Caught Red-Handed

Today we received one of those dreaded blue and white pieces of paper from the government of Victoria that we have been warned against since the first day we set foot in Melbourne.

I had been already considering a post on the subject of rules and regulations in Australia, and you might say that the above slip of paper provides a timely illustration. I could have done perfectly well without it, however. My only (very slight) consolation is that I was not the one behind the wheel when the offence occurred.

If you read the fine print, you will notice that the penalty is a whopping $300 for being in an intersection 1.4 seconds after the light turned red. This seems rather excessive, at least to our North American sensibilities. We do have vague memories of a flash of light on that particular Saturday afternoon as we drove to Bunnings, the equivalent of Home Depot, but no idea that the penalty would be so harsh. The irony is that I am typically the one far more likely to push a yellow light in my general impatience with driving than my more laid-back husband. Not anymore, however. I will continue to drive slowly and cautiously even though I have become more comfortable on the left-hand side of the road.

Part of our cultural training involved looking at the differences between one hundred or so countries in areas such as individualism vs. collectivism, hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, task vs. relationship, objective vs. situational, view of time, fate vs. control, risk avoidance, deductive vs. inductive, harmony vs. confrontation, formal vs. informal, and achievement vs. balance. We focused on Australia and the U.S., which not surprisingly, are similar for the most part in most areas. Both, for example, rate a 10 out of 10 for being very rule-based, in contrast to situational countries (I read into this "countries with a high level of bribery") that score a 1 rating (Afghanistan, Bolivia, Iran, Mexico and Saudi Arabia among many, many others).

In spite of the fact that Australia and the U.S. score the same (along with Canada, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden), Ross and I both feel there is a greater emphasis on rules here, often to the point of driving us a little nuts. I think it is related to the Tall Poppy Syndrome. The goal is for all to be treated the same, no matter what the circumstances. Situations are not taken into consideration. There is, of course, much to be said for this way of thinking, much to recommend it. Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of a $300 fine.

Anita, our cultural trainer, agreed with us. I personally scored a 6 our of 10 on the rule-based portion of the survey that I took, as did she. Ross has yet to take it, but my guess is that he will come in at around 5. I have been speculating as to why the difference, and hoping to find it in something other than a deficiency of our characters, but have come to no firm conclusions. At any rate, Ross and I have some adjusting to accomplish whilst we live in Melbourne. Anita has recommended that we choose to focus on the positive aspects of living in a rule-based society rather than gripe and get frustrated.

All things considered, I would far rather be living here than in a country where situations rule the day. Australia is truly a wonderful place to live, and we will keep this in mind the next time we find a particular rule to be chafing us a bit. Pointing out minor differences between here and the U.S. is almost irresistible, however, and I beg the tolerance of any Australian readers who likely find this irritating.

I took the following picture as another example of living by the rules.

When the drought that started seven or so years ago began, tough water restrictions were put in place. Watering of gardens was prohibited, and neighbors began "dobbing in" on those who appeared to be flaunting the restrictions (i.e. they ratted to the relevant authorities). This led to a proliferation of signs such as the one pictured above.

Cameron has just reminded me that "we can't eat blog for supper," in his words. He has done his part by putting a pan of parboiled potatoes into a hot oven to be roasted, but I am supposed to be putting sausages on the barbie and rounding up Katie to figure out a green vegetable.

For the record, Ross plans to contest the ticket on the grounds of being a newbie. He has received some hope from his work colleagues that he will be granted a measure of leniency, but perhaps they are just being kind. We shall see.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is a great blog ! I like Cameron's comment - can't eat blog for supper !
Condolences to Ross on the ticket.

Posted by: janetjames | 10/05/2010 at 10:57 PM

Ooo! That's a shame. And what a price tag for 1.4 seconds. I hope they'll give Ross some grace. What a bummer. Carl would go crazy. He just got a parking ticket in Oakland for parking 18" over the yellow line because the vehicle in front of him was over the line to start with. He definitely lost some sleep over it. Well, I guess if your kids can't eat blog for supper, mine can't eat comments for supper either. It's only 9:45 in the morning, but I better get my supper on to cook (soup). Have a great night (?)!

Posted by: Deborah | 10/06/2010 at 12:48 AM