Advertisement

164 sites found with bad speed limit signage

By 21 February 2012 11

speed sign

Territory And Municipal Services have posted online their consultant’s report on a review of speed limit signage completed last December.

This survey has identified a total of 164 sites out of a total of around 3300 sites where some changes or augmentation of speed limit signage warrants action to ensure consistency with the relevant Australian Standard.

At a significant proportion of these sites (41%) the appropriate signage has been approved but the approved signage differs from the on site signage due to a range of circumstances including collision removal and vandalism.

This suggests that it would be useful to tighten reporting mechanisms to improve the likelihood of a speed limit sign removed in a motor vehicle collision being reported to the responsible authority to ensure a timely replacement.

At almost half of the total number of locations the inconsistency is that a speed limit sign has been collocated with other signage. Although undesirable based on best practice this deficiency is unlikely to cause confusion regarding the speed limit applying on a particular section of road.

Another category that represents 13% of locations is where repeater signs are desirable more frequently than currently provided.

Congratulations to Sgt.Bungers who’s long war with Roads ACT appears to have been vindicated.

Please login to post your comments
11 Responses to 164 sites found with bad speed limit signage
#1
buzz8191:59 pm, 21 Feb 12

I have noticed that William Slim Dr from Chuculba through to Baldwin Drive, which contains 3 round abouts now has about 6 sign posts in a 150 meter stretch of road all of which say 60 Km/h.

I think the best stretch of road with great speed signs would be Eastern Valley Way, just after College Street, the road changes to a 70 km/h road, then just after Crisp Cct, the road changes back to a 60 km/h road.

You would think that the person putting up the sign could have looked the 50 meters down the road to see if there is another speed sign in the area.

#2
Sgt.Bungers3:47 pm, 21 Feb 12

A small victory! Thanks again to the RiotACT readers who regularly take interest in my (occasionally constructive) rants. :-)

#3
NoImRight3:55 pm, 21 Feb 12

Theres one at a t intersection near me thats set at such a level that when you pull up to give way it actually obscures the cars you need to give way to. I assume this doesnt count as “bad’ though?

#4
aussielyn4:01 pm, 21 Feb 12

SGT Bungers report to the CO for your next assignment :
getting all street signs on the left as is normal in the rest of Australia

#5
Primal4:02 pm, 21 Feb 12

I wonder if the 41% includes signs that are overgrown by foliage? More than a few of them down my way.

#6
john87_no15:02 pm, 21 Feb 12

Soooo….because they didn’t follow the correct Aus Standards I unintentionally sped….. does that mean I can be reimbursed for my speeding fine?

#7
Sgt.Bungers2:50 pm, 22 Feb 12

john87_no1 said :

Soooo….because they didn’t follow the correct Aus Standards I unintentionally sped….. does that mean I can be reimbursed for my speeding fine?

Unfortunately no. Australian Standards can only be considered “guidelines” until they’re brought into law by state, territory, or federal governments. For example, the A.C.T Government brought Australian Standard 1698 into law for motorcycle helmets. Thus, a motorcyclist in the A.C.T must legally wear a helmet that complies with Australian Standard 1698.

AS 1742.4 outlining speed limit sign placement among other things, has not been brought into law in the A.C.T. The A.C.T Government naturally would not want to bring in legislation that make life difficult for their own agencies or costs them more money.

So while AS 1742.4 can be considered the best, safest, most balanced and cost effective way to implement speed limit signage, boundaries and zones in the A.C.T, the A.C.T Gov is under no obligation to meet or exceed the standard… which they do not.

#8
Sgt.Bungers2:51 pm, 22 Feb 12

Should have also added that the audit only covered major roads. Had the audit covered all residential areas and streets, the numbers of non compliant streets would be in the 10′s of thousands.

Primarily because AS 1742.4 requires 50 km/h signs to be located at the boundaries of default speed limits. (Click for exact wording). IE: Turn off a collector road with a 60 km/h or higher limit onto an access street, and you must pass a 50 km/h sign for that street to have Australian Standards compliant speed limit signage.

In 99% of cases, there are no signs… with the A.C.T Government instead opting for the cheap route of advising motorists that the default A.C.T limit is “50 unless otherwise signposted”.

#9
steveu3:05 pm, 22 Feb 12

Sgt.Bungers said :


In 99% of cases, there are no signs… with the A.C.T Government instead opting for the cheap route of advising motorists that the default A.C.T limit is “50 unless otherwise signposted”.

Which is a recipie for some asute lawyer to have a field day with one day and set a precedent in case law.

The government chose to reduce the speed limits in canberra, they should have put up appropriate signage instead of motorsists guessing.

On Bateman Street in Kambah, someone has taken it upon themselves to spray paint a big “50″ on the road where this road becomes 50 as there is no signposting – apart fromt he speed camera van as you go past it. I have no problem with the area being 50 – I applaud it – maybe it would discourage the sisterhood from DHS and FACSIA using that road as a cut-through to avoid lights at Drakeford Drive – but it still should be signposted. Shame someone has resorted to make their own spraypainted sign on the road as the govt couldnt be bothered forking out for a speed limit sign.

#10
Watson3:34 pm, 22 Feb 12

Sgt.Bungers said :

In 99% of cases, there are no signs… with the A.C.T Government instead opting for the cheap route of advising motorists that the default A.C.T limit is “50 unless otherwise signposted”.

I fail to see what is wrong with that? When in doubt, go 50. I would have thought it is therefor much more important to adequately signpost the >50 streets.

#11
Sgt.Bungers4:46 pm, 22 Feb 12

Watson said :

Sgt.Bungers said :

In 99% of cases, there are no signs… with the A.C.T Government instead opting for the cheap route of advising motorists that the default A.C.T limit is “50 unless otherwise signposted”.

I fail to see what is wrong with that? When in doubt, go 50. I would have thought it is therefor much more important to adequately signpost the >50 streets.

Why not have clearly defined boundaries for 50 km/h zones, as is required by the standard? It certainly couldn’t hurt, and would leave motorists in no doubt as to how fast they may go on that particular street.

Yes motorists are reminded occasionally that speed cameras are used in the ACT, and the default limit is 50 unless otherwise signposted… but such reminder signs are only ever on major arterial roads. I would argue that it’s far more important to have a defined boundary to 50 km/h limits rather than an occasional reminder about default limits on an 80 to 100 km/h road.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.