Okay, I see your point. WA seems to have done their own thing in regard to adopting the Australian Road Rules ("ARR"). Yes, all states have their own legislation and rules, but the idea behind the ARR was for those rules to be "based" on the ARR and be uniform across the states as much as possible. WA seems to have done it their own way - and made a mess of it in my opinion.
In NSW, the rules are laid out exactly the same as the ARR, with any provisions not applicable to NSW removed with an explanatory note, and any additional provisions applicable to NSW only inserted, also with an explanatory note. This means that you can see straight away what provisions are from the ARR and what ones aren't. This was the intention of the ARR and I assumed that all states adopted it in the same way, but it seems that WA did things differently.
The ARR has all definitions and rules all in the one place and it applies to "roads and road-related areas". Those two terms are not defined in the definitions, but are instead defined in their own sections as they need to be "concise", because those definitions control exactly where the road rules apply. This is where WA has made a mess of it. In WA, the definitions are spread across the Road
Traffic Code 2000, the Road
Traffic Act 1974 and the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 at the very least.
So after looking it all up, here's my take on it...
I agree, as you pointed, that the definition of "road" from the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, is the definition that is "supposed" to be used for the Code. But the problem is that it doesn't define what a road actually is:
"
road means any highway, road or street open to, or used by, the public and includes every carriageway, footway, reservation, median strip and traffic island on it."
That is so ambiguous, it's a wonder that every second motorist isn't challenging it in court. When you pick it apart, you get:
1. "means any highway, road or street" - this is not a "definition"; it's a list of "examples" that are themselves not defined either and even worse, those examples are non exhaustive and one of them is "road" itself! You can't define "road" by stating it is a "road".
If you take the text literally (as being "types" of roads), then you have "highway", "road" and "street" - so what about "freeway", "avenue" and "lane"?
If you don't take it literally and assume that all types of roads are included, there is still nothing to state what actually "constitutes" a "road" or "roadway".
2. "open to, or used by, the public" - this provides scope and is clear enough.
3. "and includes every carriageway, footway, reservation, median strip and traffic island on it" - this provides clarification in regard to different parts of a road that are to be included as part of the road for the purpose of the Act, so this is also pretty clear. But again, is not a "definition".
So none of this defines what a road actually is. Section 12(1) of the ARR uses the following words specifically for that purpose:
"... is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles"
But WA has nothing of the kind - at least not directly related to the road rules. This is a massive flaw, because like the ARR, the definition of what "constitues" a road is what actually determines whether or not the road rules apply. This is because of the wording of section 4(1) of the Road
Traffic Code:
"Unless the context requires otherwise, these regulations apply to persons, vehicles and things on roads only, and where a provision of these regulations requires, or prohibits, the doing of any act or thing, that requirement or prohibition relates to the doing of that act or thing, on a road."
Because the Road Traffic (Administration) Act doesn't define what actually constitutes a road, you have to apply an external definition. That means that if challenged in a court, the court would have to revert to a definition from a dictionary or one from some other piece of related legislation - which in this case, I would say would be the WA Main Roads Act 1930.
The Oxford Dictionary defines "road" as:
"A wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use."
(I wanted to use the Macquarie Dictionary but it kept asking for a subscription.)
The WA Main Roads Act defines "road" as:
"road means any thoroughfare, highway or road that the public is entitled to use and any part thereof, and all bridges (including any bridge over or under which a road passes), viaducts, tunnels, culverts, grids, approaches and other things appurtenant thereto or used in connection with the road."
(Again, the word "road" is used in it's own definition! Unbelievable - but it doesn't really matter because of the words "any thoroughfare".)
The Oxford Dictionary defines "thoroughfare" as:
"A road or path forming a route between two places."
which is very similar to the dictionary meaning of "road" itself.
So now we're getting somewhere because we have definitions that state what a road actually is. The most important point is that the definitions from both the dictionary and the Main Roads Act include
any type of roadway. Therefore the road rules should be applied to any type of roadway designed for vehicular use by the public.
This brings us to car parks. A car park consists of one or more roadways, lanes or thoroughfares (pick any term you like) to navigate the carpark and access the "parking bays". Therefore by definition, a car park contains "roads".
If we now go back to the definition of "carriageways", which includes "abayments at the sides or centre of the carriageway, used for the
stopping or parking of vehicles", then the individual "parking bays" are also included. You can argue that this is supported by the Main Roads Act with the words "and any part thereof" and "used in connection with the road."
This means that the road rules should apply to any car parks, and the use of the words "open to, or used by, the public" in the original definition in the Road Traffic (Administration) Act means they should apply to any publicly accessible car park.
So that's how I would argue it if I had to. It basically comes down to the Road Traffic (Administration) Act failing to define what actually "constitutes" a road whereas any dictionary or the Main Roads Act does. In my view, the definition in the Road Traffic (Administration) Act is far to ambiguous to hold up in a court on it's own.
I think this is one of those cases where you have to revert to case law to see if the definition of "road" has actually been challenged in the past, in which case there would be a precedent in place. Aussies being Aussies, I'd be very surprised if it hasn't already happened.
