Weight Restricted Roads – Does it apply to me? (Follow-up)

Not being a socialist, communist, buddist or even a baptist, I would guess that they have a bit of leeway for school buses that might be only 12 seaters and on the truck side the permit will be for farmers moving produce. They will also have an exception to access their farms with there vehicles. This permit if obtained would also apply to builders and suppliers or others who need access.

It just means the road is not for general use over the 3 tonne limit.

Then again other capitalist states have the same laws, guess they have been infiltrated by socialists. How about keeping politics out of the forum.

In my submission I highlighted that issue and they clarify it by referencing the weight to the GVM of the vehicle.

Given it was signed off by the Government Minister I wouldn’t second guess any meaning, but take it at face value...in which case it is clear.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Noting, there are various signage relating to weight restricted roads.

You will find that the motor registry database has no provision for recording a trailers ATM. The trailers ATM is recorded in the GVM field. I would asume that the weight restrictions would apply to the ATM when they read GVM.

Actually your vehicle can weigh under 3T and you can still be fined, if the GVM is over 3T, even if the vehicle isn't loaded up to its GVM. According to the letter above.

Be a good arguement in court unless they have changed that rules across the board for all weight restricted signage as gvm does not usually come into play it's what you weigh at that time for light and heavy vehicles. If they have additional info on a sign then it should be followed.

Landy just put up a plc of what I was explaining while typing previous response.

Don't know about the large 4wd thing may be a local doesn't like them, wrote to the council and a sign was put up to scare people but the info you got from them about it's meaning is incorrect on their behalf as it contradicts the rta rules which is the law so unless they change the sign to suit I would ignore it.

The letter is signed off by the Government Minister responsible for the RMS (RTA), I’d be very surprised if they’ve got it wrong as he would take it on advice from the RMS policy area...

But hey, posting my findings and investigations, I’ll leave it to you what you make of it.

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

It dosn't matter who signed it off if the wrong sign has been errected then the public can't be procecuted due to the lack of correct info on it. All the correct info about how to interpret a sign is also on the rta site. Anyway I don't live near it, don't have to laugh at it when driving past or watch some delivery guys walking up the street to my house carrying a lounge I just ordered etc.

What about if you own a 200 series and you live along that road ?? Do you have to get an official exemption and carry it with you ??

My 5 seat family wagon has a GVM of 3070kg so I guess I would not be able to live on a street with the sign.

Gronk and Ozzie

Good questions. My understanding of this rule is that if you are restricted by the sign you cannot use the street or road as a ‘through road’ but if you are travelling to a location on a weight restricted road or if you live on it then you can use it.

My interest in this topic is because I am affected by it and wanted clarification on how they referenced the weight, which they have done by indicating it is GVM.

But putting that aside, the more important question is why we have a weight restricted road at 3,000kg which affects many popular light vehicles and is that the intention of the authorities?

And we should all be concerned with this rule as it is another restriction on larger 4WD vehicles - my suggestion is that you raise it with your 4WD club if you belong to one and have them lobby. against this rule, which is generally a local government direction.

Bear in mind the road that restricts a car with a GVM in excess of 3,000kg can have large buses travelling along it all day, everyday...



Cheers, Baz

Absolutely correct Baz with regard to living on the affected road. Same applies to Francis St. in Yarraville in Melbourne. Truck curfew during certain hours, but does not apply to trucks that have “business” in the street.

Macca.

This is the one that really affects me more. The amount of backroads that have bridge limits that challenge my ute and trailer GCM



103 Load limit signs
(1) A driver must not drive past a bridge load limit (gross mass) sign or gross load limit sign if the total of the gross mass (in tonnes) of the driver’s vehicle, and any vehicle connected to it, is more than the gross mass indicated by the sign.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.
(2) A driver must not drive past a bridge load limit (mass per axle group) sign if the mass (in tonnes) carried by an axle group of the driver’s vehicle, or any vehicle connected to it, is more than the mass indicated by the sign for the axle group.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) In this rule:
vehicle includes any load carried by the vehicle.

Bridge load limit (gross mass) sign
Gross load limit sign
Bridge load limit (mass per axle group) sign

Spot on Ron that's exactly why I said it wouldn't stand up in court regardless of who signed off on the document as your not breaking the law Thanks.

But you are breaking the law if the sign says a certain GVM and you're over it !!
It might be stupid, but it's still the law !

But the interpretation of "GVM", is precisely where the argument lies.

You can have a Rated GVM - what the vehicle is rated to carry as a maximum total weight - or you can have a Gross Vehicle Mass, which is the actual weight of the vehicle on the day.

Far better to have signage and wording that states a specific load limit in actual gross tonnes - which is what is actually calculated, and applied to roads and bridges, by road and bridge engineers.

I know what I would be arguing is the case, if I went to court - the actual gross weight of the vehicle on the day.

They contradict themselves by adding attached trailers to the load limit.

If you're adding a trailer to the total for the specified limit, you aren't increasing the vehicles rated GVM, you are calculating Gross Mass.

Cheers, Ron.

No you can't drive down that street if your vehilce by itself weighs 3t or more as you mentioned or if towing the combined weight adds up to be 3t or more.
At 2,999kg you are legal if towing or not towing.

All very ambiguous, isn’t it Boobook.

We can get caught up in debate over definition (which is important, none-the-less)

But here’s the thing, whether it is weight, GVM, Tare weight - the more important question is why we have a rule that impacts many light vehicles driven by 4WD enthusiast’s...?

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Ps I have already questioned the definition with the RMS, and await confirmation.

Hi Outback Wanderer...

My discussions with two local government authorities (Parramatta & Hornsby) indicated the approach they took was that they worked on the Tare Weight of the vehicle for determining whether a vehicle is in breach of the regulation. Noting, it is local government authorities that put these restrictions in place.

Essentially if you are under 3,000kg Tare Weight, from their perspective they would not take action, however that doesn’t mean you would be legal if your total mass is over 3,000kg. The reality is they don’t appear to have the ability or inclination to weigh (light) vehicles roadside.

In my case the Tare Weight of the vehicle is under 3,000kg, but both the GVM and loaded mass is in excess of 3,000kg.

This is why I sought clarification of the rule and its interpretation, which indicates as far as the RMS is concerned the weight restriction is based on GVM. This was confirmed by the Government Minister responsible for the RMS (I'll take it at face value - but have already raised a question around this).

You are correct to say that many 4WDs are affected by this limitation, however the “truck symbol” is only symbolic, if you breach the weight limitation it doesn’t matter what you are driving.

Having said that, and as I have highlighted numerous times, it is most unlikely that any enforcement officer, whether council or police, are hiding behind bushes to catch out light-vehicles breaching the rule. But have an accident or incident on one of these weight-restricted roads in a non-complying light vehicle and depending on the severity of the accident, the police may charge you…

In practice the authorities may not care; in law it may be a different case. This could have numerous implications both financially and with regard to personal liability.

My “beef” is that the “symbolic truck" picture creates a false impression of what type of vehicle the rule applies to.

But importantly, the question needs to be asked, why are the popular range of light-vehicles (Toyota 200 series, Nissan Patrols, and a host of other vehicles) being captured under this rule and was that the intention of this rule when it was devised?

The reality is that many people are blissfully unaware that they are impacted, and in reality it may never be a problem – until something goes wrong.

Awareness is key...

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion as the perspective you have put on it appears to be the reality, at least in practice. But it may not be a legal defence...

Cheers, Baz

It's not just Landcruisers or Nissans Baz,

Australia's two most popular vehicles, the Hilux and Ford Rnger have GVMs of 3T or more. Even in 2wd versions.

Hi Boobook

Absolutely, the list is long and potentially growing. There is a "host of other vehicles" affected.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the question I ask is why?



Cheers, Baz

A 2T limit is farcical - this would prohibit a large portion of passenger cars.

It often seems to come down to NIMBYs buying property on main suburban roads and then complaining to local councils that people are driving trucks on the public road in front of their house.Well, if you didn't like traffic noise, maybe you should have bought a house on a quieter street. They don't care if the truck is empty or full, so I'd suggest the restriction applied to GVM is more about limiting the size of the vehicle using the road, rather than the actual weight (different story for weight-restricted bridges).

There is at least one road in ACT that I know of which has a 2T limit - it is the only road in/out of the area in that direction, and therefore a major thoroughfare. Local residents got upset because it was so busy (what, you didn't realise this before you bought your house there?!). Most of the traffic using that road would be in breach of the 2T limit (probably anything bigger than a Corolla would have a GVM greater than 2T).

My opinion is that the 3 tonne limit is a hangover from the 1940's, when the average "truck" was rated at 3 tons.

A "big truck" in those days was rated at 7 tonnes, and you were "big-time trucking", if you owned a 7 tonner.

Big "heavy-duty" utes were, rated at 10cwt or 15cwt (hundredweight) load capacity - 508kgs and 762kg - and your average car weighed a ton (1,016kgs) or considerably less.

Despite all the weight-reduction in todays vehicles, by the use of plastics and alloys, todays vehicles are considerably larger than what our parents and grandparents drove.

Todays 4WD's weigh more than the "heavy-duty" utes of the old days, thanks to "up-sizing", and a slew of "extras" such as bigger and heavier batteries, power windows, power steering, power seats, airbags, and electrical equipment and electrical accessories galore - which all come as standard fit today.

4WD vehicles were extremely rare to find in our parents and grandparents day.

Willys Jeeps of WW2 started the trend towards everyday 4WD's - now it seems everyone needs a 4WD, even though the standard of the roads today is a hundred times better than it was, even 50 years ago.

So, as a result, todays regular-size 4WD's fall into the range of the size measurement of the 3 ton trucks, of the 1940's.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the limits, apart from trying to keep commercial vehicles, operating on a constant basis, out of residential areas.

Every shop and small business has to have deliveries via 3 and 5 tonne trucks.
Buses (public transport and school) regularly move through residential streets.
Removalist trucks, most around 9 tonnes, have to regularly move through residential areas.
It's not like medium sized commercial vehicles are a rarity in suburban streets.

The weight/size limit restriction laws are an anachronism, they need to be updated to meet todays vehicles and roads.

Cheers, Ron.

Hi Ron

“The weight/size limit restriction laws are an anachronism, they need to be updated to meet todays vehicles and roads.”

Spot on, this is why I have highlighted the issue.

Cheers, Baz

Re anachronisms,wasn't there an issue about rego and tare weight in NSW around 1994 when the latest land cruiser exceeded 2000kg tare and as a result the cost of rego jumped? I remember a mate telling me that by removing seats, the spare, tools and having the absolute minimum of fuel you could get a weighbridge certificate of < 2000 kg saving $$$. My 94 Maverick/GQ had a 1990 kg tare and in Qld., rego at the time went by the number of cylinders anyway.
Interestingly with respect to 3t GVM limits, even my mid size Pajero has a GVM of 3030 kg, so banned!

"My discussions with two local government authorities (Parramatta & Hornsby) indicated the approach they took was that they worked on the Tare Weight of the vehicle for determining whether a vehicle is in breach of the regulation. Noting, it is local government authorities that put these restrictions in place."

What a ship of fools, posting a sign with a restriction on GVM and then policing it on the basis of tare.

They are idiots!

I'm glad I don't live in an area with a 2T limit as I would be in trouble with my Falcon ute. With just me onboard, no load in the rear and not even with a full tank it comes in at just on the 2T limit as weighed a few times on a weighbridge. GVM is 2805. Of course that is because it has a tipper conversion that eats into the GVM, but it does show that there are a lot of vehicles out there that are affected by such a low limit, if it was enforced.

Hi Frank

I'd encourage you to write to your local MP and ask them why this restriction is in place affecting light-vehicles in NSW. If you belong to a 4WD Club, highlight the issue to them...

Phil...

You are right on the last comment "if it was enforced". For the most part it probably is never enforced, until there is an accident or incident...

Either way, it is a road rule that is in place and impacts many people - and for what benefit?

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

There are substantial numbers of road traffic laws that are poorly written, and poorly interpreted, and poorly understood.

The load limit for roads and bridges is supposed to be for road and bridge structure integrity protection.

The 3 tonne limit for dirt roads in suburban areas is being utilised as a "traffic calming" measure.

If there's one group of people I hate with a vengeance, it's those idiots called "traffic planners" - those people who give us badly-engineered roundabouts, massive speed bumps every 100 metres on perfectly good straight roads, zig-zag road layouts that throw oncoming vehicles into each others path, and which zig-zags do nothing to slow down loud motorcyclists intent on high speed dashes.

If these traffic planners or councillors are intent on restricting the size of vehicles in a street, they need to throw out this archaic signage that no-one takes any notice of, anyway - and which signage is rarely enforced - and start to develop some practical restrictions, on sizes and types, and volumes of vehicles, that utilise the street.

IMO, roads are built to be used - and those roads are fairly regularly upgraded. Why then, does every traffic planner promptly start to devise infuriating "traffic-calming" systems, to prevent any volume of traffic from using that road?

I think the practical signage is the "local road only" signage that I see, which advises motorists that the road is not designed as an arterial road, it is designed only to serve the local area, and as such, larger commercial vehicles are discouraged from using that road, as there are arterial roads that are a better route choice.

The simple fact remains that removalist trucks, delivery trucks, and buses, still need to access quiet suburban streets on a reasonably regular basis, and this puts paid to any idea that "3 tonne load limit" signage, is an effective method of severely limiting vehicle types and sizes on that road.

Cheers, Ron.

Hi Outback Wanderer

And that is my assertion, surely this rule was never intended to capture 4WD vehicles in the light-vehicle category - but it does unfortunately.

And that is a great anecdote...!

Cheers, Baz