Police Vehicle Warning - Lights and 40kph limit

[hinekadon]

hi porkop :
the subject at hand was the implementation of this into law and does it improve you work being the prime question does it make your job safer or not ? i expect that everybody that works wants to get home to loved ones and any other situation should all be examined to the extent that it enhances this situation . We all believe there would be havoc with out the police in the society we all live in same applys to the fireys the ambos the stop/go road workers and others there is not a matter of door knocking as some one has to do it even being one of the worst emotional involvements humans have to endure ! my sympathies for those that choose to do this work but that is not a contributing factor , you coming home from work is the point, I dont mind if the law is changed to 10kph but will that stop some idiot from crashing into you ??? regards don

[Uncle Fester]

Its more about creating a safer workplace for emergency workers.

I dont believe the law specifically stated "an emergency situation" but "emergency vehicle with lights activated" or similar wording.

Its can be deadly standing beside the window of a car talking to a person with trucks/cars/buses centimeters from you butt, flying by!!!!!

What if the person being spoken to arc's up and pushes the officer into the path of a car doing 100kmh? It happens!!!!!

My question remains: Is stopping a driver on the side of a road for an infringement considered an emergency?

I would expect the police in such a case to stop drivers where it is SAFE to do so!

It has been rightly critisied that suddenly having to slow down from 110-40 on highways can cause more accidents especially in dense traffic, tailgating trucks, etc and the trail can go back kilometers, long before you see the flashing cop car.
This is of course justified if there is a real EMERGENCY but is this kind of high risk revenue grabbing considered an emergency, justifyng not only the risk to the officers but everybody travelling on that stretch of road?

And why this pathetic high risk HollyWood Cop car chasing speedsters one by one and and force stopping them at all?
If they want to collect real revenue just have a mobile speed CAMERA hiding on the side collecting all the data and an infingement notice with photo sent by mail.

[lsemmens]

I have no problem with a copper visibly sitting on the side of the road writing tickets. THAT has more effect on traffic than anything else. The problem being, isn't so much, where the copper pulls over the idiot, because, in most cases, the idiot stops, not safely off the road where everyone can be safe, but usually in the most inconvenient place possible. I think that the cops who pull up behind an offender with lights going and parked half in the lane to give some protection are quite sensible. And, yes, we should slow down. It does make it difficult in some circumstances, the poor cops, often do not have a choice as to when, or where they get to pull an offender over. Even on narrow country roads.

We went to the Adelaide show yesterday and temporary speed restrictions were in place around the showgrounds. There was a copper there with a radar gun. Obviously he was not "Obvious" in the crowd but he was doing his job and, at no time did I actually see him pull anyone over, but I did see him often pointing to a car and telling them to slow down. Given the location pulling one car over would have been problematic, but I bet he had to do it from time to time.

[peteramjet]

My question remains: Is stopping a driver on the side of a road for an infringement considered an emergency?

I would expect the police in such a case to stop drivers where it is SAFE to do so!

It is the responsibility of the driver of the car being stopped to do so in a safe location, not the police. And we've all seen drivers stop in some pretty stupid locations, I even saw one a couple of weeks back stop in the right lane of a 3 lane highway - which is more reason for this rule to apply for police doing traffic stops.

But your question is essentially irrelevant, because the requirement to slow down isn't because of an 'emergency', it is because a vehicle is displaying red/blue lights.

The RMS traffic crews may be stopped with a broken down car or truck on the side of the road. They have red/blue lights, and if they are flashing you are required to slow down to 40km.

It has been rightly critisied that suddenly having to slow down from 110-40 on highways can cause more accidents especially in dense traffic, tailgating trucks, etc and the trail can go back kilometers, long before you see the flashing cop car.

So the suggestion is that because there are idiot drivers who can't keep a safe distance who can't keep their eyes on what is happening at least 2-3 cars ahead, that rules shouldn't be brought in to protect those emergency workers near the roadway?

Again, it's the driver of a car who is required to keep a safe distance in order to stop or take action should something happen in front of them. Generally the '2 or 3 second gap' is considered reasonable for a car driver - which is between 55 and 65 metres between cars at 100km/h. And of course heavy vehicles should be keeping a far greater distance. If people kept a safe distance and were alert as to what was happening ahead there would be no rear-enders.

[hinekadon]

so the question remains it could be divide into two parts is a cop car giving a ticket a emergency and is it safe for a cop giving a ticket safer by having his flashing lights on any where ???

[Uncle Fester]

It is the responsibility of the driver of the car being stopped to do so in a safe location, not the police.

You are required to stop immediately if you are chased by a cop with flashing lights.
A safe loction by my defintion is not on the side of a fast highway, endangering myself, the cop and passing traffic. It would the next turn off onto a slow road with room to stop.

But your question is essentially irrelevant, because the requirement to slow down isn't because of an 'emergency', it is because a vehicle is displaying red/blue lights.

The RMS traffic crews may be stopped with a broken down car or truck on the side of the road. They have red/blue lights, and if they are flashing you are required to slow down to 40km.

Aha! So this is NOT about emergency vehicles as some news reports say.

So the suggestion is that because there are idiot drivers who can't keep a safe distance who can't keep their eyes on what is happening at least 2-3 cars ahead, that rules shouldn't be brought in to protect those emergency workers near the roadway?

Now you are talking about emergencys, which I never questioned.

Again, it's the driver of a car who is required to keep a safe distance in order to stop or take action should something happen in front of them. Generally the '2 or 3 second gap' is considered reasonable for a car driver - which is between 55 and 65 metres between cars at 100km/h. And of course heavy vehicles should be keeping a far greater distance. If people kept a safe distance and were alert as to what was happening ahead there would be no rear-enders.

Yes it are those drivers I am talking about WHO WILL REAR END ME because they don't give a f#@k about any 3 second gap, particulary trucks of all kind, which I experience almost daily when I have to slow down(very carefully) to turn off the highway towards the right, despite signalling at least 10 seconds earlier but those hoons stay 2 meters behind me, flashing their headlights. Upon passing me they display some sort of disability with one finger of their hand.
Needless to say that the left lane next to them is empty.

You appear to live on a different planet.

[george65]

It is the responsibility of the driver of the car being stopped to do so in a safe location, not the police. And we've all seen drivers stop in some pretty stupid locations,

The last time I got pulled over and some years before, I got a lecture for not stopping when the cop flashed his lights. I asked, you wanted me to stop on a blind corner in a ditch or just on the raod itself? I went round the corner and stopped where there was adequate room to get off the road. Guy was clearly too hung up on a power trip than to realise what he was going on about.
The reason for being pulled over? To check my trailer.... which the guy never looked at.

I was pulled over years before because they wanted to know "what I was doing in that area" when I was coming home from work going through a laneway at the back of the shops which a lot of traffic went though. Again, got a lecture because I didn't stop in what would have been the laneway which completely blocked it. I stopped around the corner on thhe street where there was room for cars to pass not block the whole laneway.

Sorry, but my experience with cops through no wrong doing both with traffic and other matters has not been positive. I used to think only crims with a grudge complained about them but I have seen another side and well justified reason to it.

Again, it's the driver of a car who is required to keep a safe distance in order to stop or take action should something happen in front of them.

Yeah, that's all good and well.
I have been in a car that as been rear ended when stopped at the lights twice in the last 18 months. The last time we were stationary for a whole light cycle. The time before that we had been in traffic crawling along in traffic for a KM and some stupid bimbo slammed into us sending us flying into the car in front.

Depending on drivers to do the right thing is laughable. I see them all the time on the highways doing 100 or less in 110 zone and they spot a cop car on the side of the road and they slam on the brakes at the site of them. I was in a Van that rear ended a car when they stopped dead in the middle of the road when it came across an intersection the cops had blocked off due to a bust water pipe. All the sudden the road was wet and the van slid and hit the car. The cops standing there saw the whole thing and came over to the driver of the van I was in and apologised to him and said that should have never happened and admitted the guy stopped dead for no reason and the guy driving the van I was in had no way to avoid the accident.

When so many of them still can't figure out what the right hand lane is for on a 3 lane 110 highway asking them to have the sense to slow down in a reasonable manner when they come round a corner and see an emergency vehicle is asking for trouble. One has to account for the the fact drivers DO NOT do the right thing, not assume the will where there are risks like this.
The other thing is the truckwits who sit up the arse of any vehicle not doing the speed they want to go and then try to defend their belligerent driving with hose shit about being on a schedule and other crap to justify their aggressive behavior.

I will bet my arse this law is revised or repealed once it is realised how many accidents it CAUSES rather than prevents.
40 is a stupid expectation on a highway for a start.

Generally the '2 or 3 second gap' is considered reasonable for a car driver - which is between 55 and 65 metres between cars at 100km/h. And of course heavy vehicles should be keeping a far greater distance.

I have to wonder how often you drive on highways?
Few vehicles keep a good distance and as someone that tries to, it's typical to have some dipshit fair up your arse even if you are doing a few K OVER the limit and going as fast as the vehicle in front, only allowing yourself some space. They follow you and at the first opportunity they will go round and then sit up the arse of the next car who is also doing over the limit and achieving them a whole 50M. When this happens on a single lane road, you can bet as soon as they come to a couple of corners they will drop 20 Kmh and crawl around before taking off as straight line hereos again.

Again, heavy vehicles are far and away the worst offenders for this. Sit up your arse if you are not speeding and able to get away from them but then have no problem holding a line of traffic up for miles while they play truck drags in hang in the right lane while they overtake another truck going 1 Kmh slower than they want to.
Trucks should NEVER be allowed in the right lane unless they are making a right turn within 400M. Same as in Europe.


The sentiment and logic of leaving space and slowing around emergency vehicles is one thing and something I support. The behavior out there in the real world and how the ramifications thereof is going to be something else.

[Uncle Fester]

The rule should be clearly changed to emergencys only!
And a rule must be in place for cops to do the right thing and guide a driver who broke the law, off a high speed highway to a safe spot by over taking them and displaying a "follow me" sign like it is done in other civilised countries.

[peteramjet]

You are required to stop immediately if you are chased by a cop with flashing lights.

No. It is an offence not to stop without a reasonable excuse. Waiting for a safe area, such as a break down bay, is more than reasonable.

A safe loction by my defintion is not on the side of a fast highway, endangering myself, the cop and passing traffic. It would the next turn off onto a slow road with room to stop.

So a cop sees someone on a mobile phone and speeding on the M5 in Sydney. The driver is travelling to Canberra. You expect the cop to follow him the 280km to Canberra until the driver gets off a fast highway? Your plan for the cops to wait until the driver may be on a slower road is simply not possible, as they have no idea where the driver is going.

Aha! So this is NOT about emergency vehicles as some news reports say.

Don't rely on the news to be accurate, if you want it straight, read the legislation. But regardless, the traffic crews are considered 'emergency vehicles '- so the news may actually be right

Yes it are those drivers I am talking about WHO WILL REAR END ME because they don't give a f#@k about any 3 second gap, particulary trucks of all kind, which I experience almost daily when I have to slow down(very carefully) to turn off the highway towards the right, despite signalling at least 10 seconds earlier but those hoons stay 2 meters behind me, flashing their headlights. Upon passing me they display some sort of disability with one finger of their hand.
Needless to say that the left lane next to them is empty.

You appear to live on a different planet.

The same 'hoons who will rear end you because they give a f**' are the same idiot drivers who have caused legislation like this to be brought in.

But the fact that you suggest that because there are idiot drivers who can't keep a safe distance who can't keep their eyes on what is happening at least 2-3 cars ahead, and because of those idiots rules shouldn't be brought in to protect those emergency workers near the roadway? Surely that is the view of somebody living on a different planet?

[Uncle Fester]

No. It is an offence not to stop without a reasonable excuse. Waiting for a safe area, such as a break down bay, is more than reasonable.

So a cop sees someone on a mobile phone and speeding on the M5 in Sydney. The driver is travelling to Canberra. You expect the cop to follow him the 280km to Canberra until the driver gets off a fast highway? Your plan for the cops to wait until the driver may be on a slower road is simply not possible, as they have no idea where the driver is going.

Are you saying that there are no rest stops, servos, macca, or even break down bays on that 280km ?

Don't rely on the news to be accurate, if you want it straight, read the legislation. But regardless, the traffic crews are considered 'emergency vehicles '- so the news may actually be right

Couldn't find any different wording on the RMS site other than about emergency and flashing lights. It does not cover if a cop writing a speeding ticket is an emergency.

The same 'hoons who will rear end you because they give a f**' are the same idiot drivers who have caused legislation like this to be brought in.

But the fact that you suggest that because there are idiot drivers who can't keep a safe distance who can't keep their eyes on what is happening at least 2-3 cars ahead, and because of those idiots rules shouldn't be brought in to protect those emergency workers near the roadway? Surely that is the view of somebody living on a different planet?

I suggested none of the kind. You are like my wife who is not listening to what I am saying.
I have said multiple times that I fully agree to this rule if it is about an emergency !

[lsemmens]

The problem is those idiots that are being pulled over. If they obeyed the law then there would be no need for cops to pull them over. For what it's worth, I drove a truck for years and, if I did not tailgate the car in front, some idiot would cut in front and force me to tailgate them. Now, by tailgating, I mean a little closer than comfortable but with plenty of time to stop.
Regardless of the the law, there are still idiots on the road. We were stationary at a roadblock with a road train parked across the highway. A line of stationary cars in the left hand lane and numerous coppers using those light banners. It did not stop a drunk parking on top of us at 100kph! We may not like some of the laws, but they have to cater to the lowest common denominator - i.e. the idiot who thinks he's Superman and none of the rules apply to him. The road train operator actually saw what was to happen and sounded his horn. The coppers all jumped for their lives, but I was the poor bugger that was killed.

[peteramjet]

Are you saying that there are no rest stops, servos, macca, or even break down bays on that 280km ?

There are plenty. But by your reasoning, if the driver doesn’t pull into one, then they shouldn’t be stopped by the cops as they remain on the highway.

Couldn't find any different wording on the RMS site other than about emergency and flashing lights. It does not cover if a cop writing a speeding ticket is an emergency.

The RMS site specifically mentions ‘emergency vehicle’ - not an ‘emergency’ occurring.

A cop writing a ticket with red/blue light flashing is using an ‘emergency vehicle’. The 40km therefore applies.



The actual legislation is under 78-1 of the Road Rules. That also specifically refers to a ‘stationary emergency response vehicle’ and not an ‘emergency’ occurring.

You are like my wife who is not listening to what I am saying.
I have said multiple times that I fully agree to this rule if it is about an emergency !

But you are not understanding that this rule is not about an ‘emergency’ - it is about ‘emergency vehicles’ and protecting emergency workers and others around the emergency vehicles.

Ironically, you sound like my wife - arguing a point that isn’t in existence

[porkop]

I would expect the police in such a case to stop drivers where it is SAFE to do so!

That’s what we are trained to do but you are at the mercy of the person you are intercepting!!

No amount of direction as to where to stop can overcome stupidity!

I have had drivers, once signaled to stop, STOP, right there, immediately! In the middle of the road, right lane, heavy traffic!!

And you asked “does it constitute and emergency”, well, no, but it has to be done. As I said before, the law doesn’t imply that the emergency needs to be in an emergency situation, just with it’s lights flashing.

As to OH&S, you will never remove all dangers in any job, but this situation mitigates the danger somewhat.

For gods sake, OH&S, they give coppers a gun, so there is a very big I implied danger in their job.

[hinekadon]

surely they can use their loud hailer to tell the idiots to move on or is this above their pay level ???? far more effective than having some one stop in a unsafe position the answer is still half answered . DOES A COP ISSUING A TICKET be A EMERGENCY SITUATION

[peteramjet]

DOES A COP ISSUING A TICKET be A EMERGENCY SITUATION

Your understanding of the new law is skewed, and that is what is causing your confusion.

As discussed above with nomeat, this law in not about ‘emergency situations’ - it is about ‘emergency vehicles’ and additional protections for emergency workers and those they are interacting with, be they fire, ambulance, traffic emergency crews or police, when they are working near traffic, *regardless* of what task they are doing.

[fandtm666]

Your understanding of the new law is skewed, and that is what is causing your confusion.

As discussed above with nomeat, this law in not about ‘emergency situations’ - it is about ‘emergency vehicles’ and additional protections for emergency workers and those they are interacting with, be they fire, ambulance, traffic emergency crews or police, when they are working near traffic, *regardless* of what task they are doing.

that is correct they have worded it clearly " STATIONARY EMERGENCY VEHICLE " displaying flashing lights for any reason

[Godzilla]

I think the wording is not emergency situation by rather vehicle with blue, red or purple emergency lights on.

So while booking someone is not a emergency situation, the police officer, paramedic, firebrigade worker, SES person etc getting out on the road requires them to turn on the emergency lights for their own safety.

Lights on, vehicle with lights doing less than 40 or stopped means drivers slow to 40 until clear of them.

It aint rocket science.

[hinekadon]

yeah right

[hinekadon]

as I have explained my understanding of the law is fine your understanding of the question has f,all to do with the law its to do with the discussion on the forum which p....... and pe...... have successfully managed to hijack from a discussion about a change in the law to the killing of 6 million in the ww2 ,to going home safely to whether they use their position correctly to make themself look good on the forum . all this proves to me is that their egos are more precious than their common sense and the the rest of society o dear have i offended some one lol

[peteramjet]

your understanding of the question has f,all to do with the law its to do with the discussion on the forum

The discussion is about the new law - go back to the OP if you can’t see that.

You thought the new law applied only in ‘emergency situations’, and therefore not to police doing traffic stops. Your understanding was incorrect. The legislation is posted there to read it if you don’t believe that to be the case.

No need to become offensive and abusive (again) because you were mistaken.