Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

GDE 90 km/h implementation failures

By Sgt.Bungers 16 March 2012 73

After a review that apparently lasted 5 months, the A.C.T Government decided to raise the speed limit on the Gungahlin Drive Extension from 80 km/h to 90 km/h.  The implementation was carried out over the weekend of the 10th and 11th of March 2012.  After the implementation of the higher speed limit, the following issues are immediately apparent:

  • Northern boundary of 80 and 90 km/h speed limit is unclear.  A 700 metre discrepancy exists with the 90 km/h zone extending 700 metres further north for northbound traffic, than the point where the 90 km/h zone commences for southbound traffic.  In violation of Australian Standard 1742.4 2.3.6.a.
  • 2x situations where motorists merging onto the GDE do not pass a speed limit sign for over 1 km (from Barton Highway and Bandjalong Cres).  In violation of AS 1742.4 3.2.7.d.
  • 60 km/h speed limit may still be found on off ramps from the GDE to Belconnen Way and Ginninderra Drive, despite Belconnen Way and Ginninderra Drive having 80 km/h speed limits.  Exits to Barton Highway from the GDE, and Exits to Hindmarsh Drive, Cotter road and William Hovel Drive have either have no speed limit signs or 80 km/h speed limits.  Why the inconsistency?
  • Less critical: small signs have been used to mark the boundaries of the new limit.  Why are large signs used to mark the boundary of the 80 and 100 km/h zones at the southbound end of the Tuggeranong Parkway / Drakeford drive, yet small signs used at the northern end?  There is no consistency in signage sizes.  Could also be argued not compliant with AS 1742.4 3.2.8.

These issues were not created by bad weather or vandalism.  They were created by a system within the A.C.T Government that allows speed limit signage to be implemented in an apparently low priority manner… despite enforcement of those speed limits being amoungst the most rigorous in the country.

(More detailed explanation and eventually pictures)

Not good enough

This decade has been declared by the United Nations to be the decade of Action for Road Safety. 1.3 million people are killed and up to 50 million are seriously injured each year on the worlds roads. The World Health Organisation has identified inappropriate and excessive speed as being one of the leading factors influencing road crashes. Jon Stanhope has also been quoted as saying that speed is “one of the biggest killers” on roads.

Despite this… ACT Government continues to implement speed limits in a manner which is so dumboundingly poor and apathetic, that it can only result in motorists treating speed limits in an equally apathetic manner, fueling the general disrespect for speed limits that the community already holds, and fueling the belief that speed cameras are about revenue.

The 90 km/h speed limit on the GDE is the result of a review so complicated that it took several months.  Yet the implementation of the speed limit signs on this new and high profile road has apparently been carried out with the basic instructions “just replace all the 80 signs with 90 signs.” No thought has been given to existing issues with the 80 signage, or where the new 80/90 km/h boundary at the northern end of the road will need to exist. The speed limit signage certainly is not reflective of a government so concerned about motorists exceeding speed limits, that they operate the highest number of fixed speed cameras in the country.

The signage issue that now exists on the GDE was NOT created by vandalism or natural events, it was created by pure incompetence.  It continues to be the case that the ACT Government, Roads ACT and their contractors are not concerned with having road users 100% aware of a speed limit by providing overt signage, with clear and unquestionable boundaries of speed limit zones.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
73 Responses to
GDE 90 km/h implementation failures
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
mickey 2:36 pm 28 Mar 12

AmarooStu said :

Thx DPM……all OK. In the end, it was a ‘cracking’ 5 car pile up. My wife – Car #1. Slowing traffic, people not keeping a safe distance and then ‘viola’, crunch time.

Car #4 (Commodore) was worst – a lady had to cut out from the car. Sending my best wishes to her and her family.

Spent some time in Calvary Hospital this morning and we are due to go back again for further scans.

Am publicly extending my sincere thanks to the Emergency Services crew – the AFP Traffic guys, Firies and Paramedics were just brilliant. Also, the fellow drivers involved were brilliant too at comforting each other.

Appreciation to all the passing motorists for not voicing your angst due to the traffic hold ups. Kudos Canberra!

Sorry to hear that AmarooStu. Hope everyone involved in the pileup is OK.

AmarooStu 1:37 pm 20 Mar 12

Thx DPM……all OK. In the end, it was a ‘cracking’ 5 car pile up. My wife – Car #1. Slowing traffic, people not keeping a safe distance and then ‘viola’, crunch time.

Car #4 (Commodore) was worst – a lady had to cut out from the car. Sending my best wishes to her and her family.

Spent some time in Calvary Hospital this morning and we are due to go back again for further scans.

Am publicly extending my sincere thanks to the Emergency Services crew – the AFP Traffic guys, Firies and Paramedics were just brilliant. Also, the fellow drivers involved were brilliant too at comforting each other.

Appreciation to all the passing motorists for not voicing your angst due to the traffic hold ups. Kudos Canberra!

dpm 12:16 pm 20 Mar 12

I notice there was a decent stack on the Belco Way overpass, going south, this AM. It only took a a week. I knew people couldn’t handle the fast-paced 90kmh limit upgrade! Time to change it back!!
Hahahaha! (P.S. Hope no one was seriously injured!)

KB1971 10:37 am 20 Mar 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

You sound angry.

Maybe you should have a sandwich.

Or a brodburger.

& a chiko roll……..

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 9:58 am 20 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

You sound angry.

Maybe you should have a sandwich.

Or a brodburger.

Jim Jones 9:21 am 20 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

Wow the mature response of the cycling lobby is to call people fatty, nice work from the cool kids….

You sound angry.

Maybe you should have a sandwich.

Sgt.Bungers 9:15 am 20 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

@sgt bungers

I like your posts generally but comparing the right of a cyclist to a deicated on road cycle path to the right of a disabled person to move around does you no favours.

Cycling is clearly a secondary road use regardless of how much you love it. The thing I think cyclists struggle with is they think there is this mass of people just waiting for a cycle path before they hop on a bike wheras the truth is most people who are able and for whom the form of transport suits their personal needs probably already do.

Cyclists should calm down and reflect on why it is such a massive portion of the normal rational community is so down on them.

It’s the sense of self entitlement.

I do appologise for the ear bashing, I had been in a particularly bad mood that day. In part due to a discussion with a co-worker who was absolutely adament that her attitude: “I pay my rego, cyclists should not be on the road holding me up… when they do hold me up I get right behind them with my hand on the horn and get out of my way.” was perfectly OK. I was astounded at this to say the least… by the end of the discussion, other peers in the cafe we were in, were telling me to calm down. 🙂

I don’t cycle much at all, but I do a lot of research on transprot infrastructure. I know that providing cycle infrastructure works and can result in as much as 45% of the population out of cars and on push bikes. Such infrastructure is NOT intended to cater for cyclists who ride as a sport. It’s designed to cater for ordinary people to commute to work, job, shops, etc.

We rely so much on vehicles powered by a motor because our road infrastructure caters soley for such vehicles.

Catering for vehicles driven by any other means is strictly an after thought, if they’re catered for at all.

Where there may be conflict with motor vehciles, or an intersection will be difficult to cater for all types of road users, it’s almost certain that those in motor vehicles will be given right of way 99.9% of the time.

This has been the case for over 60 years in Australia. It has set us up for complete reliance on motor vehicles, complete reliance on oil and non renewable fuel. Next time there’s a true international oil shock, Australia will be relatively screwed as a result.

To be a truely sustainable we MUST invest in intrastructure for transport that does not rely on oil or other non renewable resources.

I don’t see the ACT Government pouring billions of dollars into electric vehicles powered by renewable electricity, any time soon…

But dedicated cycle infrastructure is an entirely feasable option that could become a relality with relatively little money spent, compared to how much it costs to maintain road infrastructure for motor vehciles.

A dedicated, priority cycle way between all town centres would be an excellent start.

Aeek 11:59 pm 19 Mar 12

Shouldn’t a road like the GDE have emergency lanes?
Cyclists may ride in emergency lanes, but don’t have to.
Labelling it a bike lane means they have to use it if practical.
The space is still there in an emergency.
How is requiring cyclists to avoid the primary traffic lanes a bad thing?

KB1971 10:50 am 19 Mar 12

EvanJames said :

KB1971 said :

it took an accident with a cyclist for me to have an appiffany (it was even the cyclists fault too).

Appiffany. That sounds like a name certain levels of society would inflict on their offspring.

“Look at moi Kimmy, look at moi!”

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 10:45 am 19 Mar 12

Mysteryman said :

I agree with the idea of bike lanes for roads with a 60km/h limit (or less) and separate lanes/paths for roads with speeds greater than that. It makes sense, and as mentioned a few times by others, will make everyone’s commute a lot easier.

This gets +1 from me. Cyclists on the road where the speed limit is low are no issue at all, a little common sense from everyone is all that’s required. When speeds get higher, though, risk increases and cyclists safety is more an issue, especially in situations where cars have to slow significantly then speed up again to let cyclists through (e.g. exits on major roads).

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site