While it was anticipated that there would be an increase in speeding offences detected, the actual number of offences captured has exceeded all expectations.

1. A brief set out a number of options, including a proposal to write to all ACT license holders to advise of the revised speed limits. This was not accepted.
2. The applicant noted that the infringement notices were printed and issued in bulk, in very close succession or on the same day on some occasions. The timing, he said, meant:

There was no opportunity for recipients to be notified of an offence and then have the opportunity to correct behavior. Correction of behaviour is the primary purpose of fines and demerits to serve as a deterrent .... People had no opportunity to change behaviour when multiple fines were issued on the same date.

1. This, the applicant submitted, meant reliable drives could commit multiple offences before becoming aware of their behavior, yet, in the meantime, incur significant financial penalties and demerit points. This risk was acknowledged in the Brief.[10]
2. The applicant also referred to another article in the Canberra Times,[11] this one on 16 July 2023, in which a spokeswoman for the ACT government said that additional signage was installed in July 2021, September 2021 and December 2021 following community feedback. This was, he said, evidence that previous communications and signs had not worked.
3. Additionally, the applicant submitted that Road safety experts such as Dr Ingrid Johnston, Chief Executive of the Australasian College of Road Safety, recommended to the ACT government that flashing signs be implemented to complement the existing signage. This was not done.
4. The applicant stated that he fully supports the speed changes to enhance road safety, particularly in built-up areas and near the tram. However, he said, the location of these cameras, leaving the CBD to City Hill, pointing away from the city and going into a 70-kilometre zone, and on the outer approach to Barry Drive, did not assist with safety. He noted that there appear to be no cameras adjacent to the tram where most pedestrians cross.
5. The applicant concluded that:

While the intention is right, the Northbourne Avenue speed changes reveal shortcomings in policy planning implementation. It failed as a deterrent, and it has punished individuals who are responsible and safe drivers. I wish to note that all of my infringements were at speeds below the pre‑existing limit. I did not suddenly start speeding in July 2021.

1. The respondent's starting position is that the changes to the speed limit were appropriately marked, and drivers could observe signs.
2. The were 17 advisory signs for the 40km/h speed zone:

(a) Northbourne Avenue - Northbound between London Circuit and Barry Drive - seven 40km/h signs and one Variable Message Sign, > > (b) Northbourne Avenue - Southbound between Barry Drive and London Circuit - five 40km/h signs, and > > (c) Barry Drive - Westbound between Northbourne Avenue and Marcus Clarke Street - four 40km/h signs.

3. There were also road markings at each location.
4. Additionally, the respondent contended, there was a significant communication with the community at the time the changes to the speed limit were announced and prior to enforcement commencing on 5 July 2021, including:

(a) the installation of permanent road signage and road markings indicating the new 40km/h speed zones; > > (b) Variable Message Signs (VMS) being used during May, June, and July. Temporary VMS boards remain in place highlighting the new speed zones; > > (c) a joint media release from Minister Cheyne and Minister Steel reminding Canberrans to slow down in the 40kph speed zones; > > (d) radio advertisements across multiple time slots, and either side of the news during peak hour, to alert motorists to the speed zone changes; > > (e) 20 media articles covering the change including from ABC News, Canberra Times and the Riot ACT, as well as most major Canberra radio stations; and > > (f) significant coverage on social media from both community-based and ACT Government notice board groups.

5. The respondent's position was that, it light of the above, it had met any obligations it had under the Act and the Guidelines to notify the change in speed.
6. The respondent's position in relation to the applicant's current claim is that, because the applicant now has an offence on his record (albeit, withdrawn) he no longer has a clean driving record and is therefore not eligible for a further withdrawal on this ground.

1. When standing in the shoes of the decision maker, the Tribunal is required to apply the Guidelines and that is what I have done.

No offence committed under the road transport legislation in the previous five-year period

1. The Guidelines provide that a good driving record is no offence committed under the road transport legislation (other than parking offences) in the previous five year period.
2. The applicant's 25-year driving history is marred only by the five reviewable offences. Nonetheless, the respondent's position is that, in considering the Reviewable Decisions, the fact the applicant committed the first driving offence (the infringement notice for which was waived) means that he no longer has a 'good driving record' at the time he committed (and applied for the withdrawal of) the others.
3. The situation of the applicant is an unfortunate one. On one level, his actions leading to the offences, and infringement notices, are so temporally and spatially close that they could be considered a 'course of conduct' rather than the one incident. Nonetheless, the Act treats each infringement as a separate event, and no argument was put that would allow me to find otherwise.
4. As to whether the first offence, in relation to which the infringement notice was withdrawn, should be considered, it is interesting to note that the Guidelines state that:

Withdrawal of an infringement notice has the effect that the offence never happened, that is, all penalties associated with the offence (financial and demerit points) do not apply (emphasis added).

1. That is not quite correct.
2. Section 36(4) of the Act provides, relevantly, that:

(4) The effect of the service of a withdrawal notice is as follows:

(a) this part, other than this section, ceases to apply to the infringement notice;

1. Part 3 is entitled "Infringement notices for certain offences". The purpose of part 3 is to create a system of infringement notices for certain offences against the road transport legislation and other legislation as an alternative to prosecution.[12] Where an infringement notice is withdrawn, the person served with the notice will not be liable for any financial or demerit penalty associated with the notice. However, the Act clearly provides that a person may still be subject to prosecution where an infringement notice is withdrawn.[13] Moreover, as a matter of practice, it appears that the fact of the offence is recorded on the person's driving record, even if there is no infringement notice to pay.
2. What this means is that, notwithstanding the infringement notice was withdrawn, the applicant is not a person in relation to whom it can be said that he has committed "no offence ... under the road transport legislation, ... in the previous five year period."
3. On this basis, it seems that the exception set out in the Guidelines for a 'good driving record' was not available in relation to the Reviewable Decisions. Nonetheless, I have also considered the other issues.

The circumstances in which the infringement notice was issued, including the level of risk posed by the applicant's behaviour to other members of the community

1. The respondent contended that "[t]he five infringements in dispute ... show a pattern of driving over the signposted speed limit."
2. The applicant does not deny a "pattern of driving over the signposted limit" but asks that this by put into context of his otherwise very safe driving record.
3. The use of the word "pattern" is somewhat disingenuous in this context. The respondent did not suddenly become prone to speeding nor does he have a pattern of conduct that suggests he wilfully defies the speed limit or presents a danger to other road users or pedestrians. On the material before me, he was and is a safe driver, at least in relation to speed limits.
4. Nonetheless, the original speed limit of 60 km/h in the city area was considered an unacceptable risk to members of the community, and for this reason it was lowered. The act of driving above the speed limit presented a risk to other members of the community, albeit one taken unknowingly.

1. Four out of the five infringements were for the offence of "not in a school zone", driving ≤ 15km/h faster than limit. These are offences of lesser seriousness.
2. Infringement 2780617690 was for "non-school zone exceed speed limit by > 15 but ≤ 30km/h". Under Annexure A of the Guidelines, this is an offence that is generally considered unsuitable for withdrawal due to its serious nature. Having an unblemished driving record is not sufficient reason alone to withdraw the notice in circumstances where the legislature has seen fit to characterise this offence as one which is unsuitable for withdrawal.[14]

The extent to which the applicant was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, that the conduct constituting the offence was contrary to law

1. As set out above, the respondent contends that there "was ample signage of the speed limit and a public campaign warning of the change of speed limit in the months leading up to the change."
2. That there were 17 speed advisory signs in the relevant area is not in dispute. It also is not in dispute that literally thousands of drivers didn't notice them. I can only speculate as to why that was. Perhaps it is as simple as most people driving the same route, every day, become complacent about the signs, and simply do not look. Those same thousands also presumably do not watch local television, subscribe to local newspapers, have Facebook, or monitor Twitter, or at least do not pay much attention to public service announcements or advertisements.
3. I do not have any information before me as to what the usual approach to advising the public about changes to road conditions, such as speed, is. Gone are the times when everyone watched the same 6pm news. The somewhat limited evidence before me does show that the government attempted to reach a wide audience across various other print, broadcast, and internet media. The campaign was not perfect, and internal government correspondence before the Tribunal indicates that as late as 28 June 2021, officials were discussing a possible need for a broader deterrence or education campaign.[15]
4. This does raise an interesting question about how, in an age of diversified media, a more effective education program could have been conducted. The Brief, and some internal correspondence, suggested a mail-out. The executive declined this option.[16] The respondent submitted it was too expensive and may not have been productive in any case. There is no evidence upon which I could conclude a mailout would have been more efficient than the campaign that was conducted. It, too, would have taken time.
5. Having to all the above, the situation I am left with is this: the changes to the speed limit were signposted for many months. It is the responsibility of all drivers to be aware of and abide by speed limits, and that means checking signs. Complacency, while understandable in the circumstances, is ultimately no excuse for consistent breaches of this kind.
6. The fact that some infringement notices may not have been received for a period after an offence had occurred is problematic, but it does not abrogate the responsibility to be aware of the speed limit.
7. Significantly, the offences in this case did not occur in the immediate period after the introduction of the new limits, but months after they were notified, and weeks after the speed cameras were turned on.

1. Mr Watts' situation is unfortunate. He is a sympathetic applicant for review - a uncontested long time responsible driver, he has had the misfortune of accumulating a significant number of fines in a short period of time in circumstances where he was genuinely unaware of a change in the law. He is undoubtedly not the only one. I acknowledge his sense of injustice about the circumstances under which he has incurred the infringement notices and the offences recorded on his otherwise clean driving record.
2. However, the ground upon which the applicant seeks withdrawal of the infringement notices, being prior good driving record, is not made out. I am also not satisfied that he could not reasonably have been aware of the decrease in the speed limit. Additionally, infringement 2780617690 is not an offence it would be appropriate to withdraw, given the wording of the Guidelines.
3. Accordingly, I confirm the decisions under review as the correct and preferable decisions.

[1] Brief from Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development to Minister for Transport and City Services (Ministerial Brief), dated Tribunal Documents, page 13.

[2] Ministerial Brief, Tribunal Documents, page 13

[3] Ministerial Brief, Tribunal Documents, page 12