing out of the dust and slamming into the rear right of a ute. All the media reports blamed the truck driver for not even slowing down, let alone coming to a complete stop, in the hugely reduced visibility of the dust storm. And he deserved it. But none of them pointed out that when the dust storm hit the driver of the ute had parked it in the middle of the lane on a 2-lane road immediately behind another vehicle - the one the video was taken from - that had done the same. So when the truck driver saw 2 vehicles stationary on the road in front he had to make a decision to stay in his lane and slam into the back of them and push one into the one in front of it, or swerve into the other lane and risk the possibility of an even worse crash with an on-coming vehicle. He almost got away with it. The ute was still driveable.

          Everybody contributed to that crash. Rule 1: get off the road.

          And its the same with this breakdown on the side of the road situation. Everyone should be being asked to do their bit to prevent a tragedy. The first thing to do would be to ask drivers of that can't proceed to park as far as they reasonably can off the road, at least 3.5m - a standard lane width - away from the edge of the road if at all possible. There's rarely not that much room on roads that have a high enough speed limit that passing vehicles are a risk. The next person is the repair man who, when he pulls up could ask them to move it to a place of more safety for him, pushing their vehicle with his if necessary. Then, if neither of those is possible or reasonable you require that passing vehicles slow. If you are willing to do your bit to avoid a dangerous situation, then you are entitled to demand other people do too.

  • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 09:47
    +1

    The problem with that is 'back of and go a little wider' means different things to different people. It needs a definition for those that are unaware among us.

    I understand and agree with that, but as i keep harping on about, really it comes down to common sense.
    The obvious and best thing to do is slow down as much is safely possible and move over as far is safely possible, but many people live a NFG life and don’t bother.

    My main issue with the 40kmph rule is it only works if 1) everyone does it and 2) it is possible to do safely.

    Not everyone does it (from what I observe) and in my own experience sometimes its not possible and that creates more danger imo.

    I would love to hear other people who work on the side of the roads take on it.

    Edit: @protractor

    this new law is driven by those who are almost bowled over helping fix breakdowns and get traffic flow again , I think we owe to them to listen and act.

    I am one of those people almost getting bowled over occasionally. Im not doing it as regularly as emergency services or RAC etc, but i do it and know the feeling.

    I can tell you now, anyone who has ever had to work on the side of the road with live traffic will tell you its scary and unpredictable. A sudden speed drop won’t fix stupid, it will just give it an opportunity to display its talent. Its nice if people slow down, but many wont and dont.

    In the case of suburbia vs rural roads, then i would suggest a common sense approach to the law such as only making if safe and possible to do so, yeah its open ended but it is safer. Arbitrary rules are not.

    The backing off go wider thing might be fine in rural areas, but in suburbia etc, it would just add another layer of driver confusion.

    Thats why i mention above here about the if safe to do so. The key with the whole point of my argument being - what is safest to do in those situations.

    Slow down and go wide…
    Everyone can slow down, but how much is safe to do so depends on many variables.

    Can’t go wide?
    Just slow down as much is safely possible and move to the edge of your lane if safe.

  • 2esc on 01/06/2025 - 10:00
    +2

    If road users had just backed off a bit when going past anyone these new laws wouldnt be required. In the last couple decades people are driving faster now than required with their busy lives they dont consider the danger emergency services and others are being put in.

    These inconvenient rules are sadly a direct result of some drivers having no respect for others and no situational awareness of whats up the road in front of them.

    • Protractor on 01/06/2025 - 10:37

      You win.Thread closed

  • Belistic on 01/06/2025 - 10:18

    Around here, it seems nearly every company vehicle has yellow flashing lights.

  • Grunntt on 01/06/2025 - 11:57

    Why would they not do what NSW did when they tried the 'slow to 40' rule and it didn't work well?
    They changed it to -

    For speed limits of 80km/h or less
    You must slow down to 40km/h when passing stationary tow trucks, breakdown assistance or emergency vehicles with flashing lights.

    On higher speed roads with a speed limit of 90km/h or more, you must slow down safely to a speed that's reasonable for the circumstances. You must also leave enough space between your vehicle and the stationary tow truck, breakdown assistance or emergency vehicle with flashing lights. This means you may need to change lanes, if it's safe to do so.

    • GordonD on 01/06/2025 - 12:20
      -3

      it didn't work well

      What do you mean by it didn't work well?

      Do you mean it didn't work well for motorists? Who cares about them. Just increase the restrictions and penalties, and run a "road safety" advertising campaign to tell them its car drivers fault. Because the police and the road safety people say it is. Like they always do. And they're the experts.

      Oh, you mean it didn't work well politically. Too many important people, like the media, were unhappy with it. Well, that would explain why they backed off on the restrictions rather than tightening them and the penalties up.

    • El cheepo on 01/06/2025 - 13:48

      That is clear and logical, they are some rules that make sense.

    • SlickMick on 01/06/2025 - 15:00

      I didn't even know of that rule. But luckily most of my driving in NSW would be @ 100 or 110, and that part of the rule is only stating common sense.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join