Advice sought re excess speed ticket please

[MrMagoo]

Good afternoon all. I have found your site and have had a good read through almost everything there is and have found it to be quite informative and slightly entertaining also

I'd like to put a scenario to you and seek advice if I may (Yes Sean, I will likely be contacting you shortly too)

The charge

"The accused at XXX on XXX, being the driver of a vehicle on a length of road, namely XXX Road, did drive
over the speed-limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving, to which a speed-limit sign of
80 kilometres per hour applied between XXX Road and XXXX Road. Detected Speed 126 km/h. Alleged Speed 124 km/h."

After tracking back along this road as I drive it almost every day, I have noticed that this 3km long road contains only 3 80km/h speed limit signs heading East over it's entire length.

My vehicle was detected at 311m East from the intersection at which the patrol car was sat. The FIRST and only 80km/h speed sign after this intersection is not present until some 491m East of the intersection. The previous 80km/h speed sign is located some 379m West of the intersection. As the charge specifically states that the "accused.... did drive over the speed-limit....to which a speed-limit sign of 80 kilometres per hour applied between XXX Road and XXXX Road", to me it would seem fair to any reasonable person who may have entered from any place within this 870m stretch of road that the officer himself has attested to being
"XXX Road is defined as a Highway as per the Road Safety Act'1986 and is governed by the 80 Kmh speed restriction signs erect in
accordance with the Road Safety (General) Rules 2009 with no speed signs permitting a hlgher speed.", that the speed limit by default due to not having any visible speed signs in this section is 100km/h?

Now apart from this discrepancy in signage, I also have doubts regarding the use of the laser while stopped at this intersection and shooting it between power poles and street signs which I would suggest fall within the officer's "field of vision" and could have presented an interference to its operation. To me, this would say that the laser device was not used in the "prescribed manner" as per ROAD SAFETY (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 2009 - REG 45 Use of laser devices (b) I also have strong objections/doubts regarding some of his statement regarding his apparent observation of my speed despite him only having a maximum of 2 seconds to make this determination, but Im not overly concerned with this side of things as I believe the lack of speed signs provides the evidence/reasonable doubt in this case.....

Im very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks for reading

[Hardy]

The 80kmh speed limit sign 379m west of the intersection applies to the whole length of road to its east, including the road you were detected speeding on. The default speed limit in Victoria is 100kmh but it sounds like this stretch of road had a 80kmh sign applicable to it.
Your second point is unconvincing, because it simply relies on you claiming that you don't think the police member attained the reading in the manner that he claims - i.e. he is lying.

[MrMagoo]

The 80kmh speed limit sign 379m west of the intersection applies to the whole length of road to its east. The default speed limit in Victoria is 100kmh but it sounds like this stretch of road had a 80kmh sign applicable to it.

This is true. My concern, however is that between the signs located 379m West of the intersection and the next sign located 491m East, there are no speed limit signs posted AND that I was detected at 311m meaning that I hadn't even reached a sign for the restricted speed limit, yet there are access roads to this section of roadway thus meaning a driver has no reasonable way of knowing there is a restricted speed limit applying to that section of road between to the two signs and should safely assume the speed limit to be 100km/h in lieu of this.

Your second point is unconvincing, because it simply relies on you claiming that you don't think the police member attained the reading in the manner that he claims - i.e. he is lying.

My second point may not seem convincing in text, but I suppose with the rest of the data and images I can show, it may seem more so but thats not really my major concern anyway, just thought I'd throw that in for debate

[Gravy]

My concern, however is that between the signs located 379m West of the intersection and the next sign located 491m East, there are no speed limit signs posted AND that I was detected at 311m meaning that I hadn't even reached a sign for the restricted speed limit, yet there are access roads to this section of roadway thus meaning a driver has no reasonable way of knowing there is a restricted speed limit applying to that section of road between to the two signs and should safely assume the speed limit to be 100km/h in lieu of this.

It makes no difference and your concern is (legally, at least) unfounded.

To some degree I sympathise with your moral objections regarding a driver entering the road mid-block being bound to a speed limit sign they have not and could not see, however none of that changes the way the road rules are either written or applied by the judiciary. You can jump up and down all you want but the argument will not be accepted as a defence, so you're better off forgetting about it and letting Sean do his thing.

[MrMagoo]

My concern, however is that between the signs located 379m West of the intersection and the next sign located 491m East, there are no speed limit signs posted AND that I was detected at 311m meaning that I hadn't even reached a sign for the restricted speed limit, yet there are access roads to this section of roadway thus meaning a driver has no reasonable way of knowing there is a restricted speed limit applying to that section of road between to the two signs and should safely assume the speed limit to be 100km/h in lieu of this.

It makes no difference and your concern is (legally, at least) unfounded.

To some degree I sympathise with your moral objections regarding a driver entering the road mid-block being bound to a speed limit sign they have not and could not see, however none of that changes the way the road rules are either written or applied by the judiciary. You can jump up and down all you want but the argument will not be accepted as a defence, so you're better off forgetting about it and letting Sean do his thing.

Gravy, thats a rather blunt reply with no substance. I appreciate your effort to reply however. Im not jumping up and down about anything. I have proposed a scenario that to me, at least, has merit in that if a roadway has a default speed limit then its stands to reason that a driver should be able to drive at that default speed unless there is a sign visible to the contrary. Hence my question above - there was no visible sign.

Then there's this from Vicroads....
"Traffic Engineering Manual
Volume 3 - Additional Network Standards & Guidelines
Speed Zoning Guidelines
Edition 1, June 2017

3.3 Default Speed Limits
Default speed limits are imposed by Rule 25 of the RSRR (2009). Signing is not necessary to establish the legal effect of these limits. All speed limits that are not default speed limits require signing.
The default speed limit for built-up areas1 is 50 km/h and the default speed limit outside built-up areas (rural areas) is 100 km/h.
3.4 Speed Limits along a Road Length or for an Area
Rule 21(3) of the RSRR (2009), specifies that a speed limit sign on a road applies to the length of road beginning at the sign and ending at the nearest of the following:
• A speed limit sign on the road with a different number on the sign
• An end speed limit sign or speed derestriction sign2 on the road
• The end of the road if the road ends at a T-intersection or dead end.
The RSRR (2009) also allow for speed limited areas (Rule 22) and speed limited shared zones (Rule 24) which should only be applied to areas clearly identifiable to the road user (e.g. car parks) and signed appropriately.

7.6 Repeater and Confirmatory Speed Signs
Repeater speed limit signs are used to ensure that motorists are always aware of the correct speed limit by reminding them at frequent intervals. This has become more important with the high levels of speed limit enforcement in Victoria and increased use of speed limits for specific purposes.

Repeater speed limit signs are used to: (edited)

Advise drivers turning into a road at a busy intersection of the speed limit that applies to that road. This is not usually necessary in rural areas where the speed limit is the same on all intersecting roads (i.e. default speed limit of 100 km/h in rural areas).
Repeater speed limit signs should be located in accordance with Table 6. For the first two signs after the speed limit change, repeater speed signs should be erected at the spacing shown. They should be erected on both sides of the carriageway (i.e. duplicated) for speed limits of 60 km/h and higher and may be arranged in a staggered fashion if it is considered that this will give an increased effect (e.g. in busy shopping areas). For speed limits less than 60 km/h, a single repeater sign located on the left of the carriageway will generally be sufficient.
Beyond the first two signs, repeater speed signs should be installed on arterial roads on the departure side of all important intersections, at a distance of approximately 50 m to 200 m from the intersection."

Food for thought

[Day]

What is the environment like at that location? You mention a rural road, how close were the houses to each other? Was there street lighting?

[ratbag]

What is the environment like at that location? You mention a rural road, how close were the houses to each other? Was there street lighting?

Daytime, Wed arvo, 30 degrees, no traffic, industrial area, not deemed to be built up, no houses, there is street lighting but thats irrelevant really.

[MrMagoo]

Well, yes, thats pretty close.

It was maybe 20 degrees

Good guess too. Industrial area with no houses around.

[Day]

, there is street lighting but thats irrelevant really.

Not when it comes to defining default speed limits for an area if no speed signs are visible.

[Hardy]

The speed limit is absolute. It does not vary depending on the state of mind of the driver. It is a 80kmh zone for everyone on the road if an 80kmh sign applies - and it did. Whether or not you passed a speed limit sign is irrelevant. This is clearly expressed in the Road Rules. They don't need to erect a sign after every driveway. All the should avs and could avs in vicroads guidelines are irrelevant. You have to comply with speed limits that are properly signed even if you never drove past the sign. Let's say there is a speed limit sign that is covered by a tree, but you never passed it because you entered from a side street. You could win if the court finds that there was no sign that was clearly visible to road users, but you will never win by arguing you entered from a side street so never passed a sign.

[Gravy]

MrMagoo - that rather long and well researched post above regarding the VicRoads TEM unfortunately amounts to naught in the context of your original question:

I believe the lack of speed signs provides the evidence/reasonable doubt in this case.....

Im very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

My earlier post still stands (and accords with Sean's advice) - none of anything in your posts about default speed limits and signs is useful to you as a defence.

The TEM is written for traffic engineers and civil designers, not for drivers and solicitors. It has zero impact in court.

[Gravy]

industrial area, not deemed to be built up... there is street lighting...

I'm not sure this is internally consistent...

built-up area, in relation to a length of road, means an area in which either of the following is present for a distance of at least 500 metres or, if the length of road is shorter than 500 metres, for the whole road—
(a) buildings, not over 100 metres apart, on land next to the road;
(b) street lights not over 100 metres apart;

(emphasis added)
Note the use of the term buildings rather than houses. Buildings includes industrial buildings. For an industrial area with buildings to not be considered a built-up area, there would need to be fewer than five building in 500m, which doesn't sound like any industrial area I know.

[MrMagoo]

MrMagoo - that rather long and well researched post above regarding the VicRoads TEM unfortunately amounts to naught in the context of your original question:

I believe the lack of speed signs provides the evidence/reasonable doubt in this case.....

Im very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

My earlier post still stands (and accords with Sean's advice) - none of anything in your posts about default speed limits and signs is useful to you as a defence.

The TEM is written for traffic engineers and civil designers, not for drivers and solicitors. It has zero impact in court.

Gravy, thanks again for your reply, however you still haven't provided anything by way of explanation to anything you've said so far. All you're doing is saying "you've got nothing" and not explaining why. Not really very helpful responses at all.

"none of anything in your posts about default speed limits and signs is useful to you as a defence." WHY?!
"The TEM is written for traffic engineers and civil designers, not for drivers and solicitors. It has zero impact in court" How do you know? Have you tried this?
"fewer than five building in 500m, which doesn't sound like any industrial area I know." So, because you haven't heard of any area like this, it doesn't exist?
"It makes no difference and your concern is (legally, at least) unfounded." Again, HOW?!
"however none of that changes the way the road rules are either written or applied by the judiciary." Again, HOW? Can you site or explain this?

Im not trying to have a go at you here either. I appreciate all responses, but, you cant simply say such blatantly, open statements and not provided explanations especially when your presenting them as though you have some specific knowledge of the answer.

Cheers.

[Gravy]

"none of anything in your posts about default speed limits and signs is useful to you as a defence." WHY?!

Because I didn't feel it was necessary to cover ground that Sean had expertly explained.

"The TEM is written for traffic engineers and civil designers, not for drivers and solicitors. It has zero impact in court" How do you know? Have you tried this?

I know because Sean has stated as much. On many occasions. In this forum. And he's a solicitor. And a barrister. Also, because it is plain to see that an engineering manual has nothing to do with the road rules.

"fewer than five building in 500m, which doesn't sound like any industrial area I know." So, because you haven't heard of any area like this, it doesn't exist?

That interpretation is hardly just considering what I had actually written. I was questioning the suggestion that an industrial area is ipso factonot considered a built-up area, because I have cause to question it based on my experiences. To suggest I made a unilateral declaration of fact is absurd. Put another way, have YOU ever seen an industrial area where the buildings are spaced at greater than 100m intervals? I have reasonable cause to doubt the answer would be yes.

"It makes no difference and your concern is (legally, at least) unfounded." Again, HOW?!

Sean's post preceding my post, that's how. Again, I didn't feel it necessary to copy and paste Sean's post.

"however none of that changes the way the road rules are either written or applied by the judiciary." Again, HOW? Can you site or explain this?

As above re; Sean's advice.

you cant simply say such blatantly, open statements and not provided explanations...

If my posts were considered in isolation then you may have a decent point, however they are not written in isolation; they are written in the context of a conversation with multiple voices. My posts don't just follow yours, they also follow Sean's, Day's, and ratbag's posts and should be read as a contribution to the broader conversation.