Going to the Sydney airport domestic termials.

[Sylvia Else]

So, there I am, barreling down Southern Cross Drive, at 80km/h, when I
pass a "Keep Left Unless Overtaking" sign. I take mental note - unless
I'm overtaking, I cannot use the right hand lane. No probs.

Then I see a sign indicating that to get to the domestic terminals, I
need to be in the right lane. Oh dear. I peer ahead to see whether
there's any vehicle I can contrive to be overtaking at the point where
the right hand lane heads down towards the terminals. Nup, and the point
is rapidly approaching. What to do? I look around feeling guilty - any
cops about? None are apparent. What the hell - I indicate right, and
pull into the right hand lane. I am now committing an offence. I resist
the temptation to step on the accelerator to end my situation sooner -
speeding is a worse offence that being in the right hand lane, and there
might still be cops about.

Phew! Made it. My criminal activities have gone unnoticed, this time.
But my nerves can't stand it. Next time the person I'm meeting will have
to take the train.

Sylvia.

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:av9kko...@mid.individual.net...

That sign is an explicit statement of the usual rule. It doesn't mean that
you move into the right lane in your situation only if you are overtaking.
What it means is that some drivers choose to drive in the right lane when
they should be in the left lane, especially if they are not going to the
domestic terminals. But that's only in Sydney, of course. As it happens, I
have just returned from a jaunt around bits of Italy, Spain, Morocco, France
and Turkey. From my observations, even the worst Sydney drivers are
law-abiding angels compared to drivers in those places. They have no rules.

[Sylvia Else]

There may once have been a "usual rule", but the situation in NSW now is
specified by

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s130.html

It appears to me that on a road whose speed limit is not above 80 km/h,
and in the absence of a "keep left unless overtaking" sign, there is no
requirement in NSW to avoid driving in the rightmost lane.

But, as usual, in the process of seeking to pin this down to the last
letter, the regulator has failed to recognised that there are situations
where the rule makes no sense. In particular, the domestic terminal exit
is not a "right turn", and no one signals right there.

But I share your opinion of drivers in continental Europe - or at least,
those in Paris. I lived there for a while. Crossing at a pedestrian
crossing (similar to the striped variety we have), could be unnerving at
best, not helped by the actual rule which amounted to "don't run them over".

Sylvia.

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avar61...@mid.individual.net...

Apparently.

> But, as usual, in the process of seeking to pin this down to the last
> letter, the regulator has failed to recognised that there are situations
> where the rule makes no sense. In particular, the domestic terminal exit
> is not a "right turn", and no one signals right there.

Maybe just a plea that drivers not going to the domestic terminal exit will
not drive in the right lane if the option of driving in the left lane is
available.

> But I share your opinion of drivers in continental Europe - or at least,
> those in Paris. I lived there for a while. Crossing at a pedestrian
> crossing (similar to the striped variety we have), could be unnerving at
> best, not helped by the actual rule which amounted to "don't run them
> over".

Paris? Comparatively genteel. Try Naples. For comic relief, the scooters
(unregistered) buzzing through the streets (ie alleys) of Marrakesh are hard
to beat, apart from the donkeys (also unregistered).

[Peter Jason]

Have you tried the hovering waiters? I almost
punched one once.

[Sylvia Else]

More than a plea - a demand backed by the force of law with the threat
of a fine for non-compliance. Anyway, the right lane splits off from the
rest of the road, and heads down towards the domestic terminals. Anyone
not wanting that route had better not be in the right lane by then.

The fact that the right lane disappears changes the status of what was
the middle lane, since it becomes the right lane of a two lane
carriageway, and since the "keep left unless overtaking" sign still
applies, traffic that was lawfully in that lane now has to move to the
left. This despite the fact that the speed limit is reduced to 70km/h at
about that point.

>
>> But I share your opinion of drivers in continental Europe - or at
>> least, those in Paris. I lived there for a while. Crossing at a
>> pedestrian crossing (similar to the striped variety we have), could be
>> unnerving at best, not helped by the actual rule which amounted to
>> "don't run them over".
>
> Paris? Comparatively genteel. Try Naples. For comic relief, the
> scooters (unregistered) buzzing through the streets (ie alleys) of
> Marrakesh are hard to beat, apart from the donkeys (also unregistered).

It seems there's a correlation between proximity to the equator and
deteriorating driver behaviour, then. I wonder whether that's seen in
Australia. You hear stuff coming out of NT.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> So, there I am, barreling down Southern Cross Drive, at 80km/h, when I
> pass a "Keep Left Unless Overtaking" sign. I take mental note - unless
> I'm overtaking, I cannot use the right hand lane. No probs.
>
> Then I see a sign indicating that to get to the domestic terminals, I
> need to be in the right lane. Oh dear. I peer ahead to see whether
> there's any vehicle I can contrive to be overtaking at the point where
> the right hand lane heads down towards the terminals. Nup, and the
> point is rapidly approaching. What to do? I look around feeling
> guilty - any cops about? None are apparent. What the hell - I
> indicate right, and pull into the right hand lane. I am now
> committing an offence.

The sensible interpretation is that the second sign is an exception to the
first, more general, rule. IOW, you can be in the right lane when not overtaking
as long as you are going to the domestic terminals.

[Sylvia Else]

It's sensible in the sense that one may assume that the regulator
doesn't really intend that the domestic terminal exit be unusable, but
that cuts no ice with the law as written.

The specific legislation is

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s130.html

It identifies (in subrule (3)) three different ways in which a keep left
unless overtaking sign ceases to have effect. The list may be taken to
be exhaustive - that is, there are no other ways.

There is no "sensible" provision, nor reasonable excuse provision. I
dare say, in a defended case, a magistrate would be unimpressed if a
prosecution were brought against someone who'd moved to the right lane
in preparation for going to the domestic terminal, and might just
dismiss the case. That still leaves the possibility that some
overzealous cop will issue a penalty notice, and the driver will pay the
fine, despite feeling wronged, rather than defend the matter in court.

If the regulator wants to prescribe conduct on the roads in such detail,
it needs to get it right. It's failed in this instance.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 10:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> The sensible interpretation is that the second sign is an exception
>> to the first, more general, rule. IOW, you can be in the right lane
>> when not overtaking as long as you are going to the domestic
>> terminals.
>
> It's sensible in the sense that one may assume that the regulator
> doesn't really intend that the domestic terminal exit be unusable, but
> that cuts no ice with the law as written.
>
> The specific legislation is
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s130.html
>
> It identifies (in subrule (3)) three different ways in which a keep
> left unless overtaking sign ceases to have effect. The list may be
> taken to be exhaustive - that is, there are no other ways.

In that case, isn't the second sign illegal, in that it specifically directs
drivers heading to the domestic terminals to break the law?

[Sylvia Else]

It's not an instruction, it's only providing information. As things
stand, the information is only useful if one's prepared to break the
law. A lot of information is like that. That doesn't make providing the
information unlawful in itself.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Isn't the driver entitled to believe that the first prerequisite of a road sign
is that it provide information that is _useful_ to those drivers it is
addressing? (In this case those heading to the domestic terminals.) Otherwise,
why place it there? That being the case, the driver is likely to then conclude
that it is lawful to move to the right lane to exit to the domestic terminals.
There could be no other reason for the sign's presence.

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avg72p...@mid.individual.net...

Does paragraph 130(2)(a) help?

[Sylvia Else]

No. There's really no way that continuing along an essentially straight
lane that separates from the other lanes can be considered turning
right, nor could a driver, having entered the right lane in response to
the sign giving information about domestic terminal route, a kilometre
or more perviously, continue to signal right until they reach the exit.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

I think one could find a goodly number of counter-examples on the roads
regarding the usefulness of the signs, but that aside, a belief that
something is lawful is not a legal defence.

One might form the view that the sign tends to lead people to believe
something that isn't true, but if so, that means there's a problem with
the sign. It doesn't absolve the drivers of guilt.

Sylvia.

[Kingpin]

What would you do at this intersection?

http://www.foundshit.com/no-left-no-right-sign/

[DavidW]

Kingpin wrote:
>
> What would you do at this intersection?
>
> http://www.foundshit.com/no-left-no-right-sign/

Well, the Stop sign appears to be redundant anyway.

Is that white ledge past the bitumen a median strip, or a gutter? I can't tell,
but the car is beyond it. I'd like to see farther to the right.

[Sylvia Else]

I raised this with RMS. They seem to feel I may have a point, and are
investigating whether the "keep left unless overtaking sign" should be
removed, or whether they need to install an end "keep left unless
overtaking sign".

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/05/2013 11:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

Just a brief update on this. RMS replied to me:

"Due to the far right lane on Southern Cross Drive being marked with
pavement arrows directing vehicles to the domestic airport, vehicles are
not in breach of the keep left road rule."

I asked for the legal basis for that claim. RMS replied that

"RMS considers that the exit lane on Southern Cross Drive to the Sydney
airport, which is marked with pavement arrows, is a special purpose lane
as vehicles in the far right lane have to exit off Southern Cross Drive."

The expression "special purpose lane" is defined in the dictionary:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/sch99.html

"special purpose lane" means a marked lane, or the part of a marked
lane, that is a bicycle lane, bus lane, emergency stopping lane, tram
lane, transit lane or truck lane.

Since the lane is none of those, they're wrong, as I've pointed out to them.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

After I drew this to the attention of RMS, and then later asked them to
reply, and then raised it with the Ombudsman, and then had to seek
review of the Ombudsman's decision not to investigate, the RMS finally
revised their position.

They claimed that they never intended their use of the expression
"special purpose lane" to be a use of the expression as it is defined in
the dictionary to the regulations.

Their position now is that a motorist using that lane to go to the
Domestic terminal is diverging to the right. They agree that this means
that the motorist is required to be signalling right.

I think they're wrong, and I have no intention of signalling right
there, because given that I think they're wrong, it follows that I also
think that I am prohibited from signalling right there (signalling under
the Road Rules is always either required or prohibited).

Clearly, this is as far as I can go as far as legal argument is
concerned. Perhaps I can get the police to issue me with a penalty
notice for not signalling right, and then I can challenge the thing in
court.

Sylvia.

[Pelican]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:cap1cc...@mid.individual.net...

You could apply for a declaratory order from the Supreme Court...

[Sylvia Else]

'bit financially risky.

Sylvia.