Skip to content Skip to main navigation

GDE 90 km/h implementation failures

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
Order
EvanJames EvanJames 10:29 am 19 Mar 12

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.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 10:28 am 19 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

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

He’s more of a troll than a representative of the cycling lobby.

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.

KB1971 KB1971 9:31 am 19 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

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

From memory JJ is not a cycling advocate, he just pointing out the faux pas in your reasoning.

As for Johnboy, I loled so hard I had to hold my not so fat belly.

Jon Jon 9:28 am 19 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

So if I choose to ride a horse to work as it is more environmentally friendly than a bike and car should I be able to have horse paths on every route I choose to travel ?

Firstly, let me just say this is an aside to the main point, but since it was mentioned, I thought I’d make an observation.

Overall, bikes are probably the most *envionmentally friendly* method of travel an individual commuter can make (obviously buses are more environmentally friendly if you’ve got a full load onboard, but if we look at individuals getting to work:

– A horse performing moderate work consumes around 103 MJ per day. That’s defined as taking a rider 30 km/day (which is not unreasonable for a town the size of Canberra).
– Cycling vigourously will use up an extra 0.65 MJ / km (those figures include the averaged lifetime energy cost of producing the bike as well as the additional food cost that a hungry cyclist will need to replenish themselves).
– Walking uses up 0.90 MJ per day (again, figures include average energy input of food and shoe leather). When you think about it, walking will use up more energy because you’re doing it all yourself without any help – plus it takes a lot longer to get there.
– Driving a 1.6L car uses up 3.19 MJ per km (petrol and assuming an average urban speed of 30km/hour – does not as far as I can tell, include the energy cost of producing the car).

So, to do a 30km trip, we’re looking at extra energy costs of (horse: 103 MJ; Bike: 19.5 MJ; Walking: 27 MJ; Car: 95.7 MJ).

Now, I’m not arguing for bikes or against cars, and I DO think those figures probably have a lot of assumptions (and some political bias) built into them that won’t always be correct (figures were obtained from “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living”). We also do need to take into account the there is more than just petrol that’s an environmental cost when you make comparisons.

But from those figures, that horse is actually about as environmentally friendly as the car when you look at the overall picture. Plus, if everyone had a horse in their backyard, the urban sprawl needed to accomodate it would mean significant extra infrastructre costs 🙂

stormboy stormboy 9:05 am 19 Mar 12

Wow! 58 posts and about 12 of them were on topic. Even Bungers got caught up in the lycra debate.

Did you bring your concerns to Govco’s attention Sarge or is it more rewarding to have a rant here first.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 10:39 pm 18 Mar 12

youami said :

Firstly, most of the 55 comments are not related to the OP (ie. speed limits on GDE) so why are they still here?
.

Because, although less well-known than Godwin’s Law, the still prevalent Lycra Law ( there you go, Henry) states that “as an online discussion concerning roads grows longer, the probability of someone ranting about Lycra approaches 1”.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 10:20 pm 18 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

johnboy said :

Generally i find the “massive portion of the normal rational community” don’t mind much either way.

But there are a few fat hate filled morons who shout a lot and the rest of the community likes to keep quiet around those arseholes in the hope they’ll shut up and go away.

As I said in my original post by all means share the road but dont inconvenience their primary purpose.

I think if that happens you would be correct and no-one would care.

Still can’t find a source for this ‘primary purpose’. Can you please link it as evidently I’m google-retarded 🙁

Can you also give an approximate estimate of the percentage of your average journey that is ‘inconvenienced’ by bicycles, and what percentage is ‘inconvenienced’ by cars?

Maybe even an explanation of what constitutes ‘inconvenience’ could be provided?

Because if your argument is that the primary purpose of roads is, say, to facilitate the unimpeded flow of cars, and it turns out that cars ‘inconvenience’ this primary purpose, we’re going to have a quite entertaining reductio ad absurdum

youami youami 10:13 pm 18 Mar 12

Firstly, most of the 55 comments are not related to the OP (ie. speed limits on GDE) so why are they still here?

Sgt.Bunkers is totally right in that the signage and off-ramp speed limits are completely haphazard, inconsistent, and require a revisit. If ACT Roads want to “warn” drivers when exiting the GDE about the upcoming intersection etc, they could simply apply the yellow “EXIT SPEED” advisory signs instead of imposing a speed limit change for 100m. There are a huge number of similar examples in the ACT. For example, travelling from Wentworth Av onto Bowen Dr then Kings Av and right onto Morsehead Dr -a distance of just 2.5km you go through 6 speed limit changes: 60 > 70 > 60 > 70 > 60 > 80.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 8:31 pm 18 Mar 12

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

damien haas damien haas 7:26 pm 18 Mar 12

where Kuringa Drive intersects with the barton is a stretch of on road cycle path. There is no other cycle path for kilometres. Kuringa drive is a road only a complete moron would cycle down, being so narrow. Who ever decided that it was the right place to paint a cycle path onto is an idiot.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 6:23 pm 18 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

It’s the sense of self entitlement.

Lol.

This coming from the person arguing that anyone who isn’t an angry fatty in a car is a ‘secondary user’.

Irony of Morrisettian proportions.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 6:00 pm 18 Mar 12

johnboy said :

Generally i find the “massive portion of the normal rational community” don’t mind much either way.

But there are a few fat hate filled morons who shout a lot and the rest of the community likes to keep quiet around those arseholes in the hope they’ll shut up and go away.

As I said in my original post by all means share the road but dont inconvenience their primary purpose.

I think if that happens you would be correct and no-one would care.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 5:35 pm 18 Mar 12

@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.

    johnboy johnboy 5:45 pm 18 Mar 12

    Generally i find the “massive portion of the normal rational community” don’t mind much either way.

    But there are a few fat hate filled morons who shout a lot and the rest of the community likes to keep quiet around those arseholes in the hope they’ll shut up and go away.

KB1971 KB1971 2:33 pm 18 Mar 12

TheDancingDjinn said :

KB1971 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

You know cyclists are only one road user group but you are hightlighting them as special. What about anybody else who does not use the road properly?

In the last two days I have nearly had two accidents, neither my fault. One was after the Glenloch on Parkes Way, all the left hand lanes from the GDE & William Hovell heading into the city going slow. I was last in a line of cars coming in from Tuggers & anybody who knows this stretch of road knows that it builds up in the morning. I had my safety gap & there was no one behind me but that didnt stop the bloke in the Moroon N15 Pulsar from pulling out from a near stop in front of me travelling at 60 (20km under the posted limit) forcing me to brake evasively (lucky for us I was not in my old Patrol but my newer Pathfider as I would most certainly have cleaned him up).

Number two, was in my street, a woman in a black Holden Astra failed to stop a stop sign & was well in my path before she even looked right, crapped herself & stopped in my path. I was doing 50 which if I had hit her would almost have certainly put her in hospital.

So, only bike riders do stupid things on the roads?

No no your 100 % correct – when i see almost car accidents becasue of stupid drivers im upset just the same – but for me persoanlly, i would hate to hit a cyclist – no air bags, no nothing that person is gonna be really hurt, and i don’t want to be the person who accidently hurts them. So i ask nicely becasue i have no other problems with bikes on my roads or anything – i just wish they would slow a bit at that spot so i have time to stop and not hit them, because i don’t want to hurt people.

Sorry for getting on the defensive, the haters here seem to think riders are the only people here that do anything wrong on the roads. 😉

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 1:38 pm 18 Mar 12

shadow boxer said :

Probably a good example of why people dont like cyclists here.

The concept that a minority sport is being “discriminated” against because they are not catered for on the roads displays a sense of self entitlement the majority of the community finds offensive.

This, sir, could the the most idiotic and uninformed opinion I’ve ever heard expressed on the RA.

Lucky for you we live in a democratic country where people are entitled to express their views, even if those views are only held by a minority.

Firstly, cycling is not necessarily a “sport” for everyone. It is perfectly valid form of commuting. The way you are thinking is the way Australian Governments have implemented road infrastructure for the last several decades… For motorized vehicles only. This has lead to less people getting around via any other means. It’s lead to Australia being the fattest country in the world with amongst the highest levels of heart disease. It’s lead to high levels of pollution in our major cities. It’s lead to a scarily high 1 in 1 million chance of being permanently disabled thanks to a traffic collision in Australia on any given day.

Do you feel the same way about providing infrastructure for the minority of people who are disabled? Do they have no right to be catered for?

Or people who become sick from a rare disease? Should medicare not cover them?

What about religions that aren’t of a christian denomination? Should they not be entitled to whatever government benefits (such as tax breaks) that christian churches receive?

shadow boxer said :

Roads are overwhelmingly built for cars because this is how the community overwhelmingly moves around., by all means share them with us if it works for you but there is no obligation on the community to support your lifestyle choice or replicate everything we build because you choose to ride.

What if someone cannot afford a car and are unable to catch buses due to poor service in their area… yet they’re paying taxes such as GST, stamp duties etc, all of which contribute to the roads which you somehow feel should only cater for those who own a motor vehicle?

The community overwhelmingly moves around by motor vehicle because our roads are primarily built to cater for motor vehicles.

If cyclists did not feel they were placing their lives into other peoples hands every time they got on their push bike thanks to our rather ordinary infrastructure, then a much larger proportion of people would be cycling.

TheDancingDjinn TheDancingDjinn 12:11 pm 18 Mar 12

KB1971 said :

TheDancingDjinn said :

I’ll add my bit, just because i have had problems with the cyclists recently. My son goes to Turner school and his entrance is on David St. There is a large zebra crossing there – many mornings i almost hit cyclists becasue they fly across it at top speed, i have no issues with cyclists, other than the fact that i almost hit them daily because they cannot bother to follow road rules. It would be my worst nightmare to hurt someone on the road, i do not want to hit you so please take care with yourselves. I am in a 1 ton bubble of safety, and your on 12kgs of metal with a styrofoam helmet on your head. Get off your bike and walk it ! And before anyone goes on about why i drive, i have said before, that i HAVE to drive, as i could not enrol my son in the neighbourhood school so i have to drive from the back of Spence to Turner every day

You know cyclists are only one road user group but you are hightlighting them as special. What about anybody else who does not use the road properly?

In the last two days I have nearly had two accidents, neither my fault. One was after the Glenloch on Parkes Way, all the left hand lanes from the GDE & William Hovell heading into the city going slow. I was last in a line of cars coming in from Tuggers & anybody who knows this stretch of road knows that it builds up in the morning. I had my safety gap & there was no one behind me but that didnt stop the bloke in the Moroon N15 Pulsar from pulling out from a near stop in front of me travelling at 60 (20km under the posted limit) forcing me to brake evasively (lucky for us I was not in my old Patrol but my newer Pathfider as I would most certainly have cleaned him up).

Number two, was in my street, a woman in a black Holden Astra failed to stop a stop sign & was well in my path before she even looked right, crapped herself & stopped in my path. I was doing 50 which if I had hit her would almost have certainly put her in hospital.

So, only bike riders do stupid things on the roads?

No no your 100 % correct – when i see almost car accidents becasue of stupid drivers im upset just the same – but for me persoanlly, i would hate to hit a cyclist – no air bags, no nothing that person is gonna be really hurt, and i don’t want to be the person who accidently hurts them. So i ask nicely becasue i have no other problems with bikes on my roads or anything – i just wish they would slow a bit at that spot so i have time to stop and not hit them, because i don’t want to hurt people.

MERC600 MERC600 12:08 pm 18 Mar 12

I love a good brawl between cyclists and motorists. I also thought the bloke wanting a horse only track was good also. Now perhaps we could hear from a segway advocate.

steele_blade steele_blade 9:45 am 18 Mar 12

stahmo said :

Thanks for posting. I was really confused when I drove on GDE on Canberra Day. It felt quite unsafe, particularly when driving northwards at the traffic light intersection (turning right into Mitchell). How can you go at 90 and then be expected to stop at a red light around a bend/hill-top? I estimate you get about 200–300m before you can see whether it’s red or not. That’s not a lot of time.

Yes, I came around that bend driving the Indian-Pacific train and I had to apply the emergency brake. Of course when I’m in a car, there is actually plenty of room.

JC JC 8:03 am 18 Mar 12

gasman said :

To those of you who are expressing anti-bike sentiments: You and I want the same thing!

You, in a car, want to be able to drive without bikes slowing you down. I, on a bike, want to be off the road where car drivers often drive badly at 90km/h. This can easily be acheived by building fairly inexpensive infrastructure to separate bikes from cars. At the moment, the ACT Govt spends far less than 1% of its roads budget on cycling facilities. If it spent a little more, we would have more people on bikes, less in cars, and that would benefit us all, including those that choose to drive.

Here is the issue though. In times past a whole heap of things called bicycle paths were built. These were built to get the cyclist from A to B without having to ride on the same road as cars legitimately doing 80km/h+ as bikes and cars travelling at these speed do not mix.

However the cycle lobbyists wanted to also ride on the roads. So over the last few years on road bicycle lanes have also been built at the expense of dedicated bike paths.

Quite frankly I reckon on road bike lanes should be built on roads with a speed limit less than 60km/h and separate facilities built for roads like Gungahlin Drive/Caswell Drive (why do people refer to it as GDE can anyone show me a road sign with this on it?). But until the cycle community can work out what I really wants there is no way for a win win situation to be found. Instead we have bicycle riders moaning about drivers and how dangerous it is to ride on roads, and we have car drivers moaning about bike riders and how dangerous it is for them to ride on the roads.

KB1971 KB1971 7:11 am 18 Mar 12

Postalgeek said :

And what is it with this recurring obsession with Lycra? You can’t seem to take your eyes off it. Is it driven by some form of self-loathing homoerotic phobia? A lot of cyclists don’t wear the stuff and those that do obviously don’t give a shit what you think.

You do yourself a disservice by immediately pigeon-holing yourself as a dumbarse bigot with your repititious and tedious need to use the word as some form of perceived denigration (as if anyone else gives a shit), and it detracts from the rest of your arguments (those with some element of factual basis).

All I can hear from Henry in this thread is blah, blah, blah – bullshit excuses why I dont ride bikes – blah, blah, blah. I think you are right on the lycra fetish 🙂

I used to be a hater but now I have changed my ways & it took an accident with a cyclist for me to have an appiffany (it was even the cyclists fault too).

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site