Top cop was pressured to ignore faulty speed cameras to protect revenue

Redrum · 26-05-2010, 05:23 AM

ONE of Victoria's most senior police officers has accused the State Government of using speed cameras to raise revenue.

Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius claimed the Government tried to pressure him into fining motorists even though they were caught by faulty speed cameras.

In an affidavit seen by the Herald Sun, Mr Cornelius said the Government argued against dropping the fines because it feared losing revenue.

Are speed cameras revenue raisers or life savers? Vote now and then share your outrageous speeding fine stories in the comments below

The Brumby Government aims to collect $437 million from speed cameras this year.

"The minister's office was not happy with my advice and they put pressure on me to adopt a different view," Mr Cornelius claimed in his affidavit.

The revelation comes just weeks after Premier John Brumby was forced to defend new traffic camera measures in this month's State Budget.

Budget papers revealed the Government intends installing more fixed speed cameras, expanding enforcement of speed restrictions and greatly increasing use of new radar technology.

The State Government estimated the increased use of technology will see its coffers boosted by $476 million in speed and red light camera fines in the next financial year.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said Mr Cornelius's affidavit showed the Government saw traffic cameras as revenue raisers.

"The Brumby Government has been caught out trying to bully police into fining drivers nabbed by cameras it knows are faulty so it can raise record revenue," he said.

A State Government spokesman denied traffic cameras were treated as revenue raisers.

"In 2006, the Auditor-General rejected the notion that cameras were aimed at revenue raising, citing the dramatic drop in the road toll since introduction," he said.

"It is a decision solely for Victoria Police whether to prosecute any traffic infringements. The Government would gladly collect no revenue from cameras if it meant that motorists were driving within the speed limit and reducing the risk of crashes."

Mr Cornelius's damaging claim that the Government wanted to profit from potentially inaccurate traffic camera fines is revealed in a previously secret affidavit sworn by him in 2007.

In the affidavit, which has been seen by the Herald Sun, Mr Cornelius accused the police minister's office of attempting to influence his decision-making on the faulty traffic camera issue.

He said when he was in charge of the police legal services department he had regular contact with then Police Minister Mr Haermeyer's office over camera issues. "I had discussions with the Solicitor-General in relation to the legal position, on how I should exercise my prosecutorial discretion in relation to traffic cameras, which was one of the matters that was raised as a result of concerns about camera accuracy," his affidavit said.

"The minister's office was not happy with my advice and they put pressure on me to adopt a different view.

"I did have some telephone contact with minister Haermeyer's chief of staff during the traffic camera issues, because obviously he was seeking a particular outcome and I was holding the line."

Herald Sun May 26th

mcnews · 26-05-2010, 07:18 AM

My God! Melbourne Police and Government Daily for morons actually saying something against the police and government! Wonders will never cease!

Rodp · 26-05-2010, 07:27 AM

The defining factor as to whether speed cameras are revenue raisers is when future projected 'earnings' from speed cameras are factored into the budget. 'Aims to collect...' not revenue raisers my anus.

LTDHO · 26-05-2010, 07:30 AM

This will not change anything.

balthazarr · 26-05-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrum

ONE of Victoria's most senior police officers has accused the State Government of using speed cameras to raise revenue.
...
A State Government spokesman denied traffic cameras were treated as revenue raisers.
...

Government spokesman denying revenue raising by cameras? Wow... that's a surprise.

As rodp pointed out: if they're not treated as revenue raisers, there will be no entry in the budget accounting for (and therefore setting a target for) any money coming in... that money will be treated as gravy.

What happened to all of the 'don't speed and you've got nothing to worry about' comments? Oh, yeah, faulty cameras... pity the law is set up to make it next to impossible to question or challenge an infringement notice.

Jim Goose · 26-05-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

"In 2006, the Auditor-General rejected the notion that cameras were aimed at revenue raising, citing the dramatic drop in the road toll since introduction," he said.

hohohho.... I just saw Santa fly past on the back of a pig flying backwards!!!!

Dramatic reduction?!?!?

The only way to slow people down is to have more police on the roads, not sitting in a van. I congratulate the Assistant Commissioner for speaking out and I sure hope he gets good references as I can see him on the street for rocking the boat.

Quote:

What happened to all of the 'dont' speed and you've got nothing to worry about' comments? Oh, yeah, faulty cameras... pity the law is set up to make it next to impossible to question or challenge an infringement notice.

Well I have always said that too, that if you dont speed you have nothing to fear, however I am not a supporter of mobile speed cameras simple because it does nothing to slow people down or reduce the road toll.

Red Light cameras are a useful tool because they capture accidents and I have no arguements against them.

But for years we are told that speed cameras are not revenue raisers which everyone knows they are!

RG · 26-05-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

hohohho.... I just saw Santa fly past on the back of a pig flying backwards!!!!

Dramatic reduction?!?!?

The only way to slow people down is to have more police on the roads, not sitting in a van. I congratulate the Assistant Commissioner for speaking out and I sure hope he gets good references as I can see him on the street for rocking the boat.

Dramatic drop is a bit rich from them, especially considering Victoria has had 12 more deaths this year than last.

Bearman · 26-05-2010, 08:46 AM

Any bets that the Assistant Commissioner mentioned will need to look for another job??

Just imagine if everyone drove under the speed limits and there were zero speeding fines, it'd drive Brumby nuts!! (As well as us motorists).

Still, with such overkill enforcement with basically no recourse the motorist will always have their hand in their pocket.

Trevor 57 · 26-05-2010, 09:43 AM

Don't speed, simple really

RG · 26-05-2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Don't speed, simple really

When the cameras are faulty it isn't that simple is it?

Did you even bother to read the article?

balthazarr · 26-05-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Don't speed, simple really

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... but as RG said, did you even read the article?

I don't get it - people should be outraged. The article doesn't say which cameras are faulty, but it's not hard to imagine that some of the fixed speed/red light cameras are (or were, or will be) faulty... so imagine the camera that you drive through every day to and from work is faulty. Maybe it's an intermittent fault, so even though you drive through legally each time, every now and then your car gets incorrectly photographed for speeding and running a red light. It doesn't take many of these to lose your licence.

So it's entirely plausible and possible - if there is a faulty camera, particularly a fixed camera - for a driver to lose their licence (not to mention $$$ in fines), when they have driven legally, not exceeding the speed limit and not running red lights.

RG · 26-05-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... but as RG said, did you even read the article?

I don't get it - people should be outraged. The article doesn't say which cameras are faulty, but it's not hard to imagine that some of the fixed speed/red light cameras are (or were, or will be) faulty... so imagine the camera that you drive through every day to and from work is faulty. Maybe it's an intermittent fault, so even though you drive through legally each time, every now and then your car gets incorrectly photographed for speeding and running a red light. It doesn't take many of these to lose your licence.

So it's entirely plausible and possible - if there is a faulty camera, particularly a fixed camera - for a driver to lose their licence (not to mention $$$ in fines), when they have driven legally, not exceeding the speed limit and not running red lights.

Herald Sun has said that it is the ones that were on the Western Ring road, the fines were eventually refunded and points returned. Still didn't help those that may have lost their licences for a crime they didn't commit though.

Herald Sun is back to its usual now however, went to Assistant Puppet Ken Lay who has gone with his usual dribble about how everything is hunky dory.

SB076 · 26-05-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG

When the cameras are faulty it isn't that simple is it?

Did you even bother to read the article?

Exactly, unfortunately the government has successfully dumbed down a lot of motorist who geniunely beleive that because they dont speed they are great drivers (not suggesting Big Trev thinks that way) I have heard people state that as they have recieved no fines they are a great driver (In Vic if you are updating your license you receive a discount for being a so called "good" driver - which basically means you have driver for 3 years without getting a speeding ticket)

Its good to hear someone (Luke Cornelius) have the courage to stand up to the government and tell it as it is. Unfortunately there will probably be ramifactions for them.

Tuddy200 · 26-05-2010, 12:14 PM

Any one know the time period these cameras along the Western Ring Road were apparently faulty? Cause a speed camera on that road if I remember correctly was the exact fine to get my first loss of licence for 6 months.

Considering I think it was late 2007 I got that fine and it talks about how Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius signed the affidavit in 2007. Interesting.

LTDHO · 26-05-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Don't speed, simple really

There is aways one....

Fev · 26-05-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrum

"In 2006, the Auditor-General rejected the notion that cameras were aimed at revenue raising, citing the dramatic drop in the road toll since introduction," he said.

Of course the fact that massive milestones in passenger and pedestrian safety have been made since the introduction of "safety and speeding" cameras is just to be ignored right?

I HATE POLITICIANS.

MAD · 26-05-2010, 01:32 PM

It seems that the gov is trying to set up as many cameras as possible so they can catch more people that have a minor lapse in concentration (read: An increase in surroundings concentration)

How many fatalities do accidents with speeds of less than 10km/h over account for?

Accidents involving speeds of 30+ over will not be reduced by placing speed cameras.