Speed sign obscured... mandatory loss of license

[turtle]

I would rather iron out unclear points now than in court.

Problem is standing on Footscray road taking photo's in peak hour is likely to get you run down.

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.

[Slattery]

Check out the Belgium commercial over dinner

[Rustynutz]

Just thought I'd put my 2 bobs worth in....

When I got my licence it was back in the days when ALL vehicles were required to travel as close to the left of the road as practicable. Since then things have changed and if you check out the road rules you'll find:

129 Keeping to the far left side of a road
(1) A driver on a road (except a multi-lane road) must drive as near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Note
Multi-lane road is defined in the dictionary.
(2) This rule does not apply to the rider of a motor bike.

As far as I'm aware this was eventually changed to the current law because it was recognised that travelling to the right of the centre of the lane was considered the safest position for a motorcyclist.

[turtle]

Hi,

Had a chat with the TAC about that tip and they have taken it down.

Also checked with two rider trainers just to get an objective outside opinion. They both said that the right hand wheel track would be highly inappropriate if there was a vehicle in the lane beside you.

However they both stressed that you should respond the conditions to maximise your safe distance from other vehicles and hazards.

That means you would move around the lane ie. left, middle or right side of the lane depending what might be happening around you.

That also means you might move forward, backwards or out of the lane into some other lane if desirable.

:-)

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".

[turtle]

Hi,

This is the same location taken from the middle of the lane:

[img]
http://picasaweb.google.com/slick12/Foo ... 9169901650
[/img]

This is fairly close . Obviously the further away you get the more obscured it will be.

When this photo was taken it wasn't blowing... normally it's blowing a bit so the branches whip across the sign a bit more.

However the requirement is that the sign is not obscured and it's definitely got a branch in front of it.

[Rustynutz]

Hi,

Had a chat with the TAC about that tip and they have taken it down.

Also checked with two rider trainers just to get an objective outside opinion. They both said that the right hand wheel track would be highly inappropriate if there was a vehicle in the lane beside you.

However they both stressed that you should respond the conditions to maximise your safe distance from other vehicles and hazards.

That means you would move around the lane ie. left, middle or right side of the lane depending what might be happening around you.

That also means you might move forward, backwards or out of the lane into some other lane if desirable.

I find that really bizarre!
I certainly believe it's a valid tip and the TAC should get a kick up the bum for removing it.

I've found that even on a multi lane road, you're better off sitting to the right of the centre of your lane as, besides being more likely to be seen in any mirrors of cars that have perhaps overtaken you and then thinking about changing into your lane, the very fact that you're in that position discourages drivers from deciding to share your lane which will often happen if you're sitting way over on the left......

[Day]

I find that really bizarre!
I certainly believe it's a valid tip and the TAC should get a kick up the bum for removing it.

I've found that even on a multi lane road, you're better off sitting to the right of the centre of your lane as, besides being more likely to be seen in any mirrors of cars that have perhaps overtaken you and then thinking about changing into your lane, the very fact that you're in that position discourages drivers from deciding to share your lane which will often happen if you're sitting way over on the left......

Totally agree. Now because someone has got a fine for doing the wrong thing and trying to get out of it, they have talked a non-rider at the TAC to remove good advice, possibly putting lives at risk. The mind boggles

[Day]

In fact have a look at pages 38, 39 and 40 of the Vic Road Riders manual: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonl ... t12010.pdf

I'm not advocating riding in the right lane at all times, you need to be road aware and aware of threats. But you were stating that we should ride in the left lane at all times, which is just dangerous. The diagrams in the above document give some explanation as well as the written description.

[turtle]

Please quote me?

I have made no such statement.

But you were stating that we should ride in the left lane at all times, .

[turtle]

No agree you weren't but Rusty Nutz was... although he qualified that by saying that this what was what he was taught in NSW.

I'm not advocating riding in the right lane at all times,

[turtle]

The handbook does not show a multi lane road with a vehicle in the lane to the right of you. In fact it makes most of the same points I did in my previous post.

The handbook shows perfectly reasonable positioning strategies... but it does not cover all possible scenario's.

In fact have a look at pages 38, 39 and 40 of the Vic Road Riders manual: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonl ... t12010.pdf

[Day]

Please quote me?

I have made no such statement.

But you were stating that we should ride in the left lane at all times, .

No. You are correct and I apologise. In fact you were later saying the same thing as me. I was thinking of your reference to a busy Footscray Road.

Cheers.

[Day]

No agree you weren't but Rusty Nutz was... although he qualified that by saying that this what was what he was taught in NSW.

I'm not advocating riding in the right lane at all times,

Think that was me. I was taught there and taught to ride in the right lane and to move in response to hazards. We still stay in the right lane or behind us if there is a vehicle to the right so as to be more visible and to discourage them from impeding in our lane. The only times I move to the left wheel track, are hazards ahead, I'm in the far right lane of a freeway like the Monash with a wall to my right, or I'm on a multi lane road with an oncoming car approaching, so give my self a buffer zone before they pass.

I hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

[Hardy]

No one cares where the best or correct riding position is.

All that matters is where you were in the lane and what you could see. So it will be your word against the word of the prosecution witnesses. Seems like you are trying to work out what your word should be, which means you are making it up as you go along.

[turtle]

I have asked for advice on how to prepare the case... the advice seems to be that regardless where I was the court is most likely to accept the right hand wheel track as a valid position. If that's true then I better prepare my defence this way.

It remains somewhat unclear what the term "clearly visible" means in court. I've assumed this means not obstructed in any way... is this wrong?

There is no way the prosecution could prove where I was as the sign is in a position that is not visible to the officer (the other side of a bridge).

As the sign is still not clearly visible from both the middle and right hand wheel track then these positions are also defensible.

At the moment I can clearly recognise that many of the opinions being offered are not legal opinions... but I can not clearly recognise which of the opinions are legal ones.

A lot of people also seem to be jumping in without reading the entire thread.

This whole thing is compicated by the fact that riders constantly move around on the road (between different positions in a lane). If riders are unable to agree on this basic fact then the court is likely to also be unconvinced... so better to work out how to clarify this before hand.

If you could clarify who is offering a legal opinion and who is not that would be useful.

No one cares where the best or correct riding position is.

All that matters is where you were in the lane and what you could see. So it will be your word against the word of the prosecution witnesses. Seems like you are trying to work out what your word should be, which means you are making it up as you go along.

[Hardy]

regardless where I was the court is most likely to accept the right hand wheel track as a valid position. If that's true then I better prepare my defence this way.

So are you planning to perjure yourself by saying you were in the right hand track when you were not, or are you planning to base you defence on a rider in the right hand track not being able to see the sign even though you were in the left track?

Anyway, I reckon "clealy visible" is an objective element, so it probably does not matter where you were. For example, if the sign can be viewed from lane one but not at all from lane two, it is not clearly visible and should not apply at all no matter where you were.

[turtle]

If it came up I would admit I was in the left hand wheel track at the crucial time (no perjury required).

Showing a photo from the right hand wheel track would merely forestall arguments about trying to mislead the court (someone made the point about one picture with a tree in it). If they accept that the tree is still obstructing the sign even in the right hand wheel track then it only gets worst if you happen to be in the left hand wheel track.

I was unsure if where I was was relevant... but the opinion in the forum seemed to hold that position was relevant.

My understanding is that you only have to cast reasonable doubt on this matter... which is what I've tried to do.

regardless where I was the court is most likely to accept the right hand wheel track as a valid position. If that's true then I better prepare my defence this way.

So are you planning to perjure yourself?

Anyway, I reckon "clealy visible" is an objective element, so it probably does not matter where you were. For example, if the sign can be viewed from lane one but not at all from lane two, it is not clearly visible and should not apply at all no matter where you were.

[Hardy]

Speeding offences do not contain any mens rea element. They are strict liability offences and the driver's state of mind or beliefs can not be taken into account in determining whether or not the offence has occurred. For example, it does not matter what speed zone you thought it was, or how fast you thought you were going. What you are thinking is irrelevant. For that reason, if you thought it was a 70 zone because the last sign you saw was a 70 sign makes no difference in the case.

In the absence of any Supreme Court authority on this point, the only question remaining seems to be whether the 60 signs are clearly visible, not whether or not your saw them. Whether or not you saw the signs is most likely irrelevant because an objective test needs to apply, although your evidence that you did not see them supports an argument that they were not clearly visible. Once you raise the issue of the signs not being clearly visible it is the police who carry the burden of satisfying the court beyond reasonable doubt that they were.

[turtle]

I have tried to focus on the physical evidence so that my case remains objective.

However how do police normally prove that the signs were clearly visible? They don't seem to ask why a person is challenging the speeding fine so they probably won't have photo's or anything else with them.

I did repeatedly say to the officer that I didn't see the sign when I was booked so he probably noted that down. Furthermore despite riding down that road regularly and knowing that sign is there now I still have trouble seeing it because of the way it is obscured... so it's not a once off. Is this something should be raised? Or is it something that may open up an undesirable line of questioning?

I have rung Vic Roads and asked them if they can improve the signage. There is a clear section of road further ahead which would be ideal for a sign. If Vic Roads does act to improve signage is this a prima facie admission that the signage was not clearly visible?

While the onus of proof lies on the police it seems prudent for the defendant to illustrate the problems with the police case as clearly as possible?

Thank you your comments are helpful and appreciated.

Speeding offences do not contain any mens rea element. They are strict liability offences and the driver's state of mind or beliefs can not be taken into account in determining whether or not the offence has occurred. For example, it does not matter what speed zone you thought it was, or how fast you thought you were going. What you are thinking is irrelevant. For that reason, if you thought it was a 70 zone because the last sign you saw was a 70 sign makes no difference in the case.

In the absence of any Supreme Court authority on this point, the only question remaining seems to be whether the 60 signs are clearly visible, not whether or not your saw them. Whether or not you saw the signs is most likely irrelevant because an objective test needs to apply, although your evidence that you did not see them supports an argument that they were not clearly visible. Once you raise the issue of the signs not being clearly visible it is the police who carry the burden of satisfying the court beyond reasonable doubt that they were.

[turtle]

This picture shows Footscray Rd from the left lane (middle) taken from quite close but illustrating that the sign is obscured:

[ img ]