Speed sign obscured... mandatory loss of license

[Hardy]

Looks pretty obscured.

Is there one on the other side of the road?

[turtle]

Yes there is a sign on the other side of the road... but does that matter?

I have a photo of the other side of the road... where the speed sign is also not visible because of the way the sun catches it when you're on the left side of the road... but that does not seem relevant?

The regulations simply say that the sign (singular) must be clearly visible... not signs (plural).

Normally the other sign is not visible because the road is so wide (4 lanes) and there are often other vehicles in front of it.

You're also often looking in the wrong direction if you're on the left.

If only one sign was sufficient we wouldn't need two?

If we need two signs then it's because traffic on one side of the carriageway or looking in one direction is unlikely to see a sign that was on the opposite side of the carriageway?

In fact this is the only location I can find where only one set of signs is present to indicate a reduction in speed. Most other locations have 2 or 3 sets of signs to warn motorists of a reduction in speed.

[oscar]

wouldn't it be easier to go and rotate the sign and photograph it facing the wrong way....

[turtle]

Yes... but wouldn't that be perjury?

...and wouldn't the policeman say the sign wasn't like that on the day?

Have you ever tried rotating a sign?

wouldn't it be easier to go and rotate the sign and photograph it facing the wrong way....

[oscar]

i didn't say it was right, but we're on page 3 of this thread.....and i just wanted a different photo to look at.....

[turtle]

Here's a photo of the right hand side of the road.

[ img ]

i didn't say it was right, but we're on page 3 of this thread.....and i just wanted a different photo to look at.....

[turtle]

Do you mean a video as you approach or just one from a location where the sign is not clearly visible?

What are we trying to show the magistrate? Give them a feel for the location?

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

[turtle]

The policeman was also sitting at the bottom of the bridge (bottom of a slope) with his laser.

Don't know if that matters but my friend insists this is important.

BTW: Do the police have any duty to report obscured speed signs?

[Hardy]

Ask your friend why this is so important. I'd like to know why it matters.

[turtle]

He said he saw it on TV on one of the current affair programs. He told me to hunt up some references in the law forums.

He's a very bright consumer and usually right... so I thought I'd run that past you.

Ask your friend why this is so important. I'd like to know why it matters.

[Hardy]

Sounds like utter nonsense to me.

[LEO]

Hardy is right, Laser are often used in these situations.

Because he saw it on current affair program he must be right then

[turtle]

I believe that this is what my friend was referring to:

Criteria 2b) of the Victorian Mobile Speed Camera Policy and Operations Manual says:

A site shall not be:
Descending down unsuitable gradients or within 300 metres of the bottom of a gradient or hill UNLESS the site has a significant speed related collision record;

http://www.caradvice.com.au/68806/illeg ... -revealed/

However as it was a laser not a mobile speed camera I assume the policy does not apply?

... and probably is not legally binding anyway?

[Rustynutz]

Beat me to it, Turtle...I was about to post the same thing...not that article but about the speed camera manual....

[LEO]

I believe that this is what my friend was referring to:
Criteria 2b) of the Victorian Mobile Speed Camera Policy and Operations

Be aware this is only a policy/manual, and as such is a guide only, there is no law saying it must be followed.

Anyway doesn't matter here as the guy was done by laser.

[turtle]

If you take a look at the sign on the right side of the road you will see that it is not clearly visible either because the sun is bouncing off it.

The more acute the angle the harder it will be to see... and 4 lanes of traffic creates a much more acute angle than a normal road.

If you happened to be in the right hand lane you probably would have seen it OK. However from the left it is not uncommon for it to be obscured. I took a photo from further back just to illustrate the point and it didn't get any better. This might be why a series of signs is normally placed rather than just one (on each side).

However as the road rule simply says clearly visible (singular) this would not be pertinent in any court case.

This is simply following up on a point raised by Sean today (privately).

Here's a photo of the right hand side of the road.

[ img ]

i didn't say it was right, but we're on page 3 of this thread.....and i just wanted a different photo to look at.....

[turtle]

John Coombes (appellant) v's DPP

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean

Although UK law is not binding in Australia the courts may still take it into consideration. Often a UK case will have teased out many of the fine points which can save the court a lot of time.

This case differs in one significant detail from the Victorian law: Victorian law S322 3(2) specifies the sign must be clearly visible... whereas in the UK case it was implied:

"the requistite signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to an approaching motorist in sufficient time for the motorist to reduce from a previous lawful speed to a speed within the new limit"

The sign was however much more obscured than mine was... but the Victorian rules are specific about visibility. The UK case concludes that

"in the abscence of any such further obligation it seems to me to be difficult to say the authority has not maintained the roadside signs".

This obviously would not be the case in Victoria... and so the argument in general is instructive... and could not hurt my case.

[turtle]

Decription of Hazard:

Trees, shrubs or grasses that have grown to restrict design sight distance to intersections or restrict viewing of safety signs

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Mor ... ntPlan.htm

The rules S322 3(2) say signs must be clearly visible.

The Vic Roads maintenance standards show that trees that obstruct safety signs are a recognised hazard... and they have a procedure to address this.

Does proving negligence on the part of Vic Roads help the case?

[turtle]

Hi,

Here is the laser training manual if anyone is interested. It contain lots of interesting facts about the laser:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lm3w56b58 ... Manual.pdf

From the point of a motorcyclist particularly it is useful to realise that the beam width is 3.5m at 1Km.

Thus at ~333m the beam width would be ~1.2m which generally easily exceeds the width of the bike. I haven't worked out at what distance the beam exactly matches the width of the bike yet... but it must be somewhat less than this.

[turtle]

Hi,

Does anyone know how to obtain the calibration procedure used to calibrate the laser gun?

Also does anyone know how to obtain the calibration procedure for the calibration equipment... and how to establish how often the calibration equipment is calibrated?

A request to the police for these details only yielded the response that calibration is carried out in accordance with the act and the court accepts this and expects you to prove otherwise.

These points are relevant to all such devices as everything loses accuracy over time and must be calibrated from time to time.