Who made indicating optional????

[Mick (Michael)]

QLD legislation about fog lights. Have a look at part 7/89.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...OpRUVSSR99.pdf

[programmer]

Originally Posted by Mick

QLD legislation about fog lights. Have a look at part 7/89.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...OpRUVSSR99.pdf

Hi Mick,

Do you mean the section "89 Front fog lights"? And any specific part of it? Thanks.

[Nightshift]

Originally Posted by programmer

Hi Mick,

Do you mean the section "89 Front fog lights"? And any specific part of it? Thanks.

Hi Mick,

I am sure we are still friends, I did say ïn my opinion" about Suburu's, I do have a lot of experience with them and have very good reasons for feeling this way, but as I said, wont get in to that here.

The PDF above relates to design standards of the fog lights, not the legal use of them, for that you have to refer to the document I quoted. I guess my point is valid, if the lights annoy other drivers, (and they do as you can read here) and they are not necessary (it's almost never foggy here like Melbourne, I spent 38 years on the Peninsula) then the only reason you would have them on is to draw attention to yourself and/or to annoy other drivers. Thanks for turning yours off, 1 down, 60,000 to go.

Cheers, Dennis.

[Mick (Michael)]

Yes that's it section 89. And the following is the use legislation It's a 2.5mb download be warned.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ntOpRURR99.pdf
Part 13 Lights and warning devices. section 215 and 217.


The point that I make is that the QT site points to the legislation site for the current Queensland road rules. It's hard to know what the rules are sometimes by the way they are written, I guess that's why we have lawyers. I agree that fog lights are a problem when used in the wrong situation, but on a small country road at in bad weather at night they are great. With the optional indicating, I have been in the situation when some people indicate the wrong intention which is just as bad as not indicating at all.

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by rat156

[snip]
Next time you look at the news and someone has died in a single vehicle crash, have a look at what they've hit. Lightpole, tree, roadsign stanchion etc, they all have the same profile.

[snip]
So in order to reduce the roadtoll, we need to either slow everyone down to about 40kmh, that's about the only speed you can hit one of these things side on and hope to not be injured.

[snip]
Cheers
Stuart

Interesting about trees, I have done a couple of advanced driving courses at Calder and they make an interesting observation/statement about trees. When a car is out of control, the mind notices a tree and as the car spins or moves out of control, the mind of the driver is thinking "where is that tree?" and they unconsciously steer toward it, eventually hitting it. They suggest in this circumstance you should try to think "were is that gap?" and you will be more likely to steer through it! A number of years ago I worked with a guy who said the same thing, he had lost control of his car one night and his car was heading for two trees. He can remember thinking "head for the gap" and he drove between the two of them, coming to a rest on the side of the road. He came back next day and measured the spacing to find there was only a few inches on each side. Admitedly, some of it may be sheer luck, but if you find yourself in this circumstance, even having the thought in the back of your mind may be enough to save you....so remember it! If you remove all the trees from the sides of roads, maybe they will slam into other cars or houses. I would rather someone slam into a tree than come through to my side of the freeway and slam into me!

As for reducing the speed limits, I think they are missing the point. If you can imagine a graph of the likelihood of having an accident versus speed, the likelihood increases as you increase speed and decreases with decreasing speed. The logical conclusion is, of course, that slowing cars down will reduce the likelihood of having a accident...duh! Finally, no one will have an accident when everyone travels at 0kph.... So after they reduce the speeds to 40 and people still have accidents (less severe) will they they decrease it to 35? If people are having accidents by travelling at 60 in a 60 zone, you need to do something about it. If people are having accidents by travelling at 130 in a 100 zone, there is no logical reason to expect that changing the speed limit would have any effect. I remember the Frankston Freeway used to be 110 for many years. Then some kids wrapped themselves around a tree and the limit was reduced to 80 for several years before it was eventually put back to 100.

[programmer]

Originally Posted by Nightshift

Thanks for turning yours off, 1 down, 60,000 to go.

Not a problem. Next we'll work on those damn motorcycle riders and maybe ute drivers after that.

[omnivorr]

what about the one's who indicate right and turn left???

OH YES THEY DO!! ...and have done, ever since I've been on the road.

but the"best" I encountered was a RR going the wrong way round a round-about... she tiara'd, he abusing me for being "in the way". I KID U NOT!!

[Nightshift]

Originally Posted by programmer

Not a problem. Next we'll work on those damn motorcycle riders and maybe ute drivers after that.

LOL, actually, I am a bike rider, but I class myself as a good one, man there are some idiot bike riders on the road giving the rest of us a bad name, I find mainly they ride sports bikes or bare bikes, I ride a cruiser and generally find that cruiser riders are more sedate than sports bike riders, we dont have anything to prove where as sports bike riders I think feel that they have a fast bike and look lame if they arent proving it's fast, especially at the lights.

as for utes.......dont get me started, thats a whole new rant, ESPECIALLY diesel one's.

Cheers, Dennis.

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

I really don't believe you guys . Don't blame the trees, the light poles, the poor bugger in the lane going the opposite way. If you are driving at the appropriate speed and paying attention to what you are doing, i.e. in control of lethal machine, not full of grog or drugs and driving according to the conditions and the within the legal limits, you won't hit anything and have a 99.9% chance of getting home in one piece. Its like the gun argument, cars do not kill people, drivers kill people.

Bill

[Louwai (Bryan)]

Originally Posted by programmer

Not a problem. Next we'll work on those damn motorcycle riders and maybe ute drivers after that.

Now that's one that I have to comment on.

I ride a 2004 model Suzuki. My bike, as received from the manufacturer, DOES NOT HAVE A HEAD LIGHT SWITCH.
I physically can NOT turn off the head light. Whenever the ignition is on, so is the head light.
This has mainly come about because it is recognised world wide that motorbikes with the headlight on at all times are more easily seen & less likely to be hit by a car.
So I'm asking that you don't blame us "damn motorccle riders".

In Vic we (motorcyclists) are already charged an extra $50 on our rego for "Motorcycle awareness education". This is actually to teach CAR drivers to be more aware of motorcycles, but WE are charged for it in our rego.

Motorcycle headlights being on during the day was introduced many years ago when the Gov made it mandatory / law that all motorcycles MUST have the headlight on at all times. I believe this law was repreived a few years ago, but as noted above, I (& many thousands of riders) can not turn their light off.

The incedence of motorcycle - car accidents was reduced dramatically after bikes were required to have the headlight on.