NSW Traffic Law - Distance Maintained Between Cars on Uphill Traffic?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Clancy

Well-Known Member
6 April 2016
973
69
2,289
You're not going to get a list of every circumstance. That's not the way life works. It's certainly not the way government works. And, increasingly, it's also not the way the law works.

Well let's take another look at your earlier comment "Except that the 'safe distance' isn't always the same amount of space in all circumstances. It might be considered necessary to leave a greater safe distance because of the fact that you're following a truck up a hill."

You chose to disagree with my comment, and I'm just trying to get you to substantiate what you chose to say but now suddenly 'that's not how life works'. Isn't that a bit ridiculous?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
No, it's not. In my opinion, common sense would indicate that you don't sit the same distance behind a truck going up a hill as I would from a car travelling on a flat road. They're different circumstances, involving different factors and risks - and therefore require different treatment. It's the same principle for all risk based assessment: what are the potential risks, and what should I do to mitigate that risk.

However, in respect to my 'that's not how it works' comment, what you appeared to be asking was: Where does it say what distance I should follow a truck at? My response was that is not how the government, law or life works. You don't get a prescriptive list of everything you can and cannot do.
 

Clancy

Well-Known Member
6 April 2016
973
69
2,289
No, it's not. In my opinion, common sense would indicate that you don't sit the same distance behind a truck going up a hill as I would from a car travelling on a flat road. They're different circumstances, involving different factors and risks - and therefore require different treatment. It's the same principle for all risk based assessment: what are the potential risks, and what should I do to mitigate that risk.

However, in respect to my 'that's not how it works' comment, what you appeared to be asking was: Where does it say what distance I should follow a truck at? My response was that is not how the government, law or life works. You don't get a prescriptive list of everything you can and cannot do.

Ok well clearly you don't understand stopping distances. It's about speed, it's about road conditions, it's about weather conditions. What type of vehicle in front is irrelevant - it can be a truck, it can be a clown on a mono cycle, the rules are the same...

No wait, i lied, they 'do' actually recommend giving more space for motorbikes because they can stop faster than other vehicles. There are a lot of things they teach you about safe driving that are not strictly rules, but the things your going on about with the truck on a hill, i have never heard it mentioned anywhere...

I mean, the only situation i could imagine is if it was a steep hill and the truck was very slow in which case i would perceive a risk of rollback, is that what you mean? In that case it makes sense?
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
I understand stopping distances. That's not the issue here. You'll notice that I didn't say anything about it being a stopping distance - merely a safe distance. You'll also notice the original question was nothing about stopping distance, and actually referred to the truck rolling (assuming backwards, because gravity). For all we know, they could have been stopped at the time it happened (and probably were).

Maintaining a safe distance is about more than the ability to stop. For example, if I'm stopped on a hill behind a learner driver I'm going to give them a lot more room than I usually would otherwise.
 

Clancy

Well-Known Member
6 April 2016
973
69
2,289
I understand stopping distances. That's not the issue here. You'll notice that I didn't say anything about it being a stopping distance - merely a safe distance. You'll also notice the original question was nothing about stopping distance, and actually referred to the truck rolling (assuming backwards, because gravity). For all we know, they could have been stopped at the time it happened (and probably were).

Maintaining a safe distance is about more than the ability to stop. For example, if I'm stopped on a hill behind a learner driver I'm going to give them a lot more room than I usually would otherwise.

you don't have to be afraid to use the word 'yes' regarding my last question.

So what we are talking about is the situation where the car behind chose to move up to close rather than ending up there after doing a hard stop. In which case the car behind is a moron but not necessarily legally in the wrong.

There is another situation that can occur which i like to call 'leave a present'. This happens when your driving behind a vehicle that obscures your view of part of the road ahead. Then that vehicle suddenly changes lanes and leaves you a present which is a stopped vehicle or a very slow truck in your lane!....In that circumstance you could not blame the car behind for stopping too close behind the truck.

I have had this 'leave a present' happen to me on the motorway a few times.... and of course there HAS to happen to be a car in the lane next to me so i cannot lane change, i have to do a death defying emergency stop. So you can actually be traveling a safe distance behind the vehicle in front, and then suddenly NOT! .... I suspect this is the exact reason for some of the major accidents we have seen on the motorway. So what i do is, i travel in the middle lane wherever my view of the road ahead is impaired, especially on curved sections even though the rule says keep left unless overtaking. I would rather break that rule than slam into the back of a slow/stopped vehicle i could not see.
 

Rob Legat - SBPL

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
16 February 2017
2,452
514
2,894
Gold Coast, Queensland
lawtap.com
Sorry Clancy, I wasn't aware you needed the validation.

I don't think it's safe to assume what the exact situation is. Natezy didn't explain exactly what happened, and it is second-hand information in any case. However, your comments are correct (if a little harsh in labelling the person a moron).
 

Clancy

Well-Known Member
6 April 2016
973
69
2,289
Sorry Clancy, I wasn't aware you needed the validation.

No, i was talking about the possibility of a simple answer doing the job, but its up to you if you want to be like the tree from Lord of The rings "anything worth saying is worth taking a long time to say" Its your choice, all good *thumbs up*