Police use ‘semantics’ to dodge M1 speed limit grace period and enforce fines

POLICE have been accused of trying to dodge a 28-day grace period recommended in their own traffic manual for lower speed limits on the M1 by claiming new cameras aren’t “speed detection devices”.

• This was meant to ease M1 gridlock
• The logic of the M1 speed limit change
• Zero tolerance as M1 speed limit drops
• Drivers get cash bonus just for turning up

MOTORISTS confused about speed limit changes on the M1 risk getting slapped with a fine, with police accused of breaching policy to dodge a penalty grace period.

Speed limits on parts of the notorious congestion hotspot were lowered by 10km yesterday in preparation for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games next month.

But police won’t rule out fining motorists driving over the new limit, despite a traffic manual recommendation motorists receive a 28-day grace period from “speed detection devices”.

Deputy Commissioner Steve Gollschewski said the cameras in the new 100km/h zone did not meet the definition of a “speed detection device”. Picture: Steve Pohlner

As well as the usual fixed cameras, a trailer-mounted camera, designed for roadworks, was yesterday spotted at Ormeau.

Asked about the policy yesterday, deputy commissioner Steve Gollschewski argued the cameras in the new 100km/h zone between Springwood and Gaven did not meet the definition of a speed detection device.

“What we are talking about is speed cameras and they are a speed photographic device, so it doesn’t apply to them,” he said. “So a speed detection device is handheld radar, so that policy does not apply.”

One of the new speed cameras spotted on the M1. Picture: 7 News Brisbane

A Queensland Police spokesman said a separate policy existed for photographic detection devices.

“Photographic detection devices are not limited by this general policy, as sites are formalised through a recommendation from a Speed Management Advisory Committee,” they said. “Sites are approved based on crash risk determined through either a history of crashes or assessed risk and are documented.”

But Queensland Law Society deputy president Bill Potts said declaring speed cameras are not detection devices was “semantics”.

“To say it’s a speed photographic detection device is stretching the language ... whether it amounts to a breach of law is doubtful, but it’s a breach of police policy (not to offer a grace period),” he said.

Queensland Law Society deputy president Bill Potts rubbished the claim that speed cameras weren’t detection devices. Picture: Mike Batterham

“The manual is the law ... it can be overruled by special policy, but the use of the language is cute.”

RACQ spokesman Steve Spalding said the grace period was to allow drivers to acquaint themselves with new speed limits, but drivers had been given a “long period of explanation” about the M1 changes.

However, he too questioned Mr Gollschewski’s claims speed cameras were not detection devices, saying: “Clearly, a camera is a detection device … regardless if it’s a camera or a handheld gun, if a device is being used to detect someone’s speed.”