Latest news with #RoadRules
Daily Mail
13-06-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Mail
Aussies warned about little-known road rule that could cost you a $2000 fine
Aussie drivers are being warned to check their parked cars, as a common habit could lead to hefty fines worth thousands of dollars. Leaving your car unlocked or its windows slightly open can result in serious penalties - depending on the state you're in. And while there are some exceptions, they apply to a very limited group of drivers. In several states, a 'three-metre rule' is in place, allowing drivers to keep their car unlocked only if they remain within three metres of the vehicle. Step any further away, and you could be slapped with a fine. Although the rule might seem excessive to some, Astor Legal principal lawyer Avinash Singh said there is a clear rationale behind it. 'The reasoning behind the law is to prevent cars from being stolen and then used in more serious crimes,' Singh said. 'The use of allegedly stolen vehicles makes it difficult for police to track down the offenders.' The exact penalties vary from state to state, and one state reportedly doesn't have the law at all. But in jurisdictions where it does apply, the consequences can be severe, highlighting the importance of knowing local regulations when it comes to parking your car. New South Wales Under Regulation 213 of the Road Rules 2014, if you're more than 3 metres away from your unattended vehicle, it must be locked, and windows secured. A window is considered secure if it's open by no more than 2 centimetres. The On-the-spot fine is $114, but the maximum court-imposed penalty is 20 penalty units, amounting to a fine of $2,200. Queensland Drivers must ensure their vehicles are locked and windows secured if they are more than three metres away, windows must not be open more than five centimetres. Failing to comply can lead to hefty penalties, with fines reaching up to $3,096. If the car is left unlocked with the keys still inside, the driver can be hit with a $2,669 fine. Victoria Drivers must secure their vehicles when parked and unattended. Windows are deemed secure if opened by less than 2 centimetres. An on-the-spot fine of $117, which can go up to $600 if it goes to court. Western Australia Drivers must switch off the car, remove the key, lock the doors, and secure the windows when leaving the vehicle unattended. The fine is $50, but there are some exemptions. Tasmania In Tasmania, drivers must switch off the engine, remove the key, lock the doors, and secure windows (no more than 2cm open) when leaving a car unattended. I It is also illegal to leave minors under 16 inside. Fines can reach nearly $200. Australian Capital Territory In the ACT, you must lock your car and close the windows when leaving it unattended. Breaking this rule can cost you up to $3,200. Northern Territory In the Northern Territory, it's an offence to leave a car unlocked and unattended when the driver is more than three metres away, and no one is inside. Fines may vary. South Australia South Australia is the only state where drivers are not legally required to lock their cars when unattended. Under Regulation 23, there's no penalty for leaving your vehicle unlocked, possibly because stolen cars are less commonly linked to serious crimes there.
Epoch Times
23-05-2025
- Epoch Times
‘I Got It From Temu': Woman Fined for Riding Motorbike With Dog Strapped to Chest
A Queensland woman has been handed a $376 fine after a police officer pulled her over for riding a motorcycle with a dog harnessed to her chest. The 35-year-old rider was spotted on May 17 navigating Alexandra Parade at Alexandra Headland around 2 p.m. in the Queensland's Sunshine Coast, with her four-legged passenger comfortably perched between her arms. But one officer from the Sunshine Coast Highway Patrol weren't so convinced about the safety of the arrangement. Video released by the Queensland Police Service captured the rather surprised officer informing the rider, 'You know you can't do that ... So you can't ride with the dog on the bike. I must say, it's the first time I've seen it with the whole harnessing thing before.' The woman responded that she wasn't aware it was illegal. 'I bought this off Temu,' she said. Related Stories 4/18/2025 5/19/2025 Despite the harness, the officer explained the risks. 'Well unfortunately you can't be riding around with the dog in between your arms. I know your dog is probably trained but if he starts moving around or try to chase stuff, anything could happen. Then that's obviously gonna cause you to crash.' Harness or Not, Rules Say No Queensland's road laws are clear on such matters. Under Road Rule 301(3), riders of bicycles or personal mobility devices are prohibited from leading or tethering an animal. The same principle applies to motorcyclists. The rule, found in the Queensland Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) 2009, carries a maximum penalty of 20 units. Senior Sergeant Shane Panoho of Sunshine Coast Highway Patrol said that, while pet love runs deep, it should never override safety. 'We know how attached some people are to their pets, but it's best to apply a paws-off approach when it comes to our roads,' he said. 'The rider had purchased the harness online and did not think through the safety implications, particularly if the dog was to react to other road users, pedestrians or animals. This could place the rider and her pooch in harm's way or put other motorists at risk. Although the dog seemed to be comfortable on the bike, we urge riders to practice safe and responsible behaviour on our roads.' Lap Pets Illegal Nationwide Across Australia, it's illegal to drive with a pet on your lap. Although it is not illegal for your pet to sit in the front passenger seat, the pet must be safely restrained. Most states impose hefty fines for instance Victoria imposes a $277 fine for having an unrestrained pet in the front seat. It is also illegal to leave pets in hot cars for over 10 minutes. In South Australia, failing to ensure pet safety while driving can attract fines of up to $750. Tasmanian road rules advise drivers to secure dogs in the back seat to minimise distractions and injury risk. In the Northern Territory, dogs must be either restrained or enclosed when transported in or on a vehicle.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Truck Drivers To Speak English, But That's Already Necessary By Law
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday requiring all of the truck drivers in America to be proficient in the English language, following his designation of English as the official language of the country in a separate executive order in March. As a result of the EO, reports The Hill, Transportation Secretary and former Real World/Road Rules cast member Sean Duffy will issue new guidance on proficiency testing and enforcement policies for truckers. If a driver is found in violation of the executive order, they'll be put "out of service." Here's the thing — federal law already required truckers to be proficient in English, and drivers need to prove their proficiency as a condition of obtaining a commercial driver's license. This seems like little more than another Trump policy aimed at harassing and detaining law-abiding Americans and exacerbating an already crisis-level trucking industry problem. Ostensibly this week's executive order was crafted to make the highways of the United States safe from the scourge of native Spanish and Punjabi speakers conversing in their most comfortable language. It specifies that drivers "need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English." Federal law already requires all commercial driver's license candidates demonstrate they can "read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, understand highway traffic signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records". So what good is this executive order? Read more: Buy One Of These Electric Pickup Trucks Instead Of Humiliating Yourself With A Tesla Cybertruck In 2016, as part of an anti-racism policy effort, the Obama-era Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration removed its own requirement to put drivers out of service for failing to maintain federal English Language Proficiency rules. The FMCSA specified that the requirement was removed from its rulebook because they "could not substantiate the safety impacts" of the rule. This policy is specifically reversed by Trump's new EO, despite commercially licensed drivers needing to pass a physical exam, a drug test, prove they're in the country working legally, and the ability to pass a written knowledge test, a driving skills test, and a road test, all conducted in English, while driving on U.S. roads with all signage in English. These new Transportation Secretary requirements will potentially harm drivers' ability to make a salary for an as-yet-unknown Duffy-specified infraction. Will drivers lose their jobs for speaking to each other or to dock workers in their native language? Will trucks be programmed not to play foreign language music, or prevented from providing route instructions in any language other than English? If a driver has the kind of stellar safety record required to maintain a CDL and continue to be hired for hauls, the load arrives to its destination on time and intact, does it really matter what language they feel most comfortable speaking? Truckers have already proven they understand, read, and write the English language, even if they don't regularly use it in daily conversation. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
The Guardian
11-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Musk thinks Trump's pal Navarro is a ‘moron'. Who are we supposed to root for here?
I would like to dispel some rumors right up front. One, I did not receive a PhD in business from Harvard Business School. Hopefully this doesn't make you think less of me, but I felt it necessary to be honest. Second, I did not even attend Harvard. I thought about it once; hopefully, thinking about something isn't illegal yet. My point is that I am no elitist snob begging for your subservience. I'm a simple man, just trying to salvage the last of my meager wealth during the great trade war of 2025. I know absolutely nothing about global economic policy. As such, I must be worth listening to. I say all of this because Elon Musk, the owner of various companies like Tesla, SpaceX, Weyland-Yutani, OCP, the Tyrell Corporation, etc, has made it abundantly clear that he can't stand Peter Navarro. Peter Navarro, with his fancy degree from Harvard, is too much of an intellectual for the current zeitgeist that favors a complete lack of knowledge for just about anyone in a position of authority. The secretary of education never taught a single school class, but she has (poorly) received a Stone Cold Stunner. The secretary of Health and Human Services has a problem with pasteurized milk. The secretary of transportation was on Road Rules, so at least he has a basic understanding of motorway etiquette. But for the most part, if you have only a layman's understanding of your role, you are unequivocally qualified to lead. I am ill-suited to any cabinet position, unless there's a secretary of cocktails, in which case, I make a mean dry gin martini with a twist of lemon. So I am paradoxically the perfect person to run our economic policy, based on the rhetoric of Elon Musk, who deemed Peter Navarro to be a 'moron' because of his advanced degree, and his support for Donald Trump's ruinous tariffs against global trade. Navarro stated that Musk's Tesla plants are a prime example of the world's trade imbalance. 'In many cases, if you go to [Musk's] Texas plant, a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case are the batteries, come from Japan and come from China. The electronics come from Taiwan,' Navarro alleged. This statement set Musk off, causing him to turn on Navarro – whom he considers 'dumber than a sack of bricks' – and by proxy, Trump's stated aims of bringing manufacturing back to the States through onerous taxation. Musk said on X: 'By any definition whatsoever, Tesla is the most vertically integrated auto manufacturer in America with the highest percentage of US content. Navarro should ask the fake expert he invented, Ron Vara.' The 'Ron Vara' comment is in reference to the allegedly made-up expert that Navarro cited in his 2011 book Death By China, which warns the reader of nefarious Chinese economic policy. When called out about his charming little fib, Navarro said that the use of a fictional figure that is clearly an anagram of his own last name was a fun 'inside joke' between him and … I suppose the basic tenets of ethics. This is, by any cogent estimation, a battle of the titans: Navarro, the Ivy League-educated garbage man for the current American president, and Musk, who managed to wield his immense wealth to convince said president that having a functioning government was beta-ass behavior, bruh. Is there a winner here? Probably not. We all lose when no one seems to care about anything but their own interests. Navarro is terrified to upset his boss. Musk clearly doesn't want to endanger his own profits by allowing tariffs to squelch the free exchange of goods between nations that like electric cars. The rest of us, the chaff caught between these two gibbering hobbits, can fend for ourselves until they figure it out. This fight is expensive for us. The stock market, which is too esoteric and costly for most average people to participate in directly, shed trillions of dollars thanks to fears of Trump's tariffs. That value bounced back after the president backed off his threats for a period of 90 days, but the psychological effect of that brinkmanship will be hard to shake. Those fluctuations are video game-like blips for the mega-rich, but they can cause real harm to the retirement funds of the average citizen. A tariff on pharmaceuticals could inhibit people from accessing life-saving medication. To people like Navarro and Musk, these are theoretical concerns, so far removed from their everyday lives that they might as well be the problems of the Klingon Empire on Star Trek. Why should they care, when their own petty squabbles are so near and dear to them? But this is the grand thesis of Trump's America. Personal grievance and retribution are paramount. Proving you are superior to your enemy means more than the fate of a stranger, or a neighbor. Why do we get out of bed every morning if not to smite our opponent on the virtual battlefield of social media? It means more to be right than to do right. In some twisted way, Musk is correct. We do need some manner of global trade to survive, because the global economy is so bloody complicated and ridiculous that we have to keep some semblance of the status quo for now. That his calculus is related to his own personal wealth is an unfortunate aspect of this position. Navarro, on the other hand, understands Musk shouldn't be involved in the economic policy of the entire planet. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, referred to this spat as a benign 'boys will be boys' dust-up, but I think it's more than that. This is Godzilla v Kong, if Godzilla was a sycophantic bureaucrat and Kong appeared to have very expensive hair transplants. In the aforementioned film, Godzilla and Kong beat the shit out of each other and destroyed an entire city in the process. This real-life fight could actually be more devastating if we do nothing about it. Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
'The Residence', Andrew Scott in 'Vanya', and 'Bob Trevino Likes It' top this week's Must List
I was never that into The Real World, but Road Rules was my jam. And as reality competition shows exploded with Survivor, Big Brother, and Amazing Race, I was glued to my screen. For a decade, I've hosted friends every Wednesday for "Winesday" and whichever of those three CBS shows are currently airing. Even if you're not a reality fan like me (but especially if you are), I encourage you to check out our Reality Rewind Issue. Spearheaded by TV executive editor Samantha Highfill and brilliantly designed by art director Alex Sandoval, the issue breaks down the 25 best reality stars of the 2000s, looks back at the legacy of shows including The Swan, and game-changers such as Big Brother 3's Danielle Reyes. Were your favorite Y2K reality stars included? Go find out. —Patrick Gomez, Editor-in-ChiefUzo Aduba plays Cordelia Cupp, a brilliant and eccentric detective tasked with investigating the murder of a White House employee (played by Giancarlo Esposito) in Paul William Davies' new Netflix comedic whodunnit from Shondaland. Everyone is a suspect — all 157 members of staff and guests at a state dinner for Australian dignitaries, where the murder mystery occurs — as Cordelia investigates the upstairs, downstairs, and secret backstairs of Washington, D.C.'s most famous mansion. Susan Kelechi Watson, Randall Park, Ken Marino, and Kylie Minogue (yes, Kylie Minogue!) also star. —Jessica Wang, Staff Writer See EW's exclusive look at the Orange Is the New Black star's new Netflix screwball whodunnit from Scandal alum Paul William Davies. Writer-director Tracie Laymon's real-life friendship inspires this sweet film about two strangers (Barbie Ferreira and John Leguizamo) who meet by mistake when a young woman looks for her dad on the internet. A quiet, moving film about the need for human connection. —Yolanda Machado, Staff Editor John Leguizamo reflects on Bob Trevino and the 'brave' move by Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes to star in To Wong Foo Host Joe Manganiello tells EW the March 25 finale will be "mind-blowing, riveting TV," and we believe him. We were on set in Panama during filming and concur with his assessment that "people are going to be talking about it immediately after." Catch up on Peacock before the finale airs on NBC. —Dalton Ross, Editorial Director Joe Manganiello teases Deal or No Deal Island finale Andrew Scott of Fleabag and Ripley fame brings his one-man band take on Chekhov's Uncle Vanya to the cozy confines of the Lucille Lortel Theatre in NYC for an intense, tour de force performance. The actor skillfully plays nine different roles using props, tone, and mannerisms to differentiate the characters, with the compact setting making the action feel all the more intimate. —D.R. The Jonas Brothers definitely get better every time. After kicking off 2025 with collaborations featuring Marshmello and Rascal Flatts, the trio is returning to their pop roots. This addicting new single sets the tone for what the brothers say "will be a year of music," as they gear up to celebrate their 20th band anniversary with a variety of releases including Joe Jonas' solo album, a live concert album, and soundtrack for their upcoming Christmas movie. —Briana Edwards, Social Media Editor Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
