Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Arapiles
Why trucking regulations and licensing is not a federal responsibility has had me puzzled for years.
Cheers
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Arapiles
Why trucking regulations and licensing is not a federal responsibility has had me puzzled for years.
Cheers
The introduction of the NHVR (National Heavy Vehicle Regulator) is an attempt to do just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by austastar
As was the National Heavy Vehicle driver license, supposed to stop disqualified drivers from simply getting a license in another state or territory.
All the NHVR has achieved so far, is to add another layer of complexity to an already over-complicated and over-regulated industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tins
Suggesting that to play it safe & slow down [ ie.if in doubt slow down] is also a recipe for disaster because Peter Porsche at the tail end of a Traffic Stream is not going to. "Look at me everybody, look at me I drive a Porsche & I can do warp speed if I want to". We have all seen it.
The UK had the similar situation years ago when BMWs were popular with the well to do. Now days it appears as though they are driven by sales Reps. badly.
We have a similar problem. To enter the Heysen Tunnels on the Mount Barker Road (AKA M1) you should be down to 90kmh but one is often passed by drivers doing over the 100k in the tunnels
As I understand it the road speed reduces to 90 because there is slight bend in the tunnels (????) so you drop from 100 down to 90 & on exit you are back up to 100 again. Something to do with Insurance I was told.[???]
You cannot see the light from the other end until you are heading for the Exit.to give you an idea of the bend.
The left lane usually is occupied by a slow moving HGV also without rear tail lights illuminated, WHY? & the first indication that it is there is when it is backlit from the Eastern end as you take the bend/curve.
The automatic lighting setup also seems a bit naff as it supposed to adjust to the available light level in the tunnels but it doesn't IMHO In my opinion it wouldn't hurt if all the lighting is left on continuously.
Unaware if there has ever been a Major Pileup inside the tunnels but I certainly wouldn't wish to be in there if there was as there is nowhere to go to miss such a prang, except up the arse of those in front. Others would probably still keep on piling in from behind so Emergency Services would have a job getting access from either direction.
Certainly at least one vehicle would be on fire.
There are Pedestrian escape tunnels in the sides but first one would need to exit your vehicle & if a vehicle was on fire it would be a hairy place to be.
Oh yes, there are roof mounted fans, but are there to remove exhaust buildup but in the above Fire scenario they would probably do more harm than good by drawing in fresh air fom outside & if they were switched off the Emegency Services would be carting out asphyxiated corpses.
But the designers would have thought all this through before construction commenced wouldn't they? WOULDN'T THEY?[bigsad]
No - but not a freeway either. That is a divided road, not up to freeway standards. The road where the accident in question happened is up to freeway standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saitch
But that road (Bruce) is safer than an undivided road. Compare, for example, much of the Newell, which is two lane undivided for much of its length, with occasional passing lanes, heavy truck traffic, and a 110 speed limit.
Yes, I was surprised on our recent trip up the Newel to see 110 kmh on sections which were definitely not up to freeway standard, like the rebuilt Pacific Highway.
I noticed most traffic, including trucks, was sitting on 100 even in the 110 zones, which seemed responsible. We were towing the camper so 100 was good for us.
As tragic as it is, keep in mind it’s a high risk activity every time a policeman pulls over a car on a freeway.
Yep the residual risk on this activity would be a H or VH depending on the risk matrix you’re using.
The occurrence is rare (thankfully) but the Consequence is Catastrophic.
The employer and employee would have to be aware of the residual risk in carrying out these activities.
The slowing to 40km/hr rule when lights are flashing is an extra control measure brought in to try and reduce the number of occurrences or near misses.
Sadly there are still a few occupations that still have or cannot eliminate High Risk Activities.
In saying that even in my industry ‘mining’ my employer doesn’t allow High Risks tasks, sadly it still doesn’t eliminate all incidents.
On a different note, pretty sure RACQ are not allowed to do breakdown assistance on freeways anymore, cars are collected by tow trucks.
I also wonder if it will be acceptable to continue driving to an off ramp to pull over in a safer position. I’ve been pulled over on a freeway and thought glad I was required to stay in the car.
The RACQ as well as responding with a tilt trays but also a truck with the crash cushions on the rear attend to park behind the broken down vehicle.
In a Matilada Tank you might have been, but in one of today's cars maybe not so fortunateQuote:
Originally Posted by W&KO
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1950landy
With both operators well out of the way hopefully.[bigsad]
I put it to our "family" cop that it's just too risky to pull over cars on a freeway or other major road with speeding cars to which he said they are not allowed to let them get away ...but I said..usually for a couple hundred bucks fine..is it worth the risk? No he said...but it's the job we have to do.
