"If you're not speeding, you have nothing to worry about..."

2011G6E · 01-08-2013, 12:28 PM

Just got a speeding photo fine in the mail. Had to check my calendar to make sure we were actually down in Rocky when the date said so, because who remembers exactly what you were doing and which piece of road you were on three weeks ago...which kind of makes a mockery of the whole "it stops people speeding" crap.

There's a few issues with it, as far as I see...

Now, you guys look at that photo and tell me which one of those two cars is ours and is speeding at 69 in a 60 zone? I've probably crapped in my own nest by letting you guys know that we own a Triton now...but you see my immediate doubts. Is it the silver car in the background, or is it ours?
Some years back, when they were discarding too many photos because of more than one car in the pic, they came up with some rubbish about "now we understand better how the cameras work" (what...you didn't understand them before...?"

) and can pick on car out of a bunch...in a static photo...even if they're close together...

I think the obvious and honest answer in a case where there is more than one car as to which one is actually speeding is "The one whose number plate we can read..."

Not to mention what's going on with that licence plate...why is the "F" so far away from the "A" in the blow up? I shouldn't question though, as they say they "use a clearer one for processing purposes"...sure you do, chuckles...

Also, there's the little matter of location...everyone, and I mean everyone familiar with or who lives in Rocky will know where this camera was situated...just down the road from the tourist center on the road into town. They almost have a reserved parking spot there, and it buggers me how they make any money at that location because as I said, everyone knows they're sitting there most days. They obviously trust getting tourists coming out of the 70 zone just before this into the 60 zone where the camera is set up.

We'll pay it...what real choice do we have? Take a day or two off work and go to court? Yep...and then get told "we're right, you're wrong, pay up".

And the Great Road Safety Lie continues...

GQ_Smooth · 01-08-2013, 12:39 PM

Do you honestly believe you were speeding?

TheSneakiness · 01-08-2013, 12:40 PM

I have one on my fridge too just recently from Redbank Plains Road and its much the same (70km/h into a 60km/h) however this guy was sitting right off the road like he was visiting the house he was parked outside and there is a sloping downwards hill in the shot. Also I didn't notice but my wife swears black and blue the officer was standing outside the car adjusting something.

Now I thought they were not allowed to sit on hills to account for physics (2.5 tonnes moving downhill = speed increase)??

Worth fighting?

2011G6E · 01-08-2013, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GQ_Smooth

Do you honestly believe you were speeding?

Of course not...as I said, anyone who knows Rockhampton will know exactly where that van sits...they're in that spot all the damn time. As I said, I have no idea why they still sit there...it's common local knowledge.

I tried to "fight the man" once before though, after getting pinged by laser for allegedly doing "72kph 140 meters from my location"...when 140mtrs from where the cop was standing, I was only just leaving my parking spot. I measured it with a meter wheel the next day at work. I filled out a stat dec, included photos, a hand drawn map with all measurements, etc, and sent it off.

Three months later, got the result. We're right, you're wrong, pay up.

Why bother? Which I believe is the entire point...the most horrifying murderer has more a presumption of innocence than someone they claim is going over the speed limit...

mcnews · 01-08-2013, 12:53 PM

The whole guilty until proven innocent thing is a crock and the whole thing is revenue raising, pure and simple. It is not about road safety these days one iota.

GQ_Smooth · 01-08-2013, 12:55 PM

It could be worse, you could live in Melbourne and have the highest level of speed cameras of any city on the planet.

If I was in your shoes I'd pay the fine as well.

Oxa384 · 01-08-2013, 01:00 PM

yea its a worry I had a speed camera van flash me twice on the way into work it was a 60 zone but I know I was sitting dead on 50.there was no one else around (1.30am).hope they were testing it or something but at the end of the day its their word against yours :( goodluck!!

TC200six · 01-08-2013, 01:05 PM

I went past a speed van today. Although I was looking hard at my speedo making sure I was well below the limit of 80, I can't help but wonder each time I see one if I'll get a letter in the mail.

Road_Warrior · 01-08-2013, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Some years back, when they were discarding too many photos because of more than one car in the pic, they came up with some rubbish about "now we understand better how the cameras work" (what...you didn't understand them before...?"

) and can pick on car out of a bunch...in a static photo...even if they're close together...

I don't think it is that they understand how the cameras work better, its that they have new cameras with sophisticated operating system that can identify which car is the one speeding, and which one is not.

flappist · 01-08-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Of course not...as I said, anyone who knows Rockhampton will know exactly where that van sits...they're in that spot all the damn time. As I said, I have no idea why they still sit there...it's common local knowledge.

I tried to "fight the man" once before though, after getting pinged by laser for allegedly doing "72kph 140 meters from my location"...when 140mtrs from where the cop was standing, I was only just leaving my parking spot. I measured it with a meter wheel the next day at work. I filled out a stat dec, included photos, a hand drawn map with all measurements, etc, and sent it off.

Three months later, got the result. We're right, you're wrong, pay up.

Why bother? Which I believe is the entire point...the most horrifying murderer has more a presumption of innocence than someone they claim is going over the speed limit...

You will never beat them in QLD. If they look like they will lose they will just withdraw and change the law to cover whatever mistake they made.
Many have spent $gazillions fighting this only to be met with experts being flown in from all over the world and obscene cost all of which will be bourne by you in "court costs" after you lose.

In the country of Australia if you murder someone they will look for you, if you murder a politician or public servant in the course of their duty they will look for you vigoursly but if you steal from government or interfere with revenue, be it tax or otherwise, they will hunt you, your family and everyone you have ever met until hell freezes over........

2011G6E · 01-08-2013, 01:14 PM

Possibly...but they told the public they understand better how the cameras work.
This is a link to the RACQ website which explains how they work, even with multiple cars in the picture.
http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/road..._speed_cameras
You will note, however, that they don't address the awkward question of one car heading towards the camera, and one away from the camera, occupying the same space and time...

Then there's this gem...

Quote:

The first character in the datablock for mobile speed camera photos shows whether the device was operating in forward (vehicles travelling towards the camera) or away (vehicles travelling away from the camera) modes with an ‘F’ or ‘A’.

They claim there is a setting for "forward or away", but sorry, a radar beam is triggered when it detects a moving object. Are they honestly saying that, for instance, that silver car in my photo could have been doing 120kph and not been detected because the camera was set only to detect cars heading the direction mine was headed? Interesting, if that's the case...

Oh, and as for hills? It says on the back of the notice I got that they can indeed set up on hills...if they assess there is a "history of crashes there". Pretty broad and hard to prove descriptive.

Look, we all know it's nothing to do with road safety...if it was, the cop would pull you up on the spot and fine you, giving you a talking to, instead of a photo turning up, in my case, three weeks later when you have no hope in hell of remembering exactly what you were doing.
A motoring writer once called it "The Great Road Safety Lie", and he wasnt far wrong...the great Bill Tuckey? Can't really recall exactly who it was.

flappist · 01-08-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Possibly...but they told the public they understand better how the cameras work.
This is a link to the RACQ website which explains how they work, even with multiple cars in the picture.
http://www.racq.com.au/motoring/road..._speed_cameras
You will note, however, that they don't address the awkward question of one car heading towards the camera, and one away from the camera, occupying the same space and time...

Oh, and as for hills? It says on the back of the notice I got that they can indeed set up on hills...if they assess there is a "history of crashes there". Pretty broad and hard to prove descriptive.

Look, we all know it's nothing to do with road safety...if it was, the cop would pull you up on the spot and fine you, giving you a talking to, instead of a photo turning up, in my case, three weeks later when you have no hope in hell of remembering exactly what you were doing.
A motoring writer once called it "The Great Road Safety Lie", and he wasnt far wrong...the great Bill Tuckey? Can't really recall exactly who it was.

This is one of the main reasons why there is resistance to manning the speed cameras with ordinary people as opposed to sworn officers.

If you question which was the speeding car the sworn officer, all of whom are blessed with eidetic memories and never spend their shifts in the speed camera van watching DVDs will remember the incident and noticed that it was you who was speeding not anyone else.
An ordinary person is incapable of telling if you you speeding as that would make your opinion carry as much weight as theirs.

Also the overtime comes in handy........which is the other main reason.....

4stanger · 01-08-2013, 01:21 PM

As a local, I know the place and yes it is there to catch out tourists.
I'm sorry for your situation, I would hate to be in it.
For those who say just pay up, yes that's all good, but what if your unlucky enough to get caught in various locations doing the correct speed 6+ more times in the next few months, license gone.

XD 351 Ute · 01-08-2013, 01:22 PM

That tree in the middle has a fair bit of pace up too.....
I don't trust the things full stop, and slow down if I see them just to be on the wallet/safe side....

Ed

2011G6E · 01-08-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

This is one of the main reasons why there is resistance to manning the speed cameras with ordinary people as opposed to sworn officers.

If you question which was the speeding car the sworn officer, all of whom are blessed with eidetic memories and never spend their shifts in the speed camera van watching DVDs will remember the incident and noticed that it was you who was speeding not anyone else.
An ordinary person is incapable of telling if you you speeding as that would make your opinion carry as much weight as theirs.

Also the overtime comes in handy........which is the other main reason.....

Of course.
I work with several ex police officers, and they all laugh and say the same thing out being called to court to a challenge of a fine. They said the standard response was that you say something along the lines of the following:
"I was set up by the side of the road, monitoring traffic, when I saw an approaching vehicle that I judged was doing approximately 80kph in a 60 zone. I confirmed this with the laser/radar unit, finding the vehicle to be travelling at a speed of 75kph"

See what they did there? You're no longer just questioning the accuracy of a possibly fallible piece of technology, you're now questioning the professional judgement of an experienced traffic police officer.

Clever...

RedHotGT · 01-08-2013, 01:27 PM

What I don't understand - with Speed Cameras.... is the quality of the photo...

Mobile Phones these days have bloody 5megapixel lenses in them - and would take a photo with way higher clarity than that........ Are they using a kids toy or a webcam to take these shots??

Guilty until proven innocent is the way we work in VIC.... and even if you can prove it - it is very difficult.

One of my main objections to speed cameras, is your chance at defending it... You get the fine 2-3 weeks (sometimes longer in my experience) after the 'alleged' offense, and lets be honest - if you're driving 400-500km a week - you won't remember every single second of those journeys - particularly if you get snapped on a regular route (like driving to work - for example). So - your chance of defense is ZERO - as what have you got to prove you weren't speeding??

Even if you had a mounted dash-cam... normally they do not record speed... and normally they aren't mounted in a way that you can see the speedo etc... And again - even if you DID - most of those dashcams record a week worth of data (depending on your driving) and may well have over-written any chance of defense you had.

The only cases that seem to have any sort of defense are the ones where multiple people complain about a particular camera (IE: Ring Road / East Link cameras in the past - where 100s of people got snapped on the same day by the same camera) and really - the camera operators should really have a process in place to deal with spikes/unusual amounts of fines in the same place.... if 200 out of the 250 cars going past have been triggered/fined... then something is wrong....

I could go on all day about our SAFETY CAMERAS... which again is a BS reason... as they are normally set up in high traffic - low accident areas.... you never see them set up in a 'blackspot' area...

I often think of Speed Cameras a little like fishing... They (mobile camera operators) seem to pick a 'spot' that they have been successful at in the past, and throw the bait out... Some days they get a bite or two... some days they reel in a big one... but most of the time you just sit there wasting your time.......

In any case - back to the OP - not sure what you could do in this situation, as fighting it will probably be a waste of time... And as previously said, you take your own time off to fight it, and it will cost you more than the fine, plus you will most probably loose...

So just wear it, and enjoy it as a random act of kindness from the government... It is those 'SAFETY CAMERAS' that keep you alive on the road... Because clearly it's got nothing to do with driver training, car maintenance, or blatant rule breakers....

MAD · 01-08-2013, 01:40 PM

Aren't the court costs limited at a very small amount because it is a small claim or something to that effect.

Also, regarding the 'F' and 'A' character. I doubt this is set by the operator, more likely it is a character put on the photo dependant of which direction the detected car was travelling.
It's not complicated for the radar to know whether the car is coming towards, or going away from, the radar.

2011G6E · 01-08-2013, 01:45 PM

That spot in Rockhampton isn't a "high accident" area...it's safe divided four lane road.
The actual reason it's set up there is because the speed limit goes from 70kph (coming into town) down to 60kph just before where the camera is located...

csv8 · 01-08-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

That spot in Rockhampton isn't a "high accident" area...it's safe divided four lane road.
The actual reason it's set up there is because the speed limit goes from 70kph (coming into town) down to 60kph just before where the camera is located...

but its not revenue raising !!! BS !!!! Thats Curtis Park ?? camera just passed the bend in road, where it goes from 70 to 60 !!! It is also on the opposite side of the road and near the Cathedral. But mainly at Curtis Park. Thats why I hate speed cameras, nothing about road safety, just blatant revenue raising. Oh! and those who say "don't speed and you won't get fined..Get out from behind rose coloured glasses and see what the real agenda is with speed cameras!!
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au...-forc/1966165/
This is why there are more speed cameras in Rocky..but they aren't working !!!! if speed cameras reduced the road toll, it would be down ???

strik9 · 01-08-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

This is one of the main reasons why there is resistance to manning the speed cameras with ordinary people as opposed to sworn officers.

If you question which was the speeding car the sworn officer, all of whom are blessed with eidetic memories and never spend their shifts in the speed camera van watching DVDs will remember the incident and noticed that it was you who was speeding not anyone else.
An ordinary person is incapable of telling if you you speeding as that would make your opinion carry as much weight as theirs.

Also the overtime comes in handy........which is the other main reason.....

not sure bout this one now? i had a guy in tracksuit pants and a t shirt setting up a camera on the weekend. def not the coloured verity

marked van and all.

Trump · 01-08-2013, 02:31 PM

Before you moaners chime in with your obligatory "oh not another speed camera thread", have you considered that the reason these threads keep cropping up is that there is something seriously wrong with the whole system for them to keep coming up?

zilo · 01-08-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Possibly...but they told the public they understand better how the cameras work.
You will note, however, that they don't address the awkward question of one car heading towards the camera, and one away from the camera, occupying the same space and time...

Then there's this gem...

They claim there is a setting for "forward or away", but sorry, a radar beam is triggered when it detects a moving object. Are they honestly saying that, for instance, that silver car in my photo could have been doing 120kph and not been detected because the camera was set only to detect cars heading the direction mine was headed? Interesting, if that's the case...

.

hey mate, I always insist on seeing the detection device when pulled over for speeding.

The radar and Lidar units often say -120 km/h when I am detected from the rear and +145 when I am detected oncoming.

They can easily detect which direction you are detected in relation to the source.

So...unfortunately your two vehicles in that photo would be an easy guess as to which was speeding.

The difficulty is when two vehicles are travelling in a multi lane rd in the same direction.

So I hate to say this, but it looks legit to me.

fanboi · 01-08-2013, 02:36 PM

you broke the law, just wear it and spare us this post.

If it was a P plater making the same post they would have been crucified by now

flappist · 01-08-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strik9

not sure bout this one now? i had a guy in tracksuit pants and a t shirt setting up a camera on the weekend. def not the coloured verity

marked van and all.

If it is a mobile speed camera in QLD the person operating it must be a sworn officer. Their own rules. I suspect there is nothing in the rules about wearing a uniform though.

Alan D Segal · 01-08-2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

They claim there is a setting for "forward or away", but sorry, a radar beam is triggered when it detects a moving object. Are they honestly saying that, for instance, that silver car in my photo could have been doing 120kph and not been detected because the camera was set only to detect cars heading the direction mine was headed? Interesting, if that's the case...

So you're saying that there's no radar device, anywhere in the world, that can obtain enough information to indicate which direction an object is travelling and how fast, and that if there is more than one object it can't be used because it can't distinguish two? Someone better tell air traffic control to ground all planes because 2011G6E says their technology is fake.

flappist · 01-08-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

So you're saying that there's no radar device, anywhere in the world, that can obtain enough information to indicate which direction an object is travelling and how fast, and that if there is more than one object it can't be used because it can't distinguish two? Someone better tell air traffic control to ground all planes because 2011G6E says their technology is fake.

ATC radar works off transponders in the aircraft not skin paints like a speed camera.
The reason for the transponders is that they have extreme difficulty telling one aircraft from another otherwise.

Alan D Segal · 01-08-2013, 03:14 PM

Do you work in the field or are you a google expert on this too? Anyway I disagree that police enforcement technology would be as poorly developed as what people here seem to suspect - especially considering how much of an earner it is for them.

mcnews · 01-08-2013, 03:14 PM

Exactly. IFF transponders that give unique identifier number and altitude.

Alan D Segal · 01-08-2013, 03:17 PM

So they don't need radar? Best let the folks at the airport know then so they can get rid of all that equipment they wasted their money on.

Trump · 01-08-2013, 03:17 PM

The radar device if built properly, would have a method for determining how much the frequency of the reflected beam has changed due to the Doppler effect. Any deviation either way would indicate if it the car was headed towards or away from the radar source. Whether the operator or the data interpreter is trained to make those distinctions is another matter.