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

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?

 

And legitimacy of any speeding fine issues for exceeding the 40kph
"posted" limit.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?"

 

and who's 'they' exactly? It would be nice to put a face to all of
this shenanigans.

 

They probably drive round it at maximum safe speed then half it

 

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.

 

Nah...it's the reverse of the Putty Rule...take off 10 then halve it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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.