Speed sign obscured... mandatory loss of license

[turtle]

Hi,

If the speed limit changes for a short stretch of road from 70 Kms (well marked) to 60 Kms... and the 60 Kms signs are obstructed both by trees and by traffic (4 lanes of traffic)... can I rely on S322 of the Road Safety Road rules which require that the signs be clearly visible?

Other similar locations have the signs repeated 3 times (even minor roads often do it twice).

The location is Footscray Rd heading into the city... where a bridge crosses a railway line.

I was measured by laser as doing 93 (adjusted to 91) as I came over the bridge. If it was 70 Kms I don't lose my license. If it was 60Kms I'm 25 Kms over and lose it for 1mth.

There is only one set of signs on the way into town... so no second chance to spot them. Apart from the trees blocking the view most of the way... a truck was merging from the side road and totally covering the sign.

If I go to court what is my chance of walking out with a larger fine, costs or a longer suspension?

I'm a student and the fine is already a large amount $388 of my modest yearly income. I don't think I have any demerit points lost on my license at the moment. The loss of license in particular would be very painful... and I have never lost it before despite driving/riding a lot (this was on a motorcycle).

I think this particular fine was obtained unfairly.

What do I risk by challenging this?

Any advice?


PS. Already talked to Civic Compliance, Vic Roads (mad e a complaint about visibility and obtained a reference) and the the Legal Info Line 9269 0120 (very informative). I intend to make an appointment with legal aid to check what risks I run by contesting the case... but I'm aware that any speeding advice I get there will reflect the expertise of the advising solicitor... and it's always hard to judge that.

[Hardy]

s.322 applies to signs that are not clearly displayed. Passing trucks, or even parked trucks, are not the police's concern and do not render the sign inappropriately displayed.

I'm pretty sure my website tells you about the downside of objecting to an infringement notice. See http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/fines.html ... ent_notice

[turtle]

Thanks for clarifying the truck issue.

The sign is obscured at a distance. You have to be quite close and looking in the right direction (to the left) at the right time.

You are not looking left when it becomes visible because you're merging right or trying to get out of the way of the trucks or cars which are trying to merge (or there's some vehicle in front of it).

I've checked myself over that section quite a few times to see why the sign is hard to see:

You're usually looking to the right to check there are no vehicles in the lanes you're trying to merge into.

Thanks for clarifying the potential consequences of objecting (I read your site but must have missed that).

You say $40 costs is often awarded. If I point out that I'm a student and poor it would be a mean magistrate that would order me to pay them?

It sounds like the magistrate rarely imposes a harsher penalty than the existing one... so I the outcome will at worst just be the same? I think it's worth putting the point.

Yes I am willing to lose the day: At least I'll get my day in court... and perhaps the case will fail on some other point?

Is having a court record worst than just paying the fine and recording a suspension? Which one hangs around longer?

[Hardy]

No one who is thinking of objecting to an infringement notice should be the least bit concerned about the potential downside of taking the case to court if you are expecting to represent yourself. If you can't afford the risk of paying a higher fine and an extra amount for court costs, then you can't afford to take the risk of owning and running a car.

If you are engaging a lawyer, then you need to consider your legal expenses as well.

The court has full discretion as to whether to impose a fine or court costs should you lose. I did several guilty pleas today and none of my clients were ordered to pay court costs. It was so irrelevant it wasn't mentioned by any of them. If your so worried about losing and being ordered to pay $42.10 in court costs, don't forget you can ask the court registrar to convert the debt to community work.

[turtle]

Hi,

No lawyer so no extra expenses.

There was one case in the UK where the sign was totally obscured (just the one sign) and the defendant got off.

I can't find anything where it was merely not possible to see a sign from a distance... making you rely on getting close up before seeing it.

Nobody seems to have addressed the issue of multiple lanes where traffic often makes it very difficult to see the signs: in these situations most roads have repeated the signs at least twice... suggesting that the authorities are aware it's an issue (a perception of unfairness exists otherwise they wouldn't be doing it?).

Don't know how to make a case out of this? Suggest that the "reasonable man" test dictates that where signs are difficult to see (for whatever reason) a reasonable engineer would install a second sign? ie. If it's not merely a device to extract money from motorists?

If Vic Roads takes my suggestions to heart and installs a second set of signs... is that prima facie evidence that the existing signage was insufficient?

In addition there are 3 sets of signs as you leave the city... so why not 3 sets as you approach the city?


PS. One of the speed signs coming out of the city is also missing another is obscured (behind a pylon)... making them hard to see (especially if traffic is banked up waiting to turn and obscuring them). This seems to be a particular problem on multi-lane roads.

[Hardy]

No doubt you will put all that to a magistrate. Let us know how it goes. No point talking about signs that don't exist. The magistrate cares about the sign that Allegedly applied to you on the date of the offence only.

[turtle]

Hi,

Thanks for that sage advice.

[turtle]

Thought I'd post the full bit of the rules we're discussing:

S322

(2) However, the device or item is taken to be on the road only if it is clearly visible to road
users to whom it is designed to apply.

The emphasis seems to be on clearly.

I've got a couple of photo's that illustrate the point:

[ img ]

My contention is that planting a tree in front of a sign is in breach of the "clearly" requirement.

[Day]

Looking at those photos, trying to use the one where you are standing on the median strip won't help you as your car wouldn't have been doing 70 in that position and to use it would look like you're trying to fool the court.

The other one is taken from the left of the lane, but a driver would be in the right of the lane, which would give a clear view of the sign. You would need photos taken from the perspective of the driver or the prosecutor would pick them apart.

[Hardy]

Video would be better, or perhaps request that the magistrate drive the route to view the problem first hand.

[turtle]

Hi,

A motorcyclist riding defensively would probably be in this position if there is too much traffic on Footscray road (there was the day I got booked).

I would definitely not be on the right side of the lane... as a vehicle changing lanes would then be too close... and it leaves very little room to avoid such errant vehicles.

However thank you for the legal perspective.

The picture with the tree was meant to only show that a tree had been planted in front of the sign. The reasoning was that a reasonable person would not plant a tree in front of a sign and then argue that it was "clearly" visible. Perhaps my reasoning is wrong? ...and case law simply has redefined the word "clearly"?

I can however adjust the angle from which I take the photo to reflect a more car-centric view... but that's then not representative of where I was... but perhaps more palatable to the court?

Or should I simply point out that's where a prudent motorcyclist in traffic (trying to stay as far away from cars as possible) would be?

So far this discussion is extremely useful.

[Day]

When I did my riders course many years ago, we were advised to stay in the right of the lane to make ourselves more visible to drivers in there cars behind us, so we were sitting directly in front of them. Also this made us more visible to drivers in front by being in their mirrors. As far as drivers in the lane next to us, if we were to the left then we would be less visible to them than out in the open. I have used this technique for many years since being taught it and it has served me well.

I was taught it in NSW so it may be different down here. Ask Rustnutz opinion. I believe he is a rider.

As far as the tree on the nature strip goes, when referring to a reasonable person, it woudl be argued that it should be visible to a driver in a driving position on a road. The photo gives no depth perception or idea of distance of the sign from the tree. So you would have to ask, how far from a tree can a sign be? There are many signs after trees. What would be reasonable? Therefor that fact that it is visible to a driver is more reasonable.

Cheers.

[turtle]

Hi,

It's legal for a rider to be in any of the 3 positions.

However the question is what approach would be best in court?

BTW: Have you ever done the TAC Defensive rider training interactive CD?

[Day]

Hi,

It's legal for a rider to be in any of the 3 positions.

However the question is what approach would be best in court?

BTW: Have you ever done the TAC Defensive rider training interactive CD?

Yes it is legal to be in any of the three positions. However, you were talking about what a prudent rider would be doing. I was replying by recounting my experiences of what I was taught is expected of a prudent rider.

Why? Well in regards to your question regarding court, the arguments I have thrown back at you could be raised by the prosecution especially if they ride a motorbike or a scooter.

And finally. No I haven't done the TAC Defensive rider training interactive CD. They sent me a DVD once, but I never got around to viewing it.

Good luck with it.

[Hardy]

Even on a push bike I ride down the centre of the lane on multi-lane roads to stop cars trying to squeeze me into the kerb. If they want to overtake they can easily do so by changing lanes. Occasionally I see a learner on a scooter riding down the left hand side of a lane and I just shake my head in disbelief at the stupidity. It is an invitation to a car to share the lane with you.

[turtle]

This is the CD:

http://www.spokes.com.au/#/rider-safety ... art-cd-rom

The DVD was good but it didn't really address the issues of defensive riding... which the CD does.

[Day]

This is the CD:

http://www.spokes.com.au/#/rider-safety ... art-cd-rom

The DVD was good but it didn't really address the issues of defensive riding... which the CD does.

Interesting. Do I have to sign up to view it? I did a quick search of the site and came across this: http://www.spokes.com.au/#/your-tips/the-road

Scroll down to "Your Riding Position On The Road" by Lance Nichols. Have a read of the Editor's note. Specifically - "When in the left lane, stay in the right wheel track".

By the way, thanks for the link.

[turtle]

You vary your position according to what the traffic is trying to do.

Your position can be left, middle or right depending on what is going on to the left or right of you... and also front and back.

We've never taught sitting just in one position in Victoria.

Based on your feedback I better adjust my argument to either a central or right position?

A central position is quite a common one for motorcyclists. In your opinion is that likely to be contentious as well?

Even on a push bike I ride down the centre of the lane on multi-lane roads to stop cars trying to squeeze me into the kerb. If they want to overtake they can easily do so by changing lanes. Occasionally I see a learner on a scooter riding down the left hand side of a lane and I just shake my head in disbelief at the stupidity. It is an invitation to a car to share the lane with you.

[turtle]

They'll send you out a CD... if you ask. I think you can just ring the TAC.

[/quote]

Interesting. Do I have to sign up to view it?

[Day]

A central position is quite a common one for motorcyclists. In your opinion is that likely to be contentious as well?

Less contentious than in the left lane. Now show us a photo taken from that position at the same distance from the tree. And for my sake, take one from the right wheel rut.