Speed camera fine in Qld

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by XD 351 Ute

So which one is it? Pay the fine or try and beat it?

Ed

both fit depending on circumstances.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by deesun

In the OP it says mobile speed camera. So far as I have seen in both NSW and QLD the operator puts the sign wherever they damn well like and rarely facing the traffic and most often facing across the road. i travelled the Pac Hwy many times through about 12 fixed cameras every time up and 12 back and never got caught but have had speeding fines. My wife travelled those same roads and although had only 1 speed fine in 20 years got caught twice in 3 months by fixed cameras we had been through 100 times. Sometimes we dont see huge signs cos they just become part of the landscape after passing them soooo many times.

In nsw the signs are Placed at 2 distances before you reach the camera car and 1 after. Since mobile camera were reintroduced I've never seen signs on the opposite side of the road or n hidden locations.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by theunfairadvant

This is the biggest BS ever.
In Victoria you get fine for doing exactly the same limit in some places,
because all or most of the cameras are faulty in Victoria.

That's why you see them turn off a lot of cameras and issue refunds for fines in Victoria.

If everyone were to get a fine and say they deserve the fine and pay the fine as a voluntary tax
they would just fine you for no reason in future.

Stay up for your rights here everyone of us who drive a performance car
wants to be able to go for a cruise down the road or in the country area
doing the correct speed limit without being targeted by the COPS
or being tailgate by them for miles.

Your answer is now the biggest bs.
So is it all cameras or most cameras that are faulty?
Exactly how many cameras have been turned off? All or most?
Strange, I thought the thread was about a speed camera fine. If you want to start a police bashing thread, start one.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

In nsw anyone who gets done by a fixed camera which have 3 massive signs before them, or mobile cameras that have 2 decent sized signs before and 1 after the camera really should reconsider if they should continue to drive on the road as their eyesight and observation skills are sorely lacking.

I can nearly understand other states with their covert mobile cameras, but it doesn't take a genius to work out you slow the f down where parked cars are.....

New fixed cameras usually have one medium sized sign warning you. I have still seen a couple of fixed cameras with no signs at all. No idea if they actually work though.

Mobile cameras usually have a tiny sign right at the back of the car, so you spot that car well before the sign. The one after is usually 5 metres in front of the car and the same size.


Passed a mobile speed camera the other day. Only saw it from 40m away. After seeing the car I saw the tiny sign.
I was on the way to a funeral just following the car in front not paying close attention to my speed because in the middle of a sunny day with only 1 car in sight I didn't feel like I was going very quick. May have been doing up to 10 over.
I slowed as soon as I saw the mobile camera. Car in front continued at the same speed and didn't even flinch. Pretty sure they didn't see it at all.

First time in 7 years I may of got a speeding fine. I have never received one before.

[Stefan]

If there is more than one car in the picture my bet is both get a fine. Both pay because it simply too hard to argue, who remembers if they were speeding 2 or so months ago.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by Stefan

If there is more than one car in the picture my bet is both get a fine. Both pay because it simply too hard to argue, who remembers if they were speeding 2 or so months ago.

The detection beam is narrow and in the op picture there is only 1 car in the beam.

[Taily]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Is there any technical evidence to show this is possible? Or is it just talk to hand out more fines.

Discussing these cameras with a friend who operates them in western NSW, mobile speed cameras "paint" a target using a laser that ranges (distance and relative bearing from the camera) and identifies the vehicle in question in the image. If you look at the OP's pic it would appear that his vehicle was pinged using a similar device on the lower bootlid on the left hand lower corner. Though, if you look at the VW it looks like a similar reflection in its hatch and bumper, so that reflection may be more likely a setting sun from behind or similar?

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by 03 GHIA

Have to agree that the mobile speed camera signs are poorly placed in NSW (if at all?).
Got a surprise last night. Did not see a sign before, then got blinded briefly by a flash.
Which by the way, they should NOT take oncoming photos, it's very distracting at night. Tried looking for a sign afterwards, but sure as hell couldn't see one.

Quiet night just watching the road, didn't notice my speed creeping up... looked down and i was over though. Unfortunate but will have to cop it.

Maybe you should have driven into the camera car and then claimed blindness from their flash.

Now wouldn't that open a can of worms!

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

The detection beam is narrow and in the op picture there is only 1 car in the beam.

What a load! 2 cars driving up a road 1 doing 60 the other 80, the faster car passes the slower as they go through a beam. How does a machine / person work out from a static picture which car was going faster.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Stefan

If there is more than one car in the picture my bet is both get a fine. Both pay because it simply too hard to argue,

Wonder if there is 2 people out there willing to pass a speed camera at the same time, one deliberately speed and the other obey the limit. Record it with video footage. Imagine if they did send both cars a fine and you caught them out on it.

[superfly]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

I can't read the plates in that photo....
it doesn't even show your speed/infringment or location?

I blurred my plates out. I can read them in the photo. It's definitely me Location is elsewhere on my fine. I only posted the photo part of the fine.

Originally Posted by marcyeo

These days speed camera's can track multiple lanes and multiple cars at a time so the old "blame the car next to me" doesn't work anymore.

Just pay the fine - plus within 10km's its only 1 demerit point isn't it? Not worth the hassle I reckon..

Totally agree. I've never received a camera fine so I thought I'd ask the question. My missus has received a couple but she was the only car in the pic each time.

Originally Posted by Ben73

Terrible quality photo for a scam that rakes in millions of dollars a year. My $60 dashcam has a better picture than that.

They state on the fine "These images have been supplied as a courtesy only. Clearer images are used for processing purposes."

Originally Posted by theunfairadvant

Superfly i would like to suggest that you give the guy name
Scott Cooper a call on
0419 536 975
Monday to Sunday
8am to 7pm

I've met Scott about 8 years or so ago when he came to a WRX club meeting. The thing that worries me is that if I fight it and I loose, it will cost me more. $146 is bad enough, I don't really want to pay more. And I currently have 12 points so I'm not in need of points either.

Originally Posted by Robbo.M

notice the dot under the badge on the back of the car, im sure I heard a something about the camera places a dot on the object the radar is focused one

could be a load of ....., I cant remember if I heard it from a reliable source.

The dot under the badge is just the reflection from the flash onto the car. In the supplied zoomed in pic of my number plate, you can see the dots on the bumper bar as well.



I will pay the fine and loose the 1 point. Thanks for everyone's input!

[xxx000]

You're being very reasonable about this and that's good to see

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by superfly

I've met Scott about 8 years or so ago when he came to a WRX club meeting. The thing that worries me is that if I fight it and I loose, it will cost me more. $146 is bad enough, I don't really want to pay more. And I currently have 12 points so I'm not in need of points either.

That the beauty of the system, if you fight it and you win you don't pay the fine. The state has lost but gets no penalty for putting you through this. BUT if you loose you get a bigger fine.

Still trying to work out how that is fair. Why does the State not get penalised for loosing the legal action?

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Stefan

That the beauty of the system, if you fight it and you win you don't pay the fine. The state has lost but gets no penalty for putting you through this. BUT if you loose you get a bigger fine.

Still trying to work out how that is fair. Why does the State not get penalised for loosing the legal action?

They do, if the state has not presented 'Prima Facie' evidence of the offence cost will be awarded. (prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact) Which in this case is the photo.

I was issued a fine about 2 years ago that arrived in the mail, when I got the photo it was a different vehicle…, so my evidence was rebutted and the fine went away, no need for court action.

Was fined by a council ranger for stopping in a no stopping zone, I only stopped as the vehicle in front of me stopped, as I would have hit the car if I had continued on, and there was no way around as traffic was banked up. Which could be seen in the photo, the fine also went away after I presented my facts.

Got fined again by a council ranger for stopping in a school zone, the peanut presented three photos as evidence taken about 1 second or less apart (could tell by the people walking on the foot path that were also in the photo) the three still pictures proved that I did not stop but was moving slowly forward. That one went away as well

The reason they all went away as the prosecution did not have Prima Facie evidence, so if I was to fight it they would most likely have lost.

Originally Posted by theunfairadvant

Check out www.aussiespeedingfines.com they have got heaps of info there that can help you fight your fine and save your points.

Just ask the DPP like what i did in court
Can you prove that the picture cannot be tamper?
Usually they can't prove it so they picture will be taken out as evidence,
plus because they send you the fine they also need to prove that you are driving.

Haha what a joke, did you dream this??

It is up to you to prove that you were not driving if it is your car, and you must present the person that was driving, simply saying it was not you is not good enough, if it was not you who was it?? It's your vehicle and as such your responsibility.

[jpd80]

The radar works on about 20 degree slant, so if it had been the white car they would have clicked him earlier.
Looks like an older unit mounted in the front of the cars, the later units point out the back and get you on approach

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

They do, if the state has not presented 'Prima Facie' evidence of the offence cost will be awarded. (prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact) Which in this case is the photo.

Um that is not being penalised, that just means the grubs didn't get the 350 bucks they were never entitled to.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The radar works on about 20 degree slant, so if it had been the white car they would have clicked him earlier.
Looks like an older unit mounted in the front of the cars, the later units point out the back and get you on approach

Explain how that works, as there would still be both cars in the picture.

[EA30TH]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

They do, if the state has not presented 'Prima Facie' evidence of the offence cost will be awarded. (prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact) Which in this case is the photo.

Actually, it's far more complex than that. The provisions for awarding of costs are very limited in the legislation. You need to first prove you incurred costs, and then tick off at least one of the specific provisions. For example, did the Police prosecute without conducting the process in good faith?

This is why most Police don't care because:
- the onus is on you to prove you are innocent
- the onus is on you to fund your case
- the onus is on you to take your time to conduct the case
- the onus is on you to prove the Police were in some way at fault to recover your costs (but not your time)

The Police have no skin in the game. Nothing.

I strongly suggest when considering being fined or addressing a fine you avail yourself of the relevant provisions in the legislation and try to get the Police to make their own mistakes. Like officer I recently led to admit on tape and video that they didn't care if the fine was valid, they got paid anyhow, and it would cost me more than the fine to fight it, suggesting instead I pay it and move on. Good faith?????

[EA30TH]

I should suggest, if everyone took the court election for just a month, the speed camera system would implode. At present (June 2014) the lead time for getting court summons out for plea is around 11 months.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by EA30TH

This is why most Police don't care because:
- the onus is on you to prove you are innocent
- the onus is on you to fund your case
- the onus is on you to take your time to conduct the case
- the onus is on you to prove the Police were in some way at fault to recover your costs (but not your time)

Exactly my point, they have nothing to lose. Even if the motorist wins they are out of pocket. Easier to just pay up.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by Stefan

What a load! 2 cars driving up a road 1 doing 60 the other 80, the faster car passes the slower as they go through a beam. How does a machine / person work out from a static picture which car was going faster.

In this scenario if both cars were in the beam and it wasn't able to distinguish which car was speeding neither would receive an infringement.

[XD 351 Ute]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

both fit depending on circumstances.

Hehe, fair enough. But the camera doesn't care about circumstances unfortunately....

Ed

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Haha what a joke, did you dream this??

It is up to you to prove that you were not driving if it is your car, and you must present the person that was driving, simply saying it was not you is not good enough, if it was not you who was it?? It's your vehicle and as such your responsibility.

Um....no.
If you were not driving the vehicle at the time, then say so.
If you can't nominate the other driver because you genuinely don't know who was driving at the time, say so. They will make you jump through some hoops but if you don't know, you don't know.
This happened to me a few years ago at a party we were at. My car was last in the driveway and the keys were left in it. They had to go pick up some food so I told them to just take my car, but I don't know who was driving, and no-one fessed up. I told them that I could supply names of those at the party (but I didn't know them all).

They rescinded the fine.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Matty4

Um....no.
If you were not driving the vehicle at the time, then say so.
If you can't nominate the other driver because you genuinely don't know who was driving at the time, say so. They will make you jump through some hoops but if you don't know, you don't know.
This happened to me a few years ago at a party we were at. My car was last in the driveway and the keys were left in it. They had to go pick up some food so I told them to just take my car, but I don't know who was driving, and no-one fessed up. I told them that I could supply names of those at the party (but I didn't know them all).

They rescinded the fine.

you say 'um...no' but don't rebuke what he's said

you are actually both correct as you're discussing different points of the same topic

[NEEDspeed]

Originally Posted by devilcv8

You don't pay enough attention to your surroundings while driving so deserve the fine, especially as you are past the camera car.
Consider it a voluntary tax.

Sheesh, I hope that I never come across yourself on the roads in WA. It would seem you're looking everywhere around you to notice your surroundings than actually paying attention to driving scenarios. Get your head out of the sand

[superfly]

Originally Posted by xxx000

You're being very reasonable about this and that's good to see

Thanks

Do the crime, do the time I say.

I'm sure I've broken the law more times than they've caught me in the act, so I'm still on top

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by NEEDspeed

Sheesh, I hope that I never come across yourself on the roads in WA. It would seem you're looking everywhere around you to notice your surroundings than actually paying attention to driving scenarios. Get your head out of the sand

Let me get this correct, you are saying that you do not pay attention to your surroundings when driving
I am truly sorry for the other road users wherever you happen to be blindly barreling along while in your own little world not paying attention.

News last night had a driver just like you on it, ran into 2 little kids as they crossed the road.

[devilcv8]

Originally Posted by superfly

Thanks

Do the crime, do the time I say.

I'm sure I've broken the law more times than they've caught me in the act, so I'm still on top

. That's a good way to view it.

[Yellow_Festiva]

It is worth a letter - and thats as far as I would go. If it starts costing me money to fight and there is a stronger chance of losing than winning I would be happier to wear the fine.

I got the shock of my life NYE last year. Drove some friends home from a night out and saw that flash in the rear view mirror one dreads at 2am around 2 weeks prior.

Was expecting the fine, the double de-merits etc... instead - I got a warning letter. They stated it was a 'new camera' so I'm not sure what went my way - my several years of 'safe' driving (meaning I was really lucky I didn't get caught) or the fact the camer was newly installed...

Must have been 10km or under - was done in a 50 zone and taking it easy as my passengers were a little 'merry' and I didn't want to ruin the new car smell... bet I was doing something stupid like 53 or 55... didn't say.

[NEEDspeed]

devilcv8, you really are a narrow-minded, obtuse internet hero aren't you.
When I drive, I'm paying attention to things that AREN'T speed cameras.