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
lodion@aussie.zone
deadcat@aussie.zone
gronax_au@aussie.zone
brisbot@aussie.zone
132
‘Absurd’ speed limit lands $460 fines for cyclists. Even joggers overtook them (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
submitted 1 year ago by murbul@aussie.zone to c/brisbane@aussie.zone
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bob* was riding across the Kurilpa Bridge into the city on a quiet school holiday Friday morning, also coincidentally World Car-Free Day, when ... BAM, he was $464 poorer.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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:

After questions from Brisbane Times, an Energy and Public Works department spokesman said: “the advisory speed limit on Kurilpa Bridge is 10km/h as correctly painted on the bridge surface”.

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.

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

10 km/h is remarkably slow. How exactly is a bike without a speedometer not supposed to exceed that?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is just one of the reasons that official Queensland Government documents have long suggested speed limits for cyclists should be regarded as unenforceable.

Unfortunately, QPS don't seem to have gotten the memo with regards to the Kurilpa and Goodwill Bridges.

[–] ZeroEcks@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As Chris highlighted, TMR also says it's potentially unsafe to ride a bike slower than 10kmh

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How do you even keep your balance if you’re essentially pedaling at a brisk walking speed?

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

9-10kph is still fairly easy to keep balance without thinking about it IME. But without a speedometer, you're going to have to go slow enough that balancing is something that takes effort if you want to stay under that speed...

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Easily if you have any balance at all.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

If there's people around then go slightly faster than they're walking and you'll be under 10km/h.

If there aren't people around then IMO it shouldn't matter as much as long as you're not taking the piss, just like it shouldn't matter if you're doing a bit over the limit on an empty highway.

[–] murbul@aussie.zone 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but the sign they have used is a regulatory sign

Sort of. As someone astutely pointed out on Facebook:

the signs don’t look like they comply with MUTCD regarding their layout, positioning, dimension’s [sic] etc.

Which could be either an indication that they're intended to be advisory, or just a failure to really think things through.

[–] murbul@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] murbul@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

(b) the sign has additional information on or with it; or

(e) the sign is combined on a single panel with 1 or more other traffic signs; or

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.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats what the world needs now, more obstacles to choosing not to drive

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Big car is scared of bikes, the real personal transportation device

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He was nabbed at 26km/h

That's absolutely hooning considering it's a shared space, I suspect he only got a ticket because of that.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah. This basically sounds like you're supposed to dismount and walk across the bridge. The pictures in the article show a walkway shared between pedestrians and cyclists going in both directions. It doesn't look wide enough to be doing 26km/h if there are pedestrians and cyclists about going in both directions.

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

26 kph or 16 mph is not a difficult speed to hit on a bike, especially if you are in good shape. I am not in particularly good shape and I cruise even on my mountain bike around that speed. If the path is crowded and I'm dodging people, sure I'd slow down considerably, but who's to say they didn't clock him when he had some free air between groups of pedestrians.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I admittedly didn't read the article, but that's faster than I expected from the headline. The title makes it seem like he was at a crawl, but now I'm like, which joggers were running faster than 16MPH?

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

10km/h is way too slow. But in other hand bike crashed to a person on 15km/h is serious risk. If pedestrian safety is concern better just ban bikes(and scooters) from shared pathways. Use roads or dedicated lines.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need speed limits for this. Cyclists are more than capable of riding to conditions and either slowing down or going around pedestrians. Fine cyclists if they're actually riding recklessly, not if they're going at a perfectly reasonable speed given the amount and proximity of pedestrians. The fact that there have been zero incidents recorded on this bridge pretty clearly indicates it's not a problem area.

better just ban bikes(and scooters) from shared pathways

It's literally called a shared pathway. The entire point of it is to allow active transport of all forms.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are not talking about reasonable cyclist. It is more about morons who zig-zag between peoples on full speed. And under ban, I mean to not create a shared pathways. Section of road should be for car or bikes/scooters or pedestrians.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

This could only work if you actually started building separated bikeways everywhere. Which we are a long, long way away from having.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Archive/non-paywall link.

[–] jmd_akbar@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

coincidentally World Car-Free Day

Irony, thy name is...