NRMA Motoring Blog

A number of major roads in Australian cities have ‘bus lanes’. First introduced on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1992, the number of these dedicated lanes continues to increase. They are a proven method of relieving congestion in and around the city - where most cars can carry one driver and up to four passengers, a bus can carry up to fifty passengers. By keeping these lanes for buses a relatively clear run for commuters is ensured.

‘Bus lanes’ can be used by buses, taxis, public hire cars, motorcycles, bicycles and emergency vehicles. Other motorists can be fined for travelling in a bus lane unless it’s for a short distance (i.e. before you’re about to turn at an intersection or into a driveway) or crossing the lane from a side street or driveway.

Road users should be aware that there are also ‘bus only lanes’, such as those on the Liverpool to Parramatta T-way route in south western Sydney and the North-West T-way that operates between Parramatta and Rouse Hill. These are signposted accordingly.

Incorrect use of a ‘bus lane’ or ‘bus only lane’ will result in a fine and loss of demerit points. There are cameras in place and police regularly patrol these lanes. If you are caught driving in a ‘bus lane’, the fine is $238.00 and 3 demerit points.

Other rules for bus priority

The use of the B indicator at traffic lights is utilised by buses to allow the bus to move more freely around traffic and to give the bus right of way in order to keep to its timetable.

Another thing to be mindful of is the buses’ exception rule which allows buses to travel straight ahead from a turning lane. This rule also gives them the right of way when pulling away from a kerb after alighting or picking up passengers from a bus stop.

For more information and bus lane locations, visit the RTA website.

Are bus lanes a good idea? Have you been fined for using a bus lane? Should there be more in and around the CBD?

The final report of the Federal Government’s review of the Australian automotive industry, chaired by former Victorian premier Steve Bracks, paints a picture of an industry in difficulty, but not terminal decline.

It underlines the significance of the industry to the Australian economy, a necessary and perhaps long overdue recognition. It is our greatest manufacturing export earner, pulling in $4.7 billion in 2007. We earn more exporting cars than we do wool or wheat. We are one of only 14 countries with the skills and resources able to take the most complex consumer durable from an idea to production.

Given the need to accelerate the introduction of interim and post fossil fuel automotive technologies, the Bracks Report recognises correctly that this capability is a significant national asset. To this end, it calls for the doubling of the Green Car Innovation Fund, to $1 billion, in association with the inclusion of automotive transport in any proposed carbon emissions trading scheme.

Other aspects of the report’s recommendations are consistent with this carrot and stick approach.

It proposes, for example, that existing subsidies to the industry, under the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, should be continued to 2020, with $2.5 billion worth of grants to car makers and component suppliers.

However it also recommends that tariffs on imported cars should continue to be reduced, from the present level of 10 per cent, to 5 per cent by 2010.

So the “Bracks plan” in essence is very similar to the Hawke government’s “Button plan” (named after then industry Minister, the late Senator John Button) of the mid 1980s in that it identifies export performance as the key to survival, (plus the new green technology imperative), while at the same time cutting tariffs further – in a market that is already one of the most open and diverse in the world - to provide consumers with a greater choice of cheaper cars.

The Productivity Commission, perhaps miffed by the fact that it was not asked to conduct the inquiry, earlier released its own assessment of the Australian car industry which, basically, called it a basket case and estimated that each of the 60,000 or so people employed in it are already subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of $300,000 each.

Unsupported, the Australian car industry would certainly wither and die, probably quite quickly. But there is an element of socialising losses and capitalising profits in the way it operates, which does seem illogical when you consider that it isn’t even truly Australian. The industry is 100 per cent owned by two American companies and one Japanese company, and all major strategic and product decisions are made by American and Japanese executives, who answer to their boards and shareholders.

Economic hardheads – an essential qualification for a job at the Productivity Commission – correctly point out that when times are tough it is taxpayers who bail the industry out, and when times are good its profits end up in Detroit and Tokyo.

When the next automotive industry review - and the one after that, and probably the one after that - submit their reports to the government of the day, it’s a fair bet that continued taxpayer funded assistance will be a key recommendation.

Is a domestic car industry worth having, or should we simply let the market take its course, abolish tariffs completely, and drive other countries’ cars?