Talk:Australian Road Rules

Australia: Law / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Road Rules is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Australian Roads Mid‑importance

	Australian roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Australian Roads, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads and highways in Australian states and territories. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Australian RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Australian RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Australian RoadsAustralia road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Best practises". Really? Prove it.

In the History section, the term "best practises", like its singular brother, is meaningless, clichéd management jargon. In Wikipedia terms, it's probably WP:WEASEL. Dunno who thinks it helps the article, but I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fix it, instead of insulting whoever wrote it? They probably didn't intend to use weasel words or "meaningless, clichéd management jargon". —Felix the Cassowary 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Users of such terminology generally have no idea what they're really doing with and to the language. But I take your point. On reflection, I believe the part of that sentence containing that expression might as well not exist. It serves no purpose. The sentence should simply say "The rules adopted attempt to minimise the potential confusion caused when traveling across borders." That makes a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could well have been me who wrote it. What I was trying to say was that when each of the rules were aligned the state rule that offered the best net present value of long term gain in terms of safety after deducting costs for education and sign changes was adopted. I wish I could think of a shorter way of saying it. The confusion moving between states was a secondary aim. The main aim was if State X does it one way, why should State Y do it differently, one of them has to have the, dare I say it 'best practice' and lets pick that one for all. Alex Sims (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place where one can look to see the thinking behind the decision to choose one state's rule over others? (I note that the NTC link in the article is dead.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would want to look for the Regulatory Impact Statement. For example the original November 1998 RIS is at http://www.ntc.gov.au/DocView.aspx?DocumentId=342 Alex Sims (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Paste?

This reads suspiciously like a cut+paste from whoever created the rules. Adpete (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about bit more detail about your concerns please? You don't give us much to discuss there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It contains a lot of value judgements, "By any measure, this was a challenging process", "This is important background", "The Australian Road Rules were a good example of this", "By 1996, arguably most of the policy basis for the Australian Road Rules was settled", "States and Territories made a powerful point to the Commission". It's just all very un-Wikipedia sounding, which makes me think it follows some of the references a bit too closely.

OK, I've just checked the Shepherd reference [1], and my suspicions were correct. Every single one of those quotes above was cut-and-pasted (with the odd trivial change) from the Shepherd reference. I suspect there are many more. By presenting these quotes without indicating that they are direct quotes, that is presenting value judgements as if they are facts, and also arguably plagiarism. Adpete (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking further, it is far worse than this. An editor in 2011, who has no other WP edits, pretty well did a cut-and-paste (i.e. plagiarise) of large chunks of Shepherd's paper [2]. Changes since then have mostly been pretty minor. Adpete (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priority for traffic entering highway

Years ago an Australian living in the U.S. told me that traffic going down a highway should yield to traffic entering the highway. Related to this is a story an American told me. He was unaware of the requirement to yield, and thought that drivers entering in this manner were acting strangely (to put it mildly). So I informed him about what I'd been told. I've not succeeded in finding anything to this effect on the Wikipedia article or elsewhere, and am wondering if I was improperly advised, or if the rules have changed. 2603:6010:4E42:500:74F0:E1C7:2730:1201 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]