Reported to the EPA

[shane3]

I would have ignored the letter in the first place, and thrown it in the street, "sorry EPA never received that letter"

[xquizd]

Originally Posted by shane3

I would have ignored the letter in the first place, and thrown it in the street, "sorry EPA never received that letter"

:hihi: Or used it as toilet paper

[Campo81]

Originally Posted by msman

i do believe the test should be free if you pass on your first go, so innocent people don't have to pay for others mistakes.

And how are the people who provide the tests and equipment meant to pay for said equipment?

[Melchior3]

Originally Posted by Campo81

And how are the people who provide the tests and equipment meant to pay for said equipment?

That's hardly the problem of innocent people who are the subjeect of a bad judgment call, made by someone who isnt qualified to make such a call.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Melchior3

That's hardly the problem of innocent people who are the subjeect of a bad judgment call, made by someone who isnt qualified to make such a call.

Hear hear.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Just like speed camera fines.

Yep, just like speed cameras....but only if the camera is ignored in preference to the eyeball method of speed detection...so nothing like speed cameras at all.
Oddly enough, they use cameras because it was determined that the eyeball method is not good enough to accurately determine speed, so they developed a less arbitrary method of measure. Likewise, the human ear is also rather arbitrary and easily affected by things such as mood or headache, so Db meters were invented as a non-arbitrary measure. The man who can accurately judge speed by eye and volume by ear got nailed to a cross just over 2000 years ago and although they say he will return, we are yet to see anyone replicate this feat. Therefore, the fact that one person who claims to be able to judge sound volume accurately by ear is actually taken seriously enough to ask, nay force, the alleged offender to pay money to prove their innocence is not only very wrong, but the complainant is clearly full of themselves to boot.

Originally Posted by Campo81

And how are the people who provide the tests and equipment meant to pay for said equipment?

Why not charge the people who ask for the tests? Meaning if someone complains and you are asked to take the car in for a test, the person who made the complaint pays. Simple and would make people think a bit before picking up the phone and reporting someone for noise. Clearly the OP was nowhere near the limit which makes the person who reported him look like a first class muppet, but he should be a poorer muppet rather than the innocent party he dobbed in.

[msman]

Originally Posted by Campo81

And how are the people who provide the tests and equipment meant to pay for said equipment?

they should be paid by vicroads, or a government body. if you fail the payment is made to this body not the tester.
people who fail should be charged $100 to cover the innocent people. you'd expect 1/3 of people tested would fail and thus make up the shortfall for people who pass.

i relise this isn't exactly detailed but it is the basic sort of thing that is required.

[gz1]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Just like speed camera fines.

Yep exactly like speed camera fines. In Feb I received a notice in the mail from a speed camera in an area that I had never visited. Called them up and the response was "cameras don't lie". So I had to pay $20.00 to get a copy of the photos. And what do you know, it was not my car.
So I had to spend that $20.00, had to waste approx 4 Hrs on the phone, most of it on hold but still could not do any productive work, not to mention the stress.
Point is I had to go through all those hoops, and cost and if you factor in the 4 hrs lost work the $$ amount is more than the ticket, just to prove I was innocent. I wonder how many in the same situation would simply pay the fine as the lower cost option.
And then they try to tell us that speed cameras are not revenue raising.
However my point is that with the current laws you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, whether it speed cameras or noise levels.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by gz1

Yep exactly like speed camera fines. In Feb I received a notice in the mail from a speed camera in an area that I had never visited. Called them up and the response was "cameras don't lie". So I had to pay $20.00 to get a copy of the photos. And what do you know, it was not my car.
So I had to spend that $20.00, had to waste approx 4 Hrs on the phone, most of it on hold but still could not do any productive work, not to mention the stress.
Point is I had to go through all those hoops, and cost and if you factor in the 4 hrs lost work the $$ amount is more than the ticket, just to prove I was innocent. I wonder how many in the same situation would simply pay the fine as the lower cost option.
And then they try to tell us that speed cameras are not revenue raising.
However my point is that with the current laws you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, whether it speed cameras or noise levels.

Firstly, you had another choice that would not cost you a cent. Let the fine lapse, go to court (once in court the emphasis is on them to prove your guilt, not on you to prove your innocence), win and leave with no blemish to your record. If you weren't absolutley certain and needed the photo, you may have to pay for that, I'm not sure if it would be covered by court costs awarded to you upon winning.

Secondly, speed cameras have two parts - radar for speed detection and camera for ID. The bit at fault in your case was the ID, not the detection, which is a bit different to a correct ID with a guess at detection.

[Boosh Brus]

I'd rather spend 4 hours on the phone and pay $20 then take a day off work to go to court.

[FGII-XR6]

$20 for the photo and it wasn't you so really you got fined $20 for being inocent that sucks big time . I'd be getting up them for a refund as they made an error

[gz1]

Originally Posted by henry_buckle

I'd rather spend 4 hours on the phone and pay $20 then take a day off work to go to court.

+10
My feelings exactly. a day in court would cost me much more than $20.00 + 4 hrs. even without a lawyer.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

$20 for the photo and it wasn't you so really you got fined $20 for being inocent that sucks big time . I'd be getting up them for a refund as they made an error

Yep. That is the way it works. There is no provision in the law to "get up them" and my only option is to hire a lawyer and drag it through the court system. Think mega$$$ for an uncertain outcome.
And I am not convinced that the speed camera detection part works all the time anyhow. There has been many many cases where motorists have gone to court and proved the camera wrong. At best it may work in 90% of the cases.
However the main point stands. You are guilty until proven innocent. Think of the case where it is a shared car. The camera detected speed fine comes in two to four weeks AFTER the fact. so unless you have a good memory, you have little hope of identifying the actual driver of the car and the registered owner cops it. Where is the fairness in that?. Should it not be up to the police/RTA to *prove* who was the driver at the time?.
Also after this event I am now totally convinced that speed cameras are there purely to raise revenue, and that the authorities rely on the fact that most people will find it easier to pay rather than challenge it.

edit: Had this been in an area that I frequent, I would probably have paid up without question as the process to get the photos is so hard that I would not go through it unless I was positive.

[troppo]

A day in court is covered by court costs....