132
‘Absurd’ speed limit lands $460 fines for cyclists. Even joggers overtook them
(www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
132 points (100.0% liked)
Brisbane
12 readers
3 users here now
Home of the bin chicken. Visit our friends:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh nice, you got to this just before I could!
I think one of the really interesting things about this article that the journalist seemed to completely brush over, but which Chris Cox mentioned more explicitly on his YouTube Community Tab post linking to this article, was this:
Emphasis mine. Apparently, these speed limits are supposed to be advisory, not binding. One questions why they use the red circle sign and not the yellow square, but still, this is good to know. It should mean that Bob* and anyone else who has received a fine should be able to get the fines overturned quite easily.
I'd really like to see the speeding fines formally challenged in some way. You hear stories from cyclists that they or their mates have had them overturned, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of this. Maybe it's the case that police just choose not to proceed when the fines are challenged, and avoid setting a formal precedent in the courts.
It would also be interesting if this specific case was challenged. Like you say, it sounds like the 10km/h is supposed to be advisory, but the sign they have used is a regulatory sign which can be enforced by a literal reading of the rules. Not sure if it would hold up in court, and might come down to the judge's attitude towards cyclists.
Sort of. As someone astutely pointed out on Facebook:
Which could be either an indication that they're intended to be advisory, or just a failure to really think things through.
Signs that have a "reasonable likeness" to standard signs are covered under s316: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2009-0194#sec.316
Number in a red circle is likely enough for it to be considered official, but yeah I would like to see it challenged.
I wonder if the fact that it's not on a sign by itself, but combined with a bunch of other things, which could mean it's unenforceable. It reminds me of (but is nowhere near as bad as) the signs on the way in to UQ:
There are clear standard signs on the way out saying 60, but the only sign on the way in is part of a bigger sign including details about smoking, hazardous chemicals, and parking restriction hours. I've lived minutes away from the sign for a decade now and have ridden & walked past it many times, and didn't even notice that sign existed until this year after someone made a comment about the speed limits online. There's just no way you could justifiably get away with enforcing that one, given how easy it is to miss.
The ones on Kurilpa and Goodwill are better than this, but they still mix the (advisory?) speed limit in with other stuff in a way that you could argue is confusing.
Wow that sign is extra ridiculous. I think most people would struggle to read it standing right in front of it let alone driving past.
s316 does give a lot of leeway e.g.
The point where it becomes substantially different is pretty subjective, which IMO shouldn't be a thing when you're talking about road rules, but it's sadly not the only example.