Old Pac Hwy - legality of conflicting Speed Limit and Speed Advisorysigns ?

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by alx, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. alx

    alx Guest

    Having ridden the OPH from Mooney to Somersby on Sunday I was aghast
    at the atrocious, conflicting and superfluous signage now in place.

    Every 40km/h speed limit sign is often immediately conflicted by a
    higher speed advisory sign...often within the same field of view.

    eg. This image ..40km/h Speed Limit and in the background is a 55kph
    corner advisory sign.

    http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468888

    I've never seen such a conflict in speed and advisory signs before.

    I know from other forums that RTA is going to review Gosford Council's
    actions but surely Council's implementation is in stark breach of
    Standards and/or Policy/Guidelines on signage?
     
    alx, Jun 10, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. alx

    alx Guest

    And legitimacy of any speeding fine issues for exceeding the 40kph
    "posted" limit.
     
    alx, Jun 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. alx

    TimC Guest

    No. The conflict itself won't be violating too many standards.
    Advisory signs are just that. It's not *that* difficult, is it?

    (I won't comment over whether Gosford are allowed to pre-empt RTA -- I
    don't know the details)

    Nice road though. The road looks to be in far better condition than
    most of the roads around here. And around here, council put up signs
    saying "no bicycles" on an RTA controlled road (but don't offer a
    viable alternative) that is (obviously) not a tollroad -- just the
    single road out to the north of town. Good luck to them. I ride on
    through anyway, and it's not like the local copper will pull me up,
    being a cyclist himself.
     
    TimC, Jun 10, 2009
    #3
  4. alx

    alx Guest

    I should have added. "...prob because established standards/procedures
    mandate that no such illogical/Stupid conflict should exist..."
    It is if the road environment is confusing/conflicting and not
    consistent with all prior experience, let alone common sense. My
    argument is not over the relative hierarchy of speed and advisory
    signs but the absurdity of having them in conflict. An absurdity that
    I have never seen before after a couple of hundred thousand km's of
    road experience. Even in temporary "Roadworks"/"40" areas, all
    conflicting speed/advisory signs are altered/covered for the duration
    until end of roadworks.
    It appears not. Just learnt the "60" sign has gone back up at Mooney
    since the weekend..dont know about the rest.
    In other places the warnings adjacent to the 40 signs about rock falls
    are in places where the cuttings are stable and, after many years
    knowledge of OPH, I'm unaware of any debris onto the roadway at those
    corners. The cuttings are so stable that they have moss and foliage or
    don't even have much if any cutting at all.
    "No bicycles beyond this point" would not be an advisory sign either.
    It's not *that* difficult :) Not aware of any bicycle bans on OPH
    though.

    Local copper would have some explaining to do if said cyclist later
    has an accident and said local copper turned a blind eye to the
    breach. Driving past a bunch of cyclists with video recording...not a
    good look. Local coppers have just a little less discretion these
    days.
     
    alx, Jun 10, 2009
    #4
  5. In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
    the speed sign you have to take notice of is the one in the standard
    speed sign format.

    The advisory signs have no legal status.

    THere has been precedent elsewhere that *if* someone relies on those
    and has a crash that they might be able to claim against the council
    but as they shouldn't have been going faster than the posted limit,
    the chances would be nil.

    The "confusing" idea wouldn't get much notice in court either. If you
    tried that on, they'd say "how long have you held a licence then, that
    you don't know what a speed limit sign looks like?"

    The law doesn't have to make sense.

    Zebee
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Jun 10, 2009
    #5
  6. alx

    TimC Guest

    Not always. I've noticed some councils are more efficient than
    others. But absense the knowledge of whether the sign was put up
    legally, it's always safer to assume the legally enforced sign is the
    one to follow rather than the advisory signs put up as a courtesy
    (I've always wondered by how much the road toll would drop by if all
    advisory signs were removed and people were required to engage their
    brains instead).
    (It's the sign with a bike with a red line through it)
    It's not a breach of any laws however to be riding on a road where a
    sign has been put up illegally by a body not acting within their
    jurisdiction. And the RTA couldn't have put them up because
    similarly, there is no act that would allow them to put it up at that
    location.
     
    TimC, Jun 10, 2009
    #6
  7. alx

    xyzzy Guest

    My question is: how do they come up with the number on the advisory
    sign?

    Do they just look at the curve radius on the surveyor's map and plug
    that into a formula to get the number? Do they then also take into
    account whether there have been many accidents at that bend or if it
    is just a 'normal' bend in the road, which might indicate other
    factors, such as an adverse camber, cliff etc? Presumably a
    designated traffic authority official walks up and down a bit at the
    actual corner before coming up with a number? I suppose there must be
    a certain minimum amount of work involved in coming up with the
    advisory speed.

    My reason for wanting to know how they work out the advisory is, it
    seems a bit odd to me then, after all that work to obtain a considered
    answer to the question "what is a safe speed for this corner?" (for
    every single corner on the whole road), that somebody else could
    discard all of that reasoning and come up with a different number.
    The same question expressed differently is "why didn't they come up
    with 40kph when calculating the numbers on the advisory signs?"
     
    xyzzy, Jun 11, 2009
    #7
  8. alx

    xyzzy Guest

    and who's 'they' exactly? It would be nice to put a face to all of
    this shenanigans.
     
    xyzzy, Jun 11, 2009
    #8
  9. alx

    F Murtz Guest

    They probably drive round it at maximum safe speed then half it
     
    F Murtz, Jun 11, 2009
    #9
  10. alx

    alx Guest

    I understand your post now (ref a diff road with 'no bike' signs).

    So did Council have jurisdiction to legally set the speed limit on
    OPH? That limit appeared to have lasted a matter of weeks until being
    changed back to the (still ludicrous) 60 signs this week.

    Not the most useful conversation/excuse to have whilst Mr Plod writes
    a ticket I would imagine. No conversation usually is.
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #10
  11. alx

    alx Guest

    Nah...it's the reverse of the Putty Rule...take off 10 then halve it.
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #11
  12. alx

    alx Guest

    So Council's concern for safety by lowering the speed limit signs but
    ignoring the Advisory signs is a bizarre and pointless exercise after
    all.
    More along the lines of "I have a memory like a goldfish..."
    That's why lawyers get paid to maintain the chaos.
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #12
  13. alx

    gwd Guest

    My understanding is that it's done to a formula. When radius, grades,
    surface conditions etc are known and consistent that's about it.
    Otherwise someone drives through with an accelerometer and adjusts the
    speed accordingly to another formula. The standards used are set
    nationally for consistency. They are always a bit on the conservative
    side to allow for changing conditions - rain, ice etc.

    [...]
    RTA Traffic Engineers in NSW, Vic-Roads in Victoria etc on highways,
    Council engineers otherwise. Inconsistencies can and do occur and
    should be reported, but traffic rules apply regardless.

    As someone has said, these are advisory signs only and have no legal
    status. Speed limits are the upper limits, but you are legally obliged
    to drive/ride according to conditions. Advisory signs help, but how
    you cope with conditions is up to you.

    Well that's how it's supposed to work anyway.
     
    gwd, Jun 11, 2009
    #13
  14. In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
    You are assuming the posted speed limit for the road has something to
    do with maximum safe speeds for corners or for the whole.

    It is more to do with lobby groups and road maintenance costs.

    In this case, it's almost certainly Gosford Council wanting to skimp
    on maintenance. The standard for a road with speed of 70 is higher
    than one with a speed of 40.

    Zebee
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Jun 11, 2009
    #14
  15. In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:55:03 +1000
    So you need to prove that the council is not allowed to set the speed
    limit in that area.

    We have a letter from someone in the RTA who doesn't say it in quite
    those terms... But I wouldn't fight a ticket on that.

    Who is responsible for that road right now? My guess is not the RTA.

    Zebee
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Jun 11, 2009
    #15
  16. alx

    alx Guest

    Delegation to Council = No

    http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=trafficsigns.show&id=r4/r4-1

    http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468888

    Quite a few other interesting documents in that patch of RTA site.
    What was Council thinking?
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #16
  17. alx

    alx Guest

    In which case the Council does not appear to have complied with the
    specific Delegation requirements/limitations. The "40" symbol sign
    (and numerous others, including implementation of roadworks) is solely
    for RTA use. (Sec51 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act
    1999, RTA Delegation Manual, RTA Traffic Control at Work Sites Manual,
    Sect8 "Roadwork speed zones)...numerous holes..no wonder written
    response from RTA was vague...inter-agency stuffups are never defined.

    The entire signage/placement/implementation from go to whoa is a mess.
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #17
  18. alx

    alx Guest

    On Jun 11, 8:55 am, TimC <-
    astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
    of
    Clear and unequivocal breach of compliance with the RTA Roadworks
    manual.

    Wasn't aware it is mandatory for RTA to ensure an alternative access
    route for bicycles?
    (Just to be clear for readers, not talking about OPH on this instance)

    This sign ? :-
    http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=trafficsigns.show&id=r6/r6-10-3

    Why doesn't RTA or council have jurisdiction on the roadway you refer
    to? Given appropriate procedures are followed, even Council can use
    that sign. Earlier you stated it was an "RTA controlled road".
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #18
  19. alx

    gwd Guest

    Agree. Similar motivation applies to road signage in general. It is a
    no-brainer to erect a sign in response to an incident or complaint,
    and this generally gets the complainant (be it a political master or
    Joe Blow off the street) off one's back. So we have the situation of
    signage overload to the extent where the message becomes lost in the
    noise. NSW is famous for this, but the other States are rapidly
    catching up. Road safety takes a very poor second place to keeping
    one's bum covered in the bureaucratic systems that we upkeep with our
    hard earned.
     
    gwd, Jun 11, 2009
    #19
  20. alx

    alx Guest

    pmsl...According to Gosford City Council Traffic Committee minutes (6
    April 2009), council requested RTA to consider 40kph signs and
    "falling rock" signs.

    A similar recommendation/reasoning was made by Traffic Committee for
    Pearl Beach road (1 December 2008). This be a new strategy to reduce
    road speeds? Geotechnical Reports and "Assessed Risk Level" and "
    implementation of recorded
    risk management strategies" ? Yet still leave the advisory signs
    unchanged ??!!

    http://www.gosford.nsw.gov.au/counc...affic-committee-held-on-6-april-2009.pdf/view

    (Recommendations adopted by Council 5th May 2009)

    excerpt:-

    TR.09.27 OLD PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND PACIFIC HIGHWAY, MOONEY
    MOONEY;
    WISEMANS FERRY ROAD, MANGROVE CREEK AND SPENCER; WOY WOY BAY
    ROAD AND PHEGANS BAY ROAD, PHEGANS BAY; WARDS HILL ROAD, EMPIRE
    BAY - TEMPORARY 40 KM/H SPEED LIMITS AND WARNING SIGNS (IR 5310327)
    Electorate: Gosford and Terrigal

    REPORT

    Request from Officers of the City Services Directorate to install
    40 km/h speed limits and 'falling
    rocks' warning signs at the following locations:

    1 Old Pacific Highway, Mooney Mooney Creek;
    2 Pacific Highway, Mooney Mooney;
    3 Wisemans Ferry Road, Mangrove Creek;
    4 Wisemans Ferry Road, Spencer;
    5 Woy Woy Bay Road and Phegans Bay Road, Phegans Bay; and
    6 Wards Hill Road, Empire Bay.

    A Consultant Geotechnical report has been received identifying
    sites of potential road formation
    instability in respect of cut or fill batters. The Assessed Risk
    Level of these sites can be reduced
    by the reduction of the regulatory speed at these sites in
    the period until stabilisation works are
    undertaken by reducing the stopping distance required for
    motorists should fallen rocks be
    encountered. There is a far greater risk of motorists encountering
    fallen rocks than being impacted
    by falling rocks.

    In view of the foregoing the Director City Services has
    recommended that a temporary 40 km/h
    speed limit be imposed and warning signs be installed at the
    six (6) sites described above and
    shown on the tabled plan. These measures will provide an
    immediate increase in safety for the
    public until investigations either confirm there is a lesser
    risk and/or remediation works are
    completed.

    Tabled Items: Maps identifying proposed 40km/h locations

    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

    The cost of the necessary signage can be absorbed into the
    project cost for the investigation
    and/or remediation works at the individual sites.

    TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    (Moved Dave O'Shea/Seconded Scott Stapleton - carried unanimously)

    A The Roads and Traffic Authority be requested to consider
    imposing temporary 40 km/h
    speed limits on sections of the roads listed below, and as identified
    on the maps.

    1 Old Pacific Highway, Mooney Mooney Creek;
    2 Pacific Highway, Mooney Mooney;
    3 Wisemans Ferry Road, Mangrove Creek;
    4 Wisemans Ferry Road, Spencer;
    5 Woy Woy Bay Road and Phegans Bay Road, Phegans Bay; and
    6 Wards Hill Road, Empire Bay.

    B The Traffic Committee be advised when the geotechnical work has
    been carried out and/or
    the assessed risk levels have been amended in response to the
    implementation of recorded
    risk management strategies.
     
    alx, Jun 11, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.