Are our road laws a joke between states ??????

Actually its a wonder that the police can even be expected to do their job properly. Perfect example is the P Plate rule differences between QLD and NSW. (particularly Red Ps)

Might have changed now but when my eldest was 17 the Max speed limit for red P platers in NSW was 90km/h. In Qld, its whatever the posted limit is (so up to 110km/h).

But the law was such that the respective speed limits are based on the state where your licence is issued....not the state that you're actually driving in. So a Qlder in NSW can still drive at 110 but the NSW P plater in Qld must still do a maximum of 90.

How the hell is a cop in southern NSW (where one presumes this situation isn't an everyday event like it would be in the Tweed) ) supposed to remember this particular rule and not incorrectly book the Qld driver for being 20 over the limit?

You drive to the conditions imposed by the authority in the state that your permit was issued, so its not a problem. It is amusing riding with my daughter on her L's, rounding up caravans on the Pacific Highway

It has worked in my favour though, I had Qld L's for the bike, so should have only ridden with a fully licensed rider, but was over the boarder and got away with it for a year before getting around to doing the test.

I'm sure the cops can cope with what are essentially minor differences between the states.

smwhiskey, Victoria is the same as QLD P platers can do the posted limit

I believe that you are bound by the laws of the state you are currently in, not by the laws of the state your license was issued in. Of course, I could be wrong, but I believe that is how most other road laws are applied.

Macca.

No, you are bound by the conditions of the permit.

"Driving interstate with a Queensland driver licence

If you are driving interstate, you still have to adhere to the conditions of your Queensland licence.

You will also have to obey the rules of the Australian jurisdiction you are driving in. To find out if any other conditions/restrictions will apply to you when travelling interstate, contact the transport authority for the Australian jurisdiction that you will be driving in."
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Licensing/Driving-interstate-or-overseas.aspx

Hoyks,

I think you have misinterpreted the statement. I believe it means that you cannot exceed the conditions of your Qld issued license, if the state you are in has a higher standard. Also, if the rules of the state jurisdiction are that a P plater can only travel at 90 kph, then that is the speed that your P plater cannot exceed, regardless of where your license was issued. That is the “rule of the Australian Jurisdiction you are driving in”.

Macca.

No, because the permit/licence allows you to drive the vehicle and may stipulate a bunch of conditions, it is then up to you to follow the road rules for the state that you're in.

Conditions may include only driving an auto, wearing glasses, having a medical certificate, having a curfew, only driving to work, there are a few, but a reduced speed limit for learners and P platers isn't one of them.

My daughter has not long got her P's, I was working in NSW, driving back and forward to Qld and getting her to do some of the trips. 100hrs in the passenger seat, so I made sure I was all over it.

"Learner and provisional licence holders
There are no specified reduced speed limits in Queensland for learner or provisional licence holders. You should drive according to the speed limit and the conditions for the road on which you are driving."
https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/5c6d042b-2aa3-4755-bf88-0cd2015889c4/resource/796607ec-c458-4955-80e2-2b7f551079c7/fs_download/00900_trb_yktd_book-2019-web_27-03-19_lowres-copy.pdf

"Speed limits
An interstate or overseas learner, when driving in NSW, must not drive/ride faster than the posted speed limit or any lesser maximum speed limit if one is applied to your licence by your home state or country."
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/licence/visiting-nsw.html

Time to put your hard hat on or duck.

Regards

Yeah Gramps, That could be bumpy ride....

I like the ABC. The commercial channels on radio and TV are complete and utter drivel.

Your trust in profit-driven media and some employers/businesses and their political supporters is heart-warming David. Others would probably consider your opinion to be extremely naive and/or ignorant - including, for example, the thousands of underpaid workers whose fate was recently exposed not by Murdoch, not by government organisations set up (in part) for the purpose, but by unions and the combined investigative reporting resources of those "lefties" (roflmao) NINE - fka Fairfax - in collaboration with the ABC.

If you think Landline is the only worthwhile product from the ABC then maybe this is the perfect time to broaden your horizons, and perspective. For example you'll be hard-pressed to find better radio than "CONVERSATIONS"- also available as podcasts. I defy even the most hardened conservative to find left/right bias in that great program, although I concede that some minds are so conditioned that they assume bias even where it obviously doesn't exist. I highly recommend Rake for a good larf if you haven't seen it, or Newton's Law if you're a fan of the fab Claudia Karvan. You might catch some of them on Iview if you're lucky. Suffice to say that the list of quality ABC TV and radio programs is longer than the list of tax evading companies operating with impunity in this country (boom boom), and that's quite a feat.

Naive/Ignorant. Bit cutting there Bazooka,but written like a true lefty/greeny
The mention of underpaid workers always brings Bill Shorten to mind for some reason.A fine upstanding Union man/leader. It's always good to see the ABC and the Unions in collaboration, gives me hope for the future. I'm just waiting for them to do an open " in depth"story on the Industry super funds. Little bit murky in there if they dig deeper than last time.
Thought you would be more of a The Drum/4 Corners than Conversations.
As for Rake or Newton's I would put them in the same category as Benny Hill.
If you know of any companies evading tax in this country I suggest you contact the ATO ( boom boom) Don't know why I put that in. Seemed the thing to do:)
Any ways, lets have a look at the Unions involvement in the massive loss of industry/jobs in this country.Steel works,Holdens , all the way back to Ansett.
Take a bit of time off from watching Rake and have a look at the EBA's insisted on by the Union. Even the CFMEU took a deep breath.
Does what you would call "the big end of town" ( thanks Bill) need to be hauled over the coals? Of course it does.
Dave.Ex Union Rep

Apologies to swampy.
--------------------------------------------------------

"like a true lefty/greeny" Dave? Sounds like something from an IPA song sheet but in my experience those labels are usually a true reflection of an ideologically-bound conservative. I'm surprised you didn't get socialist in there somewhere. Truth be known I'd be proud to be called a Greenie but that would be doing real Greenies like many farmers, capitalists, economists, scientists and ordinary Aussies making a real contribution and impact a great disservice.

Seems to me the choices wrt media are stark. There's intelligent well-researched and argued commentary, and then there's News Corp. I'd refer you to the annual media surveys which ask about trust, bias etc but I think the shock might be too much on top of this pandemic.

Seeing as how you brought it up, how did the RC into the unions and your mates attempts to shoot Shorten down go? In respect of nailing particular unions and individuals along with their unlawful/disgraceful conduct it turned out to be an expensive and obviously tainted fizzer. We deserved better. A community and government actually concerned about corrupt and thuggish practice would have had very wide terms of reference, chosen an independent Commissioner, and included big business in its probes. As for Shorten - I was a detractor until I saw some of his community meetings and the progressive policies Labor took to the last election. After seeing Albo's efforts to date I now know why the parliamentary Labor Party chose Shorten.

The numerous companies avoiding tax using a range of measures are well-known to the Tax Dept, politicians and many informed and concerned Aussies Dave. Daresay after we come out of quarantine and face the enormous national debt challenge a few more complacent and ignorant citizens might also finally take some interest. I'd suggest they start at tax concessions granted to gas producers by Howard and Costello - at a cost of $90B to the national coffers.

About a third of all big companies pay zero tax in this country iirc. A little online searching and reading will help you find them. You might for example ask yourself how the privatised Sydney Airport managed no tax on its billion dollar earnings in at least the first ten years while other privately owned airports such as Melb and Auckland did. The trick there was/is to keep the company in debt and its financing costs high. All quite legal of course. Naive doesn't begin to describe anyone who thinks that large companies like SA with many million/billions of turnover paying no tax is reasonable. Companies have used and will continue to use all sorts of tax avoidance techniques until laws are tightened. The Tories did that to some extent in the UK with their so-called "google tax" and even our Lib and Labour govts have made small steps towards fixing rorts such as profit shifting and transfer pricing. The list of large, zero and near zero taxpaying companies should you bother to find it will show there's a very long way to go.

Bazooka, and apologies to Swampy also, you missed one.

When the current government tried to let the banks get control of the industry based superannuation.

Glad that fell on its head with the banking royal Commission as the union based funds are way better performers than the others.

BTW. the next labour prime minister is not even even been elected to parliament yet.

Nuf said no more poly ticks.

"union based funds are way better performers than the others."
Dig a little deeper Eagle.
Cut and paste from the FIN and my last comment.

The performance of a few large funds hides the chronic underperformance of a multitude of 33 sub-scale union funds –which explains why every "compare the pair" union fund campaign uses selective averages which may not compare apples with apples. These funds collectively manage $94 billion in retirement savings.
Minister Kelly O'Dwyer is right to challenge the assumption that members of union funds must "stand by and watch as their retirement savings are spent on straight-out political advertising, or dubious sponsorships of union congresses, or on superannuation liaison officers who are in fact union officials being paid out of super funds".

Members being shafted by their Reps ?
Dave.

I'll say no more, from 2019.

ANZ and AMP named as worst super fund providers in Australia for their high fees and poor returns.

I'll preface my comment with the observation that almost nothing is absolutely certain under the Constitution until it's tested in the High Court OBJ. That said, although I haven't studied the Constitution in any detail, I doubt your law student's view is accurate simply because ultimately "Defence", "Foreign Affairs" etc are (fairly) specifically federal responsibilities under the Constitution. Additionally, the Northern Territory (and the ACT for that matter) is fundamentally less independent in respect to its rights/legislative powers than the States are. The Fed govt can overrule NT law and can and does legislate for the Territory - a recent example being euthanasia laws iirc. One thing the Constitution states clearly is that where Commonwealth and State laws conflict, Commonwealth law prevails.

It's a very complex issue but there are plenty of reasons to abolish the States and at least as many to keep them imo. Thirty years ago when politicians were less dogmatic I may have thought otherwise. The overriding factor for me is the declining quality and uncompromising ideology of many of our federal MPs (both sides). Personally I'm grateful for the buffers that States and Territories provide even if I often don't agree with their policies or politics. Governments, both Fed and State, need to be regularly turned over and turned out.

"The roundabout rules particularly in Qld have been debated long and hard on here and are particularly dangerous for interstaters. "

Here is the clearly explained roundabout rule in Qld.

The written rule is identical in NSW - in fact, I think is written the same way in all states - that is, there is NO MENTION of giving way to the right in the rule. Just give way to a vehicle already in the roundabout.

That could be a vehicle on your left. The video in the link explains it clearly.

But if you're the vehicle on the left and you apply the rule, prepare to be T-boned and the victim of ignorant road rage because everyone, incorrectly, believes the rule is " give way to the right".

I think you'll find Frank P that in Qld you have to indicate as you leave the roundabout even if you are proceeding straight ahead. As you have said you only have to yield right of way to any vehicle already in the roundabout nothing about giving way to the right. As far as indicating is concerned the true test should be what you would do if the roundabout was removed. If proceeding straight through (second exit) do nothing but if you are taking first or third exits indicate accordingly. In all other states as far as I am aware anyone with a left indicator on is taking the first exit ie turning left not proceeding straight ahead.

If you read the NSW and QLD road rules, in relation to roundabouts, they are pretty much word for word. You only have to indicate when turning left and right, going straight ahead its not strictly required, the wording is 'if practicable', although on big roundabouts it is advisable.

"118 Giving a left change of direction signal when leaving a roundabout

(1) If practicable, a driver driving in a roundabout must give a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout.
(2) The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver has left the roundabout."

NSW Legislation


"118 Giving a left change of direction signal when leaving a roundabout

(1)If practicable, a driver driving in a roundabout must give a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout.
(2)The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver has left the roundabout."
Qld Legislation

Kenell,

" I think you'll find Frank P that in Qld you have to indicate as you leave the roundabout even if you are proceeding straight ahead. "
Yes, as in other states.

The " Video of signals at roundabouts" says and shows that if proceeding straight ahead, do not signal when entering the roundabout. Then as you approach your exit, signal left. NSW says do that as you pass the exit before yours. That tells vehicles waiting beyond your exit that they don't have to wait for you.

NSW has the same rules and so do other states that I've driven in. NSW als has the proviso to signal your exit "when practicable" because some roundabouts are too small to do it the way it's described.

" In all other states as far as I am aware anyone with a left indicator on is taking the first exit ie turning left not proceeding straight ahead."
Correct. You only indicate left when entering the roundabout if you intend to take the first exit. Otherwise don't indicate left until you are approaching your exit. NSW says do that as you pass the exit before yours.

I've lost count of the number of times a dummy has travelled around a roundabout with their left blinker on. They'll actually exit at one stage or another I suppose.

Hello - no idea what the rules are for roundabouts in other states but I would find it hard to believe that you dont have to indicate when going "straight ahead" thorough a roundabout in any state.

It's a circle so hard to go straight ahead anyway and the purpose of indicating is to advise other road users of your intentions. Other road users will have no idea where you entered the round about (you know you are going staight ahead but no one else does) so if you dont indicate prior to leaving they will assume you are continuing to another exit. Its pretty easy, as a minimum, just indicate left when leaving. Well thats what I do - can't see how I am confusing anyone.

Cheers
Greg

Kenell, there are not much difference in the rules for roundabouts in all our states. I suggest you have a look at the rules for your state and then compare it with Qld.

Greg the explorer is onto it.

The point of the original post and my response is again vindicated. There aren't vast chasms of differences between states on the roundabout rules but the differences that exist are relevant and end up creating a culture. Words like "where practicable" etc make all the difference. If we had a true national code such differences wouldn't exist and the examples respondents have highlighted would all be the same rather than similar.

NSW and QLD are exactly the same. I quoted the text from the legislation from both states.

Indicate left if turning left as you approach, indicate right if turning right as you approach, going straight ahead don't indicate.

Indicate left as you leave. On really small roundabouts you might be lucky to get 1 flash before leaving, so that isn't really practical for indicating your intention.

I've read this a few times now, a local constable here in SA I was talking to once explained it to me as we have National road rules but it is up to the states to interpret them and thats why we have lawyers and depending on findings by the courts thats how they are interpreted. not my idea his.

Assuming that a person is turning left because their left blinker is going can and has lead to fatal consequences.
Dave.

Dave, that can happen on any intersection anywhere, so roundabouts can't be singled out.

Better to at least have some clue what the other vehicle is doing, because if you don't the roundabout fails to do what it was designed for. Traffic flow.