Confirming road rules

[Mick_Marsh]

Did anyone notice the story in the 'Tiser today:
No Cookies | The Advertiser (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/stormtrooper-helmet-belonging-to-cyrus-rafizadeh-still-not-returned-by-sa-police-two-months-after-driving-charge-court-victory/news-story/4369d7bf2fd934237a45d5490d747afe)

In short
n April 2016, officers on Hindley St stopped Mr Rafizadeh, confiscated his helmet and fined him $375 for driving with obscured vision.

When he contested that fine in court in February, prosecutors upped the charge to driving without due care, and the penalty to $2500 and three demerit points.

He refused to plead guilty and asked the matter be set down for trial — in response, prosecutors withdrew all charges.

I suspect there is no such charge as "driving with obscured vision". I have done an extensive search on the internet but can find no such rule.

I have found the National Road Rules: https://www.ntc.gov.au/Media/Reports/%28F1D63B25-98A0-8E5A-EBD4-BA6FC69ABF7D%29.pdf

The South Australian Road Rules: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/AUSTRALIAN%20ROAD%20RULES/CURRENT/2014.205.UN.PDF

The Victorian road safety rules: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt5.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/A1EA37D8E6E0E200CA257761003FFFBF/$FILE/09-94sr003.pdf

I have searched and searched, but still cannot find the rule.
Now, we are meant to drive within the road rules. Not all the road rules are contained within "The Drivers Handbook". Now, if we are meant to drive within the road rules, these rules should be able to be readily accessed by drivers.

So, I have started this thread to bust or confirm the myths.

Can anyone point me to (please post up link) the road rule that would prohibit someone driving wearing a stormtrooper helmet.
I don't want to be forced to give up wearing my Darth Vader helmet.
122140

[Eevo]

I suspect there is no such charge as "driving with obscured vision". I have done an extensive search on the internet but can find no such rule.

Now, if we are meant to drive within the road rules, these rules should be able to be readily accessed by drivers.




i think there is a driving with obscured vision charge. its the same one they give you if you ride at night with a tinted visor.


that would be nice.

[Mick_Marsh]

i think there is a driving with obscured vision charge. its the same one they give you if you ride at night with a tinted visor.


that would be nice.
Where is the link?
No link, it doesn't exist. I reckon they tried to bluff then had to drop the charge because it wouldn't fly.

[austastar]

Hi,
No link, maybe hearsay.
That it is not allowed to alter a Australian Standards approved helmet in any way that would fail the Standard specifications.

But as the helmet in question is not Standards approved, can't be used on a motorcycle, I suspect the case in question must fail.
Cheers

[Vern]

Hi,
No link, maybe hearsay.
That it is not allowed to alter a Australian Standards approved helmet in any way that would fail the Standard specifications.

But as the helmet in question is not Standards approved, can't be used on a motorcycle, I suspect the case in question must fail.
Cheers
Standards approved or not, he was driving a car! Obscured vision is all i think they could get him on, thats if his vision was even obscured at all!

[austastar]

, thats if his vision was even obscured at all!

Hi,
I've seen some glasses with heavy frames that surely obliterate any side vision. Yet still used when driving.

It is a funny world.

Cheees

[Mick_Marsh]

Standards approved or not, he was driving a car! Obscured vision is all i think they could get him on, thats if his vision was even obscured at all!

Those words, again. Obscured vision. Where's the link? You can't find it? Neither can I. There is no such rule.

[Mick_Marsh]

Hi,
I've seen some glasses with heavy frames that surely obliterate any side vision. Yet still used when driving.

It is a funny world.

Cheees
I believe the rules are motorcyclists sun glasses must have AS certification. I posted a thread on this in the motorcycle section. I believe most sun glasses on sale do not have AS certification, and yet, there are a lot of people out there wearing them whilst driving a car.
Perhaps the police should be stopping those people and fining them for not wearing AS certified eyewear. Would be a great money earner unless people challenged it and took it to court.

[Vern]

Those words, again. Obscured vision. Where's the link? You can't find it? Neither can I. There is no such rule.
No i was commenting that it doesn't matter if the helmet was adr approved or not as he was driving a car!
Now for the obscured vision 'ruling', if there even is one, would this be a ruling for head wear or say stickers, spare wheel etc..blocking the screen? Or both?

[austastar]

Hi,
Open faced? Or behind an approved visor? So many doctrinaire regulations exist except against stupid!

Let Darwin rule again!

Cheers

[Mick_Marsh]

No i was commenting that it doesn't matter if the helmet was adr approved or not as he was driving a car!
No for the obscured vision 'ruling', if there even is one, would this be a ruling for head wear or say stickers, spare wheel etc..blocking the screen? Or both?
Who knows? We can't find the rule to find out what it says.
The road rules must be readily and easily availably to those who must comply to them. That is why I want a link.
There have been so many urban myths posted up here and on other fora. Notable ones being the rated shackle saga and the load restraint saga. There is even the Copper from Windsor that continues to defect roof mounted lights when his interpretation of the ADR is at odds with the interpretation of the RMS.
When people quote rules, I would like a link to the said rule, at least to prove it exists.

[Mick_Marsh]

Hi,
Open faced? Or behind an approved visor? So many doctrinaire regulations exist except against stupid!

Let Darwin rule again!

Cheers
I hear ya. We are over regulated in this country.

[weeds]

Good on him for looking like a dick........whether there is a rule or not it has to be impacting on his side vision....poor decision of headwear from the driver

[Mick_Marsh]

Good on him for looking like a dick........whether there is a rule or not it has to be impacting on his side vision....poor decision of headwear from the driver
Could you please post up the links to the rules that state "poor decisions" or "looking like a dick" are finable offences. I reckon if they were, the governments could retire national debt within a year.

[Gordie]

Is this the one you are looking for.....

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/AUSTRALIAN%20ROAD%20RULES/CURRENT/2014.205.UN.PDF297—Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle.

Offence provision.
Australian Road Rules—8.12.2016 Part 18—Miscellaneous road rules Division 1—Miscellaneous rules for drivers 8 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [13.12.2016]

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver's lap.

Offence provision.

(2) A driver must not drive a motor vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of the road, and traffic, ahead, behind and to each side of the driver.

[loanrangie]

Is this the one you are looking for.....

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/AUSTRALIAN%20ROAD%20RULES/CURRENT/2014.205.UN.PDF297—Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle.

Offence provision.
Australian Road Rules—8.12.2016 Part 18—Miscellaneous road rules Division 1—Miscellaneous rules for drivers 8 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [13.12.2016]

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver's lap.

Offence provision.

(2) A driver must not drive a motor vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of the road, and traffic, ahead, behind and to each side of the driver.









Possibly, but to comply with rule 2 you would have to rotate your head to check you have clear vision anyway.

[Mick_Marsh]

Is this the one you are looking for.....

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/AUSTRALIAN%20ROAD%20RULES/CURRENT/2014.205.UN.PDF297—Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle.

Offence provision.
Australian Road Rules—8.12.2016 Part 18—Miscellaneous road rules Division 1—Miscellaneous rules for drivers 8 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [13.12.2016]

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver's lap.

Offence provision.

(2) A driver must not drive a motor vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of the road, and traffic, ahead, behind and to each side of the driver.








Yep but no.
As loanrangie has said, I move my head. To the left and to the right. The only items that obstruct my vision are the a pillars, the rear view mirrors, the b pillars, the c pillars, the front seat head rests and the sat nav. The sun glasses and Darth Vader helmet move with my head as I move my head and do not obstruct vision.
So, are we now going to fine people for having head rests on the seats in their cars? Or even fine people for having pillars holding up the roof on their cars?
Must we all now drive roofless cars?
I think that rule was intended to stop people attaching things to the windscreens and stop people putting those bobbing head Elvis' on the dash of their cars.

[DiscoMick]

Maybe it has something to do with the helmet rules. I know he was in a car, but he was wearing the Darth Vader helmet and it's not Australian Standards approved, so he was wearing something which obstructed his vision.
I looked at the helmet rules for Queensland and they just say not to wear a helmet which obstructs vision. Can that be applied if wearing the helmet in a vehicle?
Choosing accessories (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Cycling/Bike-user-guide/Choosing-a-bike-and-helmet/Choosing-accessories)

[101RRS]

The bottom line there is no rule - if there was the prosecution would have proceeded. The guy should sue.

[Mick_Marsh]

Maybe it has something to do with the helmet rules. I know he was in a car, but he was wearing the Darth Vader helmet and it's not Australian Standards approved, so he was wearing something which obstructed his vision.
I looked at the helmet rules for Queensland and they just say not to wear a helmet which obstructs vision. Can that be applied if wearing the helmet in a vehicle?
Choosing accessories (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Cycling/Bike-user-guide/Choosing-a-bike-and-helmet/Choosing-accessories)
No, he was wearing a stormtrooper helmet. And he wants it back.
I wear the Darth Vader helmet.

The item you linked to is a guide, not rules. Or are we drivers now meant to wear the recommended apparel, driving knicks with chamois inserts. I can see how this would be handy if you wanted to give the duco a quick clean whilst on the road.

[Saitch]

I got pulled up in Brissie in the '70's for wearing one of these while driving but all that happened was an intensive vehicle search for, quote "Substances & Utensils".
Nothing found & the boys drove off laughing.
Steve

[Mick_Marsh]

The bottom line there is no rule - if there was the prosecution would have proceeded. The guy should sue.
Hmmm....
Somewhat related:
'Malicious' prosecution of Canberra man who fled police leads to $30k in damages - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/canberra-man-who-fled-police-after-breaching-bail-awarded-30k/8451856)

[Davo]

Let me get this straight. This thread is about grown men who want to drive around wearing plastic toy helmets.

[weeds]

Could you please post up the links to the rules that state "poor decisions" or "looking like a dick" are finable offences. I reckon if they were, the governments could retire national debt within a year.

Is it you in the helmet??....I got no link just stating my opinion that poor decision...don't think I mention if a agreed with the fine or not.

[Pocket Rocket]

This is gold thanks for posting Mick I needed a laugh today.

[Homestar]

Let me get this straight. This thread is about grown men who want to drive around wearing plastic toy helmets.

Not toys some of them - a good Stormtrooper helmet for cosplay can cost hundreds. Some take it very seriously. Who's to say wearing one whilst driving is any more daft than someone driving a series 1 wearing a pith helmet... ;)

(Which I saw just the other day and it suited the occasion well) :)

[V8Ian]

Hmmm....
Somewhat related:
'Malicious' prosecution of Canberra man who fled police leads to $30k in damages - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/canberra-man-who-fled-police-after-breaching-bail-awarded-30k/8451856)

How many Parentes can you get for $35k?

[Mick_Marsh]

How many Parentes can you get for $35k?
not enough

[crash]

Those words, again. Obscured vision. Where's the link? You can't find it? Neither can I. There is no such rule.
I am sure there are multiple people with tunnel vision or with poor peripheral vision that drive every day! Would that not be classified as obscured vision?
Unfortunately we can argue these points for countless replys. Some rules are open to interpretation and it comes down to how we as road users interpret them and the police and lawyers that inforce them.

[Davo]

Not toys some of them - a good Stormtrooper helmet for cosplay can cost hundreds. Some take it very seriously. Who's to say wearing one whilst driving is any more daft than someone driving a series 1 wearing a pith helmet... ;)

(Which I saw just the other day and it suited the occasion well) :)

Still a toy - for grown adults - regardless of how fancy and how much. I can't help thinking of what men of a similar age were up to during WWII. God help us.

[Vern]

Still a toy - for grown adults - regardless of how fancy and how much. I can't help thinking of what men of a similar age were up to during WWII. God help us.
Probably wearing helmets! And driving some kind of vehicle

[Mick_Marsh]

Let me get this straight. This thread is about grown men who want to drive around wearing plastic toy helmets.
You know, it's very interesting what interests us.
I have friends that don't believe in owning things over ten years old. They think I'm a loopy loonie. They also can't understand my fascination with Landrovers.
My family thinks loopy loonies own Landrovers. Welcome to looniesville, Davo.
Interestingly, I caught up with a few members of my family at easter. I have a cousin who loves going to pubs and getting ****ed. I have no interest in that. Another cousin who works only to get enought money to fund her next overseas trip trecking through some third world country. I wouldn't do that. A couple of uncles were busily telling me what horses they backed in which races and what the odds are should their horses come in. How boring.
I'm also told some people spend an evening watching rugby union. Or is that league? Who cares? Not I.
Now, I like SciFi. I have books, CDs, records and DVDs. I have the books, records and CDs of The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Got the radio series, all five series. The movie. I think I have the TV series. I've got the radio series "Journey Into Space" by Charles Chiltern. Asimovs Robot and Foundation series in books. Star Wars. Books, movies and radio series (starring Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels). Lots and lots of interesting SciFi stuff. I even bid on a Dalek on ebay. Didn't get it but is sold for $6,000.
Interestingly, I saw a Dalek a couple of weeks ago at the Avalon Air Show.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/486.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2017/DSC_6947.jpg.html)
These guys had it.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/487.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2017/DSC_6949.jpg.html)
What's that there? A stormtrooper.

They also had this:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/488.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2017/DSC_6950.jpg.html)
Danger. Danger, Will Robinson.

Yes, they do dress up. Why not? It interests them and they have fun doing it. Oh, their club was invited to participate at the Air Show and were probably paid to do it.

And a club I belong to were paid to participate at the Airshow. They do dressup.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/489.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2017/DSC_6911.jpg.html)
And own interesting vehicles.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/490.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2017/DSC_6909.jpg.html)

There were even "Re-enactment Societies" there:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/491.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2015/DSC_4836.jpg.html)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/04/492.jpg (http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/mick_marsh_AULRO/media/Airshow/2015/DSC_4838.jpg.html)

Blknight.AUS, a member on AULRO, even has been known to dress up in Knights Armour.

All sorts of people have all sorts of different interests. You shouldn't be so dismissive of them.

[bee utey]

It appears that you need at least 110 degrees of peripheral vision angle to hold a car licence and 140 degrees to drive a commercial vehicle. If you can prove that your "helmet" does not impact on these figures the police can do nothing.

Visual impairment : VicRoads (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/medical-conditions-and-driving/medical-conditions/visual-impairment)

What are the eyesight requirements to get a drivers licence? | Specsavers Australia (https://www.specsavers.com.au/help-and-faqs/what-are-the-eyesight-requirements-to-get-a-drivers-licence)

[DiscoMick]

Personally, I encourage the wearing of funny hats. It makes life more interesting.
I would also prefer it if drivers could see where they are going, if they are going to share the roads.
Do pith helmets obscure peripheral vision? I've never tried one.

[austastar]

Hi,
It takes a lot to out think the obvious.

http://www.frikipix.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/frikipix_wrong_way_helmet_girl.jpg

But someone will!

Cheers

[loneranger]

Each to their own but personally I don't get the sci fi thing. I never watched Star Wars until I was an adult when Pocket Rocket insisted I watch them.

[Mick_Marsh]

Each to their own but personally I don't get the sci fi thing. I never watched Star Wars until I was an adult when Pocket Rocket insisted I watch them.
People look at me in amazement when I tell them I have never seen the movie "Titanic". One girl said to me "I've seen it thirteen times." I asked "Why?"
You very probably have interests I fail to comprehend.
I hear some people like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. Not me.

[loneranger]

People look at me in amazement when I tell them I have never seen the movie "Titanic". One girl said to me "I've seen it thirteen times." I asked "Why?"
You very probably have interests I fail to comprehend.
I hear some people like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. Not me.
Lycra 😅






And bicycles to ride whilst wearing it. I currently have 5 built up bikes and 1 frame and I have my eye on 2 more as long as Pocket Rocket doesn't read this. 😉

[Mick_Marsh]

Lycra 😅






And bicycles to ride whilst wearing it. I currently have 5 built up bikes and 1 frame and I have my eye on 2 more as long as Pocket Rocket doesn't read this. 😉
Not my cup of tea.

But, each to their own.

[Davo]

Thanks for the illustrated essay. I say do what you like, just not on the roads with the rest of us. (And yes, one day, I hope to build a fully working Dalek.[smilebigeye])

[Davo]

Probably wearing helmets! And driving some kind of vehicle

And getting shot at in order to defend their countries. Quite a grown-up thing to do. Not whining about how the police won't let them do what they want.

[Corgie Carrier]

I'm off to work so don't have time to search for a link, but look up the "road traffic regulations"
The charge is obscured forward vision
Used a lot with street machiners with pro stock (letter box) type bonnet scoops

[DiscoMick]

Yep, got the PDF.

[Mick_Marsh]

I'm off to work so don't have time to search for a link, but look up the "road traffic regulations"
The charge is obscured forward vision
Used a lot with street machiners with pro stock (letter box) type bonnet scoops
Where?
https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20(MISCELLANEOUS)%20REGULATIONS%202 014/CURRENT/2014.206.UN.PDF

Oh, interesting GTM. Proof of GTM. What does that mean? If there is no proof it is alleged?

[Mick_Marsh]

I say do what you like, just not on the roads with the rest of us.
So, what you are saying is people who like cycling should not be on the roads.

[Eevo]

So, what you are saying is people who like cycling should not be on the roads.

hmm, theres an idea! [bigwhistle]

[loneranger]

So, what you are saying is people who like cycling should not be on the roads.
Around people who want to wear plastic childs toys on their heads whilst driving.

Finished it for you. 😆

[Vern]

People look at me in amazement when I tell them I have never seen the movie "Titanic". One girl said to me "I've seen it thirteen times." I asked "Why?"
You very probably have interests I fail to comprehend.
I hear some people like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. Not me.
Star Wars (the original) still my all time favourite movie!

[Eevo]

Star Wars (the original) still my all time favourite movie!

nothing to see here. move along

[Saitch]

Star Wars (the original) still my all time favourite movie!

Sorry Vern. I could never understand (and still don't) when I went to the first movie why the space craft in the movie have to bank, as in aerodynamically, when flying in space & how, once again in deep space, you can hear their propulsion systems, any artillery & sundry explosions?

Back to road rules, wouldn't "Driving without due care" cover a myriad of perceived infractions by Plod?


Steve

[Mick_Marsh]

Around people who want to wear plastic childs toys on their heads whilst driving.

Finished it for you. ��
Are you suggesting I would wear a plastic child's toy on my head? No. Let me assure you my Darth Vader helmet is a valuable collectors item much the same as you would consider your bike not to be a kiddies play thing.
Although, I do like the idea that people should not cycle around me when I am driving.

I don't know whether anybody has noticed. This thread, like many others on this forum, is full of mainly peoples opinion.
Now, people are quite entitled to have an opinion, but not when it comes to the application of rules. When a rule is applied, we must apply it with regards to the meaning of the rule and not with regards to opinion. For example, if I was a copper, I'd be driving around stopping every cyclist and fining them for "obstructing traffic". That is a road rule, but I don't think my opinion is accurately reflected in that road rule. But we can hope it is.

This is why the thread. Maybe people may think a little less of their opinion and think a little more about the rule. After all, our opinions differ but the rule remains the same.

[Mick_Marsh]

Star Wars (the original) still my all time favourite movie!
It was ground breaking. I would classify it as science fantasy. What they (the team behind the movie) set out to do and what they achieved is truly remarkable.

[Mick_Marsh]

Sorry Vern. I could never understand (and still don't) when I went to the first movie why the space craft in the movie have to bank, as in aerodynamically, when flying in space & how, once again in deep space, you can hear their propulsion systems, any artillery & sundry explosions?

Back to road rules, wouldn't "Driving without due care" cover a myriad of perceived infractions by Plod?


Steve
You're over thinking it. It's about entertainment.
Stick to watching repeats of "Air Crash Investigation". You'll be much happier.

[Davo]

Bike helmets are meant to be worn when on a public road, toys aren't.


. . . Let me assure you my Darth Vader helmet is a valuable collectors item . . .

Yes, even though it's just plastic, I'm sure it is, because people will pay so much for one. (Holy bloody Jesus.) And with that, I shall try and resist this enlightening thread for now. I have to get to my job at a games shop so that I can save up for my genuine Stormtrooper suit so that I can wear it while I ride my Harley to pick up parts for my Dalek to get it ready in time for the next con so that I can try (again) to pick up that Slave Leia chick.

[Mick_Marsh]

Bike helmets are meant to be worn when on a public road, toys aren't.
Even whilst driving your $100,000+ Audi car? (refer to original post)
I drive a $400 Camry. Do I need to wear a bike helmet when I drive it on a public road?
I always thought they did strange things in WA.

[Eevo]

Even whilst driving your $100,000+ Audi car? (refer to original post)
I drive a $400 Camry. Do I need to wear a bike helmet when I drive it on a public road?
I always thought they did strange things in WA.


being a Camry driver. probably.

[Mick_Marsh]

being a Camry driver. probably.
You opinion or the law?

[Eevo]

You opinion or the law?

hmmm

[vnx205]

Mick, it appears that you want certainty, clarity and predictability.

I'm not sure that is possible.

Laws and regulations may be documented and published, but how a particular police officer and/or magistrate will interpret those regulations is less certain.

The example that began this thread will serve to illustrate that.

There might be the certainty you seek if the regulation said that it is an offence to wear are Darth Vader helmet while driving. However that is not the way the regulation is worded. Even when it is as specific as mentioning the field of view a driver must have, you still don't have certainty.

One of your posts argued that your Darth Vader helmet would not restrict your vision. I would be prepared to bet that there are police officers and magistrates who would disagree with you.

Good luck with trying to establish in court that your interpretation of that regulation is more accurate than theirs. :)

The regulation may be written down so that everyone knows what it says. That doesn't ensure that there will be universal agreement about what it means and how it will be applied.

In the real world, things are seldom as clear, simple and certain as we might want them to be.

[Mick_Marsh]

Mick, it appears that you want certainty, clarity and predictability.

I'm not sure that is possible.

Laws and regulations may be documented and published, but how a particular police officer and/or magistrate will interpret those regulations is less certain.

The example that began this thread will serve to illustrate that.

There might be the certainty you seek if the regulation said that it is an offence to wear are Darth Vader helmet while driving. However that is not the way the regulation is worded. Even when it is as specific as mentioning the field of view a driver must have, you still don't have certainty.

One of your posts argued that your Darth Vader helmet would not restrict your vision. I would be prepared to bet that there are police officers and magistrates who would disagree with you.

Good luck with trying to establish in court that your interpretation of that regulation is more accurate than theirs. :)

The regulation may be written down so that everyone knows what it says. That doesn't ensure that there will be universal agreement about what it means and how it will be applied.

In the real world, things are seldom as clear, simple and certain as we might want them to be.
Point taken but I'm sure the written down regulation will have a more accurate meaning than the random opinion of the unqualified.

[Gordie]

Is this the one you are looking for.....

https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/AUSTRALIAN%20ROAD%20RULES/CURRENT/2014.205.UN.PDF297—Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle.

Offence provision.
Australian Road Rules—8.12.2016 Part 18—Miscellaneous road rules Division 1—Miscellaneous rules for drivers 8 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [13.12.2016]

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver's lap.

Offence provision.

(2) A driver must not drive a motor vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of the road, and traffic, ahead, behind and to each side of the driver.






VNX is correct in his summing up, that is why we have precedents and case law, laws are interpreted by the judiciary.

I refer you to the above SA ARR297, this has been used to cover offences such as 'burnouts'(the driver does not have proper control), through to the driver seat being reclined too far and the driver not being able to reach switches, indicator stalks etc, (lack of proper control).

A law can't be precisely written to cover every 100's of possibilities, so it is interpreted.....and argued in court.

[Eevo]

Point taken but I'm sure the written down regulation will have a more accurate meaning than the random opinion of the unqualified.

nail on the head mick.

[Wraithe]

I remember a Dr wearing a helmet years ago.. Was all over the news, as he was a Neurosurgeon...

If you are not allowed to wear a helmet of any type whilst driving, you could not wear a safety helmet in a vehicle, hat, beany, etc etc

A motor cycle helmet would be illegal too...

The requirement to have clear vision behind, is via mirrors... You could not enforce that with trucks or vehicles with trailers, but if you have no mirrors, then you can be in breach there... If you cannot turn your head to view behind, then you need mirrors, but if you cant turn your head, its not illegal to drive, its called a disability...

Truck drivers can't see through loads and not many sleeper bunks have a rear window, thus the mirror is the way to clearly see behind...

Reduced visibility could be a dirty windscreen, thus when you have been playing in the mud all day, you have to clean your windscreen before driving off...That can be proven to be a danger...And not a small hole through the mud either, that will get you stopped...

Below is the link to WA's roadcode 2000... You will find it is written in typical legal overtones, so open to interpretation..

Western Australian Legislation - Road Traffic Code 2000 - Home Page (https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_2007_homepage.html)


I'm not a lawyer, copper or legal representative in anyway, Just a dumb old truck driver that likes to make a fool of an idiot on the side of the road...

[Mick_Marsh]

Still a toy - for grown adults - regardless of how fancy and how much. I can't help thinking of what men of a similar age were up to during WWII. God help us.
Happy Star Wars Day everybody!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/05/925.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/05/926.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/05/927.jpg

[Homestar]

And also with you.

[V8Ian]

And also with you.
Mass?

[Mick_Marsh]

They're being posted all over the place.

122910

[V8Ian]

Trog wants one of those for a daily drive, Mick. [bigsmile]

[Mick_Marsh]

Trog wants one of those for a daily drive, Mick. [bigsmile]

I'll take the Stormtrooper uniform.

[Homestar]

Don't forget tomorrow when we celebrate the dark side of the force - revenge of the 5th...