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.
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.
10 km/h is remarkably slow. How exactly is a bike without a speedometer not supposed to exceed that?
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.
As Chris highlighted, TMR also says it’s potentially unsafe to ride a bike slower than 10kmh
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.
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.
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.
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.
