Bob* was riding across the Kurilpa Bridge into the city on a quiet school holiday Friday morning, also coincidentally World Car-Free Day, when ... BAM, he was $464 poorer.
Oh nice, you got to this just before I could!
I think one of the really interesting things about this article that the journalist seemed to completely brush over, but which Chris Cox mentioned more explicitly on his YouTube Community Tab post linking to this article, was this:
After questions from Brisbane Times, an Energy and Public Works department spokesman said: “the advisory speed limit on Kurilpa Bridge is 10km/h as correctly painted on the bridge surface”.
Emphasis mine. Apparently, these speed limits are supposed to be advisory, not binding. One questions why they use the red circle sign and not the yellow square, but still, this is good to know. It should mean that Bob* and anyone else who has received a fine should be able to get the fines overturned quite easily.
10 km/h is remarkably slow. How exactly is a bike without a speedometer not supposed to exceed that?
That is just one of the reasons that official Queensland Government documents have long suggested speed limits for cyclists should be regarded as unenforceable.
Unfortunately, QPS don't seem to have gotten the memo with regards to the Kurilpa and Goodwill Bridges.
As Chris highlighted, TMR also says it's potentially unsafe to ride a bike slower than 10kmh
How do you even keep your balance if you’re essentially pedaling at a brisk walking speed?
That should not pose a challenge to anyone not currently learning to ride a bicycle
If there's people around then go slightly faster than they're walking and you'll be under 10km/h.
If there aren't people around then IMO it shouldn't matter as much as long as you're not taking the piss, just like it shouldn't matter if you're doing a bit over the limit on an empty highway.
I'd really like to see the speeding fines formally challenged in some way. You hear stories from cyclists that they or their mates have had them overturned, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of this. Maybe it's the case that police just choose not to proceed when the fines are challenged, and avoid setting a formal precedent in the courts.
It would also be interesting if this specific case was challenged. Like you say, it sounds like the 10km/h is supposed to be advisory, but the sign they have used is a regulatory sign which can be enforced by a literal reading of the rules. Not sure if it would hold up in court, and might come down to the judge's attitude towards cyclists.
but the sign they have used is a regulatory sign
Sort of. As someone astutely pointed out on Facebook:
the signs don’t look like they comply with MUTCD regarding their layout, positioning, dimension’s [sic] etc.
Which could be either an indication that they're intended to be advisory, or just a failure to really think things through.
Signs that have a "reasonable likeness" to standard signs are covered under s316: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2009-0194#sec.316
Number in a red circle is likely enough for it to be considered official, but yeah I would like to see it challenged.
I wonder if the fact that it's not on a sign by itself, but combined with a bunch of other things, which could mean it's unenforceable. It reminds me of (but is nowhere near as bad as) the signs on the way in to UQ:
Show
There are clear standard signs on the way out saying 60, but the only sign on the way in is part of a bigger sign including details about smoking, hazardous chemicals, and parking restriction hours. I've lived minutes away from the sign for a decade now and have ridden & walked past it many times, and didn't even notice that sign existed until this year after someone made a comment about the speed limits online. There's just no way you could justifiably get away with enforcing that one, given how easy it is to miss.
The ones on Kurilpa and Goodwill are better than this, but they still mix the (advisory?) speed limit in with other stuff in a way that you could argue is confusing.
Wow that sign is extra ridiculous. I think most people would struggle to read it standing right in front of it let alone driving past.
s316 does give a lot of leeway e.g.
(b) the sign has additional information on or with it; or
(e) the sign is combined on a single panel with 1 or more other traffic signs; or
The point where it becomes substantially different is pretty subjective, which IMO shouldn't be a thing when you're talking about road rules, but it's sadly not the only example.
10km/h is way too slow. But in other hand bike crashed to a person on 15km/h is serious risk. If pedestrian safety is concern better just ban bikes(and scooters) from shared pathways. Use roads or dedicated lines.
You don't need speed limits for this. Cyclists are more than capable of riding to conditions and either slowing down or going around pedestrians. Fine cyclists if they're actually riding recklessly, not if they're going at a perfectly reasonable speed given the amount and proximity of pedestrians. The fact that there have been zero incidents recorded on this bridge pretty clearly indicates it's not a problem area.
better just ban bikes(and scooters) from shared pathways
It's literally called a shared pathway. The entire point of it is to allow active transport of all forms.
We are not talking about reasonable cyclist. It is more about morons who zig-zag between peoples on full speed. And under ban, I mean to not create a shared pathways. Section of road should be for car or bikes/scooters or pedestrians.
This could only work if you actually started building separated bikeways everywhere. Which we are a long, long way away from having.
Going by "fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle" standards of a 350 pound bicycle crashing into someone at 15kph you get about 1,378 Joule energy out of it.
That's about the energy of your average 2 ton car hitting someone at 5kph (~1929 Joule).
Fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle at 10kph nets you about 612 Joules, in car terms that would be about 3kph, I feel like most of them wouldn't even do that without stalling
I'm not going to claim either can't actually be dangerous, you kind of have to wonder about how the lines are drawn here, especially given you have much, much more incenitive to not crash into someone on a bicycle compared to in a car
I have been to plenty of public spaces shared by bicyclists and pedestrians(squares, markets and the like), it is sometimes chaotic, but it was never dangerous. This is a ridiculous take on the danger of bikes. Semmingly coming from a place with no bicycling cluture.
Did you ever been hit by a bike? Probably no. Rider on 15km/h would definitely knock pedestrian down, and it is alone enough to cause serious injuries. Plus bikes have so many sharp edges, it is not same as been rammed by a runner.
